Science and technology in film: Themes and representations

Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 97-112

  Kirby, David A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956765780     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203483794     Document Type: Chapter

References (101)

1. Allgaier, J. (2013) ‘On the shoulders of YouTube: science in music videos’, Science Communication, 35, 2: 266-275.
2. Balmford, A., Manica, A., Airey, L., Birkin, L., Oliver, A. and Schleicher, J. (2004) ‘Hollywood, climate change, and the public’, Nature, 305, 5691: 1713.
3. Barnett, M., Wagner, H., Gatling, A., Anderson, J., Houle M. and Kafka, A. (2006) ‘The impact of science fiction film on student understanding of science’, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 2: 179-191.
4. Barnett, M. and Kafka, A. (2007) ‘Using science fiction movie scenes to support critical analysis of science’, Journal of College Science Teaching, 36: 31—35.
5. Barriga, C., Shapiro, M. and Fernandez, M. (2010) ‘Science information in fictional movies: effects of context and gender’, Science Communication, 32, 1: 3—24.
6. Bleecker, J. (2009) ‘Design fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction’, Near Future Laboratory; online at http://nearfuturelaboratory.com/2009/03/17/design-fiction-a-short-essay-on-design-science-fact-and-fiction/; accessed 28 April 2013.
7. Bohnke, M. and Machura, S. (2003) ‘Young Tom Edison — Edison, the man: biopic of the dynamic entrepreneur’, Public Understanding of Science, 12, 3: 319—33.
8. Brereton, P. (2005) Hollywood Utopia, Bristol: Intellect Books.
9. Cole, S. and Dioso-Villa, R. (2007) ‘CSI and its effects: media, juries, and the burden of proof’, New England Law Review, 41, 3: 435—470.
10. de Ceglia, F. (2012) ‘From the laboratory to the factory, by way of the countryside: fifty years of Italian scientific cinema (1908—1958)’, Public Understanding of Science, 21, 8: 949—967.
11. Dinello, D. (2006) Technophobia!, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
12. Dubeck, L., Moshier, S. and Boss, J. (2004) Fantastic Voyages: Learning Science Through Science Fiction Films, New York: Springer.
13. Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., Morgan, M. and Signorielli, N. (2011) ‘Science on television in the 21st century: recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science’, Communication Research, 38, 4: 754—777.
14. Eberl, J. (2010) ‘I, clone: how cloning is (mis)portrayed in contemporary cinema’, Film and History, 40, 2: 27-44.
15. Efthimiou, C. and Llewellyn, R. (2007) ‘Cinema, Fermi problems and general education’, Physics Education, 42, 3: 253-261.
16. Elena, A. (1997) ‘Skirts in the lab: Madame Curie and the image of the woman scientist in the feature film’, Public Understanding of Science, 6, 3: 269-278.
17. Flicker, E. (2003) ‘Between brains and breasts-women scientists in fiction film: on the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence’, Public Understanding of Science, 12, 3: 307-318.
18. Frank, S. (2003) ‘Reel reality: science consultants in Hollywood’, Science as Culture, 12, 4: 427-469.
19. Franklin, S. (2000) ‘Life itself: global nature and genetic imaginary’, in S. Franklin, C. Lury and J. Stacey (eds) Global Nature, Global Culture, London: Sage, 188-227.
20. Frayling, C. (2005) Mad, Bad and Dangerous, London: Reaktion.
21. Greenbaum, D. (2009) ‘Is it really possible to do the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs and should it matter? Science and film and its policy implications’, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 11, 2: 249-333.
22. Griep, M. and Mikasen, M. (2009) ReAction!: Chemistry in the Movies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women, London: Routledge.
24. Haran, J., Kitzinger, J., McNeil, M. and O’Riordan, K. (2008) Human Cloning in the Media: From Science Fiction to Science Practice, New York: Routledge.
25. Haynes, R. (1994) From Faust to Strangelove, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26. Ingram, D. (2000) Green Screen, Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
27. Irwin. A. (1995) Citizen Science, London: Routledge.
28. Jackson, J. (2011) ‘Doomsday ecology and empathy for nature: women scientists in “B” horror movies’, Science Communication, 33, 4: 533-555.
29. Jensen, E. (2008) ‘The Dao of human cloning: utopian/dystopian hype in the British press and popular films’, Public Understanding of Science, 17, 2: 123-143.
30. Jones, R. (2001) ‘Why can’t you scientists leave things alone?: Science questioned in British films of the post-war period (1945-1970)’, Public Understanding of Science, 10, 4: 1-18.
31. Jorg, D. (2003) ‘The good, the bad, the ugly: Dr. Moreau goes to Hollywood’, Public Understanding of Science, 12, 3: 297-305.
32. Kanner, M. (2006) ‘Going on instinct: gendering primatology in film’, Journal of Popular Film and Television, 33, 4: 206-212.
33. Kay, L. (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life?, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
34. King, G. (2000) Spectacular Narratives, London: I.B. Tauris.
35. Kirby, D. (2000) ‘The new eugenics in cinema: genetic determinism and gene therapy in GATTACA, Science Fiction Studies, 27, 2: 193-215.
36. Kirby, D. (2003a) ‘Scientists on the set: science consultants and communication of science in visual fiction’, Public Understanding of Science, 12, 3: 261-278.
37. Kirby, D. (2003b) ‘The threat of materialism in the age of genetics: DNA at the drive-in’, in G. Rhodes (ed.) Horror at the Drive-In: Essays in Popular Americana, Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 241-258.
38. Kirby, D. (2007) ‘The devil in our DNA: A brief history of eugenic themes in science fiction films’, Literature and Medicine, 26, 1: 83-108.
39. Kirby, D. (2008) ‘Cinematic science’, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds) Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, London and New York: Routledge, 41-56.
40. Kirby, D. (2010) ‘The future is now: diegetic prototypes and the role of popular films in generating real-world technological development’, Social Studies of Science, 40, 1: 41-70.
41. Kirby, D. (2011) Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Knippels, M.-C., Severiens, S. and Klop, T. (2009) ‘Education through fiction: Acquiring opinion-forming skills in the context of genomics’, International Journal of Science Education, 31, 15: 2057-2083.
43. Lambourne, R., Shallis, M. and Shortland, M. (1990) Close Encounters?, New York: Adam Hilger.
44. Lederer, S. and Parascandola, J. (1998) ‘Screening syphilis: Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet meets the Public Health Service’, Journal of the History Of Medicine, 53, 4: 345-370.
45. Leiserowitz, A. (2004) ‘Before and after The Day After Tomorrow: A US study of climate change risk perception’, Environment, 46, 9: 22-37.
46. Lewenstein, B. (1995) ‘From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga’, Social Studies of Science, 25, 3: 403-436.
47. Lipkin, I. (2011) ‘Professor Ian Lipkin brings science to Hollywood’s “Contagion”’, Columbia University press release; online at www.mailman.columbia.edu/news/media/professor-ian-lipkin-brings-science-hollywoods-contagion; accessed 28 April 2013.
48. Losh, S. (2010) ‘Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983 and 2001’, Public Understanding of Science, 19, 3: 372-382.
49. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., de Franca Doria, M., Haynes, K. and Vincent, K. (2006) ‘Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change’, Public Understanding of Science, 15, 4: 435-457.
50. Massarani, L. and de Castro Moreira, I. (2005) ‘Attitudes towards genetics: A case study among Brazilian high school students’, Public Understanding of Science, 14, 2: 201-212.
51. McCurdy, H. (1997) Space and the American Imagination, Washington, DC: Smithsonian.
52. Medina-Domenech, R. and Menendez-Navarro, A. (2005) ‘Cinematic representations of medical technologies in the Spanish official newsreel, 1943-1970’, Public Understanding of Science, 14, 4: 393-408.
53. Mellor, F. (2007) ‘Colliding worlds: Asteroid research and the legitimisation of war in space’, Social Studies of Science, 37, 4: 499-531.
54. Merzagora, M. (2010) ‘Reflecting imaginaries: science and society in the movies’ in A. Smelik (ed.) The Scientific Imaginary in Visual Culture, Gottingen, Germany: V&R Unipress, 39-52.
55. National Science Teacher Association (2012) NSTA position statement: Learning Science in informal Environments; online at www.nsta.org/about/positions/informal.aspx; accessed 28 April 2013.
56. Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S. M. (1995) The DNA Mystique, New York: WH. Freeman.
57. Science and Entertainment Exchange (2011) ‘Scientist spotlight: Donna Nelson’, Science and Entertainment Exchange; online at www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org/article/scientist-spotlight-donna-nelson; accessed 28 April 2013.
58. Nisbet, M. (2004) ‘Evaluating the impact of The Day After Tomorrow: can a blockbuster film shape the public’s understanding of a science controversy?’, Skeptical Inquirer, 16 June; online at www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/evaluating_the_impact_of_the_day_after_tomorrow; accessed 28 April 2013.
59. Nisbet, M. and Dudo, A. (2010) ‘Science, entertainment, and education: A review of the literature’, Report for the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
60. Nisbet, M. and Scheufele, D. (2009) ‘What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions’, American Journal of Botany, 96, 10: 1767-1778.
61. Ordway, F. I. (undated) ‘2001: A Space Odyssey in retrospect’; online at www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0075.html; accessed 28 April 2013.
62. O’Riordan, K. (2008) ‘Human cloning in film: horror, ambivalence, hope’, Science as Culture, 17, 2: 145-162.
63. Ostherr, K. (2005) Cinematic Prophylaxis, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
64. Pansegreau, P. (2008) ‘Stereotypes and images of scientists in fiction films’, in P. Weingart and B. Huppauf (eds) Science Images and Popular Images of the Sciences, New York: Routledge, 257-266.
65. Pellechia, M. (1997) ‘Trends in science coverage: A content analysis of three US newspapers’, Public Understanding of Science, 6, 1: 49-68.
66. Perkowitz, S. (2007) Hollywood Science, New York: Columbia University Press.
67. Pernick, M. (1996) The Black Stork, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68. Reingold, N. (1985) ‘Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer meets the atom bomb’, in T. Shinn and R. Whitley (eds) Expository Science, Dordecht: D. Reidel, 229-245.
69. Reusswig, F., Schwarzkopf, J. and Pohlenz, P. (2004) Double impact: the climate blockbuster ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ and its impact on the German cinema public, PIK Report, 92, Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research: online at www.pik-potsdam.de/research/publications/pikreports/.files/pr92.pdf; accessed 28 April 2013.
70. Rose, C. (2003) ‘How to teach biology using the movie science of cloning people, resurrecting the dead, and combining flies and humans’, Public Understanding of Science, 12, 3: 289-296.
71. Saltzberg, D. (2011) The Big Blog Theory; online at www.thebigblogtheory.wordpress.com/; accessed 28 April 2013.
72. Schell, H. (1997) ‘Outburst! A chilling true story about emerging-virus narratives and pandemic social change’, Configurations, 5, 1: 93-133.
73. Schibeci, R. and Lee, L. (2003) ‘Portrayals of science and scientists, and “science for citizenship”’, Research in Science & Technological Education, 21, 2: 177-192.
74. Schiermeier, Q. (2004) ‘Disaster movie highlights transatlantic divide’, Nature, 431, 7004: 4.
75. Schweitzer, N. and Saks, M. (2007) ‘CSI effect: popular fiction about forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science’, Jurimetrics Journal, 47, 3: 357-364.
76. Shapiro, J. (2002) Atomic Bomb Cinema, New York: Routledge.
77. Shelton, A., Kim, D., Young, S. and Barak, G. (2007) ‘Study of juror expectations and demands concerning scientific evidence: does the CSI effect exist?’, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 9, 2: 331-368.
78. Singhal, A., Cody, M., Rogers, E. and Sabido, M. (eds) (2004) Entertainment-education and Social Change: History, Research, and Practice, Mawwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
79. Sjoberg, L. and Engelberg, E. (2010) ‘Risk perception and movies: A study of availability as a factor in risk perception’, Risk Analysis, 30, 1: 95-106.
80. Skal, D. (1998) Screams of Reason, New York: Norton.
81. Stacey, J. (2010) The Cinematic Life of the Gene, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
82. Steinke, J. (2005) ‘Cultural representations of gender and science: portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films’, Science Communication, 27, 1: 27-63.
83. Steinke, J., Lapinski, M., Long, M., Van Der Maas, C., Ryan, L. and Applegate, B. (2009) ‘Seeing oneself as scientist: media influences and adolescent girls’ science career-possible selves’, Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15, 4: 279-301.
84. Stern, M. (2004) ‘Jurassic Park and the moveable feast of science’, Science as Culture, 13, 3: 347-372.
85. Telotte, J. (1995) Replications, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
86. Terzian, S. and Grunzke, A. (2007) ‘Scrambled eggheads: Ambivalent representations of scientists in six Hollywood film comedies from 1961 to 1965’, Public Understanding of Science, 16, 4: 407-419.
87. Thurs, D. (2007) ‘Tiny tech, transcendent tech: nanotechnology, science fiction, and the limits of modern science talk’, Science Communication, 29, 1: 65-95.
88. Tomes, N. (2000) ‘The making of a germ panic, then and now’, American Journal of Public Health, 90, 2: 191-198.
89. Tosi, V. (2005) Cinema before Cinema: The Origins of Scientific Cinematography, London: British Universities Film and Video Council.
90. Tudor, A. (1989) Monsters and Mad Scientists, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
91. Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
92. Turow, J. (2010) Playing Doctor: Television, Storytelling and Medical Power, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
93. Valenti, J. (2012) ‘Sundance 2012: robots, dying lakes, and sci-fi disasters’, Science Communication, 34, 2: 292-295.
94. Van Dijck, J. (1998) Imagenation: Popular Images of Genetics, London: Macmillan.
95. Vasterman, P. (1995) ‘The Hollywood plague’, Albion Monitor, 19 August; online at www.monitor.net/monitor/8-19-95/virus.html; accessed 28 April 2013.
96. Vieth, E. (2001) Screening Science, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
97. Weart, S. (1988) Nuclear Fear, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
98. Weingart, P. (2008) ‘The ambivalence towards new knowledge: science in fiction film’, in P. Weingart and B. Huppauf, B. (eds) Science Images and Popular Images of the Sciences, New York: Routledge, 267-282.
99. Weingart, P. with C. Muhl and P. Pansegrau (2003) ‘Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: science and scientists in fiction film’, Public Understanding of Science, 12, 3: 279-287.
100. Wiesenfeldt, G. (2010) ‘Dystopian genesis: the scientist’s role in society, according to Jack Arnold’, Film & History, 40, 1: 58-74.
101. Wood, A. (2002) Technoscience in Contemporary American Film, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.