![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timerippleOrthros no Inu is over, and so are my recaps. I’ll miss the weekly woobiefest, but everybody else can heave a sigh of relief.
Last week in SFF class I found myself, once again, in the position of defending science. We had read Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH (O’Brian), Double Helix (Werlin), and The House of the Scorpion (Farmer) for that week. We got to talking about how in House of the Scorpion the evildoers are the people who use the products of science rather than the people who do the science, whereas in Double Helix the main scientist is EVIL EVIL EVIL. The main EVIL EVIL GOT IT YET? EVILLLL scientist talks about how people who do science should be the ones making science policy decisions. And he’s kind of got a point, except that when he says “people” he means himself, and according to the narrative he’s an egotistic nutjob. And evil.
The discussion went off and kind of started to fail to differentiate between real and fictional scientists, and I found myself pointing out that there’s a tendency to portray all scientists as incapable of making “correct” moral or political decisions. In books they’re often carried away by how awesome their work is that they don’t think of the practical applications, or they do think of practical applications that are totally wacko and EVIL and disapproved of by the narrative. (At least the biologists are. Maybe the physicists get off lightly because people are less cool with the kind of scientists who screw around with DNA. )
I felt compelled to point out that scientists are people too. They’re perfectly capable of making moral decisions and not getting blinded by how awesome their latest technique is. They’re even nice people, lots of them. They raise nice, well-adjusted kids and play in their local orchestra and have a sense of humor. Some of them read Jane Austen, for God’s sake!
So why are children’s science fiction books so often about OMG DOOM EVIL SCIENTISTS EVIL EVIL EVIL? Where are the books about how awesome their genetically engineered human-protein-producing rabbits are?
Seriously.
I kind of miss the days of Philosophy of Science class, when all you had to do was put the physics and the psychology majors in a room together, suggest that there might be no such thing as Truth, and pass the popcorn.
Last week in SFF class I found myself, once again, in the position of defending science. We had read Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH (O’Brian), Double Helix (Werlin), and The House of the Scorpion (Farmer) for that week. We got to talking about how in House of the Scorpion the evildoers are the people who use the products of science rather than the people who do the science, whereas in Double Helix the main scientist is EVIL EVIL EVIL. The main EVIL EVIL GOT IT YET? EVILLLL scientist talks about how people who do science should be the ones making science policy decisions. And he’s kind of got a point, except that when he says “people” he means himself, and according to the narrative he’s an egotistic nutjob. And evil.
The discussion went off and kind of started to fail to differentiate between real and fictional scientists, and I found myself pointing out that there’s a tendency to portray all scientists as incapable of making “correct” moral or political decisions. In books they’re often carried away by how awesome their work is that they don’t think of the practical applications, or they do think of practical applications that are totally wacko and EVIL and disapproved of by the narrative. (At least the biologists are. Maybe the physicists get off lightly because people are less cool with the kind of scientists who screw around with DNA. )
I felt compelled to point out that scientists are people too. They’re perfectly capable of making moral decisions and not getting blinded by how awesome their latest technique is. They’re even nice people, lots of them. They raise nice, well-adjusted kids and play in their local orchestra and have a sense of humor. Some of them read Jane Austen, for God’s sake!
So why are children’s science fiction books so often about OMG DOOM EVIL SCIENTISTS EVIL EVIL EVIL? Where are the books about how awesome their genetically engineered human-protein-producing rabbits are?
Seriously.
I kind of miss the days of Philosophy of Science class, when all you had to do was put the physics and the psychology majors in a room together, suggest that there might be no such thing as Truth, and pass the popcorn.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-14 01:37 am (UTC)Thank you for defending scientists (says one of your resident scientists who reads Jane Austen).
There were plenty of rah-rah-science children's science fiction books published in the 50s or thereabouts. See Danny Dunn, or all Heinlein juvies (except Podkayne, sorry), or a fun but insubstantial book called "The Mad Scientist's Club" I picked up at Worldcon. Indeed, not many of the ones I've read have good biologists, but that may be a selection effect of what I choose to read (says the physics major).
Then again, there's plenty of fiction (and history) that deals with the moral qualms of physicists. e.g. "I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds."
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-10-14 11:29 pm (UTC)i am sad that i haven't been able to read your last post yet. xD the sister is in the midst of Epic Study and hasn't been drama'ing since before orthros 8 came out. ←deprivation, seriously.
there needs to be another wonderful drama with JUST AS MUCH COLORCODED WOOBIE soon. ♥ nexttt~ 8D
(no subject)
From: