science fiction and the media

8/12/2019 Science Fiction and the Media

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/science-fiction-and-the-media 1/17

SF-TH Inc

Traces of the Future: Biotechnology, Science Fiction, and the MediaAuthor(s): Sheryl N. HamiltonReviewed work(s):Source: Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, Social Science Fiction (Jul., 2003), pp. 267-282Published by: SF-TH IncStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4241173 .

Accessed: 02/03/2012 22:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

SF-TH Inc is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science Fiction Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sfth

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4241173?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4241173?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sfth



BIOTECHNOLOGY,SF, AND THE MEDIA 267

Sheryl N. Hamilton

Traces of the Future: Biotechnology, Science Fiction, and theMedia

Inthe scientificandmedia uror hat urroundedhecloningof Dollythe sheepin1997, wostatementsirculatedepeatedlyntheEnglish-languagerintpressaroundhe world. Dr. IanWilmut, he lead scientistand mediastar of theresearch eam, reassuredhepublic n responseo fears about uturehuman

cloning: [c]loningpeopleshouldbe in the realmof sciencefiction qtdinThis is Dolly ). Meanwhile,Dr. Lee Silver, a biophysicist t PrincetonUniversityand anotheroft-cited scientificexpert, commented n Dolly'sphilosophicalmplications:loning basicallymeans hereare no limits.... Itmeans all of science fiction is true (qtd. in ScientistsSucceed ).Thatscientistswouldbe asked o commentpeculativelynthe futuredevelopmentorsocialramificationsf biotechnologys notunusual.Why,however,wouldboth hesefiguresso prominentlynvoke cience iction?

In making heir claims, these scientistsaredoing somethinghat at first

glancemightseemunlikely:heyaredirectly inkingbiotechnologicalcienceto science fiction.Significantly, either s referencing particularf novel,film, or televisionprogram; othevokethegenreas a broader ulturalrope.Thisrhetoricalactic seemscuriousnthat cience ictionmightnotnecessarilybe thebestwaytopromotehecredibilityf science,particularlyiotechnology,whichcommentatorsavenotedhasseriouspublicrelations roblems.'

A number f theorists f risk ociety havesuggestedhat, nourcurrentsocialcontext,scienceand echnologyn generalhaveseriouspublicrelationsproblems.Risktheorypositsthatthemanagementf risk forms he basis of

governmentalationalityn latemodernity, eplacinghedistributionf socialwealthand he protection gainstdangers.2 heoriginof risksociety s foundin a fundamentalrocessof modernity-the eplacementf localknowledge ytechnical xpert-knowledgeystems.Theseknowledge ystemsrender ocialrelations bstract nd nvert he causal inkage f past,present, nd uture: hepresent ecomesanoutcome,notof thereceding ast,butof theemergingisksof thefuture.Yet theseexpert ystemsare not seamless.Risktheorists rguethat hetraditionallyrivileged osition f scienceand echnologysknowledgesystemshascomeundercrutinys their imitshavebecomeapparent. ontrary

to Enlightenmentxpectations, he more that scientific knowledgehasdeveloped,he morecomplex, ontradictory,nd ndeterminatet hasbecome.Theconstant evisionof knowledge,hedisagreementmongtspractitioners,and heevidentailures f scienceoverthecourseof thetwentiethentury avetendedto undermine topianpromisesof progress; ertainknowledgeandrationalontrol vernature avegivenwaytoapermanentenseof anxiety,aspeoplecontemplatehepotentialailureof globalizedechnological,cientific,andeconomic ystems.



268 SCIENCEFICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 30 (2003)

Thisanxietyhasseriousmplicationsortheprivileged ositionraditionallyaccordedo sciencebythepublic.DeborahLuptonuggestshat []aypeoplehavebecomeskeptical bout ciencebecause heyare aware hatsciencehasproducedmanyof therisksaboutwhich heyare concerned nd hatscientificknowledge bout isk s incompletendoftencontradictory,ailing osolvetheproblemst has created 67). BothAnthonyGiddens nd UlrichBeck havelabelled this skepticism reflexivity, arguingthat we live in a time of

reflexive modernity a period when Enlightenment rojects for thetechnoscientificerfectionfsocietyhavebeendelegitimated.ournalist ordonDillow,writing ortheOrangeCountyRegister,haseffectively xpressedhestakesof biotechnologicalcience n reflexivemodernity:

It's a staple plot of science fiction, from Frankenstein o TheFly to JurassicPark. Too late, much too late, the scientists in their laboratoriescome to ahorrifying realization: The experiment is out of control. It's an issue thatincreasinglytroublesscientists, ethicists, andjust plainfolks whenthey ponderthe wonders, and the dangers, of genetic research and genetic manipula-tion-developments many observers believe eventually will bring about thebiggest changes in life as we know it since ... well, since forever.

I argue that this growingreflexivityregarding cientificexpertiseisparticularlyeightened ithrespectobiotechnologies,npartbecauseheyare

newand heirmeanings avenotyet stabilized.FromDNAfingerprinting,ohumanloning, o tomatoeswith ishgenes, o babieswithpighearts,ominingfetalstem cells fromclonedeggs, to growingearson the backsof labrats,fabulous toriesaboutnewbiotechnologiesavequicklybecomealmostdailymedia fare in North America. Yet while all biotechnologiesnvolvethetechnologicalmanipulationf geneticmaterial,heyareby no meansall thesame.Someof thetechnologiesmentioned boveexist;somedo not. Someofthese scientificprocedures re currentlyn practice;some never will be.Biotechnologies an be described n BrunoLatour'sanguageas emergent

science-namely, a sciencewhose truth asnotyetbeen ettledbyconsensus,either scientific or public. Therefore,what any given biotechnologicalpractice-not o mention iotechnologys awhole-means s stillunstable,tillbeingnegotiatednboth hescientificandpublicdomains.

Historically,hepublicwould ook to scientists o definea new scientificprocedure,bothtechnically ndsocially.Indeed,research hows thatthereremains significanteliance n science ournalism n expertknowledge.3 sa result of increasing eflexivity,however,scientificexpertisehas lost itsguaranteedxtra-politicaltatus,andsciencehasbecomeanarena or social

contestation.While dentifyingcientific xpertise s a site of increasingublicdebate, heorists f risksocietyhavegenerally eclined oexplore hespecificculturalenueswhere hisdebate akesplace.Inparticular,heyoverlookmediaandpopularulture s significantites for thenegotiationf scientificmeaningin general,andthe meanings f biotechnologiesn particular.A majority fNorthAmericanswill neverread heminutes f themeetings f the CanadianBiotechnology dvisoryCommittee,valuatehepatent pplicationorthegenepoolof thepopulationf theislandof Tristan aCunha, r havea xenotrans-



BIOTECHNOLOGY,F, AND THEMEDIA 269

plantation xperience.Manymorepeoplewill watchfilms such as ArnoldSchwarzenegger'she6thDay (2000),in whicha manencounters clone of

himself,or the dystopian rojectionf future ene therapy,GA7TACA1997);or they mightread RobinCook'sbiomedicalhrillerChromosome6 (1997),aboutshadowygeneticexperimentsn the ThirdWorld,or spy novelistKenFollett'sThe 7hirdTwin 1997),inwhichhuman mbryos remanipulatedydangerousmasterminds.

Sf textsin a varietyof popularmediahave beenactive n exploring ndconstructinghe boundaries f the biotechnologicalmagination.Scholarsconcernedwith thepublicunderstandingf sciencehave argued hat oo littleattentionhas been paid to sf as a mediumof communicationf scientific

informationo thepublic a concernheysharewithHugoGernsback).4ndeed,some of ourknowledge f biotechnologiesnd he issues heyposedoes comefrom he consumptionf pop-cultureepresentations,suallynthe formof sfor sf-influencedexts. However,muchof the academiciterature n sf as asourceof scienceknowledge ssumeshat hegoalof science ommunicationis the accurateransmissionf technicalnformation,nd s therefore rimarilyconcernedwith veracity see Dornan180).Littleattentions paid to sciencefiction as a symbolicresource n understandingcience, regardless f itsaccuracy.

Another ey siteforthesocialcontestationf scientificmeaningssthemassmedia.Sciencestudies cholarDorothyNelkinargues hat,formanypeople,scienceessentiallys whattheyreadabout t in thepress. Manydo nothavedirect xperience r extensive cientific ducationo drawupon,andso relyonscience ournalismoexplain cientific nd echnologicalevelopments,s wellas to defme their possibleimplications 2). A broader radition f culturalstudies f sciencehas turnedtsattentionorepresentationsf biotechnologicalpractices.Some critics focus on thewiderpublicculture f scientificunder-standing,5while othersspecifically akeup press coverage.6 nterestingly,

however,noneof thesescholars dentifies he crucial oleof science ictionasa mediator f biotechnologicalnowledge.

Thosecriticswhohaveaddressedhis ssue end ofocusontwokeysf textsthathaveengagedwithbiotechnology:MaryShelley'sFrankenstein1816)andAldousHuxley'sBrave New World(1932).WhileJonTurney ees the formertextas awellspring f popular ttitudesowards iological esearch,PatrickD.Hopkins ndValerieHartouniehowhow the latternovelhasfigurednpresscoverageof cloningandreproductiveechnologies.Accordingo Hopkins,

Mostpeoplehave neverreadBraveNewWorld,but thatdoesn'tmatter.Thescoresof referenceso BraveNew World ren'tabouthebook; heyareaboutthetropeconnected o the book.BraveNew Worlds a standalonereference,image,and warningaboutdehumanization,otalitarianism,ndtechnology-wroughtmystery-epitomizedndmadepossiblebythetechnologyf cloning.(11)

My own research confirms the frequentappearanceof Brave New WorldandFrankensteinas general symbols; however, I suggest that these are only two



270 SCIENCE ICTION TUDIES,VOLUME 0 (2003)

examples of a broaderphenomenon,that of using science fiction itself as atrope. Media treatmentsof biotechnologyarerepletewith references to sf, but

these are rarely to specific novels or films; they do not assume a specializedknowledge on the partof the reader.Instead,theyarepassing references,as thecomments by Wilmutand Silver indicate;but theirpersistentpresenceis highlysignificant in terms of how the cultural meanings of biotechnologies areconstructed.

Yet Wilmut'sand Silver's comments raisethe questionof why, in a climateof skepticalreflexivity, two high-profile scientistswould deliberatelyraise thespecter of a pop-culture genre in the same breath as a significantscientificbreakthrough. Wilmut, in suggestingthatcloning peopleshouldremainwithin

the realm of sf, marksthe genre as a provinceof the purely fictional, or eventhe impossible, something that is out of reach, perhaps quixotic. Science, heimplies, is distinct from sf, and should stay thatway; it is not futuristic,notspeculative,not irresponsibly maginative.Silver, on the otherhand, in sayingthat all of sf is true, is suggesting that science fiction, and thus science,representsunlimited possibility. Ourcurrentscientificrealityis bothvisionaryandfuturistic;the real and the imaginaryare one. By metaphorically ouplingbiotechnologyandsf, the two scientists areassumingandreproducingwo verydifferentperspectiveson the desiredrelationship inkingscience, imagination,

and the future.Given that the troubledrelationshipbetween science and the future is adefiningcharacteristic f reflexivemodernity,perhaps hepairingof biotechnol-ogy and science fiction is not so curious after all. Giddens has arguedthatmodernitycan in part be defined throughits rampantdesire to control timethrough ts colonizationof the future : Whilethe futureis recognizedto beintrinsicallyunknowable,and as it is increasingly severed from the past, thatfuture becomes a new terrain-a territoryof counterfactualpossibility. Onceestablished, that terrain ends itself to colonial invasionthroughcounterfactual

thoughtand risk calculation (Modernity111). However, [gliventheextremereflexivityof late modernity, the future does notjust consist in the expectationof events yet to come (29); rather, in reflexive modernity, thereis no waythatthe accumulationof knowledge will allow us to simplycolonize the future,to carve out the future as a space which we can just invade and occupy. Thevery development of knowledge actually makes the futureoften more ratherthan ess opaque (Giddens, RunawayWorld ). Thus therelationshipbetweenscience andknowing (or controlling) he future s no longer as transparent s weonce thought t was. I suggestthatthis opacityhas injecteda necessary element

of imaginationinto our knowledges of, and about, the future. Knowledge isrecognizablymore incomplete, more speculative, more contingent.

Does the opacity of the future in reflexive modernity mean thatwe havestoppedthinkingandtalking about he future?Onthecontrary, t meansthatweare talking about it more than ever, nervously trying to insure its existencethroughthis talk. But how we talk about it has shifted. As Nik Brown, BrianRappert,and Andrew Webster suggest in ContestedFutures:A Sociology ofProspective Technoscience, we have moved from looking into the future to




looking at the future, focusing less on correct understandingsof what willhappen and more on how we are talking about emergent realities. We now ask

how the futureas a temporalabstraction s constructedand managed,by whomandunder what conditions (4)-in otherwords, we explore the traces of the

future in the present.One key site where these traces can be seen is in the media discourse

surrounding biotechnology. The examples of Wilmut and Silver are notuncommon. Research I have conducted into North American media coverageof biotechnologyreveals an overwhelming tendencyto link sf andbiotechnol-ogy-on the part of journalists, but also scientists, bioethicists, politicians,activists, judges, and a host of other social actors. A modest database search

offered up over 1000 entries, drawn from over 70 daily newspapers andmagazines, linking biotechnology and science fiction, including articles,features, images, editorials, letters to the editor, broadcasts, interviews, bookand film reviews, and so on, between theyears 1990 and 2001. Some referencesare fleeting, others are more sustained, but the practice is rampant. Thequestion I broughtto this corpus of print-mediamaterial was: how was therelationshipamongthe future, science, andtheimagination igured nthemediatreatmentof biotechnology duringthe 1990s?

Inmy examination,I found two majoropposingtendenciesorvectorswithin

the coverage, each expressedas a claim aboutthe relationshipbetween scienceand sf. The first is capturedin the media claim that science is the stuff ofscience fiction, the second in the opposite claim that science fiction is badscience. I will discuss each of these vectors in turn, and then consider themtogether in relation to the status of biotechnological science within reflexivemodernity.

Science as the Stuff of Science Fiction. Within the media coverage ofbiotechnologies, science fiction is often deployedto producea senseof wonder

about science, to capturethe unbelievable,the amazing. Charting he dramaofthe seemingly inevitable movement from science fiction to science fact, itreveals a fascination with new scientific developmentsand the wonders theymake visible, wonders previously perceptibleonly in sf.

Scientists themselves evoke the ideaof science fiction as a way of capturingtheincrediblespeedof technoscientificchange.For theirpart,sf authors onfessin interviews that it is harder to write fiction about science because it isdeveloping faster, and in more exciting ways, than they can imagine. NealStephenson has suggested in an interview in The Washington Post, that

r]eadingscience fiction used to be the only way to get to the future.... Nowthe pace of technological change is so continuousand so fast there's no longerany kind of clear barrier separatingus from the future. We're living in thefuture. We're living in science fiction (WeeksandSchwartz).A journalist orthe Boston Globe askedin 1993: Given the weirdplotsthathavebeen hatchedon the banks of the Potomac and the science-fiction-as-real-life advances in

genetic engineering, who can say what is 'unbelievable'today? (Trausch).Aheadlinein the New YorkTimes n 1999 queried, IsLivingTo Be 150 Science




Fiction? ( Is Living ). Thus, speed, weirdness, and unbelievability arebringingthe futureto us. We see this connection n thestrikingvisual imagery,

often unexplained, that accompaniesquite straightforward cientific stories:animalheads graftedontohumans,humanbodies in test tubes, multiple magesof the same personreproduced,identically,over a barcode, and so on.

The most common rhetoricalmanifestationof this vector is exemplified ina storyin TheOttawaCitizen n 1999, which pondered he marvel of pigs withhuman genes: it sounds like the stuff of science fiction (Eaton-Robb).Somevariationon this phrase appears n a majorityof the relevantpress coverage. Itemergesas the shorthand uarantee hatthe scientificdevelopmentscovered arewondrous and unprecedented.The sense of wonder is enhancedwhen sf is

linkedwithnon-scientificknowledgessuchas magicorvoodoo, or whenscienceis framedas akinto fantasy, mystery, code-breaking,andfortune-telling.Thediscoursetakeson an almosttabloidstyle in its talesof fat-meltingdrugs and

suicidegenes attackingbrain cancer. A typicalheadline in the BuffaloNewsreads: Sciencefiction turnsto stuff of life for boy withbraintumour Baird).The LondonDaily Telegraphclaimed in 1998, Thequestfor an elixir of lifewas until recently the stuff of science fiction (Irwin and Highfield). In thisway, the amazing powers and progress of science are rendered virtuallyincredible, at the very least powerfully impressive. A cultural affect is

produced-one drawing not upon the dry rationalityof science, but upon itscontinuedcapacityto manifestimagination,to startle andamaze.Occasionally, sf is constructedas a metaphoricalor historicalterrainout of

which science emerges. For example, Jeremy Rifkin is quoted in 1992 assuggestingof genetically-modifiedorganisms hat [t]his s awhole typeof foodthat'sright outof science fiction ( Veggie Wars ).Hundredsof claims can befound that science fiction is becoming science fact. An Associated Pressheadlinein 1997 read Clone MakesScience FictionFact (Crenson), and thePortlandOregonianshouted, Geneticallyengineeredcrops are no longer the

stuff of science fiction (Menser). The CalgaryHerald in 1999 suggestedthatcrossing goat [and] spider produces biosteel.... [T]he stuff of science fictionhas become the cutting edge of world science ( Crossing ). Even therenownedCanadianscientist andbroadcasterDavid Suzuki has suggested that

e]very day the frontiersof medicineexpand, transforming cience fiction intoscience fact. A VancouverSunreporter ook all of this to its logical extreme,arguingthat [l]ife is becoming increasinglylike a Star Trekepisode, and mytakeon thenext few years is thatscience fictionwill finallymerge with reality(Winston). In this way, science is cast as an evolutionaryoutcome of science

fiction. Sf is a pertinenthistorical source of science, a science that is itself atrace of the future.Thus, in this discoursescience is vested with sf's power ofvisionary imagination.

An allied strategyuses sf as predictiveknowledge thataccurately orecastsfuture scientific outcomes. In 1994, Gwynne Dyer wrote in the HamiltonSpectator, Several decades ago, there was a science-fictionnovel in whichpeople approaching40 could avoid further aging and enjoy a lifespan ofcenturiesjust by swallowing the right potion. Substitute 'gene therapy' for




'potion,'and t seems to be coming rue. A headlinen TheNationalPostin1999read: TinyRobotArmIs MadeOutOf SyntheticDNA ... TheFirstStep

TowardNanomachinesredicted ySci-fi Smith). n1999, hesciencewriterfor Time,writingor TwinCitiesStarTribune, rguedhat weare iving n thefuture hat manyof the earlysciencefictionwritersenvisioned.Television,radio,nuclearweapons, enetic ngineering,obots,and pace ravel ll sprangto life in the pages of science fiction long before they became reality(Bjerklie).After the cloningof Dolly, onejournalist ven went so far as tosuggest hat thenextround f biology extbookswillbeadding chapterromsciencefiction Goetnick).

If we want o knowourbiotechnologicaluture, hesesources uggest, hen

we must ook to the realmof theimagination;t is theoriginpointof scientificknowledge.Some ournalistsraw his deaoutexpressly.Theaforementionedscience writer or Timeclaimed, Science iction s indeed iction,but it isperhapshe mostpowerful ool we have to look to a varietyof futuresandwonder,worry,andact toprevent r ensure hosepossibilities Bjerklie).Oras a columnistn theChicagoSun-Timesut it, Ihaveread hefuture,andIamafraid.ButI'vebeenwarned.And or$5.99 youcan ellyour riends,See?Thesearethingswe science ictionreaders avebeen ipping ouoff about ordecades 'Halevi).

Thisfirstvectorwithin heprint-mediaoverage uggests everal mplica-tionsfor themeanings f biotechnologyn everydayife. Biotechnologyakeson some of the senseof wonderof science iction.It is anchoredn a presentthat s thevisionaryuture f anhistoricalmagination.o know hefuture,wemust ombine magination ithscience.Theoverall ffectsof thiscoverage repositive, with science cast as evolutionary, rogressive,and amazing.Sfemergesas a resourceorscience,as a credible nowledgeite. Itis understoodas aprosocial nowledgewithpredictiveower; cienceand cience iction aketheirepistemologicaltrengthromeachother-sciencegivingsf retrospective

historicaland predictive redibility,and sf giving scienceits most startling,unbelievable, nd wonderful ffects. In termsof anordering f science,theimaginary, ndthefuture, he vectorof science-as-the-stuff-of-science-fictionsuggeststhat the powerof science is in producinghe tracesof the futurealreadypredicted y the sf imagination.

ScienceFiction as Bad Science. The secondmajorvector n thecoupling fbiotechnologyndsciencefiction nprint-mediaiscourse uringhe 1990s sthecharacterizationf sf asbadscience.Thismotifworks odisruptwhatmight

otherwise e seenas a continuumf knowledge. cienceand f arenot hesamething; heyaredistinguishable,nd heyare-and should e-differentlyvaluedin society.Thissecondvectorconstructsnepistemologicalndmoral upturebetween cienceandscience iction.

Onceagain,a certain ffect s produced-only atherhanwonder,t is oneof fear and horror.Sf is identified s the sourceof monsters,and fears ofbiotechnologyreoften cast in science-fictionalerms.Accordingo a 1998story in the ChicagoSun Times, geneticengineering, loning,and other



274 SCIENCE FICTIONSTUDIES, VOLUME 30 (2003)

biotechnologicalesearch aisesthesciencefictionspecterof designerbabiesandcyborgs ;scienceis now offering the stuffnightmaresre madeof

(Blumner).And heNewark tarLedger arnshat Genetic ngineeringouldTurnUs IntoMonsters Babula).In thisvector herearemoredirect eferenceso actual f texts. References

to Frankenfood erecommonplacen theSeattle nti-WTOrotests ndnowabound n coverageof genetically-modifiedoodstuffs.We read aboutthe

invasion f thegenesnatchers nd Robocows. AldousHuxley's amousdystopiannovel echoes throughouthe decade,with the repeated ropeof

Brave-New-fill-in-the-blank. The WashingtonPost claimedin 1990 that Alltoo often,talkaboutaltering enesraisesscience iction magesof giantants,

Andromedatrains ndFrankenstein'sonster Thompson). otsurprisingly,thisalready ronouncedendencyxplodednthewakeof thecloning f Dolly.A paper n NewOrleansposited, Today's eadlines bout heepcloningandother cientificbreakthroughsoundmore ikeyesterday'science iction itles,calling omindeverythingromAldousHuxley'snightmarishisionof a worldpopulated y engineered arboncopiesto thatB moviestaple, he evil twin( Cloning ).

Ofcourse, f sf is thesourceof monsters,t raises hequestion f whetherscience is also the source of monsters.As one journalistrecognized,

[s]cientificxperimentationsa favoritewhipping oyof science iction,as themonsters npageandonscreen xpressourdeepestears Lynch).Thisriskypossibilityhatscientific xperimentationayin factitselfbe theproblemscontained,however, through he discursivemarkingof a clear distinctionbetween cienceandsf. In anearlyarticleongene therapyn 1990,a scientistclarified hat this s not cloning n sciencefictionterms Kotulak).Goodscienceis distinguishedrom sf in the aggressive omplaint bout sciencewithout thics: he stuffscience iction s madeof ( Letters ). f is referredto as frivolous cience and s frequentlyinkedwith madscience. The SanFranciscoChronicle laimed n a 1998 editorial hat thethin line betweenscience fictionand mad science becamea little raggedthis week when aChicago ntrepreneuraid he is aboutready o opena clinic to clone humanbabies for profit Send n the Clones ).Thus, the imagination f sciencefictiongivesus mad or badscience, clearly distinct rom real andgood)science.

Thisdistinction etween ealand maginaryciencehas mplicationsorhowthepublic s constructedsparticipantsor not)inthe processes f biotechno-

logicalscience.Manyauthorsmply hat f is themeasure f a lackof scientificknowledge n thepartof thelayperson.Thepotential lurring f scienceandsf is onlya riskforthepublic,however.Onescientist,discussinghe responseto the filmJurassicPark(1993), stated: Quite rankly, thefilm] is sciencefiction,and hedifficultyor thepublic s to knowwhererealscienceendsandscience fiction begins (Ruggles).Bill C-47, the Canadian overnment'sproposedbiotechnologyegislation,was roundlycriticizedby expertsforbanning rocedureshatarecurrentlympossiblendare hereforenthe realm




of science fiction. Again, the line between real science and sf is evident toexperts; it is only the non-scientistwho is at risk confusing the two.

Once the distinctionbetween science andsf has been thusclarified, sf canbe discredited as publicmisinformation.This tactic confirms thatscience withtoo much imagination s false science; it also reaffirmsscientists as expertswhoare beyond the public's ability to assess them. Scientists and bioethicistsareparticularlyvociferous in their claims that the public is constantly consumingmisinformation rompopularscience fiction. Forexample, in relation o publicfears surroundingvirulent germs, one doctor, after the movie Outbreakwasreleased in 1995, was quoted as saying that These fears are not rationalfears.... They'rein the realm of science fiction (Stemnberg). heSanFranciscoChroniclecautionedreaders n 1999 not to getthe ideathatDNA testingisjustabout crime and punishment and science fiction nightmares of geneticdiscrimination Abate). After Dolly was cloned, one bioethicistcommented,

Horrorstories purveyed by science fiction movies and novels (the clonedHitler of The Boys FromBrazil)have preparedpeople to think of only 'worst-case scenarios'involving cloning (Monmaney).The samecommentatorquotedexpertsto the effect that publicreactionto the word of the firstcloned animalhas been conditioned by decades of apocalyptic science fiction about humanclones waging war or doing the elite's drudgery.

The discrediting of both sf and the public emerges most clearly in thescientific and medical backlashto Michael Crichton's novel and film JurassicPark. Much rhetoricalwork was done in the press by scientists who wereattemptingo repair heirimage, whichtheyfelt hadbeendamagedby thefilm'sportrayalof unethical scientists. A certaintensionis evidentin these struggles,however. There is a clear reluctanceon thepartof mostscientiststo make theirwork accessible to a lay public. As science communiicationcholar SusannaHornig Priest notes:

Although the mass news media (along with science fiction) are among the few

forums that are available in the U.S. for something resembling open publicdebate, scientists generally dislike their work appearingon this public stage.Theyfearitsbeingmisunderstood nd are anxious est misrepresentations f factshould exacerbatetensions, perhaps eadingto increasedpublic skepticism andeven scrutinyvis-a-vis the entire scientificenterprise.( Cloning 60)

We see this anxiety in a Canadiannewspaper's suggestionthat the new cellsmay well reawaken fears of humancloning, althoughmanyethicists have nowcome around o believingthatthepublic'sfears, despitescience-fictionwriters'portrayalof clonal armies of frenzied despots, are largely beside the point

(Wade). This reluctance to make biotechnologicalscience accessible to thepublic, and the rejectionof publicconcern as causedsolely by the consumptionof imaginary science, marks the future as properlyknowablethroughsciencealone. Sf is thus seen as a site of contestationbetween scientistsand the publicregarding the role that each will play in the constructionof biotechnologicalknowledgeand the biotechnologicalfuture.

Science fiction is also used by non-scientists as a shorthand o discreditoppositionalviews of science. The Presidentof the US NationalCorn Growers



276 SCIENCE ICTION TUDIES,VOLUME 0(2003)

Association s quoted, in responseto the EuropeanUnion challengetogenetically-modifiedorn n 1996,as saying, They theEuropeans]adbeen

seeing oomany cience-fictionmoviesorsomething Beeder). nCanada,heright-wingpress, reporting n David Suzuki'sdocumentaryn genetically-modifiedoods,labeled t science iction;andajournalistn theNationalPostin February000suggestedhat public ttitudesoward loningarebasedona dietof science ictionB moviesandpaperbacks, rguinghatgovernments,beforethey rushto outlaw cloning, shouldat least considerseriouslywhether he opposition o humancloningis based on real dangers,or onscience-fiction orrormovies Colvin).

Takenas a whole, this vectorof science-fiction-as-bad-scienceorksto

legitimate ndnormalize iotechnologies,solatinghem(and heirscientists)fromseriouspublicscrutiny.Biotechnologys constructeds normal,good,progressive cience, in contrasto the monsters, ies, andexaggerationsfscience iction.Biotechnologicalcience s toocomplex or thegeneralpublicto understand, uttheyshouldnotturn o sf asa substituteor real cience.Biotechnologiesre firmly ituatednthepresent as opposedoeither hepastor future); hey are real(as opposed o imaginary);ndas a result, heyareprosocial r morally ound.On the otherhand,science iction s misinforma-tion,sometimes eliberatelyrcarelessly o. Sfcreators re rresponsible,ot

caringwhether rnottheyproduce anicor offerdistortednformation. f isthusan asocialor even mmoral ractice, ndapublichat onsumes r believesit is irresponsible.Criticismof biotechnologiess caused,notby legitimateconcerns n thepartof thepublic,butby a steady,uncritical ietof sf trashculture.

Thus,in this secondrelationshipf science, imagination, nd the futureofferedbythemedia overage fbiotechnologies,hefuture igures s a domainthatshouldnot be imagined utside cience,andpossiblynot atall. Science sa knowledge ccurringn thepresent,unmarkedy the taintof non-rational

imagination.A positivefuturecan be controlled r produced nly throughscienceconceivedas anelite practicepreservedrompublic crutiny.

Conclusion.Althoughhaveorganizedmy analysis fthepresscoverage f thecouplingof biotechnology nd science fiction into two distinctvectors, weactuallyconsumethem together. They are intermixed n the daily mediarepresentationsf biotechnology.nvocationf thegeneralizedulturalropeofscience iction s so ubiquitoust is almost nvisible. suggest,however, hat tsculturalmeanings renotinvisible; nstead, heyrevealhow we understandhe

relationship inking science, the imagination, nd the future in reflexivemodernity.What suggestwecansee in thiscontradictoryattern-where iotechnolog-

ical science is projected s the wondrous tuff of science fictionon the onehand,andsf is excoriatedas bad scienceon the other-is a simultaneously-occurringprocessof reenchantmentnddisenchantment ith science. Themeanings f science n theearly wenty-firstentury re no longer ingular rclear,butarebeingactivelyproducedndreproduced.suggest hata primary




point of contestation f the meaningsof biotechnologiesies in the mediaencounter etween heseoppositional ectors-between eenchantment,r the

reinvestmentf an ideaof future-visionnda senseof wonder ntoscience,anddisenchantment, denialof the future maginaryn favor of an effective,present-dayationality.n the tensioncreatedby the simultaneousctivityofreenchantmentnd disenchantment, e can see the contestations egardingscience hatBeckandGiddens uggestare at the heartof reflexivemodernity.Yet science is perhapsnot quite as reflexiveas they imply;neither cholaraccountsorwhysciencecontinuesohave heresiliencytdoesas aprivilegedknowledgesystem in late modernity,nor do they examine n detail howreflexivity perates s a lived cultural rocess.

SusannaHornigPriestargueshateven n risksociety,science arries reatsymbolicvalue.

Risk is a political issue. In post-industrialociety, confronting he socialacceptabilityf therisksof emergingechnologiess aneverydayormofcrisis.Publicopinion,mediarepresentations,nd he actionsof governmentfficialsinteractn complexanduncertainways, as they do for all political ssues.Complicatinghis interactionnthe caseof risk ssues,however, s thespecialstatus f expert cientific pinionwithin he debate.Ontheonehand, cientificopinion is idealized as objective and disinterested; on the other, scienceitself-especially science nthe serviceof technology-carriestsown institu-tionalbiasesand interests.At the sametime, the mythology f science asimpartialruthmeans hatscientific estimonyarriesgreatrhetorical eight.( ReadingRisk 95)

How are these tensionsmanaged?How is sciencerecuperatedn reflexivemodernity?argue hat, n theirownways,bothreenchantmentnddisenchant-ment work to legitimizesciencein a knowingclimateof skepticism.Thereenchantmentf science links scienceepistemologicallyo the wondrouselementsof the sf imagination,njectinga pre-reflexivewonderbackinto

science.Sciencebecomesagainabout uriosity,bravingheunknown, nd hepositivevaluesof scientific nquiry.Withthedisenchantmentf science,wehaveareturno thevaluesof the scientificmethod sasetof techniquesortheproductionf legitimate nowledge. cience s firmly e-establisheds credibleknowledgebecause t is clearlydemarcatedromthe imagination. hus,theground f contestationppearso be theplaceof the maginationnthescientificenterprise,atherhan he scientific nterprisetself.

Ina 1999 ecturebroadcastn theBBC,AnthonyGiddensuggestedhatwelive in arunawayworld, a stateof existence hat s the natural utcome f

reflexivemodernity.A runawayworld isnota worldwhichwe give uphopeof controlling.t is a worldwhichhas introducedewkindsofunpredictability,new kinds of risk, new kinds of uncertainty. nterestingly,ome of theseuncertaintiesomefrom heverysources hatweresupposedomake heworldpredictable.. [suchas]scienceand echnology RunawayWorld ).Livingin a runawayworldproducesa sense of what Giddenscalls ontologicalinsecurity -inotherwords,culturaldentities nd hesocialenvironmentreexperienceds constantlyn flux.Biotechnologies,s we know hem hrough



278 SCIENCE ICTION TUDIES,VOLUME 0(2003)

the media, contribute o a sensethatthe boundariesbetweenhumanandanimal,life and death, natural and unnatural,human and machine, authenticand

constructed,presentand future,are under both materialandsymbolicassault.Previous categories of the self and the social that were fixed in Westernphilosophy-and have come under theoreticalscrutiny-have now lost some oftheir material stabilityas well.

In a runawayworld such as our own, the relationshipbetweenscience, theimagination,and the futurebecomes a centralcultural dilemma. We can seesome of the stakes of this cultural dilemmabeing played out in the tropes ofreenchantmentand disenchantmentn the media coverage of biotechnologies.Both work in theirown ways to legitimatethe scientific enterprise, through ts

similaritiesor contrastswith science as constructed n the imaginationof sf.Both posit an ordering of science, imagination, and the future. And both, I

suggest, reflect a profoundnostalgiafor the future-a nostalgiathat,I suggest,is a culturalcharacteristicof reflexive modernity.7This is not a nostalgiafor

any particular uture,but for the very notion of a future-of a world to come

that we can descry throughthe lens of science and technology.Science imbuedwith the sense of wonder of science fiction, reenchantment,

figures sf rather thanscience as the genuineknowledgeof the future. Sciencemust rely on the sf imaginationfor future-vision-it is merely an outcome.

Science becomes a traceof the futureenvisionedin the sf of yesteryear. Ontheother hand, the disenchantmentof science, through its clear separationofscience from the sf imagination,locates science's proper domainof activityinthe present. Science does not engage in futile future speculation; t is workingin the here and now. The traces of the futureare to be foundonly in existingscience; indeed, we must be careful not to look to the future at all as that isprecisely what creates the risk that we may questionor challengescience.

Thus, the disenchantmentof science constructs the future as a forbiddenzone, one into which we dare no longer venture in this era of reflexivemodernity.And the reenchantment f sciencemarks he futureas only availableto us in the imagination,notthrough cience itself. Both vectors within the presscoverage sever the relationshipbetween science and the future, dooming ourfuture-visions o look either like our past imaginationor our currentreality. Itis ironic that a futuristic discourse such as sf should work within the mediatreatmentof biotechnologiesto reproducea nostalgiafor a futurescience cannotand will not give us.

NOTES

The author is grateful to the Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council ofCanada or financialsupport,to Albert Bannerjee orhis outstanding esearchwork, andto Rob Lathamfor his generous editorial assistance.

1. Achenbachexplores some of these public-relationsdifficultiesin the contextof adiscussion of anti-aging technologies.

2. See Beck and Lupton for major examples of risk theory.3. Conrad and Plein offer critical assessments of the way expert knowledge is

deployed in mediacoverage of biotechnology.




4. For treatmentsof this theme, see Lambourne,McCurdy,and the two essays byRose.

5. See van Dijck, and Nelkin and Lindee.6. See Brown, et al., Conduit, Einsiedel, Macintyre, Miller, and two essays by

Priest: StructuringPublic Debate on Biotechnology and Cloning:A Studyin NewsProduction.

7. For powerful analysesof postmodernculturethatfocus on this theme of nostalgiafor the future, see Csicsery-Ronay,Jr. andJameson.

WORKSCITED

Abate, Tom. With 1990s Detective Work, It's Hereditary. San Francisco Chronicle(March 29, 1999): BL.

Achenbach, Joel. Splice of Life. WashingtonPost (November 29, 1998): W12.Babula, Michael. GeneticEngineeringCould Turn Us Into Monsters. Newark Star-Ledger (July 23, 1998): 018.

Baird, Woody. Science Fiction Turns to Stuff of Life for Boy with Brain Tumor.BuffaloNews (September17, 1995): F11.

Beck, Ulrich. The Risk Society: Towardsa New Modernity.1986. Trans.MarkRitter.London:Sage, 1992.

Beeder, David C. Kerrey Lauds EU Decision. Omaha World-Herald Bureau(December 19, 1996): 38.

Bjerklie, David. Newton's Apple. Twin CitiesStar-Tribune May 12, 1999): 13A.

Blumner, Robyn. Sufferers of Future Shock Still Living in the Past. Chicago Sun-Times(November 11, 1998): 41.

Brown, Nik, Brian Rappert, and Andrew Webster. IntroducingContested Futures:From Looking Into the Future to LookingAt the Future. Contested Futures: ASociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Ed. Nik Brown, Brian Rappert, andAndrew Webster. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000. 3-20.

Cloning Begets Question. New Orleans Times(March 10, 1997): B6.Colvin, Jonathan. I Wish to Clone Myself. National Post (February7, 2000): A18.Conduit,Celest M. Howthe Public UnderstandsGenetics: Non-deterministic ndNon-

discriminatoryInterpretations f the 'Blueprint'Metaphor. Public Understandingof Science 8 (1999): 169-80.

Conrad, Peter. Use of Expertise: Sources, Quotes, and Voice in the ReportingofGenetics in the News. Public Understanding f Science 8 (1999): 285-302.

Crenson,Matt. CloneMakes Science Fiction Fact. RockyMountainNews (February25, 1997): 26A.

CrossingGoat, SpiderProducesBio-Steel. The CalgaryHerald (September2, 1999):A8.

Csicsery-Ronay Jr., Istvan. FuturisticFlu, or The Revenge of the Future. Fiction2000: Cyberpunk nd the Futureof Narrative.Ed. GeorgeSlusser and TomShippey.

Athens: U of Georgia P, 1992. 26-45.Dillow, Gordon. Towarda More Perfect Human? Orange CountyRegister (July 2,

1995): EO1.Dornan,Chris. Some Problems nConceptualizinghe Issue of 'Scienceinthe Media'.

Communicating cience: Contextsand Channels.Ed. E. Scanlon,E. Whitelegg,andS. Yates. New York: Routledge, 1999. 179-205.

Dyer, Gwynne. EliminatingOld Age: Will You Still Need Me, Will You Still FeedMe, WhenI'm 640? HamiltonSpectator (April 7, 1994): A1.




Eaton-Robb, Pat. Altered Pig Parts Offer Humans Hope. The Ottawa Citizen(February23, 1999): A9.

Einsiedel, Edna F. FramingScience and Technology in the CanadianPress. PublicUnderstandingof Science 1 (1992): 89-101.Giddens,Anthony.ModernityandSelf-Identity: elfandSocietyin theLate ModernAge.

Stanford:StanfordUP, 1991.. TheRunawayWorld. Reith Lectures Series. BritishBroadcastingCorpora-

tion, 1999. Available online at: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events-reith_99/default.htm> .

Goetnick, Sue. Cloning No Longer Belongs to the Realm of Science Fiction. ThePortlandOregonian(February25, 1997): AOI.

Halevi, CharlesChi. Science Fiction Dark Side of 'Genengineering.' ChicagoSun-

Times January4,2001):11.Hartounie, Valerie. Brave New World n the Discourses of Reproductiveand Genetic

Technologies. In the Natureof Things:Language, Politics, and the Environment.Ed. J. Bennet and W. Chaloupka.Minneapolis:U MinnesotaP, 1993. 85-110.

Hopkins,PatrickD. BadCopies:How PopularMediaRepresentsCloningas an EthicalProblem. Iowa City, IA: HastingsCenterReport, 1998. 6-13.

Irwin, Aisling and Roger Highfield. Seekingthe Fountainof Youth. LondonDailyTelegraph(January8, 1998): 42.

Is Living to be 150 Science Fiction? New YorkTimes(March21, 1999): 15a.Jameson,Fredric. ProgressVersus Utopia; or, Can We Imaginethe Future? SFS 9.2

(July 1982): 147-58.Kotulak, Ronald and Peter Gorner. Genetic Diseases: Cures Before Conception.

OrangeCountyRegister (May 27, 1990):JOI.Lambourne,R. ScienceFiction and the Communication f Science. Communicating

Science: Conte-xts nd Channels.Ed. E. Scanlon,E. Whitelegg,and S. Yates. NewYork: Routledge, 1999. 146-57.

Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern. 1991. Trans. Catherine Porter.Cambridge:HarvardUP, 1993.

Lettersto the Editor. San Francisco Chronicle(July9, 1992): A20.

Lupton,Deborah.Risk. New York: Routledge, 1997.Lynch, Stephen. ImperfectCopies: Science-Fiction Movies and Novels Get a Lot

WrongAbout Cloning. Orange CountyRegister(August 28, 2001): 1.Macintyre,Sally. The PublicUnderstanding f Scienceor theScientificUnderstanding

of the Public? A Review of the Social Context of the 'New Genetics.' PublicUnderstandingof Science 4 (1995): 223-32.

McCurdy,HowardE. FictionandImagination:How They Affect PublicAdministra-tion. Public AdministrationReview55.6 (1995): 499-506.

Menser, Paul. Bioengineers Turn Over New Leaf for Potato Industry. PortlandOregonian(December 15, 1998): A7.

Miller, D. Introducing he 'GayGene': Media andScientificRepresentations. PublicUnderstandingof Science 4 (1995): 269-94.

Monmaney, Terence. Identical Twins: Human Cloning Wouldn't Take AwayIndividuality. Los Angeles Times(March 9, 1997): 12.

Nelkin, Dorothy. Selling Science: How the Press CoversScienceand Technology.NewYork: W.H. Freeman, 1995.

and Susan M. Lindee. The DNA Mystique:TheGene as a CulturalIcon. NewYork: Freeman, 1995.




Plein L.C. PopularizingBiotechnology: The Influence of Issue Definition. Science,

Technology& HumanValues16.4 (1991):474-90.Priest, SusannaHornig. Cloning:A Study in News Production. Public Understanding

of Science 10 (2001): 59-69.. ReadingRisk: Public Response to Print Media Accounts of Technological

Risk. PublicUnderstandingf Science2 (1993):95-109.. StructuringPublic Debate on Biotechnology: Media Frames and Public

Response. Communicatingcience:Contexts ndChannels.Ed. E. Scanlon,E.Whitelegg, and S. Yates. New York: Routledge, 1999. 240-51.

Rose, Hilary. Laboratory or Dreams. New Statesman6 (1987): 22-23.. Science Fiction's Memoryof the Future. ContestedFutures:A Sociology of

Prospective Techno-Science.Ed. Nik Brown, BrianRappert,and AndrewWebster.

Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2000. 157-72.Ruggles, Rick. Scientists Split Over 'JurassicPark' Impact. OmahaWorld-Herald

(June12, 1993): 1.Scientists Succeed in Cloning a Sheep. Genes Transplanted,Then Hello Dolly. St.

Louis Dispatch (February24, 1997): B1.Send in the Clones: Babies for Profit. San Francisco Chronicle(January8, 1998):

A22.Smith, Michael. Tiny Robot Arm is Made Out of SyntheticDNA. National Post

(January14, 1999): A17.Sternberg,RuthE. No Need to Fear Virus 'Outbreak,'HealthExpertsSay. Columbus

Dispatch (March25, 1995): 01C.Suzuki, David. Race for the Future-Part 2. The Nature of Things. Broadcast

December6, 1999.This is Dolly the Clone, The Daughter of None, Genetic Marvel Spawns Ethical

Nightmare. TorontoStar (February24, 1997): Al.Thompson, Larry. Poll Finds Supportfor Use of Gene Therapy. WashingtonPost

(September25, 1990): Z09.Trausch, Susan. It's Only Fantasy-Or Is It? Boston Globe (January17, 1993): 17.Turney,Jon.Frankenstein'sootsteps: cience, Genetics ndPopularCulture.New

Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1998.van Dijck, Jos6. Imagenation:Popular Images of Genetics. New York:New YorkUP,1998.

Veggie Wars:Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. ArizonaRepublic (June 1, 1992):Al0.Wade, Nicholas. ScientistsUncover 'Immortal'Cells. OttawaCitizen (November 6,

1998): A1.Weeks, Linton and John Schwartz. Robots and Space Stations, Cyberspace and

Software. What's a Science-FictionWriter to Do When ... The Future is Now.

PittsburghPost-Gazette (June 12, 2000): A8.Winston, Mark. Medical Miracles Pose Ethical Dilemmas. VancouverSun (January

6, 2000): All.

ABSTRACTWhen media reporton biotechnologies,they almost nevitably nvoke science fiction. Weoften hear reportersmusing that the stuffof science fiction became science fact today,or scientists hastening to reassurea potentiallynervous public that the latest technologydoes not herald sf-style horrorsfor the humanrace. These sortsof references are rarelyto specific sf texts and generally do not assume a prior knowledgeof science fiction asa genre. Rather, they area generalizedreferenceto an imaginativeandimagined uture,



282 SCIENCE FICTION STUDIES, VOLUME30 (2003)

whetherpositive or negative. This essay takes up this rhetoricalpracticeand what itmeans for our understandings f bothscience and sf. I considera corpusof print-mediatreatmentsof biotechnology in NorthAmerica from 1990 to 2001. Drawing upon risktheory andits considerationof theways in which scientificexpertiseis being questionedin late modernity, I draw out two overarchingtendencies within the media coverage.Bothposit a relationship inkingscience, theimagination,andthe future. The first, whichconstructs science as the stuff of science fiction, worksto reenchant cience, adding toit the wonder and optimism of sf: the imaginationof science fiction fuels science as afuture-lookingknowledge. The second, whichconstructsscience fiction as badscience,disenchantsscience, markingthe imaginationof sf as dangerous o the pure knowledgeof empirical research.Interestingly,however, in both, sf works as a figureto legitimizebiotechnological science and reinvest it with credibility in a risk society otherwise

increasinglycritical of scientific expertise.

science fiction and the media

Documents