My latest Science Progress column is about how Bruce Ivins unfortunately reaffirms the damaging stereotype of the "mad scientist". As I put it:
Certainly science has had its dark episodes in the past--most notably the eugenics fad in the early part of the twentieth century (which is what works like Moreau and Brave New World were reacting to). But in the modern period, one could argue that most scientists, and biomedical scientists in particular, have shown strong moral consciences. The 1975 Asilomar conference, when scientists gathered to agree upon ethical guidelines for recombinant DNA research, and to ban some particularly troubling experiments, serves as a noteworthy example. So while the Frankenstein myth never dies, it also doesn't really fit reality today: Far and away most scientists save lives, rather than dooming them. And there are very, very few kinds of knowledge that we actually ought to regard as forbidden.
But now, if we're to believe the FBI, then we have a case of reality coming around to match fiction....
You can read the entire column here.
- Log in to post comments
All those Scientists may say they are working for us, but what they really want is to RULE THE WORLD.
One way to fight the mythic undercurrents in the Bruce Ivins story is to focus on why a man like Ivins ever got the security clearance he did when his own psychotherapist was saying was a "sociopathic, homicidal killer" who planned to kill his co-workers "because he was about to be indicted on capital murder charges."
Like the Justice system failures and Katrina failures there seems to be a lack of oversight in the government's hiring practices.
Of course, this is assuming the 'mad scientist' story is not just a story (a very convenient one that large swaths of the public are primed to believe.)
The case against Ivins gets weaker and weaker the more details come out. Hell, I'm not even very confident that the strain ID is even correct at this point... having the most probable suspects doing the forensics is not exactly confidence inspiring.
As I've said before ... we have no one but ourselves to blame. However, sites like Microbeworld have gone to great lengths to shed a favorable light on scientists with their Meet the Scientists section.
I doubt that scientists differ from the norm, in terms of attitudes and behaviors. If you look closely, everyone has their own individual hangups ... and I honestly think the media can make every individual appear horribly insane with the proper phrasing.
I'm afraid that this is simply the world we live in.
Here are two potential Frames for describing potential media reaction to Ivins-
1) He could be portrayed as a "mad scientist". Oh noes!
2) Why isn't he being portrayed as a dangerously deranged Christianist-Zionist? Surely if this home-grown terrorist were a Muslim writing letters to the editor about who Allah's chosen people were, his myth-belief would be headline news for months on end.
Why choose #2 instead of #1? I realize that you are intensely concerned with science and scientists' public image, but repeatedly pointing out image problems doesn't seem to me to be as effective as flipping the script.
Why not just refer to Ivins as someone who just eventually went off the ranch? Putting people into boxes (mad scientist, nihilistic atheist, fanatical Muslim, crazy Christian) is convenient but ultimately unfair for those who are otherwise associated with those movements/beliefs/jobs.