How Scientists Are Portrayed in Media

Since the Victorian era, science and scientists have been portrayed in dichotomous ways. Scientists are above all powerful, able to manipulate the natural world. Through their manipulations and machinations, scientists ironically disrupt the natural order of things, leading to ungodly inventions, abominations, or actual threats to human survival itself. The most notable examples of nefarious scientists in nineteenth century literature include Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll. As the genre of science fiction evolved from these gothic tales, the scientist became even more of a potent symbol, albeit one far more morally ambiguous. By the end of the twentieth century, scientists had taken on a whole new identity: one perched precariously between the role of the nerdy but ironically cute intellectual and that of the genuinely “mad” scientist. The infotainment industry then provided the world with a new generation of scientist celebrities, the likes of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Kawking, and Bill Nye the Science Guy. Each of these infotainment figures offer alternatives to the comic book-like caricatures that predominated in the past. Although American audiences—religious ones in particular--struggle with the role scientists play in their own lives, the media has gradually shifted toward a more positive portrayal of scientific endeavors.
Three of the most common characteristics of scientists in the popular media include intelligent, powerful, and male. Gender may be one of the most universally depicted characteristics of scientists in almost every field. The media lacks examples of female scientists, either in fiction or nonfiction. Female scientist celebrities are cast in feminized roles, such as Jane Goodall’s work as a caring, nurturing primate sociologist. In fact, one of the ways to reduce the gender gap in STEM might be to offer the world more examples of female scientists. Exceptions to the rule are mainly fictionalized and in science fiction, such as Sigourney Weaver’s character Ellen Ripley in the Alien series and Jodie Foster’s role as Ellie Arroway in Contact. In both of these cases, the female scientist is in an unrealistic role rather than one that could be fulfilled by a real-life human being. The recent film Hidden Figures is one of the few examples of the media shattering the racialized and gendered science professions, through a biopic of female mathematician-scientists working for NASA.
Although portrayals of scientists in fiction and infotainment are gendered, they are also intelligent and powerful figures. The intelligence of scientists is such that some audiences are expressly “deferent to scientific authority,” (Binder, Hillback & Brossard, 2015, p. 831). Binder, Hillback & Brossard (2015) also show that deference to scientific authority causes cognitive dissonance when two scientists in the same field disagree about the results of a study or on underlying theory. Scientists are endowed with the same godlike powers they once had in the Victorian era, albeit with a modern, real-life twist. For example, Cole (2013) discusses the ways television courtroom and police dramas depict forensic science. Shows like CSI elevated the power of the scientist to such a degree that it adversely impacted public perceptions of the role and relevance of forensic evidence in courtroom trials. Depicting forensics as the most important form of evidence led to widespread misinformation about the omnipotence of forensic science in determining the outcomes of trials: "a growing public expectation that police labs can do everything TV labs can,” (Cole, 2013, p. 131). The public continues to be influenced by unrealistic depictions of the power of scientists and their role in public affairs. In fact, the portrayal of science in media influences how all research and technology is viewed and accepted by the general public—from medicine to cloning, from space research to alternative energy.

Yet the public does not always react to media portrayals of the omnipotence of scientists with deference. In fact, the media portrayal of the powerful scientist is also evidenced also by the way fearful and religiously minded Americans mistrust climate change and have come to view science as a whole with a high degree of suspicion (Hmielowski, Feldman, Myers, et al, 2013). For this reason, the scientific community has endeavored to correct misperceptions about the role of scientists. Even when scientists are portrayed as overly powerful, potentially upsetting the natural order of the universe as with Dr. Frankenstein or Dr. Moreau, they are also always shown to be highly intelligent. It is in fact their intelligence that makes scientists such formidable figures in the public consciousness. Scientists are supposed to be far more intelligent than the average human being, which is what makes the person feared and admired at the same time.
Nisbet & Dudo (2013) point out that over the past decade or so, scientists have been increasingly portrayed as heroes. As such, scientists are becoming more humanized, bringing their personas and livelihood more down to earth. Scientists are still cast in somewhat godlike role, but public figures like Neil DeGrasse Tyson do help to ground those godlike qualities with humor and empathy. As a result, my personal image of what a scientist does and how a scientist looks has changed over time—with the main exception being gender. Fictional scientists are now sometimes heroes, sometimes villains, sometimes both—as is the classic anti-hero of Walter White in Breaking Bad. Overall, science is still portrayed with moral ambiguity. The work of scientists is shown to be potentially dangerous. White makes crystal meth. Ellie Arroway interacts with extraterrestrial beings. Dr. Brown from Back to the Future messes with time. The dichotomous, often antagonistic way scientists are portrayed in the media absolutely does influence public perception, causing many gullible Americans to believe that scientists are too smart for the good of humanity, their work potentially dangerous for political reasons. As important as it is to use scientific research for altruistic goals, the portrayal of scientists and their work does need to become more realistic to curb the current anti-science, anti-fact trends in the United States.




References

Binder, A.R., Hillback, E.D. & Brossard, D. (2015). Conflicts or caveats? Risk Analysis 36(4): 831-846.
Cole, S.A. (2013). A surfeit of science. Public Understanding of Science 24(2): 130-146.
Hmielowski, J.D., Feldman, L., Myers, T.A., et al. (2013). An attack on science? Public Understanding of Science 23(7): 866-883.
Nisbet, M.C. & Dudo, A. (2013). Entertainment media portrayals and their effects on the public understanding of science. In ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 1139, American Chemical Society.