Back To The Future: Mad Scientists

John M. Barry, the author of The Great Influenza, writes about scientists and the obstacles they face. He claims that scientists are explorers in the wilderness that is science. There is no charted path to go down and no one to follow. Scientists will always be uncertain, however scientists should possess certain characteristics to overcome the doubt. He appeals to our emotions to explain the necessary characteristics a scientist has to posses. John M. Barry uses anaphoras, motifs, and pathos in his definition of what scientists do.

In The Great Influenza, John M. Barry, effectively characterizes scientific research by using, metaphor, allusion, and appeal to pathos. Barry uses allusion when he refers to Claude Bernard's statement,"Science teaches us to doubt." This allusion is the basis of Barry's argument on what being a scientist means. Barry argues that a scientist is someone who experiments. Someone who discovers new things. Barry also alludes to one of the most iconic scientists, Albert Einstein. This allusion adds some credibility to Barry's argument. Barry uses metaphor to make science appear like a noble sacrifice for a scientist, and this also appeals to the pathos of the reader. The reader feels sympathetic for scientists. "A scientist must accept the fact that

If you search through your television guide, you will see at least three of these shows on at the same time on different channels, many even having all-day marathons for you to enjoy on Saturday morning. Simon Cole and Rachel Dioso-Villa have analyzed that many of these fictitious programs attempt to make science “sexy,” which may be the reason why we are so attracted to them. The scientists look stylish at all times; wearing nice suits or dresses out on the field or in the laboratory, having normal work days, finding everything they need, having all of the state-of-the-art equipment and staff they need, and more importantly, they get everything done quickly and effectively. This glamorous, action-packed lifestyle gives a false sense of what the career itself actually entails, which includes giant lab coats, numerous court sessions, understaffed laboratories, no gun, and an abundance of paperwork.

Much credit should belong to scientists for making important technological and medical discoveries in the world. In Bishop,'sEnemies of Promise," well known scientists point out views regarding their belief in science. Representative George E. Brown, Jr., who has been trained as a physicist admits that "his faith in science has been shaken." He feels that as our knowledge of science increases, so do the occurrence of social problems. Brown, Jr. Feels that the progression of science should lead to diminishing social problems rather than an increase.(238) The real question is, is science to blame, or are the humans creating science to blame? Critics such as Brown and Lamm "blame science for what are actually the failures of individuals to use the knowledge that science has provided." Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, is a good example of a myth about a scientist who took science to an extreme.

I associate the world’s image with those scientists. I see the world differently because these

What is scientific research without competent scientists? John M. Barry’s The Great Influenza, characterizes scientific research as a commendable venture. Barry uses rhetorical strategies such as repetition, compelling diction, and vivid imagery. These tactics aid the reader’s comprehension of the author’s purpose. The purpose is to convince readers that scientists require certain traits to overcome the challenges of scientific research. The passage in reference suggests that John M. Barry holds scientists in high regard.

The world is not a cultivating place for scientists. Victor Frankenstein in Frankenstein; or a Modern Prometheus and Will Rodman, from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, are met with constant opposition to their studies and goals. The current state of scientific research is embodied in both these works. Both protagonists are restricted creatively and shunned by their peers. And if a scientist does not succeed or make a new and benefiting discovery, they are shunned even more and judged by society.

When you hear the word “mad scientist” you perceive an aggressive, eccentric, awkward and intellectual individual that works with fictional equipment in order to initiate their intelligible schemes. On the other hand, they fail to recognize the evil that will stream from the hubris of “playing god”. A majority of the time these “mad scientists” are individuals who value their experiments and scientific curiosity over themselves, others and the world. The literature works, The Birthmark, Rappaccini’s Daughter and The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde all depict the role of a “mad scientist” who ultimately destroys themselves and others in an attempt to create something perfect.

Science is portrayed dangerous because the science creation becomes uncontrollable by committing violent actions. Creation of Frankenstein, monster, burns down the cottage originally owned by Felix because of his first frustration of getting rejected by the family he thought would be friendly because of his appearance released his uncontrollable anger: “I fired the straw, and heath, and bushes, which I had collected. The wind fanned the fire, and the cottage was quickly enveloped by the flames, which clung to it” (Frankenstein p. 113). Monster, without anyone beside him to support, his uncontrollable anger pointed towards his creator, Victor Frankenstein, for making his life miserable by making his appearance horrifying. Then with his

Friedrich Nietzsche once said,” All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of the truth come only from the senses”. Newscasters today tend to be seen as a credible source for learning about what is happening in the world. When a person hears of a terrorist attack or some other news, they immediately look it up on their phones through news stations such as CNN and Fox. One thing that is never brought up is how these newscasters, or anyone for that matter gains credibility. Professionals need to have credibility to be successful in their careers, what methods are used and how they attain that credibility varies. Different people are more credible than others in different areas. It is who you are that will determine what those areas are.

This study and what was found in the Lit Review both agree that television does indeed have some correlation with interest in STEM fields. The research studies reviewed stereotypes of women seen in the media as a whole, which is related on a macro level. However, this study tries to look at stereotypes of women in STEM. The questions asked in this study looked into changing perceptions of women in STEM by having female scientist characters as the main character, in that it would hopefully put them in a more positive light. The ones described at the very beginning of the Lit review ended up not being as useful information than thought. However, the research conducted by Kimberly(2002), Orithia and Morgain(2013), Deegan(1983), and Stienke and

Science fiction has had many notable cult television shows. Two of the most influential and popular shows were the timely Twilight Zone (1959-1964) and the cult favorite The X-Files (1994-2002). Both have been staples in popular culture by reflecting on social structure and politics through the use of science fiction. (Booker). By comparing the two shows, I will showcase how science fiction became the most influential genre in television history.

Tudor (1989) notes that between 1951 and 1964 scientists were often portrayed in film as being responsible for saving as well as endangering humanity. In films of that era science is dangerous, but science also provides the most appropriate means of dealing with the dangers that science unleashes. Scientists might, for example, inadvertently create mutant monsters, but scientists also most commonly figure out how to eliminate the threats they have created. In these films, science is dangerous but efficacious. In contrast, more recent entertainment films portray scientists as being unable to solve problems or eliminate threats to humanity. Instead, laypersons most commonly save the day (Tudor 1989). Scientific expertise is devalued in these films, and may even be portrayed as a handicap of sorts. In horror films like C.H.U.D. and the 1988 remake of The Blob, laypersons rid the world of dangerous creatures, but only after the laypersons outwit scientists who either fail to understand the dangers or who have a vested interest in perpetuating the dangers. In films like E.T. and Splash, laypersons save the lives of kind and intelligent creatures by rescuing them from scientific captivity. In these and many other recent films, science no longer provides resources for

The “scientific mind”, or how people think about the world, has changed multiple times throughout history. Before the 1700s, people had a more religious-based point of view on life; the church was considered to be far more important than it is today. With the church’s iron grip over society and its people, it came with a shock as the 1700s passed by and more and more people started to think for themselves. The acceptance of having more freedom, when it came to religion and change, changed the world forever.During the scientific revolution, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, and Francis Bacon all came up with principal scientific

Scientists and researchers have existed for thousands of years and some of their work have been able to allow their legacy to live on after they are gone. Some would say they are the embodiment of mankind. Because of their countless hours spent on research and experimentation, they have been able to create and ensure that technology is always improving. Science and STEM related careers are a growing field that requires the same quality, people interested in this field are problem solvers. The majority of scientists and science enthusiasts follow the same basic process also known as the scientific method. They all give the information collected and confirmed to the public for general use and to spread knowledge. With that being said, a marine fisher biologist, the career being interviewed, can easily be looked at and compared to an applied physicist, the career that is being pursued. A marine fisher biologist is a scientist who goes to bodies of water in order to conduct experiments that evaluates the health of an ecosystem. The information collected is significant and important because it affects fishers and shrimpers within that area that depend on harvesting sea creatures as their way of livelihood. A marine fisher biologist are able to determine if the creatures that live in the ocean are healthy and plentiful. An applied physicist is a scientist who conducts experiments that aim to produce new technologies and solve engineering problems. Their research affects about