Once again this year, I’m setting up our Café Scientifique-Morris, which is going to be held on the last Tuesday of each month of the university school year. This time around, that means the first one falls on…Halloween! So we’re going to do something fun for that one: maybe some costumes, lots of clips from classic horror movies, I definitely think we’re going to need some bubbling retorts of colored fluids, and the chemistry department is tentatively going to provide some treats (ice cream made with liquid nitrogen—chemistry and treats don’t usually go together in people’s heads, I know.) This is the announcement for the first talk:
I’ve been ripping a few DVDs from my collection with classic portrayals of scientists—the Universal Frankenstein series, Re-animator, the Bond movies, etc. (any suggestions? Pass ’em on)—which show us off as evil villains, and I’m going to show short clips from them to illustrate our poor image. Then I’m going to follow up with more but less exciting clips of people like Sagan and Wilson and Dawkins and, if I can track it down, Bronowski to illustrate the real humanism of good scientists. Suggestions for the latter part are also welcome, and that will be the heart of the talk, but face it: I don’t want to overdo the moralizing, and all the fun is going to be in the monster-makers.
I’ve also finalized our schedule. I’ve opened it up to a few people on the other side of campus, so we’re also going to hear about the legal standards for the admission of scientific evidence, and the economics of alternative power generation and transmission, in addition to a discussion of the chemistry we all use in our homes, a bit of astronomy, and a session of insect identification.
- 31 October 2006 :: PZ Myers, Biology
- 28 November 2006 :: Theodora Economou, Law
- 30 January 2007 :: Panel discussion, Chemistry
- 27 February 2007 :: Arne Kildegaard, Economics
- 27 March 2007 :: Kristin Kearns, Physics
- 24 April 2007 :: Tracey Anderson, Biology
It’s looking like a good year for this seminar series. If you’re in the neighborhood, stop on by!
“chemistry and treats don’t usually go together in people’s heads,”
Only time I remember them going together was in organic chem lab when we made and distilled alcohol to near the max you can get with distillation. Naturally, we had to try it for taste, yeah, we were only interested in the taste that’s all. That’s when you find out who the class feels is has the best lab technique. I suspect we were far from unique. :-)
Marie Curie as a roll model for females…first two-time Nobel Laureate (Physics 1903; Chemistry 1911); her work on radioactivity led the way to many, many other discoveries (radiation in medicine for example). Also died of Leukemia (any guesses why?) and her Research Notebooks are so radioactive that you have to sign a legal waver if you want to look at them. No joke.
As for Mad Scientists there’s the one from “Back to the Future” (Christpher Lloyd); and both the original and new “flubber” movies (I forget their real names). Ugh. Jerry Lewis and Eddie Murphy also played the Nutty Professors…the horror, the horror.
One thing you might want to consider is David Brin’s essay on scientists in his book of essays and short stories Otherness. He argues that many people’s approach to science has less to do with scientists, and more to do with older archetypes of wizards living in spooky towers. Wizards horde their knowledge sharing it only with a select worthy few. Wizards are antisocial and work against the common order. Wizards are loners who stay apart from society, all things that are described in books like Frankenstein and other more current works. Scientist son the other hand are none of these things. For science to have any meaning beyond the purely theoretical, they need to work alongside hundreds of specialists. Chemists need miners, glass blowers, electricians, mechanics, fellow scientists, computer experts and more to do anything. The same applies to most other scientific fields. Scientists require learning from each other. They grow stronger as a result. When a flesh eating virus began ravaging the Chinese, Chinese doctors were able to diagnose it and treat it as a result of working with American doctors that had already dealt with the disease the year before.
When the uneducated think of cloning, stem cell research and similar professions they imagine the evil wizard of yore, cackling as he kills babies and harvests their souls for his twisted and ungodly experiments. Scientists in reality rely on informed consent from donors, work together as a group and come to consensus. In many ways this makes them the purest form of the marketplace of ideas or the democratic process.
“Then I’m going to follow up with more but less exciting clips of people like Sagan and Wilson and Dawkins and, if I can track it down, Bronowski to illustrate the real humanism of good scientists.”
Don’t forget to add Richard Feynman to your list! Here he is in good form in “the pleasure of finding things out”. A documentary from the BBC Horizon series made (I think) in the late seventies.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009
I’ve recommended it before, but David J. Skal’s Screams of Reason: Mad Science in Modern Culture is an excellent book that talks about not only the underlying symbolism of mad scientists = evil sorcerers, but talks about the unease that a lot of people have with science, which manifested itself in movies like Them! or The Incredible Shrinking Man.
Skal brings up the very good point that science scandals have a longer life in popular culture than many scientists realize, like the days when radium was considered a health tonic. Well, until people started dying of radiation poisoning, that is.
The problem is of course, that among that list, only Wilson has made significant scientific contributions of note. The others may exhibit humanism, but that is (or was, in the case of Sagan and Bronowski) kind of their job — to be the PR department of science rather than actually *doing* science.
As others have mentioned, Feynman is an possibility, although as much as he was an asset to encouraging interest in science, I’m not sure he’s such a great asset to showing the “humanism” of great scientists — he seemed to enjoy practical jokes at the expense of those less “clever” than he was.
As does Andrew Tudor’s “Monsters and Mad Scientists”, although I agree that Skal’s book is an easier read — Skal seems to genuinely enjoy old horror movies, while Tudor seems just to be looking for the messages.
If you can find some film clips of women, both evil and humanist, that would be nice. Sorry, I don’t have any suggestions; my filmography is lacking.
I just discovered Bronowski recently, and really enjoyed his 1973 series The Ascent of Man. You can find it on bittorrent, naturally.
I’m not a scientist, but I don’t think that liquid nitrogen as a basis for ice cream is a very good idea. Wouldn’t it be kind of hard on your fillings?
You might want to include the Stan Kubrik/Peter Sellers classic ‘Dr. Strangelove’ in your series.
chemistry and treats don’t usually go together in people’s
heads, I know
Two words: Cool Whip
Maybe it’s a generation gap. Three words: Space Food Sticks
Re Scientists:
The Davros/Professor Hawking Dichotomy
As does Andrew Tudor’s “Monsters and Mad Scientists”, although I agree that Skal’s book is an easier read — Skal seems to genuinely enjoy old horror movies, while Tudor seems just to be looking for the messages.
Skal is primarily a movie guy. His other great book is The Monster Show, where he looks at the popular horror films decade-by-decade and talks about the cultural situations that influenced them (i.e. the resurgence in the vampire myth that rose concurrently with the AIDS crisis).
You really can’t go wrong with Beaker and Dr. Bunsen Honeydew but since neither gives you the level of horror that you would need, how about some classic Looney Tunes?
You definitely want “Water, Water Every Hare” with an evil scientist (caricature of Boris Karloff) who wants Bugs Bunny (at least his brain) and also features the monster, Rudolph, who is in dire need of an interesting hairdo since the current one doesn’t become him at all. Does Marvin the Martian count as a scientist? Also, even though it’s not video, there’s got be some Hallowe’en/science pranks featured in Gary Larson’s works in the Far Side comic strip that you can plaster on the walls.
When Scientists Attack—–movie suggestions………
Forbidden Planet- Dr.Morbius (although he was a philologist- still
a “mad scientist” dude type…….)
The Black Hole- A Disney movie you may not remember, it’s got
a killer robot (Maximilian), zombified crew members, and vague
religious stuff as well as a mad scientist….was pretty awed by it
when I saw it as a kid….
Metropolis(1927)- Rotwang making Robot Maria.
Blade Runner- Eldon Tyrell not being exactly a mad scientist,
more of the stereotype of the scientist detached from any
sense of responsibility for his discoveries—“The light that
burns twice as bright burns half as long – and you have
burned so very, very brightly, Roy.”
In terms of preachy evil scientist movies, the first one the springs to mind is Island of Dr. Moreau.
But, what about the fun side of mad scientists? What about the lighthearted side of playing God?
Frederick Frankenstein, from Mel Brook’s Young Frankenstein- Dr. Frankenfurter, from the Rocky Horror Picture Show
- Gary and Wyatt, from John Hughe’s Wierd Science
- Frankenhooker
- Barney Springboro (Scott Baio), in Zapped
- Jekyll, in the anti-classic 1982 Jekyll and Hyde – Together Again
for another mad scientist in the movies, try Dr. Emilio Lazardo (John Lithgow) in The Adventures of Buckaroo Bonzai Across the 8th Dimension
As one of the (real) heros of science, you may wish to include Andrei Sakharov.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov
Sakharov above can be contrasted with Dr. Zarkov from Flash Gordon.
You’ll obviously have to include Dr. Strangelove; use scenes from both Dr. Strangelove or How I learned… as well as The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (‘I am not sure that is chicken you are eating, my dear…’)
As I’m putting the talk together, I’ve got a couple of categories to fill.
— the amoral scientist who doesn’t worry about consequences (Lost Skeleton of Cadavras: “I’m a scientist, I don’t believe in anything”, Dr Strangelove)
— the obsessed madman (Frankenstein, Re-animator)
— the technological supervillain (the Bond films)
— the good guy who saves the world (this is a hard one to fill. Pierce Brosnan in Dante’s Peak? At a stretch, Indiana Jones? There’s a dearth of portrayals of good scientists in the movies.)
I’m thinking of using Indiana Jones as an example simply because he makes an easy segue into the real scientists: Roy Chapman Andrews to start with, as an adventurous figure.
I’m also planning on discussing the history of the atom bomb, to show that there were principled scientists who thought hard about the issue — they weren’t all villainous monsters scheming to maximize death and destruction.
I want to end with some short clips from contemporary scientists illustrating the ethical humanism that is much more common among us than Strangeloveian amorality.
And you certainly shouldn’t forget your fans at Narbonics!
I mean, this comic has everything! Mad scientists! Explosions! Hot chicks with big guns! Killer Robots! Drunken robots! Eight-foot Ur-Gerbils! Terrorist hamsters! Wild passion! (honest quote: “The gender-swap tablets are strewn everwhere…”.) All currently accelerating toward a climax of madness and destiny! (After 6.5 years, the strip finishes this year.)
Oh, don’t I know it. Right now, Helen and Artie are plummeting to their doom, and I’m on edge wondering how it’s going to turn out.
At least Mell is safe. I love Mell, and it’s reassuring that she’s about to cut loose.
Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff and George Zucco, to name just the most famous, played dozens of mad (pseudo)scientists (often medical men). I recommend the Bela Lugosi collection (The Invisible Ray, Black Friday etc.) and those cheap 50-movie megapacks–Horror, Terror, Sci-Fi classics.
There are too many choices fitting your bill to list all–“Mad monster”, “Atom age vampire”, “Maniac”, “The Ape”, “The Ape-man”… For some peculiar zoology, nothing beats “Attack of the giant leeches” or “The giant Gila monster”.
Sample plot (“The Ape-man”, with Lugosi):
Conducting weird scientific experiments, crazed Dr. James Brewster, aided by his colleague Dr. Randall, has managed to transform himself into a hairy, stooped-over ape-man. Desperately seeking a cure, Brewster believes only an injection of recently-drawn human spinal fluid will prove effective. With Randall refusing to help him, it falls to Brewster and his captive gorilla to find appropriate donors.
James Burke (Connections, The Day the Universe Changed) is pretty good for scientists as people, almost as good as Bronowski. Burke isn’t a scientist himself, just a science journalist.
Andromeda Strain is a reasonable good science thriller, a bit ambiguous on the moral issues (science causes and solves the Andromeda plague). Outbreak is a not as effective version of the same theme.
I suppose Meteor can be considered pro-science.
The Quatermass movies had a good scientist-hero. Overly realistic of course, what with saving the world from alien invasion and all.
Twenty-Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is a good mad-scientist flick. Plus, you know, GIANT SQUID.
How about the scientists in Jurassic Park? You’ve got the paleontologist Alan Grant and the paleobotanist Ellie Sattler. There was the knowledge of animal behavior, gender switching, etc. Then there’s the chaos theory angle from the mathematician, Ian Malcolm.
Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future and Jodie Foster in Contact. But the movie that, although the science is daft, has the best portrayal of scientists as interesting and individual characters is Twister IMHO.
What about the careless scientist who just didn’t think about the potential consequences like Jurassic Park and Mimic?
There are some benevolent/world-saving scientists in the original Godzilla movie (though they would’ve caused a mighty big fish kill), but as the star of the show? That’s a tough order there…Andromeda Strain, Phase IV, and maybe some Star Trek episodes come to mind.
PZ, you’re not even trying. How about Lara Croft in Tomb Raider as the good dame who saves the world? How about Jane Tiptree as an obsessed madwoman in Carnosaur? How about Poison Ivy in Batman and Robin as the technological supervillan?
How about cliche’s which are specific to women?
http://www.ostina.org/content/view/389/
(registration required)
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/24578/#24586
How about searching through imdb.com for films featuring women scientists and picking a few which meet your archetypes, or perhaps which meet archetypes you haven’t thought of?
Found you an amoral villainess who Orac will love.
Guess you’re all set.
Why not include Tom Lehrer as a positive (and accurate) image of scientists? There’a footage of him here.
Bob
D th thsnds f scntsts wh wrk n wpns f mss dstrctn, f grtr nd grtr pwr nd mblty, cnt s “Md”.
Rmmbr, fnds nly drm p scnrs fr th nd f th wrld, scnc wll mk t pssbl!
huh, that’s odd, my evil villainess link didn’t show
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065727/