Literature DB >> 29525895

The Enduring Influence of a Dangerous Narrative: How Scientists Can Mitigate the Frankenstein Myth.

Peter Nagy1, Ruth Wylie2, Joey Eschrich3, Ed Finn4.   

Abstract

Reflecting the dangers of irresponsible science and technology, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein quickly became a mythic story that still feels fresh and relevant in the twenty-first century. The unique framework of the Frankenstein myth has permeated the public discourse about science and knowledge, creating various misconceptions around and negative expectations for scientists and for scientific enterprises more generally. Using the Frankenstein myth as an imaginative tool, we interviewed twelve scientists to explore how this science narrative shapes their views and perceptions of science. Our results yielded two main conclusions. First, the Frankenstein myth may help scientists identify popular concerns about their work and offer a framework for constructing a more positive narrative. Second, finding optimistic science narratives may allow scientists to build a better relationship with the public. We argue that by showing the ethical principles and social dimensions of their work, scientists could replace a negative Frankenstein narrative with a more optimistic one.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Frankenstein myth; Identity; Responsibility; Science ethics; Science narratives

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29525895     DOI: 10.1007/s11673-018-9846-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bioeth Inq        ISSN: 1176-7529            Impact factor:   1.352


  19 in total

1.  The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives.

Authors:  M C Green; T C Brock
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2000-11

2.  Victor and victim.

Authors:  H P Segal
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-08-30       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate.

Authors:  Michael Mulkay
Journal:  Soc Stud Sci       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 3.885

4.  Can Mary Shelley's Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text?

Authors:  H Davies
Journal:  Med Humanit       Date:  2004-06

5.  Learning errors from fiction: difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Marsh; Lisa K Fazio
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-07

6.  Cloning humans, cloning literature: genetics and the imagination deficit.

Authors:  J Van Dijck
Journal:  New Genet Soc       Date:  1999

7.  Microbiology: hazardous profession faces new uncertainties.

Authors:  N Wade
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-11-09       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Scientific research and the public trust.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2010-08-29       Impact factor: 3.525

9.  Science vs conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of misinformation.

Authors:  Alessandro Bessi; Mauro Coletto; George Alexandru Davidescu; Antonio Scala; Guido Caldarelli; Walter Quattrociocchi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  What's Wrong with Human/Nonhuman Chimera Research?

Authors:  Insoo Hyun
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2016-08-30       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  3 in total

1.  Facing the Pariah of Science: The Frankenstein Myth as a Social and Ethical Reference for Scientists.

Authors:  Peter Nagy; Ruth Wylie; Joey Eschrich; Ed Finn
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Bioethics and the Freedom Road. The JBI Community and the Change We Want To See.

Authors:  Michael A Ashby; Bronwen Morrell
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.352

3.  Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus: a classic novel to stimulate the analysis of complex contemporary issues in biomedical sciences.

Authors:  Irene Cambra-Badii; Elena Guardiola; Josep-E Baños
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 2.652

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.