Scientific discoveries are generally only converted into successful technology when political, economic and social factors are favourable to the appliance of that science. (1) Commercial genetic engineering, for example, can only succeed in the long-term if profits can be made within a framework of government legislation, and if it is deemed socially and environmentally acceptable. Certain areas of DNA technology, however, have come up against considerable public opposition. Metaphors prevalent in popular culture, most notably Frankenstein's monster, have featured prominently in campaigns against biotechnology. Movies featuring negative representations of genetics have been accused of contributing to irrational public anxieties about real-life science. The contribution of movie narratives to the genetics debate is examined in this concluding chapter.
The reach and power of movies
The potential for movies to influence how scientific issues are perceived can be put into perspective by considering their worldwide distribution and potential audience. Many of the movies discussed in this book have been seen by enormous numbers of people around the world, in the cinema, on video or on television. Some of them are among the highest-earning movies of all time. Jurassic Park (1993) was the third largest grossing film in cinema history, behind Star Wars (1977) and E.T.: The ExtraTerrestrial (1982), up until the release of Titanic in 1997. (2) The sequel, The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997), despite being widely panned by critics, was the biggest earning film of 1997. Although themes involving genetics are not in themselves always guaranteed to make a film big at the box-office, they have generally fired the public's imagination and helped many of the films under discussion to become very successful. (3) The public's fascination with genetics helps sell movies. (4) Trailers for films, for example, Mimic (1997) and Star Trek: Insurrection (1998), have used dialogue featuring DNA-related terminology to help grab an audience's interest. Taken together, movies, and associated videos and TV series, books and computer games, reach a massive audience. Therefore, movies with genetics-related themes have considerable potential to influence attitudes.
Movies also have great mythic power. A myth is a collective cultural experience, which provides a framework for how we think about the world. Mythic narratives have been important within all cultures, throughout human history. These narratives are related via religion, fairy tales and legend, art, drama, literature and other modes of storytelling. The analysis of myth undertaken by Joseph Campbell has been particularly influential in Hollywood. (5) The Hero's Journey, the universal mythic story structure, has been identified in countless movies; while the archetypal figures of myth, such as the hero, the mentor, the shapeshifter, the trickster and the shadow, carry through into modern narratives. The mad scientist, for example, can be traced back to the witchdoctor or shaman. Screenwriters consciously use mythic structure and archetypes when writing scripts. (6) Film is an excellent medium for conveying myth, due to the intense nature of our interaction with it. The strong emotional impact we can get from watching a movie in a darkened cinema, for example, has been likened to a spiritual experience, reflecting the underlying links with narratives of primeval religion. (7) Marshall McLuhan once noted that,
"Whatever the camera turns to, the audience accepts. We are transported to another world." (8)
This fictional world is one we, the audience, are continually relating to our own experiences. Therefore, through audience identification and the power of mythical stories, we instinctively use film narratives to assess our relationship with the world.
Genetic engineering and cloning are portrayed as risky enterprises in movie narratives, as indeed many regard them to be in real-life. Can movies really influence attitudes to biotechnology or are they merely reflecting society's pre-occupations? Film theorists have come up with different models that attempt to explain the relationship between film, reality and audience attitudes to, for example, screen violence or pornography. The assumption usually made is that representations and the real world are clearly distinct from one another, however much representation may strive for realism, due to audience involvement, political considerations and social factors. (9) The reflectionist model states that films are mirroring attitudes, trends and changes in society, or else expressing the collective psyche of an era. Representations in this model are always subordinate to pre-existing reality, with films being determined by what is going on in society. (10) However, other models question whether the relationship is simply one of unilinear determination. Film representations in these cases are doing more than just reflecting reality. The relationship may be one of prolepsis, for instance, with representations anticipating reality by sensing moods and trends. Most likely, representations are participating in an interactive relationship with reality. This can have an effect on social reality by shaping our understanding of the world we live in. The degree to which film seeks to shape our understanding of reality can vary. In the ideological model, for example, it is understood that meanings are never neutral. Furthermore, ideology acts to hide the meaning it seeks to promote. This latter model suggests that films, under the guise of entertainment, are actively attempting to modify an audience's worldview, but in ways that are not obviously apparent. (11)
If we consider ideology to be the production and dissemination of erroneous beliefs, whose inadequacies are socially motivated, following Terry Lovell's definition, then we can consider to what extent movies with genetic themes are ideological. (12) Movies consistently represent genetic engineering and cloning in a false and negative light, but this may not necessarily be the result of an agenda to discredit biotechnology. A more likely reason is to do with genre and storytelling conventions. Genetic themes, when they appear in movies, are usually spliced into pre-existing mad scientist scenarios in horror and science fiction films. Genre films tend to reflect filmic conventions, at least as much as reflections of the real world. (13) Narratives involving mad scientists require that things go pear-shaped - it makes for good drama. People like the thrill of being scared, expect things to go out of control, and tend to understand genre conventions. Negative images of science often provide first-rate fiction, but attempts at presenting positive images of science nearly always produce second-rate fiction. Mainstream cinema has arguably more fact-distorting conventions than any other medium, but there need be no anti-science agenda at work - just the basic dynamics of good storytelling. (14) Therefore, negative representations of genetics need not form part of any ideological model, with meanings specifically planted to shape an audience's values, even though these representations might influence attitudes to biotechnology.
Mad scientist metaphors
Nevertheless, movies with genetic themes cannot just be dismissed as mere escapist genre entertainment. The importance of stories in helping us think through scientific issues has been increasingly recognised in recent years. (15) In particular, the repeated use of metaphors has been shown to shape how we perceive and understand issues. (16) The images presented by popular culture appear to have some influence on common belief, and determine what is perceived as socially acceptable. (17) The recurring scenario of the archetypal mad scientist is the dominant metaphor found in movies with genetic themes. By plugging into mythological elements, we subliminally know these stories carry some moral or message. Therefore, cinema is not simply mirroring prevailing attitudes. Movies have narratives that convey meanings relating to science. They aid audiences, to a greater or lesser extent, in thinking about genetics and biotechnology.
The most visible manifestation of the movies in the debate over biotechnology is Frankenstein's monster. It was an ever-present reference in media reports from the early days of IVF, has been widely evoked in cloning stories, and the ubiquitous phrases "Frankenfoods" and "Frankenstein foods" are frequently heard whenever anyone argues that genetically modified (GM) foods are being developed without adequate regulation and without public consent. Meanwhile, protestors against GM foods don masks depicting Frankenstein's monster. (18) The Frankenstein story has become a versatile reference point for interpreting our relationship with technology. (19) It has become a metaphor for forbidden knowledge, and technology that has crossed the boundaries of legitimate operation. The Frankenstein myth has helped many people to articulate their concerns about whether there is some research, in the areas of cloning and genetic engineering, which ought not to be done. The writer on bioethics Willard Gaylin suggested in the 1970s that the Frankenstein myth,
"Has a viability that transcends its original intentions and a relevance beyond its original time". (20)
However, Jon Turney, in his book Frankenstein's Footsteps, argued that Frankenstein has now outlived its usefulness as a metaphor. (21) The Frankenstein story has become a powerful myth, which has assumed an independent existence from Mary Shelley's book. The author's original moral about creators having responsibility for their "offspring" has been modified, so that today the single word "Frankenstein" conveys a whole narrative carrying negative connotations for biotechnology. Shelley's novel, written in response to the science of her day, may now be a hindrance in enabling us to understand the complex ethical and social issues surrounding biotechnology. Turney concludes his book by stressing the need for new narratives to help us think about these important issues.
In addition to Frankenstein's monster, the distinctive "X" logo from The X-Files has been used in literature, on web sites and on banners by opponents of genetic engineering, for example by Greenpeace. It is also used prominently by GenetiX Snowball, a direct action group who trash GM crop trials - sometimes wearing alien masks. A mythology of conspiracy has been articulated in the influential The X-Files, whose narrative has encompassed both cloning and genetic engineering. (22) The "X" symbol, resembling an orphaned X-chromosome, carries connotations of hidden agendas on the part of multinational companies, while equating transgenes with something alien or "unnatural".
An anti-biotechnology agenda?
Scientists have expressed concern about representations of genetics in popular culture, seeing in them an anti-rationalist and anti-science agenda designed to discredit biotechnology. A group of genetic engineers, for example, commented that:
"the anti-technology propaganda campaign in Europe has been waged by classical methods that
encourage public fear, distrust and confusion through shocking but erroneous imagery". (23)
The view that movies may be impeding scientific progress by perpetuating such imagery has been gaining ground. The most vocal objections to the way science is represented in popular culture have come from the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) community, represented in the UK by Richard Dawkins, Lewis Wolpert and John Durant. Representations of science in all media, including advertisements have come in for criticism. (24) Is it true that images appropriated from popular culture have been instrumental in swinging public opinion against biotechnology? How effective might cinema be in modifying attitudes to science and technology?
The public's knowledge of science is only ever partial. Even scientists, who are increasingly becoming more specialised, often only have a partial understanding of areas of science outside of their own expertise. The public becomes informed about science, not through primary sources, but through popularised accounts in the media and in popular culture generally. People educated in the humanities rather than the sciences often produce these accounts. Opinion polls have shown that the general public believes science reporting in the media to be unbiased. The bias that is perceived in other stories, involving politics or sport, for example, is not seen in science stories - even though bias does exist. (25) The general coverage of science is often highly selective, in fact, focusing on areas that are currently viewed as "sexy" or "hot", while these stories are often reported in a highly simplified and sensationalised manner. Stories in areas not perceived as "sexy", although they may have equal scientific merit, are ignored. The discovery of "a gene for" a particular human behaviour is news, for example, while the scientific retraction of the claim is rarely news. In the UK in February 1999, the media bias concerning one area of biotechnology became explicit, when over 100 writers, including journalists covering food-related issues, signed a petition objecting to the introduction of genetically modified foods. (26) Meanwhile, science itself does not take into account the ability of non-specialists to understand it. Specialised terms and concepts are translated into accessible non-technical language, but this can in itself lead to misunderstanding. (27) Screenwriters are rarely science-trained and generally rely on science reporting and other representations in popular culture, along with any inherent bias or inaccuracy, for their scientific background when writing scripts. Therefore, movies tend to reflect general attitudes toward science in this respect.
Representations of genetics in popular culture are being increasingly scrutinised to assess whether they may be turning public opinion against genetic engineering or cloning. This coincides with growing public scepticism about DNA technology. Advocates of biotechnology, including the multinational companies behind genetically modified foods, believe that if the public becomes sufficiently well-informed about the science involved, then they will be won over to the pro-biotechnology side of the argument. (28) Taking this viewpoint, biased or inaccurate media reporting, along with any article, book, campaigning pamphlet, documentary or movie that represents the scientific basis of genetic engineering in a false or negative light is considered to be impeding the public understanding of science. Misinformation about genetics, whether it has its basis in journalism or fictional representations, therefore needs to be counter-balanced by expensive PR exercises, as the biotechnology industry sees it.
Lewis Wolpert, the chairman of the British Committee on Public Understanding of Science has used the phrase "genetic pornography" to describe negative portrayals of genetics in popular culture. (29) Richard Dawkins, meanwhile, launched an attack on those he considers enemies of scientific rationality in his book Unweaving the Rainbow. (30) In Dawkins' view, the public's understanding of science is clouded by the influence of astrologers, vulgar populists who "dumb-down" science and misrepresent it, religious organisations and groups on the fringes of cosmology. He also believes that scientific understanding is also detrimentally affected by TV and other media that uncritically present the paranormal as factual, by post-modern academics who present science as just one of many valid cultural position, and by Hollywood. The X-Files comes under particular attack for perpetuating common misconceptions of science, which the scientifically uneducated tend to believe:
"The X-Files systematically purveys an anti-rationalist view of the World,
which by its recurrent persistence, is insidious". (31)
Dawkins notes that Scully proposes rational and scientific explanations, while Mulder proposes paranormal and anti-rational explanations of the same events, and it is Mulder who consistently turns out to have the correct answer. (32)
Now, do not get me wrong. Dawkins' book represents an important and timely defence of science. Scientific knowledge can be intrinsically beautiful and on the side of the poets. Real science does deserve to command more of our sense of awe, which Dawkins sees as being hijacked by pseudo-science and the paranormal. However, the argument in this book leads us to state that fictional narratives in movies cannot be lumped together with biased or uncritical media reports, pseudo-science that is passing itself off as factual or rational, or academics who deny the existence of objective fact in science. Fictional narratives are plugging into a deeper part of our brains and fulfilling a different need - the universal desire to tell and listen to stories. Stories inspire people in different ways; we have a subjective response to them. This is dependent on how they relate to our personal experiences. It is an interactive engagement, and unlike being presented with "facts".
The success of The X-Files has been accompanied by an apparent increase in paranormal belief. (33). A CNN/Time poll conducted in 1997, for example, revealed that 54 per cent of Americans believed intelligent life exists outside Earth, 80 per cent believed that the US government is hiding knowledge of extraterrestrial life from them, while two-thirds believed that a UFO crash-landed near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. (34) However, The X-Files has not created the irrationality it investigates. The series questions assumptions about recent American history, and offers alternative explanations, based on existing conspiracy theory, UFO mythology, abduction scenarios, and urban legend, which would thrive, particularly on the Internet, whether The X-Files existed or not. In this sense, it is reflecting the zeitgeist. It should be noted that people have shown a tendency to believe in irrational things throughout human history, despite contradictory rational or scientific evidence. (35) Alien abductions, for example, can be read as a modern variation, in a largely secular time and place, of religious experiences reported throughout the world at various times. Abduction scenarios, common in the culture, can also be appropriated to repress more down-to-earth traumatic experiences. (36)
A point made by many critics of recent fictional representations of genetics is that the line between fact and fiction has become increasingly blurred. (37) The assumption made is that the public cannot distinguish fact from fiction, and that this results in them holding an irrationally negative opinion of biotechnology. Audiences take the metaphors inherent in mad scientist scenarios too literally, according to the critics. One of the ways in which fact and fiction has become blurred in the movies since the 1970s has been a trend to incorporate scientific detail, to give a gloss of authenticity. Scientific consultants are routinely employed to advise on what equipment would be found in a particular laboratory, what equations and molecular models would look convincing on blackboards and monitor screens, and what jargon would make dialogue ring true. With this striving for authenticity, however, audiences might at times be hard-pressed to know where the science ends and the fiction begins. The blurring of fact and fiction is also due to the rapid advance of genetics, making it difficult to keep track of the cutting edge of science. Science fiction has on occasion become science fact.
John Durant, professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Imperial College, London, has suggested that a form of consumer organisation be set up to tell the public what is true and what is not in the area of popular culture. (38) Durant also singled out The X-Files for particular criticism. The science journal Nature took issue with Durant's views, however, saying that the notion casts scientists as heartless fact-obsessed individuals, who tell people what to believe. This image is at odds with the practise of science, which involves a great deal of imagination, for example, in the formulation of hypotheses. The PUS community, in short, stands accused of lacking a sense of fun and failing to understand that science is a creative activity, driven by imagination. Although the paranormal is central to The X-Files, the writers often deliberately craft ambiguous and open-ended outcomes, leaving audiences to make up their own minds as to the correct interpretation of events. Anne Simons, in her book The Real Science Behind The X-Files, further defends the series, revealing the solid scientific foundation behind the fiction, while linking the favourable image of science, particularly emanating from the Scully character, to increased interest in biology amongst students. (39)
It is unrealistic to suggest that fact and fiction be more clearly differentiated in movies. Today's increasingly sophisticated movie audiences deserve better. They expect a genetics laboratory to look realistic. Public misconceptions about science, nevertheless, need to be taken seriously. They can, for example, impede the formulation of informed decisions about biotechnology. The important developments being made in genetic engineering and cloning today require that all society participate at some level in the debate. Critical analysis of how movies or TV misrepresent science is an important counterweight to any influence they may have. Scientists could use popular culture as a reference point, making use of available platforms for constructive comment on fictional narratives, while putting across related information about science. Crude put-downs of well-loved science fiction, however, are likely to be counter-productive. The public should be aware of how fictional narratives help shape their worldview, but scientists who comment on fictional representations of science could also go further in recognising the importance of fictional narratives in helping the public think about scientific issues. Scientists complain that film-makers misunderstand their work, but they often also misunderstand the nature of fictional narratives. Opinion polls show that people claim to be increasingly interested in science, but without necessarily being better informed about it. (40) Science fiction movies may help to increase public interest in science, but should we expect them to be the means by which the public is educated about science? The crisis in the public understanding of science surely has more to do with the education system, and scientists not effectively talking about what they do, than with any perceived responsibilities of the entertainment industry. We have noted that genre conventions can account for the consistent negative portrayals of genetics in movies. However, film-makers in some cases have attempted to put critical messages about biotechnology, that may be considered as ideological, across in some of the movies discussed in this book. In the Alien movies, technology is consistently equated with death, for example, while all science ends in torture, typified by Gediman's treatment of the caged aliens in Alien Resurrection. It is not always easy to tell, however, when a movie strays from genre convention to make a conscious political or ideological point. In the forward to his novel Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton made reference to the real-life cases of trivial market-led genetic engineering applications that inspired events in the book. He described genetic research as increasingly been done,
Universal had a big input into Jurassic Park and was also not interested in making a political movie. The modern film studio is typically part of a vast entertainment corporation, whose bosses see movies in terms of multi-media marketing opportunities. Big-budget contemporary Hollywood movies are typically accompanied by a wide range of merchandise, including videos and TV spin-offs, music CDs and CD-ROMs, computer games, books, magazines, toys, foodstuffs and clothing products; not to mention myriad tie-ins, product placement, licensing and merchandising arrangements with other corporations. The associated panoply of consumer goods promoted can often earn the studios more money than the film itself. The studio regards these products as "extending the entertainment experience", but in effect movies have increasingly become advertising spaces for the placement of consumer goods. (45) The Universal Studios tour has a Jurassic Park theme park ride, promoted by the slogan, "You'll wish it was just a movie". This is a general sentiment that many film-lovers might share, as narrative coherence becomes sacrificed to "commercial intertextuality". To completely read a contemporary Hollywood movie, the synergy with interdependent commercial and cultural products needs to be taken into account. In one scene in Jurassic Park the camera lovingly moves along the shelves of the Visitor Centre, which are stocked with dinosaur toys, lunchboxes, baseball hats and T-shirts, heavy with the film's logo and all identical to the real-life merchandise. We even briefly glimpse, coming in and out of focus, the cover of Shay and Duncan's real-life book, The Making of Jurassic Park. The dinosaurs and characters in the film therefore have to be appealing enough to support this merchandise. The ethical debate of the book was neutered by the additional inputs, with Malcolm's discourses on complexity and risk being reduced to so much cod philosophy.
Film studios might generally feel under pressure not to represent biotechnology in too unfavourable a light. In 1997, two journalists working for a Florida TV station, owned by Rupert Murdoch's Fox network, were fired; while the critical news report they had preparing, on the use of BST to increase milk yields, was pulled. This was due to pressure applied on the media by Monsanto. The multinational company, a major biotechnology player with an obsession about PR, has allegedly leaned on a number of organisations to further its interests. Murdoch's Fox network includes Twentieth Century Fox (TCF), involved in the production of The X-Files, the Alien films, The Fly (1986), and other fiction that touches on biotechnology. (46) Despite the tendency of movies to downplay criticisms of biotechnology, however, many scientists were alarmed by the anti-science tone of Jurassic Park. Dr. Russell Higuchi, a Californian geneticist, criticised the film for raising "unreasonable fears" about molecular biology. (47) Meanwhile, the biotechnology industry was concerned about whether the film presented a PR problem. A leading trade journal, Genetic Engineering News, for example, polled leading figures in the industry to see whether they thought any serious PR damage would be done by Jurassic Park. Typically, the journal did not engage with any of the criticisms raised against biotechnology, but considered the film solely in terms of PR. (48) The biotechnology industry keeps restating that it wants to educate the public and open a constructive dialogue, but what it often means is that it wants them to stop worrying and learn to love recombinant DNA. Fictional narratives are often dismissed out of hand. Yet, as we have noted, the modern gene-splicing mad scientist is not just descended from Baron Frankenstein, but also shaded by eugenic science and real-life figures such as Dr. Josef Mengele. Fictional narratives have no obligation to stick to facts, but they nevertheless articulate many of the public's very real concerns about biotechnology. It has generally been considered that Frankenstein or mad scientist metaphors influence public attitudes against DNA technology. However, Michael Mulkay, who analysed a British parliamentary debate on embryo research, has questioned this assumption. Discussing his findings in a wider context, Jon Turney considered that the Frankenstein metaphor might not only have outlived its usefulness, but may actually be hindering the opponents of biotechnology. (49) In the parliamentary debate, the Frankenstein metaphor was mentioned more often by advocates of biotechnology than opponents. Advocates argued that opponents of biotechnology were unduly influenced by fiction, while their own vision of the future was based on scientific rationality. This line of argument works because fictional representation consistently presents negative visions of science, while fictions with positive visions are rare. Therefore, the advocates of biotechnology could avoid meaningful engagement with issues raised by opponents by dismissing them as emotional or irrational. (50) It has previously been noted that public misconceptions of cloning science co-incide with fictional representations in films, which are often variations of the Frankenstein myth (see Chapter Three). Recent objections to embryonic stem cell cloning raised by the anti-abortion charity Life in June 1999 did indeed sound like the narrative of Parts: The Clonus Horror (1971), despite their obvious concern for the sanctity of life. (51) In the debate surrounding genetically modified foods, advocates have also stuck to fact and logic, in contrast to public concerns about broader issues involving ethics and morality. (52) These deep-rooted concerns again cannot fail to coincide with the Frankenstein myth, which is widely used in the media and by protest groups. The benefits of the repeated use of the Frankenstein metaphor by opponents of genetically modified foods is therefore open to question, as they can stand accused of taking a fictional narrative too seriously. Widespread public resistance has been expressed to GM foods, human cloning and other aspects of biotechnology. It is normal, however, for the general public to be resistant to new technology. Martin Bauer has argued that resistance is ultimately a constructive force in technological development. Motivated by public anxiety, resistance functions as an alarm signal, focuses attention on potential problems, increases awareness of organisational dynamics, induces alterations and often slows the pace of activity. (53) Resistance generally declines with familiarity, with only a small fraction of new technology being totally rejected by society. Mad scientist scenarios have always played on anxieties about technological progress. In the age of cinema, variations on the Frankenstein myth have proceeded from disasters involved X-rays and electricity, to nuclear energy, and now to gene splicing. The rise of experimental biology, indeed, coincides with the birth of the cinema (see Table 1 and Table 2); the two have always co-existed. Yet technological progress in the past has not been held back by negative representations in the movies. The claim that a widespread anti-science agenda lies behind the negative representations of genetics in movies is therefore difficult to substantiate. The presence of a corresponding large-scale anti-science movement in society has, in any case, not been indicated in opinion polls. An ambivalent attitude certainly exists. However, some applications of biotechnology are looked upon more favourably than others, presumably based on their perceived benefits and risks. This suggests a more varied and considered response to biotechnology than would be envisaged from a literal reading of the all-or-nothing movie mad scientist metaphor. The initial implementation of bans on human cloning research and moratoriums on transgenic crops in Europe are due to governments acting in response to concerned citizens. It is now the turn of scientists and others to stress the beneficial applications of these technologies, so that babies are not thrown out with the bathwater. Resistance to certain medical applications of cloning has softened, with the realisation that embryo stem cell research is likely to lead to treatments for Parkinson's Disease, Huntingdon's Chorea and many other human ailments in the near-future. It would be unfortunate if poor initial product choices, an ill-conceived rush to market - prior to adequate ecological impact assessment - and shoddy PR threatens beneficial applications of GM crop technology in the future. Transgenic crops could soon deliver nutritional or medical benefits, while salt- or drought-resistant crops could play an important role in meeting emergency food needs in the developing world. Unfortunately, it is the small companies, such as Axis Genetics in Cambridge, England, rather than the more profit-greedy multinationals, that have been first to collapse due to the knock-on effects of GM food opposition. Axis would soon have delivered highly beneficial applications involving vaccines in bananas and potatoes. (54) A more discriminating opposition to applications of genetic engineering will be the next phase in the resistance process, and this should be broadly welcomed. In conclusion, movies are not ideally suited for conveying overt political messages regarding technology, because they must entertain foremost, are often the product of several "voices" (e.g. writer, director, star, producer), and are financed by corporations with diverse commercial interests. Any ideological input in a mainstream movie narrative is therefore likely to be diluted. Although movies may influence public attitudes to genetics in ways that may be subliminal and subtle, their influence is likely to be relatively small compared to the messages of pressure groups and biased media reporting. Nevertheless, movies do contribute to a general scepticism about biotechnology by representing it in a consistently negative light. They also re-enforce a range of misconceptions concerning biotechnology. The power of genetic engineers to radically modify organisms is usually exaggerated, while misconceptions about scientists' ability to regenerate life from DNA abound. The benefits of genetic engineering are often acknowledged, particularly advances toward curing diseases such as Alzheimer's. (55) However, whatever the benefits, the risks always tend to outweigh them, because narrative conventions require a crisis. The potential threats posed by genetically modified ("alien") organisms are consistently exaggerated. Misconceptions about cloning are everywhere in the movies. Clones have often been portrayed as exact instant copies of adults, whereas clones arise from embryos. In the movies, clones are derived from originals, who have precedence, unlike real clones who are equals. Clones are also either erroneously seen as inferior copies, or as the child rather than twin of a cell donor. No cloning movie can be said to further advance the public understanding of science. Meanwhile, human genetic enhancement is represented as a highly predictive science, which overemphasises the role of genes in determining complex human behaviours. Movies therefore reiterate a key, but politically-loaded, assumption of the genetic determinism. Artificially assisted reproduction technology, from artificial insemination, through IVF, ICSI, PGD, to the uses of human cell cloning, continues to be branded with the label "unnatural practice" in the movies. The nature of the scientific method and the motives of scientists, corporations and governments are typically misconstrued. To cap it all, genes have been given a mythic or spiritual aura, a genetic essentialism that conveys the impression that DNA is somehow in god's realm and not something for man to meddle with. Despite all this though, movies have tended to reflect society's anxiety about biotechnology, rather than creating that anxiety. In the long-run, it will not be movies that stop technological progress by influencing public attitudes, but well-informed considerations of the benefits and risks of the technology. An important debate is now taking place, with the messages of multinational corporations, politicians, environment and consumer groups, and the media reaching a large proportion of the population. If human cloning, transgenic crops, or any other application of biotechnology is stopped, then it will not have been movies that were responsible, but a concerned citizenry worried about the type of world their children will grow up in. Important technological developments that affect everyone within a democracy, for example, those that affect the food supply, should not proceed without a popular consensus approving them. It is up to politicians, scientists and corporate biotechnologists to put the case for each application of biotechnology to the public. If the public do not buy it, then so be it. Notes References:Complete bibliography of books and all names on multi-author publications.
Chapter 1: It Came from the Lab.
Chapter 2: Dinosaur Resurrection.
Chapter 3: Confronting the Clone.
Chapter 4: Cloning the Alien.
Chapter 5: Danger: Genetically Modified Organisms.
Chapter 6: Designer Babies.
Chapter 7: All in the Genes?
Chapter 8: Real-life Science.
"In secret, and in haste, and for profit". (41)
In the novel, Crichton explored issues relating to the unanticipated dangers of genetic engineering, while portraying arrogant geneticists, working mainly for profit, distancing themselves from ethics, and paying little regard to the potential consequences of their work. All the fail-safe mechanisms in the book designed to keep the theme park dinosaurs under the owner's control, involving built-in dietary deficiencies and having only one sex of animal in the park, fail to prevent the creatures from escaping. A key theme, articulated by the chaos theorist Malcolm (Crichton's voice), is that unanticipated problems will occur when fail-safe systems become too complex. (42) Around the time of the film's release, Crichton restated his intention to provide a serious warning about the dangers of commercialising molecular biology. (43) In the film, as in the book, a powerful multinational company stands to generate massive profits, by using genetic engineering and cloning technology to bring extinct creatures to life in order to entertain tourists. It appears that security has been put out to tender and the cheapest option bought. They operate on an island, off a cash-strapped Third World country, where regulation of genetic engineering appears very lax. The book's critique of genetic engineering was, however, toned down in the movie. A book is one author's voice, while a film has numerous inputs. The director Steven Spielberg has expressed his views on biotechnology, not wanting to see it banned because of its potential benefits but also recognising that,
"It's dangerous, and that is the theme of Jurassic Park". (44)
However, essentially he was interested in making a genre adventure story, rather than a critique of biotechnology.
The Independent on Sunday, a national UK newspaper, consistently ran leading stories on genetically modified foods accompanied by a "Stop GM Foods" logo (e.g. 14 February 1999), while the Daily Mail also mounted a similar anti-GM food campaign. The BBC Panorama programme Frankenstein Foods (broadcast on 17 May 1999), typified the hostile line against GM foods taken in many TV documentaries.
October 1999 SFN.