Where are all the sexy scientists? Or the scientists who love poetry, ride motorcyles, paint, play music, are social activists? And those who are loving fathers and mothers? Could it be that there are no scientists who fit the bill? Or is it that they exist but we just don’t associate these "human" qualities and pastimes with the pursuit of science?
Although we routinely enjoy the mundane and the spectacular fruits of scientifc research in our daily lives, most people do not give much thought to what scientists DO or what they are as persons. The common image of a scientist in an average person’s mind is an archaic one – that of the mad professor with wild hair, bewildered expression and ill fitting clothes covered by a lab coat. In the realm of mass imagination, the scientist as an individual, evokes the visions of a somewhat sinister, withered alchemist at worst, or the benignly batty "Absent Minded Professor" at best.
While most people acknowledge that their lives are better as a result of scientific progress, there are widespread suspicions about scientists themselves. This may be explained by the fact that in the mind of the general public, the word "science" conjures up images of nuclear explosions, dangerous drugs and genetically manipulated food or cloned animals. Professor Christopher Frayling, head of the Royal College of Art in England is conducting a "scientific" experiment about scientists. Here is the gist of his observations and some arcane facts about the mysterious world of scientific research. ((If you have a few minutes, please read the whole article)
"He’s (Frayling) been going into primary schools and asking the pupils to draw a picture of a scientist.
Examining the sketches afterwards, he is surprised to discover that the children consistently draw images from a bygone age long before they were born: with wild hair, lab coat, staring eyes, coke-bottle glasses, a withered hand; in some cases they’ve even written the word "MAD" with an arrow pointing at the scientist.
Sir Christopher has replicated this study several times and concludes that, "in the tests I’vea done about 80 to 90% are mad scientists with one of more aspects of the iconography of the 1960s alive and well".
The stereotype of the unhinged and dangerous scientist isn’t only held by school children. He believes that this is part of a "funny sort of schizophrenia in the public understanding of science".
On one hand there is a desire to believe in scientific progress, particularly in the field of medicine, and an admiration of everything that science has made possible; on the other a suspicion that the scientists themselves are "Mad, bad and dangerous to know".
This anxiety stems, perhaps, from a sense that science affects people in ways they can’t control. And yet they may take comfort from the fact that it’s a two-way street. Public support or public hostility towards a given area of science does in fact filter through to the daily lives of scientists. The idea of scientific "fashion"- what’s considered cutting-edge at any given moment, plays a major role in the granting of research funding, which is the life blood of science"
What is interesting about this article is that such a concrete personality profile persists in the public mind regarding practitioners of what is essentially an intellectual pursuit that is not partial to any particular physical (or psychological) attributes. There are many jobs that are physical in nature and favor a certain kind of physique or personality. When we hear "NBA player", "NFL linebacker", "ballerina", "super model", "gymnast", or even "soldier", we visualize a person of a certain height, bulk, muscle tone or physical proportions and the reality in such cases generally lives up to the expectation. But we also attribute imaginary physical and personality traits to other non-physical professions and groups even when real life specimens often belie that image. Scientists are not the only group targeted for faulty stereotyping. We describe people as "presidential", "senatorial", "professorial" "motherly" or "All American". So, what do presidents, senators, professors and moms look like? And for that matter, which phenotype describes a true blue American?
Accidental Blogger 
3 responses to “What Is Wrong With This Picture?”
Most sterotypical images of jobs (physical in nature or not) are primarily set up by tv and movies. The first scientist image that comes to my mind is that of
Christopher Llyod from the “Back to the Future” movies…the mad and crazy Dr. Emmett Brown with his wild white hair, out-of-fashion clothes covered by a loose lab coat. Of course I also remember Dr. Bunsen Honeydew from the Muppet show. He was actually bald but he had the out-dated clothes and the lab coat. His assistant, “Beaker”, sported the stereotypical wild scientist hair. As you say the real images of
scientist don’t match the stereotype but the media implants the particulars in one’s mind from a young age…if I were a participant of Dr. Frayling’s study,I probably would draw the erroneous stereotyped image myself.
As for the phenotype of a true blue American – no particular person or stereotype comes to mind. I hope that suggests I keep an open mind at least when it doesn’t come to scientists like ourselves.
LikeLike
You want to know where the sexy scientists are? I do too! Therefore I’ve been working on finding the sexiest scientists and profiling them and their work on my blog. Check it out and tell me what yuo think
LikeLike
sexyscientist:
Thanks for the link. After devoting time to this investigation, do you have time left for your own research? I was a bit disappointed that women scientists do not figure as prominently on your blog as the men. I am sure they are out there.
I forwarded your link to Coturnix at Science and Politics. He already has a post up – check it out.
LikeLike