This study uses evidence from the press and from the parliamentary record to examine
the extent to which, and the ways in which, people involved in the public debate over
laboratory experiments on human embryos in Britain during the 1980s drew on images
from science fiction. It is shown that negative images from science fiction were used in
the debate, but that these images could be transformed into resources for defending, as
well as attacking, this form of scientific endeavor. It is also shown that other fictional
structures were present in the debate and that both sides relied heavily on fictional
components to justify their competing appraisals of embryo research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Birke, L., S. Himmelweit, and G. Vines.1990. Tomorrow's child: Reproductive technologies in the 90s. London: Virago.
2.
Brave new embryos. 1990. Independent on Sunday , 29 April.
3.
Clamp on Frankenstein scientists. 1987. Today , 27 November.
4.
Curt, B.C.1994. Textuality and tectonics: Troubling social and psychological science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
5.
Department of Health and Social Security.1987. Human fertilization and embryology: A frameworkfor legislation. White Paper. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
6.
Durant, J.R., G.A. Evans, and G.P. Thomas.1989. The public understanding of science . Nature340:11-14.
7.
Edwards, R.1989. Life before birth: Reflections on the embryo debate . London: Hutchinson.
8.
Edwards, R., and P. Steptoe.1980. A matter of life: The story of a medical breakthrough. London: Hutchinson .
9.
Embryonic journey. 1989. New Scientist, 2 December, 24.
10.
Gilbert, G.N., and M. Mulkay.1984. Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of scientists'discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Glut, D.1973. The Frankenstein legend. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow.
12.
Lewenstein, B.V.1989. Frankenstein or wizard: Images of engineers in the mass media. Engineering: Cornell Quarterly27:40-48.
13.
McNeil, M.1990. Reproductive technologies: Anew terrain for the sociology of technology. In The new reproductive technologies , edited by M. McNeil, I. Varcoe, and S. Yearley , 1-26. Basingstoke : Macmillan.
14.
Morgan, D., and R.G. Lee.1991. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990: Abortion and embryo research, the new law. London : Blackstone.
15.
Mulkay, M.1985. The word and the world: Explorations in the form of sociological analysis. London: Allen and Unwin .
16.
—. 1991. Intruders in the Fallopian tube or a dream of perfect human reproduction. Human Reproduction6:1480-86.
17.
—. 1993a. Embryos in the news. Public Understanding of Science3:33-51.
18.
—. 1993b. Rhetorics of hope and fear in the Great Embryo Debate . Social Studies of Science23:721-42.
19.
—. 1994a. Changing minds about embryo research. Public Understanding of Science3:195-213.
20.
—. 1994b. Science and family in the Great Embryo Debate . Sociology28:699-715.
21.
—. 1994c. The triumph of the pre-embryo: Interpretations of the human embryo in parliamentary debate over embryo research. Social Studies of Science24:611-39.
22.
—. 1994d. Women in the parliamentary debate over embryo research . Science, Technology, & Human Values19:5-22.
23.
—. 1995a. Galileo and the embryos: Religion and science in parliamentary debate over research on human embryos. Social Studies of Science25:499-532.
24.
—. 1995b. Parliamentary ambivalence in relation to embryo research . Social Studies of Science25:149-63.
25.
—. 1995c. Political parties, parliamentary lobbies and embryo research . Public Understanding of Science4:31-55.
26.
Nelkin, D.1987. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology . New York: W. H. Freeman .
27.
Shattered test tubes. 1987. New Scientist, 3 December, 21.
28.
Smith, J., ed. 1992. Frankenstein: Case studies in contemporary criticism. Boston: St. Martin's.
29.
Sullivan, D.L.1994. Exclusionary epideictic: NOVA's narrative excommunication of Fleischmann and Pons. Science, Technology, & Human Values19:283-306.
30.
Toumey, C.P.1992. The moral character of mad scientists: Acultural critique of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values17:411-37.
31.
Tudor, A.1989a. Monsters and mad scientists: A cultural history of the horror movie. Oxford: Blackwell .
32.
—. 1989b. Seeing the worst side of science. Nature340:589-92.
33.
Turney, J.1994. In the gnp of the monstrous myth. Public Understanding of Science3:225-31.
34.
Warnock, M.1985. A question of life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilization and Embryology. Oxford: Blackwell .
35.
Wolpert, L.1994. Response to Steve Fuller. Social Studies of Science24:745-47.
