Biology in the Movies: Using the Double-Edged Sword of Popular Culture to Enhance Public Understanding of Science

Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Tập 34 - Trang 49-54 - 2007
Christopher S. Rose1
1Department of Biology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, USA

Tóm tắt

Advances in technology typically outpace the public’s understanding of the underlying science, the consequences of which are public distrust and confusion about the actual benefits and risks involved. That popular culture, particularly movies, often misrepresent scientific facts and ideas for the purpose of entertainment is usually viewed as part of the problem. Some movies, however, offer excellent opportunities for teachers to draw connections and parallels between entertaining movie science and exciting real world science. This article illustrates how movies with genetics and developmental biology themes can be used to teach important ideas such as how genes control animal development and evolution, how cloning works, whether DNA is sufficient to create life, and how much genes matter in determining human behavior.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Crichton, M. (1999). Ritual abuse, hot air and missed opportunities. Science, 283, 1461–4163 DeSalle, R., & Lindley, D. (1997). The science of Jurassic Park and The Lost World or how to build a dinosaur. New York: Basic Books Fehilly, C. B., Willadsen, S. M., & Tucker, E. M. (1984). Interspecific chimaerism between sheep and goat. Nature, 307, 634–636 Futuyma, D. J. (2007). Science’s greatest challenge. Bioscience, 57, 3 Halder, G., Callaerts, P., & Gehring, W. J. (1995). Induction of ectopic eyes by targeted expression of the eyeless gene in Drosophila. Science, 267, 1788–1792 International HapMap Consortium (2003). The international hapmap project. Nature, 426, 789–796 Jimenez-Sanchez, G., Childs, B., & Valle, D. (2001). Human disease genes. Nature, 409, 853–855 Kass, L. (1997). The wisdom of repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of human beings. The New Republic, 216(22), 17–26 Kimberly, M. (2002). Reevaluating repugnance: A critical analysis of Leon Kass’ writings on genetic reproductive technologies. Princeton Journal of Bioethics, 5, 8–24 Kirby, D. A. (2003). Scientists on the set: Science consultants and the communication of science in visual fiction. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 261–278 Lewontin, R. (2000). The triple helix, gene, organism and environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Meinecke-Tilmann, S., & Meinecke, B. (1984). Experimental chimaeras – removal of reproductive barrier between sheep and goat. Nature, 307, 637–638 Midgley, M. (2000). Biotechnology and monstrosity: Why we should pay attention to the “Yuk factor”. Hastings Center Report, 30, 7–15 Newman, S. A. (2002). The human chimera patent initiative. Medical Ethics, 9, 4–7 Rose, C. S. (2003). How to teach biology using the movie science of cloning people, resurrecting the dead, and combining flies and humans. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 289–296 Turner, L. (2004). Is repugnance wise? Visceral responses to biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 269–270