Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
Although we have little doubt that movies and TV are exceptionally
powerful media, we know next to nothing about their actual impact on
the people's opinions and attitudes toward science. It is an open question
if the form of popular critique of science to be found in films is really
“extremely effective”, as Toumey suggests. Crichton, on the other hand,
argues reassuringly. The mass media, he claims, have lost their influence.
The film reaches only a fraction of the entire population (
Jurassic Park
was seen only by 8-15% of the American people), and the Hollywood
version of science is not to be taken more seriously by the public than
other media contents (Crichton 1999). Apart from the fact that we know
very little about the reception of movies in general and of horror films in
particular, it is out of the question to assume a linear causality between
watching a movie and believing its contents. It is more relevant that all
the many versions of the Frankenstein and Jekyll-and-Hyde stories ap-
peal to audiences again and again, that they represent relatively stable
stereotypes and are evidently icons of popular culture.
At a time when science in all Western societies is increasingly con-
cerned about its image, because it has lost the unconditional support of
the public (or at least of policy makers) that it used to have in the late
nineteenth and throughout the better part of the twentieth centuries, one
could assume a focused attention on the media that presumably shape the
image of science most effectively. The limited evidence we have shows
that the depiction of science in TV entertainment cultivates a less than
positive picture (Gerbner 1987, p. 112). The same is true for fiction
films. Science administrators and policy makers would have ample rea-
sons to be concerned about the image of science that is daily diffused on
TV and film screens, even more so as they employ modern media for-
mats and instruments of mass entertainment to raise interest and enthusi-
asm for science. The mad scientist of the movies is their natural oppo-
nent, and they would be well advised to acknowledge his historical
presence.
The interest in the image of science portrayed in the many 'moving
pictures' cannot be limited to the immediate PR effects on the well-being
of the institution. Scientific knowledge and research as the activity to
bring it about are problematic elements of popular culture. It is a kind of
