 |
Opinion polls also bear out the public's perception of the scientist-hero. In a 2006 Harris Poll, for example, Americans said they trusted doctors (85%), teachers (83%), scientists (77%) and professors (75%) far more than they did journalists (39%), lawyers (27%), or pollsters (34%). Respondents to a 2009 survey by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press said that people who contributed the most to society's well-being were members of the military, teachers, scientists, medical doctors, and engineers. The major survey Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 by the National Science Board concluded that "more Americans expressed a 'great deal' of confidence in leaders of the scientific community than in the leaders of any other institution except the military."
However, the most dramatic insight into public perceptions of scientists comes from their depiction in movies and TV shows. After all, Hollywood tends to follow popular opinion when casting its heroes and villains. It seems to me that criminals, terrorists and greedy businessmen are the most frequent villains, and scientists among the most prevalent heroes. For example, in Jurassic Park, the heroes were paleontologist Alan Grant, paleobotanist Ellie Sattler, and mathematician Ian Malcolm. The villain was foolish entrepreneur John Hammond.
In Explaining Research, I decided to confirm this notion by presenting statistics on Hollywood's portrayal of scientists. I compiled a list of some 140 films depicting scientists and engineers -- drawing on the filmography in Sidney Perkowitz's book Hollywood Science and also searching the Internet Movie Database. I then judged whether the scientists in those movies were heroes or villains. The analysis revealed about six times more scientist-heroes than scientist-villains. (Click here for complete movie lists and discussion).
Actually, the list of truly villainous scientists is even smaller because of a key caveat: Most of the putative scientist-villains were not really evil, but merely flawed -- either misguided or overly ambitious -- or suffered when their research escaped their control. For example, in Spider-Man 2, the virtuous Dr. Otto Octavius transformed into the villainous "Doc Ock" when he was taken over by the mechanical tentacles he had developed as artificially intelligent tools. And in the end, it was Octavius, and not Spider-Man who saved the day by sinking the uncontrolled fusion ball into the sea.
Movie biologists have saved the earth -- or at least a significant chunk of it -- numerous times. For example, the scientists in the Andromeda Strain and Outbreak, rescued humanity from catastrophic infectious disease outbreaks with cutting edge science and a healthy dose of luck. They've even fought to save alien planets, as did Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) for the verdant Pandora in James Cameron's latest blockbuster Avatar.
Some of Hollywood's biggest stars have portrayed scientist-heroes, including Ben Affleck, Jessica Alba, Nicolas Cage, Russell Crowe, Laura Dern, Robert Downey Jr., Harrison Ford, Cary Grant, Anthony Hopkins, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, Gwyneth Paltrow, Bill Paxton, and Will Smith. Would those A-list actors sign on to play scientists if researchers were really considered geeks, devoid of personality?
Scientists are also equally heroic on TV these days. The bane of countless fictional criminals are the scientist-heroes of Bones, CSI (Las Vegas, New York, and Miami), Criminal Minds, NCIS, Numb3rs, and other popular crime dramas.
My aim in demonstrating that the public sees scientists as heroes is not just to boost scientists' self-esteem, although that's certainly important. I also hope that the next time a scientist stands before an audience to advocate for adequate research funding, argue for policies to alleviate global warming, or debate creationists, he or she will do so confident in having the considerable advantage of being seen as a trusted, credible, hero.
Explaining Research: How to Reach Key Audiences to Advance Your Work , by Dennis Meredith, Oxford University Press, New York, 2010. 376 pp. ISBN: 978-0-199-73205-0. $35.00.
Dennis Meredith is a research communication consultant and science writer living in the mountains of North Carolina. He has worked as a public information officer at research universities including Caltech, Cornell, Duke, and MIT.
Related stories:
[29th January 2010]
[22nd January 2010]
[17th October 2008]
[10th July 2008]
[Comment posted 2010-02-17 14:55:13]
As a Community Epidemiologist for TACTS(The Association of Clinical Trials Research) I am interested in becoming the change I want to see. I want my research to be known for its righteous contributions, not for vanity or Hollywood acknowledgement. This book only contributes to the falsity of real contributors to science, thusly irrelevant for scientific gratitude.
[Comment posted 2010-02-17 11:28:05]
remember:
1) French Anderson
2) "Honest Jim" Watson
This one was at least honest about some scientists' driving force; read his book "Double Helix"
And some scientists (especially young ones) I know only think about their inflated EGO!
Jos￩ Ferreira da Silva
[Comment posted 2010-02-17 09:37:52]
If I limit myself to the chemists portrayed in the movies described in our book and I place all my Dr. Jekylls in both the hero and villain categories, I find there are about 2.6 times as many hero chemists as there are villain chemists. This is far from the ratio of 6 times you found in your list. I would like to note that you?ve only counted Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Frankenstein once even though they?ve appeared in many different films. I disagree strongly that all Jekylls should be considered heroes from the start and want to note it is his addiction to the drug that makes him a villain (not that he should be excused for it). We have used the Jekyll and Hyde metaphor to describe the overall representation of chemistry in the movies but we also devoted a whole chapter to it because it is such an enduring theme. In its earliest adaptations, Jekyll has benevolent motives. In the later adaptations, he is either highly compromised or indeterminate. In the 1941 Spencer Tracy version, Jekyll performs tests on animals that prove to him it will turn a docile bunny into a fierce biting rabbit. When he takes some himself, he knows it will turn him into someone evil. A similar scenario plays out in the 1976 Dr Black and Mr Hyde, except human experimentation proves that it works.
Jack Griffin in The Invisible Man from 1933 is also not really a scientist-hero from the start. He is an assistant food preservation chemist who in his spare time isolated a compound that makes him invisible. His work to preserve food is benevolent but his activities during his spare time are not. His motivation was fame and fortune. After he became invisible, his ?brain lit up? and he realized he could now rule the world. He kills a policeman and a trainload of people. Was Griffin a hero chemist when he was developing his compound?
There is also the issue that chemical companies and their presidents are nearly always portrayed as malevolent while chemist researchers are goofy or benevolent. Some of these presidents suppress the discoveries or objections of their own scientists. Should these presidents be counted in the villain scientist column even though they aren?t necessarily scientists?
Our book?s premise is that people don?t realize how much chemistry and chemical discussion there is in the movies. When we consider the way that chemistry is portrayed in addition to chemists, you find half dark and half bright images. However, the final tally for chemists in the movies based on some broad definitions of heroes and villains that you put forward: 22 villain chemists when I include chemistry company presidents and 39 hero chemists for a ratio of 1.8 Heroes/Villains. The bigger point is that you are correct there are more heroes than villains, contrary to many people?s expectation.
[Comment posted 2010-02-16 05:53:19]
[Comment posted 2010-02-15 14:52:08]
Many parts of society are starting to recognize the endemic corruption in academia and research as these areas are increasingly controlled for corporate profit.
Any scientist who stands up to this corporate sleaze is a hero. And likely unemployed.
[Comment posted 2010-02-13 15:50:58]
[Comment posted 2010-02-13 07:34:50]
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 23:11:23]
Also, am I the only one who finds it odd that Dr. Octavius is cited as a positive image of a scientist?
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 21:35:57]
Somehow, dressing decently (not as portrayed as some kind of corporate executive following some silly mantra) and maintaining a minimum level of personal hygiene is somehow uncool when representing the profession of science to the public. In fact, much like the hippies of the 60?s ?dressed to offend? ended up becoming conformists, some scientists seem to think that if corporate America wears pin striped suits, we ought to go grunge just to show were are different. Very juvenile. Lurking below the grungy look is just another form of shallowness: One that is trying to portray a persona - I am so busy solving the worlds problems that I don?t have time to clean up and just enough time to pull my pants out of the dryer and put?em on before I head off to work or show up in public ? that is also not cool. The taxpayer pays our bills. They deserve better. We have many heroes (and alas an occasional villain), a great profession, and should represent it better, without changing one iota our long-standing tradition of the quest for the truth.
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 21:29:18]
Here are a Some Scientists whose contribution to Science was monumental.
SCIENTIST HEROES
Scientists have enormous contribution in the advancement of human civilization. Throughout the history of the world, many scientists have dedicated their lives for research and innovation. Some of them even faced a lot of torture for their theories but they continued their mission and thus we are now in a modern world.
Albert Einstein believed in the power of imagination and one of the greatest Scientists ever lived..
Alexander Graham Bell was the inventor of the telephone.
Aristotle is the Great philosopher who had a vast knowledge in different disciplines. Studying different subject he contributed a lot in each of those subjects. He contributed in physics, poetry, zoology, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, and biology.
Barbara McClintock was one of the first women geneticists, and a Nobel laureate.
Benjamin Franklin was an inventor, civic leader and founding father of the U.S.
Charles Darwin is the father of modern biology.
C.V. Raman
C.V. Raman is one of the most renowned scientists produced by India. His full name was Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman. For his pioneering work on scattering of light, C.V. Raman won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1930.
Enrico Fermi was one of the 20th century's greatest physicists.
Galileo Galilei
Galileo is considered as one of the greatest contributor to the development of Science. It is undoubtedly true that Galileo could first helped science to come out of the trend of Aristotle. He was physicist, astronomer, and philosopher and his best known contributions lie in the development of Telescope, first two laws of motion and also in Astronomy. He is also considered as the father of astronomy, father of physics and father of science.
George Washington Carver is famous for experimenting with plants.
Irene Curie was the second woman in history to win the Nobel Prize in science; the first woman was her mother, Marie.
Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose
He was the first renowned Bengali scientist who had an important contribution in the invention of Radio and microwave optics.
Guglielmo Marchese Marconi
Marconi is a Nobel laureate physicist from Italy. He is best known for his invention of Radio and he first introduced wireless telegraph system.
Newton was also a man of versatile quality. He was physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, and natural philosopher in a row. His contribution in the development of science is a special one. He is best known for his explanation of Universal Gravitation and three laws of motion, and he was able to prove that the reason of both the motion of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are controlled by the same Neutral laws.
Leonardo da Vinci was an artist, scientist and inventor.
Louis Pasteur
He is one of the most famous contributors in the medical science. He first introduced the germ theory of diseases. This is regarded as the base of today?s microbiology.
Norman Borlaug saved billions of lives with his agricultural discoveries.
Nikola Tesla was the father of many modern inventions.
Srinivasa Ramanujan made groundbreaking contributions to mathematics.
Stephen Hawking
This famous scientist is considered as the greatest scientist of the twentieth century after Einstein. Haw king?s big bang theory and black hole theory has turned the attention of the world.
Thomas Alva Edison holds the record for number of patents filed.
Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta
Volta was Italian physicist and he is best known for his contribution to the development of electric battery.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore,Andhra Pradesh,India
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 18:50:11]
It is good to discuss these issues. It is a nice break from the routine things.
Vinod Nikhra, MD
www.vinodnikhra.com
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 17:58:35]
People trust science because it usually undergoes a rigorous internal review process before it is put into the public domain. I work in vaccine R&D, and rigorous review of the data is the only way we can be sure the product works and is safe.
I have read the arguments for and against anthropogenic global warming. I am not convinced that changes in our climate are driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, I am convinced time and again that changes in our climate are driven by (largely) cosmic activity, in a way that is complex and still not fully understood.
People the world over have paid their tax money and trusted that the science it paid for would help them and/or their fellow man. With climategate, and the rest of the IPCC's 'carefully selected typical results', our credibility as a profession has taken a blow. With many governments poised to implement harsh economic measures to ward off a percieved catastrophe, there has never been a greater need for an independent review of the climate change data. The time for debate is now.
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 16:15:23]
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 14:38:27]
This has cast science in a negative light for much of the public which is enhanced by the failure of the scientific establishment to condemn this aborting of the scientific method. No heroes here.
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 14:23:24]
Geeky: exclusively and obsessively interested in abstract and mechanical details paying little attention to those of social importance as in other professions such as business, politics, medicine, etc.
Unattractive: selectively engaged in intellectual dialogue with peers and little with the public, and hence needing to pay little attention to attire or accoutrements that enhance ones personal or public appearance more important in other professions such as acting, business, law.
Mad: Well known that a thin line separates lunacy and genius; so the most scientifically gifted among us may have a tendency to behave in idiosyncratic and erratic ways among our peers and be tolerated, but not in other professions where behavior is just as important as technical competence professionally.
All this can be a constant source of consternation particularly in medical schools where scientists meander around the hallways, unshaven and and under dressed in ragged jeans and T-shirts much to the chagrin of their well-groomed and conformist physican peers.
None of these make the accomplishments and contributions of scientists any less heroic, and all of the ?not so attractive? aspects of scientists can, to some degree, be modified as the public image of scientists becomes more important in today?s world of PR, if they threaten the very existence of the profession.
Dress a little better in the public, shave and shampoo before you give a talk on TV, and try to learn how to communicate well with the public or else face the extinction of the scientific profession through loss of public support due to neglect! No profession can affort not to continously evolve, and neither can scientists.
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 14:06:02]
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 13:41:39]
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 12:24:43]
So from my perspective, if these new technologies are eventually shown to have deleterious effects on humans, then many of the scientists who developed them will be as guilty as the corporate executives and their lobbyists, and will be viewed as such by the public. It is no excuse to say that they are "misguided" or "overly ambitious". Nor is it acceptable to say that they believe in what they are doing and/or don't foresee any problems down the road. Where is the ethics associated their work? It's certainly not coming from executives or government bureaucrats.
[Comment posted 2010-02-12 12:22:19]
Scientists are individuals and, as such, come in all shapes and colors and personalities... good, bad and indifferent, like everyone. To think otherwise is to do a great disservice to the evolution of human understanding.