The “Pillars of Creation” is arguably the most famous image produced by the Hubble space telescope, and it has led a quite unexpected life. On one hand, by tracing the trajectory of the image from its genesis through the traditional media channels between science and the public, this paper is a straightforward case study in the black-boxing of a scientific image. However, by continuing the story and following the “Pillars” into the hands of a group of enthusiasts whose interpretations of it differ from those of the scientific community, we find that the power of black-boxed scientific rhetoric can be co-opted by those who would use it for their own purposes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Stephen Hilgartner, “The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses.” Social Studies of Science20 (1990): 519–539 .
2.
2 For the former, see S. Jasanoff, “Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996,” Public Understanding of Science6, no. 3 (1997): 221-221 ; Brian Wynne, “Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science,” in Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, eds Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996). For the latter, see Mike Michael, “Ignoring science: discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science,” in Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, eds Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
3.
3 Marilee Long and Jocelyn Steinke, “The thrill of everyday science: images of science and scientists on children’s educational science programs in the United States,” Public Understanding of Science5, no. 2 (1996): 101–120 ; Greg Myers, “The double helix as icon,” Science as Culture 1, no. 9 (1990): 49–72; Dorothy Nelkin and M. Susan Lindee, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon (New York: Freeman, 1995).
4.
4 Daniel Jacobi and Bernard Schiele, “Scientific imagery and popularized imagery: Differences and similarities in the photographic portraits of scientists,” Social Studies of Science19, no. 4 (1989): 731–753 ; Greg Myers, “Every picture tells a story: illustrations in E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology,” in Representation in Scientific Practice, eds Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Michael Lynch, “The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences,” in Representation in Scientific Practice, eds Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (1990).
5.
5 Michael Lynch and Samuel Edgerton, “Aesthetics and digital image processing: representational craft in contemporary astronomy,” in Picturing Power: Visual Depiction and Social Relations, eds Gordon Fyfe and John Law, Sociological Review Monograph ( London: Routledge , 1992).
6.
6 Joel Achenbach, “A beautiful illusion,” The Washington Post (13 July 1997), 12–17, 29–31.
7.
7 To be precise, the astronomers originally saw three separate images, each measuring the emission from a different atomic element. The images were combined to form the vibrantly colored image that was made public.
8.
8 John Holliman, Hubble captures stellar birthplace ( Atlanta, GA: Cable News Network , 1995), television news live report.
15 As Nelkin describes, one reason for this close adherence to the language of press releases by science journalists is that journalists who defer to scientific experts are particularly wary of reporting incorrect scientific or technical details (and thus altering or contaminating their account), and thus adhere as closely as possible to the official signal embodied by the scientific press release. See Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1987).
17 Kathy Sawyer, “Hubble sends images of unborn stars,” The Washington Post (3 November 1995), A1-A1, A10-A10.
18.
18 John Noble Wilford, “A stunning view inside an incubator for stars,” The New York Times (2 November 1995), 19-19.
19.
19 Deborah Zabarenko, “New stars hatch from eggs and ‘Elephant Trunks’,” Reuters North American Wire (2 November 1995).
20.
20 Sawyer, “Hubble Sends Images of Unborn Stars” (cit. no. 17), Wilford, “A Stunning View inside an Incubator for Stars” (cit. no. 18).
21.
21 Jerry Adler, “Witness at the Creation,” Newsweek (3 November 1995), 70–71; Michael D. Lemonick, “Cosmic Close-Ups,” Time, 20 November 1995, 90–99.
22.
22 John Holliman, Hubble telescope produces first fruits with photos ( Atlanta, GA: Cable News Network , 1995), television news live report.
23.
23 It’s worth noting that the sheer existence of such video footage, created by NASA and included with press materials, is an indication of the level of press coverage they hoped to receive. Without this footage, it’s likely that the television coverage of the “Pillars” would have been markedly shorter (if they made the newscasts at all).
24.
24 On discourses of ignorance, see Michael, “Ignoring Science: Discourses of Ignorance in the Public Understanding of Science” (cit. no. 2)
27 Massimiano Bucci, “A public explosion: big bang theory in the UK daily press,” in Public Understanding of Science and Technology: A Critical Examination of Current Results and Methods, eds Meinolf Dierkes and Claudia von Grote ( London: Harwood Academic Publishers , 1999).
28.
28 Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists, 1st edn (New York: A. A. Knopf: Distributed by Random House, 1992), Christopher P. Toumey, God’s Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994).
29.
29 Guy Cramer, The Triunity Report [Web page] (Trinity Consulting, 1997 [cited 5 December 1998]) (http://www.direct.ca/trinity/).
31 George and Rebekah Smith, The Eagle Nebula [Web page] ( Believers International , 1996 [cited 23 November 1998]) (http://biblebelievers.org/bnjan96.htm).
32.
32 Lynch, “The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences” (cit. no. 4).
