South Park Science Atheism and Genetic Engineering

How Science is Represented in Pop Culture

Introduction

Americans view science, particularly genetic engineering, as a potentially dangerous tool that should never fall into the wrong hands. That is the message delivered in the article by Arthur Caplan in The Chicago Tribune. The article argues that one should not fear the rise of super babies (children genetically engineered to be great); rather, one should fear who gets to control the technology. In other words, science is something that only the “good guys” should have—not something the bad guys should possess. It is a familiar trope—one that harkens back to the films of Indiana Jones. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana had to stop an army of Nazis from getting their hands on the powerful Ark of the Covenant. The Ark itself was not bad—but if the Germans possessed it, they would use it for evil; such was the message of the film. Thus, the American hero had to protect it from them. The same message is basically conveyed in Caplan’s article when he writes: “Let your great-great-grandkids fret about whether they want to try to make a perfect baby. Today we need to worry about who will own genetic engineering technology, how we can oversee what is being done with it and how safe it needs to be before it is used to try to prevent or fix a disease. That is plenty to worry about.” The gist of the article is that the morality of genetic engineering is something future generations can worry about. What we need to focus on is simply makings sure that we control the technology. It is a rather simplistic presentation of science and it has an Indiana Jones vs. the bad guys ring to it. It does not consider the implications of the science of genetic engineering; instead it simply assumes that this science exists and since it exists it better be controlled by the good guys. The implicit message is that Americans are the good guys and they should control the science.

Who Controls the Science Controls the World

Yet there is an alternative view of science in American culture. It is not all one-sided. Few things are in this country and this culture. With science as with everything else, there is a kind of bi-polar pop culture representation of the topic. Thus, if one side is interested in framing it in good vs. evil terms with respect to who controls the science, the other side wants to slow down and ask questions such as whether the science of something like genetic engineering is morally good. That is what Joy Victory does writing for her article “9 Tips To Combat Stem Cell Hype In Your News Stories” for HealthNewsReview.org. The site’s message is that it wants to “improve your critical thinking about health care,” which is clearly the opposite message from that given by the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune can be considered a mainstream source of news and the site HealthNewsReview can be considered an alternative news site. The Tribune is probably more reflective of pop culture than the alternative news site, but the alternative news site is actively encouraging reporters to ask questions and to question assumptions, especially when it comes to health science and issues like stem cell research. The assumption is that stem cell science is good, but Victory argues that the science is not as advanced as some people make it out to seem.

These two opposing viewpoints on the matter thus show that science is a polarizing issue in popular culture in America. On the one hand, it inspires a rowdy everybody-get-your-guns-go-defend-science type of idea; on the other hand, it begs the public to slow down, consider the real issues, and realize that science itself is a work in progress. Science, whether it comes in the form of genetic engineering or stem cell research, is certainly being used to address health-related issues, but there are limitations to what the debate or discussion of science is going to be about in the public forum. The public seems to want talking points more than anything, and that makes the entire issue somewhat problematic. Health science is not a simplistic topic; it is quite complex and has moral, philosophical, social, political, economic and even religious aspects to it that some want to question and address and that others want to shun, avoid and act as though they were unimportant.

Divided Culture

But that is life in America: one half wants God and guns; the other half wants re-education camps and prisons for those who are not yet woke. The division runs right through the topic of science in pop culture. Perhaps no single episode of a TV show best illustrates that fact that the South Park episode “Go God Go!” from season 10. In that episode, the 4th grader Cartman is cryogenically frozen for 500 years and upon being unthawed in the future he is confronted with a vastly different world in which “God” has been replaced with “Science.” So instead of people saying, “God help us!” they scream, “Science help us!” Instead of a moderate approach towards science as a process, there is an unquestioning faith-based approach to Science with a capital “S” as though Science had godlike properties. The episode satirizes different points of view on science, evolution, atheism, and lazy thinking in general. The main point that the episode makes is that science itself is no guarantee of freedom, peace or health. People are still going to be people at the end of the day, and that means they are going to have all kinds of moral problems that they take with them everywhere they go.

Thus, the idea that science is something that can be saved by the good guys or protected from the bad guys as depicted in the Tribune article is somewhat simple-minded. Science is not an ark or a like an Infinity Stone, although it seems to be more often than not portrayed as such in pop culture. People do tend to try to deify science as though it were infallible. At least one half of pop culture seems to think that way. But that is the wrong way to think according to the other half. The other half represents science as a process that goes slow, that can lead to dead ends, that can go nowhere even after years and years of attempts to make something work. That is the reminder that Victory tries to paint.

Caplan tries to create the impression on his audience that science, particularly genetic engineering, is without a doubt going to be the “thing” of the future and everybody will be doing it—if they want to (if they don’t, that’s okay too). But the assumption is that it is great, it works, and people are going to have that option. The impression he gives is that the problem is not the science itself but who will have the keys to the science, so to speak. In other words, is this something you really want the Russians to have access to? Or the Chinese? Or Iran? What if they mishandle it? What if they introduce a race of super soldiers that takes over the planet? Wouldn’t it be much better if the US controlled all the patents and tools and technology when it comes to genetic engineering? That way, if there are going to be any super soldiers at least they will be American! That is the impression Caplan gives.

Victory on the other hand gives a much different impression. She argues that the idea of science needs to be reexamined. It is not a perfect art: it is a process, and that process, particularly when it comes to stem cell research, is still in its infancy. There should be no promises made about what to expect with this research because so little of it has actually been completed. In this perspective, the text suggests that there is still a long way to go before anyone can make any claims of breakthrough.