Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As one of the best known science narratives about the consequences of creating life, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) is an enduring tale that people know and understand with an almost instinctive familiarity. It has become a myth reflecting people’s ambivalent feelings about emerging science: they are curious about science, but they are also afraid of what science can do to them. In this essay, we argue that the Frankenstein myth has evolved into a stigma attached to scientists that focalizes the public’s as well as the scientific community’s negative reactions towards certain sciences and scientific practices. This stigma produces ambivalent reactions towards scientific artifacts and it leads to negative connotations because it implies that some sciences are dangerous and harmful. We argue that understanding the Frankenstein stigma can empower scientists by helping them revisit their own biases as well as responding effectively to people’s expectations for, and attitudes towards, scientists and scientific artifacts. Debunking the Frankenstein stigma could also allow scientists to reshape their professional identities so they can better show the public what ethical and moral values guide their research enterprises.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The authors wish to make clear that we do not, in fact, subscribe to this reading of the narrative. We see Shelley’s novel as a much more nuanced exploration of scientific creativity and responsibility. Nevertheless, the popular conception of Frankenstein, and many of its adaptations, interpret it as a cautionary tale.

  2. Originating from alchemy and nineteenth-century fiction, a homunculus refers to an artificially created miniature human being (Newman 2004).

References

  • Abraham, J., & Dessler, A. (2013). What scientists should talk about: Their personal stories. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/20/climate-change-scientists-personal-stories. Accessed October 15, 2016.

  • Adams, W. W. (2001). Making daemons of death and love: Frankenstein, existentialism, psychoanalysis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(4), 57–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, R. M. (1980). Self-presentation. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 158–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arluke, A. (1991). Going into the closet with science: Information control among animal experimenters. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20(3), 306–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it? Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barriga, C. A., Shapiro, M. A., & Fernandez, M. L. (2010). Science information in fictional movies: Effects of context and gender. Science Communication, 32(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, J. (2015). Americans believe in science, just not its findings. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/americans-believe-in-science-just-not-its-findings/384937/. Accessed November 12, 2016.

  • Bernstein, M. (1997). Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement. American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), 531–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, M. G. H. (1994). The “makyng” and re-making of Man: 1. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87(12), 749–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, A. E. R., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2005). Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(2), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brotherton, M. (2016). Science fiction by scientists: An anthology of short stories. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clancy, K. A., & Clancy, B. (2016). Growing monstrous organisms: The construction of anti-GMO visual rhetoric through digital media. Critical Studies in Media Communication. doi:10.1080/15295036.2016.1193670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. (2016). Neuroscientists warn against unsupervised direct brain stimulation—Maybe don’t DIY electrocute your brain. Popular Science. http://www.popsci.com/maybe-dont-diy-electrocute-your-brain. Accessed October 17, 2016.

  • Corrigan, P. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59(7), 614–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creed, W. E. D., & Scully, M. A. (2000). Songs of ourselves: Employees’ deployment of social identity in workplace encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(4), 391–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crichton, M. (1999). Ritual abuse, hot air, and missed opportunities. Science, 283(5407), 1461–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. PNAS, 111(4), 13614–13620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication, 34(5), 592–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. PNAS, 110(3), 14081–14087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, L. (2016). Pig-human embryos? ‘Ethically corrupt and belonging in fiction’ says PETA doctor. http://talkradio.co.uk/highlights/pig-human-embryos-ethically-corrupt-and-belonging-fiction-says-peta-doctor-1606061471. Accessed December 18, 2016.

  • Durkheim, E. [1895] (1982). The rules of sociological method. New York: The Free Press.

  • Evans, N. G. (2010). Speak no evil: Scientists, responsibility, and the public understanding of science. Nanoethics, 4(3), 215–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finson, K. D. (2002). Drawing a scientist: What we do and do not know after fifty years of drawings. School Science and Mathematics, 107(7), 335–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flores, G. (2002). Mad scientists, compassionate healers, and greedy egoists: The portrayal of the physicians in the movies. Journal of National Medical Association, 94(7), 635–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco, D. (1998). Mirror images and otherness in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Literature and Psychology, 44(1–2), 80–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. D., & Kavey, A. B. (2016). Monstrous progeny: A history of the Frankenstein narratives. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, C., Rainie, L., Smith, A., Olmstead, K., Duggan, M., & Page, D. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2016.

  • Gauchat, G. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 751–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauchat, G. (2015). The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces, 94(2), 723–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlach, N., & Hamilton, S. N. (2005). From mad scientist to bad scientist: Richard seed as biogovernmental event. Communication Theory, 15(1), 78–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma—Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social context, and mental health: Lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(1), 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, R. (1986). The modern Frankenstein: Fiction becomes fact. New York: Blandford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. (2004). Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism. Cultural Geographies, 11(2), 181–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, B. (2008). Monsters of the complex market. https://thesocietypages.org/economicsociology/tag/frankenstein/. Accessed July 26, 2016.

  • Hart-Brinson, P. (2016). The social imagination of homosexuality and the rise of same-sex marriage in the United States. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World. doi:10.1177/2378023116630555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. (1995). Frankenstein: The scientist we love to hate. Public Understanding of Science, 4(4), 435–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. D. (2016). Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, T. (2003). Bovine anxieties, virgin births, and the secret of life. Cultural Critique, 53, 116–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellsten, I. (2003). Focus on metaphors: The case of “Frankenfood” on the Web. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(4), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 905–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindle, M. (1990). Vital matters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Romantic science. Critical Survey, 2(1), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, N., & Greenley, D. (2001). What is recovery? A conceptual model and explication. Psychiatric Services, 52(4), 482–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the Status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Brett, P. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 13–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173–204). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, C. R. (2006). Dominant ideology threat and the interpersonal consequences of attributions to discrimination. In S. Levin & C. van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 45–64). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood, A. D., & Stamm, B. H. (2006). A social marketing approach to challenging stigma. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(5), 472–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, J. (2010). Questioning the sci-fi alibi: A critique of how ‘science fiction fears’ are used to explain away public concerns about risk. Journal of Risk Research, 13(1), 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knust, H. (1983). From Faust to Oppenheimer: The scientist’s pact with the Devil. Journal of European Studies, 13(49–50), 122–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liakopoulos, M. (2002). Pandora’s Box or panacea? Using metaphors to create the public representations of biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, H. S. (2013). Playing God and the intrinsic value of life: Moral problems for synthetic biology? Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 435–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, S. (1999). Golem science and the public understanding of science: From deficit to dilemma. Public Understanding of Science, 8(2), 75–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losh, S. C. (2010). Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 372–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, A. (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. PNAS, 110(3), 14048–14054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, S. (2002). Frankenstein: Myths of scientific and medical knowledge and stories of human relations. The Southern Review, 38(1), 188–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1140–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazlish, B. (1995). The man–machine and artificial intelligence. Stanford Humanities Review, 4(2), 21–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meisenbach, R. J. (2010). Stigma management communication: A theory and agenda for applied research on how individuals manage moments of stigmatized identity. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(3), 268–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M. (1996). Frankenstein and the debate over embryo research. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(2), 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L., Jorcyk, C., Yang, D., Smith, M. J., Matson, S., Cornell, K., et al. (2014). I just don’t trust them: The development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W. R. (2004). Promethean ambitions: Alchemy and the quest to perfect nature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. (2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In L. Kahlor & P. A. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 40–67). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., & Swim, J. K. (2001). Stigma: An insider’s view. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The Psychological implication of concealing a stigma: A cognitive–affective–behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrington, J. (2016). Redesigning life: How genome editing will transform the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peláez, A. L., & Kyriakou, D. (2008). Robots, genes and bytes: Technology development and social changes towards the year 2020. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(8), 1176–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescosolido, B. A., Martin, J. K., Lang, A., & Olafsdottir, S. (2008). Rethinking theoretical approaches to stigma: A framework integrating normative influences on stigma (FINIS). Social Science and Medicine, 67(3), 431–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PETA UK. (2016). Creating human-animal hybrids is bad for people—And worse for animals. http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/creating-human-animal-hybrids-bad-people-worse-animals/. Accessed January 11, 2017.

  • Petersen, A. (2002). Replicating our bodies, losing our selves: News media portrayals of human cloning in the wake of Dolly. Body & Society, 8(4), 71–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., Yeadon, C., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2004). A dual-process model of reactions to perceived stigma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 436–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R. (2001). (Un-)Professional discourse? Journalists’ and scientists’ stories about science in the media. Journalism, 2(3), 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reis, P., & Galvão, C. (2004). Socio-scientific controversies and students’ conceptions about scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1621–1633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roese, N. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight Bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(5), 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutjens, B. T., & Heine, S. J. (2016). The immoral landscape? Scientists are associated with violations of morality. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0152798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, M. (2004). Positive stigma: Examining resilience and empowerment in overcoming stigma. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skal, D. J. (1998). Screams of reason: Mad science and modern culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speaking of Research. (2016). Why we haven’t cured the common cold—A response to PETA’s science advisor, Dr. Julia Baines. https://speakingofresearch.com/tag/peta/. Accessed January 12, 2017.

  • Stableford, B. (1995). Frankenstein and the origins of science fiction. In D. Seed (Ed.), Anticipations: Essays on early science fiction and its precursors (pp. 46–57). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, Y. (2005). The psychoanalysis of science: The role of metaphor, paraprax, lacunae and myth. Portland: Sussex Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart, S. (2014). Frankenzebra: Dangerous knowledge and the narrative of the construction of monsters. Journal of Literary Studies, 30(4), 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syrdal, D. S., Nomura, T., Hirai, H., & Dautenhahn, K. (2011). Examining the Frankenstein syndrome: An open-ended cross-cultural survey (pp. 125–134). In B. Mutlu, C. Bartneck, J. Ham, V. Evers & T. Kanda (Eds.), Social robotics: Third international conference, ICSR 2011, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, November 24–25, 2011. Proceedings. Berlin: Springer.

  • Tan, A. L., Jocz, J. A., & Zhai, J. (2015). Spiderman and science: How students’ perceptions of scientists are shaped by popular media. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/0963662515615086.

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Academies of Sciences. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Laan, J. M. (2010). Frankenstein as science fiction and fact. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(4), 298–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J. (1999). Cloning humans, cloning literature: Genetics and the imagination deficit. New Genetics & Society, 18(1), 9–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dyke, N., & Cress, R. (2006). Political opportunities and collective identity in Ohio’s gay and lesbian movement, 1970–2000. Sociological Perspectives, 49(4), 503–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webber, A. J. (2003). The Doppelgänger: Double visions in German literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P., Muhl, C., & Pansegrau, P. (2003). Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in fiction film. Public Understanding of Science, 12(3), 279–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitson, J. A., Galinsky, A. D., & Kay, A. (2015). The emotional roots of conspiratorial perceptions, system justification, and belief in the paranormal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wurzman, R., Hamilton, R. H., Pascual-Leone, A., & Fox, M. D. (2016). An open letter concerning do-it-yourself users of transcranial direct current stimulation. Annals of Neurology, 80(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, L. L., Kay, A. C., & Eibach, R. P. (2013). A test of the flexible ideology hypothesis: System justification motives interact with ideological cueing to predict political judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 755–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Phil Weaver-Stoesz, the editors and the anonymous reviewers at Science and Engineering Ethics for their guidance and thoughtful comments regarding our work. We also would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of the Center for Science and the Imagination; and King Coffee in Tempe, Arizona.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1516684.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Science and the Imagination, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Peter Nagy & Joey Eschrich

  2. Center for Science and the Imagination, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Ruth Wylie

  3. Arts, Media and Engineering/English, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Ed Finn

Authors
  1. Peter Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth Wylie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joey Eschrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ed Finn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Nagy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J. et al. Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists. Sci Eng Ethics 24, 1143–1159 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9936-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9936-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation