Cinematic science

Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 41-56

  Kirby, David A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145149010     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203928240-10     Document Type: Chapter

References (108)

1. Haynes, R. (1994) From Faust to Strangelove, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2. Lambourne, R., Shallis, M. and Shortland, M. (1990) Close Encounters?, New York: Adam Hilger.
3. McCurdy, H. (1997) Space and the American Imagination, Washington, DC: Smithsonian.
4. Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S. M. (1995) The DNA Mystique, New York: W.H. Freeman.
5. Tudor, A. (1989) Monsters and Mad Scientists, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
6. Vieth, E. (2001) Screening Science, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
7. Wood, A. (2002) Technoscience in Contemporary American Film, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
8. Altheide, D. (1996) Qualitative Media Analysis, London: Sage.
9. Balides, C. (2000) ‘Jurassic post-Fordism: tall tales of economics in the theme park’, Screen, 41: 139-60.
10. Brereton, P. (2005) Hollywood Utopia, Bristol: Intellect Books.
11. Böhnke, M. and Machura, S. (2003) ‘Young Tom Edison - Edison, the Man: biopic of the dynamic entrepreneur’, Public Understanding of Science, 12: 319-33.
12. Boon, T. (2005) ‘Health education films in Britain, 1919-1939: production, genres and audiences’, in Harper, G. and Moor, A. (eds) Signs of Life, London: Wallflower, 45-57.
13. Bousé, D. (2000) Wildlife Films, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
14. Brake, M. and Thornton, R. (2003) ‘Science fiction in the classroom’, Physics Education, 38: 1-4.
15. Briggs, L. and Kelber-Kaye, J. I. (2000) ‘There is no unauthorized breeding in Jurassic Park:gender and the uses of genetics’, NWSA, 12: 92-113.
16. Bryant, J. and Zillmann, D. (eds) (1994) Media Effects, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Bukatman, S. (2003) Matters of Gravity, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
18. Carson, R. ([1962] 1987) Silent Spring, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
19. Cartwright, L. (1995) Screening the Body, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
20. Clayton, J. (2002) ‘Genome time’, in Newman, K., Clayton, J. and Hirsch, M. (eds) Time and the Literary, London: Routledge, 31-59.
21. Crawford, T. (1997) ‘Screening science: pedagogy and practice in William Dieterle’s film biographies of scientists’, Common Knowledge, 6: 52-68.
22. Davis, D. (2001) "‘A hundred million hydrogen bombs”: total war in the fossil record’, Configurations, 9: 461-508.
23. Dinello, D. (2006) Technophobia! Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
24. Dubeck, L. W., Moshier, S. E. and Boss, J. E. (1994) Fantastic Voyages, New York: American Institute of Physics.
25. Edwards, R. (1997) ‘Evolutionary biology at the movies’, Journal of College Science Teaching, March: 333-38.
26. 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: 269-78.
27. Fedunkiw, M. (2003) ‘Malaria films: motion pictures as a public health tool’, American Journal of Public Health, 93: 1046-56
28. 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: 307-18.
29. Frank, S. (2003) ‘Reel reality: science consultants in Hollywood’, Science as Culture, 12: 427-69.
30. Franklin, S. (2000) ‘Life itself: global nature and genetic imaginary’, in Franklin, S., Lury, C. and Stacey, J. (eds) Global Nature, Global Culture, London: Sage, 188-227.
31. Frayling, C. (2005) Mad, Bad and Dangerous, London: Reaktion.
32. Gaycken, O. (2002) ‘A drama unites them in a fight to the death: some remarks on the flourishing of a cinema of scientific vernacularization in France, 1909-1914', Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 22: 353-74.
33. Gerbner, G. (1987) ‘Science on television: how it affects public conceptions’, Issues in Science and Technology, 3: 109-15.
34. Glass, F. (1989) ‘The “New Bad Future”: Robocop and 1980s’ sci-fi films’, Science as Culture1, 5:6-49.
35. Goldman, S. (1989) ‘Images of technology in popular films: discussion and filmography’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 14: 275-301.
36. Haraway, D. (1989) Primate Visions, London: Routledge.
37. Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women, London: Routledge.
38. Haynes, R. (1994) From Faust to Strangelove, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39. Hendershot, C. (1999) Paranoia, The Bomb, and 1950s Science Fiction Films, Bowling Green, OH:Bowling Green State University Press.
40. Huxford, J. (2000) ‘Framing the future: science fiction frames and the press coverage of cloning’, Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 14: 187-99.
41. Ingram, D. (2000) Green Screen, Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
42. Irwin. A. (1995) Citizen Science, London: Routledge.
43. Irwin, A. andWynne, B. (eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. 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: 1-18.
45. Jö rg, D. (2003) ‘The Good, the Bad, the Ugly: Dr Moreau goes to Hollywood’, Public Understanding of Science, 12: 297-305.
46. Kanner, M. (2006) ‘Going on instinct: gendering primatology in film’, Journal of Popular Film and Television, 33: 206-12.
47. Kay, L. (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life?, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48. King, G. (2000) Spectacular Narratives, London: I.B. Tauris.
49. Kirby, D. (2000) ‘The new eugenics in cinema: genetic determinism and gene therapy in GATTACA', Science Fiction Studies, 27: 193-215.
50. Kirby, D. (2002) ‘Are we not men?: the horror of eugenics in The Island of Dr Moreau’, Paradoxa1, 17:93-108.
51. Kirby, D. (2003a) ‘Scientists on the set: science consultants and communication of science in visual fiction’, Public Understanding of Science, 12: 261-78.
52. Kirby, D. (2003b) ‘Science consultants, fictional films and scientific practice’, Social Studies of Science, 33: 231-68.
53. Kirby, D. (2003c) ‘The threat of materialism in the age of genetics: DNA at the drive-in’, in Rhodes, G. (ed.) Horror at the Drive-In: Essays in Popular Americana, Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 241-58.
54. Kirby, D. (2004) ‘Extrapolating race in Gattaca: genetic passing, identity, the new eugenics, and the science of race’, Literature and Medicine, 23: 184-200
55. Kirby, D. and Gaither, L. (2005) ‘Genetic coming of age: genomics, enhancement, and identity in film’, New Literary History, 36: 263-82.
56. Kline, R. (1997) ‘Ideology and the new deal “fact film” Power and the Land’, Public Understanding of Science, 6: 19-30.
57. Lambourne, R., Shallis, M. and Shortland, M. (1990) Close Encounters?, New York: Adam Hilger.
58. Landecker, H. (2006) ‘Microcinematography and the history of science and film’, Isis, 97: 121-32.
59. 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: 345-70.
60. Leiserowitz, A. (2004) ‘Before and after The Day After Tomorrow: A U.S. study of climate change risk perception’, Environment, 46: 22-37.
61. Lewenstein, B. (1995) ‘From fax to facts: communication in the cold fusion saga’, Social Studies of Science, 25: 403-36.
62. Lowe, T., Brown, K., Dessai, S., 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: 435-57.
63. Maran, S. (1998) ‘Movie myths vs scientific reality’, Washington Post, 12 August.
64. McCurdy, H. (1997) Space and the American Imagination, Washington, DC: Smithsonian.
65. Mellor, F. (2007) ‘Colliding worlds: asteroid research and the legitimization of war in space’, Social Studies of Science, 37: 499-531
66. Mitman, G. (1999) Reel Nature, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
67. Moscovici, S. (1976) Social Influence and Social Change, London: Academic Press.
68. Mulkay, M. (1996) ‘Frankenstein and the debate over embryo research’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21: 157-76.
69. NASA (2002) ‘NASA explores future collaborations with Hollywood’, NASA Headquarters Bulletin, October: 7.
70. National Science Board (2006) Science and Engineering Indicators - 2006, Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
71. Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S. M. (1995) The DNA Mystique, New York: W.H. Freeman.
72. Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D. and Dingwall, R. (2001) ‘Fictions, fantasies and fears: the literary foundations of the cloning debate’, Journal of Literary Semantics 30: 37-52.
73. 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, www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/blockbuster
74. Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D. and Lewenstein, B. V. (2002) ‘Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology’, Communication Research, 29: 584-608.
75. Ostherr, K. (2005) Cinematic Prophylaxis, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
76. Pellechia, M. (1997) ‘Trends in science coverage: a content analysis of three US newspapers’, Public Understanding of Science, 6: 49-68.
77. Pernick, M. (1978) ‘Thomas Edison’s tuberculosis films: mass media and health propaganda’, Hastings Center Report, 8: 21-27.
78. Pernick, M. (1996) The Black Stork, Oxford: Oxford University Press..
79. Peters, H. (1995) ‘Interaction of journalists and scientists’, Media, Culture and Society, 17: 31-48.
80. Reingold, N. (1985) ‘Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer meets the atom bomb’, in Shinn, T. and Whitley, R. (eds) Expository Science, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 229-45.
81. Reusswig, F., Schwarzkopf, J., Pohlenz, P. (2004) ‘Double impact: the climate blockbuster, the day after tomorrow and its impact on the German cinema public’, PIK Report, 92. www.pikpotsdam. de/news-1/press-releases/archive/2004/pr92.pdf
82. 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: 289-96.
83. Schell, H. (1997) ‘Outburst! A chilling true story about emerging-virus narratives and pandemic social change’, Configurations, 5: 93-133.
84. Schibeci, R. and Lee, L. (2003) ‘Portrayals of science and scientists, and “science for citizenship”', Research in Science and Technological Education, 21: 177-92.
85. Schiermeier, Q. (2004) ‘Disaster movie highlights transatlantic divide’, Nature1, 431: 4.
86. Scott, K. and White, A. (2003) ‘Unnatural history? Deconstructing the Walking with Dinosaurs phenomenon’, Media, Culture and Society, 25: 315-32.
87. Semmler, I. (1998) ‘Ebola goes pop: the Filovirus from literature into film’, Literature and Medicine, 17: 149-74.
88. Shapiro, J. (2002) Atomic Bomb Cinema, London: Routledge.
89. Shortland, M. (1988) ‘Mad scientists and regular guys: images of the expert in Hollywood films of the 1950s’, Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of the British Society for History of Science and the History of Science Society, Manchester, UK, July 1988, 291-98.
90. Singhal, A. and Rogers, E. (2002) ‘A theoretical agenda for entertainment education’, Communication Theory, 12: 117-35.
91. Skal, D. (1998) Screams of Reason, New York: Norton.
92. Sontag, S. ([1965] 2004) ‘The imagination of disaster’, reprinted in Rickman, G. (ed.) The Science Fiction Film Reader, New York: Proscenium, 98-113.
93. Sparks, G. G., Nelson, C. L. and Campbell, R. G. (1997) ‘The relationship between exposure to televised messages about paranormal phenomena and paranormal beliefs’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 41: 345-59.
94. Steinke, J. (2005) ‘Cultural representations of gender and science: portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films’, Science Communication, 27: 27-63.
95. Stern, M. (2004) ‘Jurassic Park and the moveable feast of science’, Science as Culture, 13: 347-72.
96. Telotte, J. (1995) Replications, Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
97. Toumey, C. (1996) Conjuring Science, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
98. Tudor, A. (1989) Monsters and Mad Scientists, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
99. Turner, S. (2002) ‘Jurassic Park technology in the bioinformatics economy: how cloning narratives negotiate the telos of DNA’, American Literature, 74: 887-909.
100. Turney, J. (1998) Frankenstein’s Footsteps. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
101. Van Dijck, J. (1998) Imagenation. London: Macmillan.
102. Vasterman, P. (1995) ‘The Hollywood plague’, Albion Monitor, 19 August.
103. Vieth, E. (2001) Screening Science, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
104. Weart, S. (1988) Nuclear Fear, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
105. Weingart, P. and Pansegrau, P. (2003) ‘Introduction: perception and representation of science in literature and fiction film’, Public Understanding of Science, 12: 227-28.
106. Weingart, P. with Muhl, C. and Pansegrau, P. (2003) ‘Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses:science and scientists in fiction film’, Public Understanding of Science, 12: 279-87.
107. Wood, A. (2002) Technoscience in Contemporary American Film, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
108. Yandetti, M. (1978) ‘Atomic scientists and Hollywood: the beginning or the end?' Film and History, 8: 73-88.