In 2000, agricultural biologist and writer Stephen Nottingham published a book about genetic engineering technology in the movies, Screening DNA: Exploring the Cinema-Genetics Interface. While print copies aren't available in the US*, he has kindly provided the full text on his web site. With chapters on cloning, resurrecting dinosaurs, designer babies, alien DNA, scientist biopics he takes a look a wide range of films with genetic themes. He concludes that, while biotechnology is often portrayed negatively (and inaccurately) in the movies, he believes that they have little influence on the politics surrounding use of genetic engineering, cloning and other technology.I have to disagree with his final conclusion. The debate surrounding the use of biotechnology is driven not only by "concerned citizenry" but by politicians, and religious and corporate groups that have their own agendas. There is a ton of misinformation (and outright lies) promoted by lobbyists for those groups, and, not surprisingly, members of the public who are largely informed on scientific topics by popular culture are likely to have opinions about biotechnology that are based on emotional appeals and its sensationalist depiction in the movies than on careful analysis of the facts. I hate to think that our public policy is being set by the special interest groups that are best able to spin an entertaining tale.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 addition to Screening DNA, Nottingham's web site includes his "Biologist at the Cinema" series of essays and reviews that look at some popular science fiction films from a biologist's perspective:
- A.I. Artificial Intelligence (intelligence and consciousness)
- Blade Runner (clones, DNA and memory)
- Jurassic Park 3 (genetic engineering and ecology)
- Planet of the Apes (animal experimentation and evolution)
- The 6th Day (clones)
- Solaris (clones)
Tags:Stephen Nottingham, movies, science fiction, biotechnology, genetic engineering, cloning
Posts
Invaluable info,
ReplyDeletethanks
Very informative article.
ReplyDelete