Scientists as Neutral Forces: Fiction, Reality, and Morality

Introduction: The Mad Scientist Archetype

The word "scientist" is unremarkable on its own — until "mad" is attached to it. When most people hear the word "scientist," the image that springs to mind is the mad scientist: a crazy villain bent on destroying the world. There is a reason why science, and by extension scientists, is regarded by many as a field leaning toward darkness and chaos. People in the past associated scientific breakthroughs with magic and witchcraft, and launched fervent crusades to thwart the supposed maladies brought on by science.

While a scientist can reasonably be seen as an innovator — someone who drives advancement and directs human evolution — it is impossible to ignore how often the figure of the scientist, mad or otherwise, has produced some of the most memorable villains in literature, as well as some of its heroes. The scientist, it turns out, may be something more complex than either.

One of literature's most iconic scientist-figures is Dr. Jekyll. This man set out to create something that could represent a breakthrough in the scientific and medical world. What he produced instead was a literal split personality that sent the world around him into upheaval (Stevenson, 2001). He is a fictional representation of the mad scientist archetype. A real-world parallel can be found in Harry Harlow, whose experiments demonstrate just how extreme scientific obsession can become.

Three Defining Characteristics of Scientists

In the 1930s, Harry Harlow performed experiments on infant monkeys to understand the nature of love and neglect (Blum, 2011). Using mechanical contraptions and isolating subjects for up to a year, he observed the effects of deprivation on the animals. His findings demonstrated two things: that his methods were deeply troubling, and that animals should not be subjected to experimentation of that kind. What do these figures — these scientists, real and fictional — have in common? What makes them appear mad?

There are three characteristics that scientists in both literature and real life frequently share. The first is the pursuit of knowledge. Scientists perform experiments in order to understand something or answer a question. The second characteristic is the desire to see things through. Regardless of the reactions and results an experiment produces, scientists want to reach a conclusion. The third characteristic is a lack of adherence to society's moral norms. Many experiments performed by scientists would be considered inhumane, yet they are carried out regardless.

Scientists in Fiction: Heroes, Villains, and Neutrals

That is not to say all scientists are like this. However, these are the characteristics most frequently observed in scientists depicted in both real life and in media. While the work of the scientist may initially seem noble, a closer examination of various scientific figures reveals a more complicated picture: the scientist is, more often than not, a morally neutral character — one who acts without consistently weighing morality or consequences. This understanding opens the door to a deeper reading of the word "scientist" itself.

Scientists are portrayed in fiction as both villains and heroes. From Dr. Bunsen Honeydew of The Muppets to Hubert J. Farnsworth in Futurama to Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk, these characters represent the "lighter" — if still eccentric — side of the scientist. Meanwhile, Dr. Jekyll, Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Moreau, and Dr. Frank N. Furter demonstrate the dramatic, dangerous, and villainous end of the spectrum.

Dr. Farnsworth from Futurama is a cantankerous old man who nonetheless helps his friends, creating inventive and ingenious solutions to fuel the misadventures of his crew, lending a hand whenever they are in trouble. Dr. Frankenstein, by contrast, does not help anyone — he instead creates a being that goes on to kill innocents, driven by a need to prove something to himself and to defy nature. What these examples reveal, taken together, is that even amid clearly "good" and clearly "evil" portrayals of scientists, both types exhibit a fundamental neutrality — an impartial quality that cuts across moral categories.

Conclusion

While the public does not always have a positive perception of scientists and science in general, it does hold a largely neutral view of them. Scientists are a necessary part of society. They can be good or bad, like most people. The media does not categorize scientists as purely mad, but it does illuminate the darkness that can accompany the profession. The scientist, ultimately, is neither hero nor villain — but a neutral force whose impact depends entirely on the choices made along the way.