Op-Ed: Hollywood Gives Real Scientists a Bad Rep
May 24, 2004 8:05 pm
By Huntington F. Willard, PhD
Contact: Denise Haviland, 919-684-2850
This Op-Ed originally appeared in the May 24, 2004 edition of the Herald-Sun (Durham, NC)
Just because I understand the science doesn't mean I'm immune to the hype. So last month when I saw the trailer for "Godsend", the most recent cloning-gone-bad movie, I had the same reflexive response as any pop-culture consumer would to the dissonant soundtrack, the spooky lighting and the sharp cuts showing a child in danger. "That looks cool," my primitive nervous system said. Alas, my frontal cortex knew better.
"Godsend," which opened a couple of weeks ago on National DNA Day (an unintended irony?), is the story of the Duncans, a normal yuppie couple who lose their eight-year-old son Adam in a traffic accident. As they are arranging his burial, they are approached by Dr. Wells (Robert DeNiro), who offers to clone Adam and thereby "bring him back." The otherwise infertile couple, just starting to grieve, must decide quickly (Adam's cells are only viable for 72 hours). They agree, and so begins the Faustian tale of scientific hubris that we've seen and read about in, oh, a thousand other movies, starting with "Frankenstein" in 1931.
After reaching the age where Adam I died, Adam II begins to have nightmares and worse. His behavior becomes erratic and mean-spirited. He spits on the teacher and then kills the local bully (take-home message: never trust a clone over the age of eight). As for Wells, I expected that, like Frankenstein, he would be revealed to be arrogant and misguided - not a stretch given that he preyed upon the Duncans while their son's body was still warm. I figured he would be yet one more cinematic depiction of a manipulative, unethical scientist concerned only with personal glory and his own experiments. In fact, Wells is much worse. We come to find out that Adam II's homicidal behavior is due to the fact that while Wells has cloned Adam I, he has done so with a twist: Wells has inserted genes from his own dead, psychopathic son who, as it turns out, had a penchant for setting fires and killing people with hammers. Thus, Wells not only fulfills the mad scientist stereotype, he is himself a sociopath - a narcissist with a messiah complex. Unfortunately, these types of people rarely consider adoption. Welcome to DNA Day, kids.
Do scientists sometimes behave immorally? Do doctors sometimes take advantage of vulnerable families? Sadly, yes. But do they not also perform heroic acts on occasion? Do they not ever behave admirably?
So then, where are the nuanced - let alone positive - cinematic portrayals of researchers, and clinicians? Before "Godsend", as I watched the trailer for the eco-disaster flick "The Day After Tomorrow," I realized that there is one positive stereotype filmmakers are willing to flog: the scientist as soothsayer. This is the character who says, "I tried to warn you about this tornado/earthquake/alien/dinosaur/meteor/virus/climate change, but you wouldn't listen and now it's too late." These scientists are undeniably good, if a bit self-righteous. Often they wind up as heroes (who can forget Dustin Hoffman waddling around in his yellow rubber suit in "Outbreak"?). But they are almost never taken seriously a priori and tend to remain impotent until dinosaurs start running amok.
Movies like "Godsend" and "Gattaca" suggest to me that scientists - especially those who deal in genes and genomes - have inherited the mantle of Most Convenient Dramatic Scapegoats. Nazi movies have become passe and showing villains as anything but educated white guys is taboo. You can always put a smart white guy in a lab coat without straining credulity, right?
Whatever the reasons for the enduring, and tired, mad scientist characterizations, I believe the net effect is corrosive. Public confidence in science is declining. Two-thirds of the public would like to see schools teach alternatives to evolution. When I tell people I study the genome, I often get a crack about cloning or Jurassic Park in response. Perhaps it's understandable, what with the white-robed Raelians announcing they're cloning babies and building an embassy to welcome visitors from outer space. Most of us, with our little NIH grants, just can't compete with that.
But Raelian diplomacy notwithstanding, I wonder if scientists might not evoke a more positive response if they weren't so often depicted as demented cloners a la DeNiro's Dr. Wells, who spends most of "Godsend" clacking together two metal balls like Bogart's paranoid Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny." Perhaps Hollywood could throw us a bone and occasionally have the world listen to the nerds before the meteor hits. Then we might be able to sit inside the darkened theater, our nervous systems having reached consensus, and say, "That looks cool." And mean it.
Huntington F. Willard , PhD, is director of the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy and vice chancellor for genome sciences at Duke University.