"The Mystique of Science in the Press" - A Reading Report
Summary
In her chapter, The Mystique of Science in the Press, Dorothy Nelkin argues that the press creates an air of mystique around science which is responsible for a public perception of it as being esoteric and possessing greater value than any other pursuit of humanity. Rather than promoting public understanding, Nelkin claims that such media coverage distances the real importance of science from the grasp of citizens. She constructs her view on the basis of four themes: the scientist as a star, science as a resource, the purity of science, and the authority of scientific theory.
The Scientist as Star
Nelkin’s first theme illustrates the media’s tendency to glorify scientists, portraying them as heroes or celebrities who are engaged in an international competition for awards and esteem.
Science as a Resource
In her second theme, Nelkin addresses the frequent portrayal of science by the media as the most important resource of society. In her opinion, such an idealization casts a light of diminished importance on other human endeavours, such as liberal arts.
The Purity of Science
Nelkin’s third theme focuses on the media’s depictions of science as being a profession apart because it is unemotional, impartial, and possessing higher values than those in other fields. She argues that the media idealizes science by portraying cases of scientific fraud as being aberrations.
The Authority of Scientific Theory
In her final theme, Nelkin discusses how, in its choice of theories to advance, the press sometimes uses disputed and unproven science to promote certain views. This has the consequence of blurring the line between that which is regarded as “hard evidence” and that which is considered “theoretical.”
Conclusion
Nelkin concludes by commenting on the accessibility gap between citizens and science that is perpetuated by “the mystique of science in the press.” Such a gap concerns her in a time when science is so integral to society, especially in policy making.
Commentary
Who was Dorothy Nelkin?
Without ever attaining an advanced degree beyond her Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from Cornell, she achieved the status of University Professor in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at New York University. She was an author of some 26 books on various topics related to science and technology in society. Much of her work revolved around exposing the potential societal consequences of “unchecked” advances in science. She was a sceptic when it came to believing that science would live up to the desires of its advocates. In 2003, she died of cancer at the age of 69.
My Views on the Mystique of Science in the Press
An interesting point I noted was in Nelkin’s theme “scientist as star” where she addresses the media’s propensity to portray female Nobel laureates as down-to-earth, everyday people which starkly contrasts depictions of male Nobelists. She states that: “As a remarkable exception to the usual coverage of scientists in the press, the portraits of female Nobelists only highlight the prevailing image of science as an arcane and superior profession, and points up the lack of attention to its substance.” Her use of this particular illustration was a source of confusion for me, preventing me from identifying how it highlights or even relates to “the mystique of science in the press.”
Nelkin’s theme “science as a resource” presents an argument that struck a chord with me regarding the superior representation of scientists, or “techs”, relative to liberal arts types, or “fuzzies”, by the media. When I was in University and even as far back as my highschool days, I was discouraged by my parents, peers and science teachers to pursue studies outside of science with the exception of English and other requisite courses. Little did I realize then of the significant impact that greater exposure to liberal arts would have had on my ability to communicate, particularly with respect to writing.
Another point of interest I found in Nelkin’s theme “the purity of science” makes reference to the age old reverence of science by its contributors — being primarily male — and by the media as having purely logical, as opposed to emotional, motivations. This relates to a discussion we had as a class in which, if I recalled correctly, the consensus was that science, as a product of culture by definition, necessitates that emotional motives, in addition to logical ones, be attributed to its proliferation.
In Nelkin’s theme of “the authority of scientific theory,” a noteworthy point that she neglected to make, which I feel would have added to her argument, was of the media’s widespread dependence in legitimizing stories on the alleged “reliability” of the peer-reviewed scientific community. When the press cites scientists in an effort to validate their view, I think that the effect is to further propagate the idea in the public’s psyche that the word of scientists should be taken at face value and undisputed.
In conclusion, Nelkin’s chapter opened my eyes to the notion that the press, without doubt, is largely responsible for creating a public perception of mystique around science. My personal sentiments coincided with Nelkin’s concern that, in an age when science has profound influence over societal decision-making, such a circumstance subsists.
That's all for now!