What is it about?
For centuries the fictional scientist was based on the medieval alchemist. These characters were sinister, powerful, almost exclusively male, and possibly mad. This paper examines the reasons for the perpetuation of this stereotype and then moves to examine the emegence of the new scientist figure in the 1990s. These characters are depicted as empathic, humane, frequently female, often ethically challenged by the possible outcomes of their research and the secrecy requirements of industry and politics.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
So long as scientists were seen as remote and dangerous figures, their pronouncements on the dangers of nuclear war, global warming, environmental destruction and species extinction were largely disregarded. The new image of the scientist as multi-dimensional, concerned and empathic, engaging with contemporary issues, lends credibility to their role as risk-monitors and risk-averters. This revisionist role is increasingly evident in twenty-first-century fiction.
Perspectives
As a writer who was first a biochemist, I am impressed by the number of novels that communicate science issues for lay readers without losing their credibility as fiction. The increasing number of female scientist characters in fiction and film also suggests to female school students the possibility of a career in science, a project that governments and science associations have been attempting to promote for half a century, with only limited success.
Dr Roslynn D Haynes
University of New South Wales
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype, Public Understanding of Science, June 2014, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/0963662514535689.
You can read the full text:
Resources
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
