Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
who unscrupulously pursues his goals and knowingly risks the endanger-
ing of other people.
Schummer (2006) reconstructs the genealogy of the mad scientist that
I have briefly sketched here, from contemporary literary works and fo-
cuses primarily on the religious roots of the critique of science. Toumey,
on the other hand, explains why in his view the character of the
mad sci-
entist
grows increasingly amoral as time passes. He sees the main causes
in the artistic process of transferring texts into films and the commercial
exploitation of characters through the production of sequels. This devel-
opment, which he illustrates with film examples, takes place outside and
independent of real science. It is foremost due to the unavoidable simpli-
fication that characterizes the film vis-à-vis the written text (Toumey
1992, p. 423). Even if one sees the direct influence of the degenerated
picture of the scientist conditioned by the medium a bit more skeptically
than he does, the dynamics inherent in the movie business is nevertheless
an important explanation for the independence of the medium film. It
adds to the stabilization and continuity of the myths that determine the
social embedding of science.
That these myths are themes of movies does not come as a surprise.
In the great majority of films the depiction of science reveals a deep un-
easiness, distrust, and even mystification of science on the part of the
filmmakers, which mirrors the sentiment of their audience. The images,
clichés, and metaphors employed by filmmakers are the mirror image of
science in popular culture. At the same time the movies enforce these
images and provide them with imaginative detail and decorum. The film
as one of the most influential media interacts in complex ways with its
audiences, reflecting, shaping, and reinforcing images and identities. It
can safely be assumed that science as one of its subjects is no exception
to this (Turner 1999, pp. 100, 144).
Whether or not the position of science is now more precarious than in
the past is a matter of judgment that is regularly skewed by the short
memory of the media and their focus on the present. The many attempts
by science administrators and policy makers to increase the public inter-
est, understanding, and even 'engagement' in science seem to suggest
that science is experiencing a crisis of acceptance. However, the suspi-
cion is that criticism of particular lines of research (
e.g.
stem cell re-
