This paper examines how scientists have been portrayed in popular media from the Victorian era through the early twenty-first century, tracing the evolution from gothic villains like Dr. Frankenstein to modern celebrity scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. The paper analyzes common characteristics attributed to media scientists — intelligence, power, and male gender — and explores how these depictions influence public understanding of science, including deference to scientific authority, the "CSI effect," and growing anti-science sentiment among religious audiences. The paper also discusses the underrepresentation of female and minority scientists and argues for more realistic, diverse portrayals to counter misinformation and anti-fact trends in American public life.
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 an even more 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 Hawking, and Bill Nye the Science Guy. Each of these infotainment figures offers an alternative 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 attributed to scientists in popular media are that they are 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, whether in fiction or nonfiction. Female scientist celebrities are often 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 this rule are mainly fictionalized and found 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 occupies 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 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 also consistently depict scientists as 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 produces 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 trial outcomes: "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. Indeed, 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.
"Religious and political resistance to scientific authority"
"Modern media complicates the scientist's moral identity"
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.