Stem Cell Rev and Rep (2010) 6:337339

DOI 10.1007/s12015-010-9164-z

Popular Culture Representations of Science: Views

from the Canadian Stem Cell Research Community
Timothy Caulfield & Amy Zarzeczny

Published online: 10 June 2010

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Popular cultureincluding movies, TV, books, and the

news mediahas become one of the most important
sources of scientific information. As noted by Nisbet et
al., [w]hen formal education in science ends, media
become the most available and sometimes the only source
for the public to gain information about scientific discoveries, controversies, events, and the work of scientists
(p.592) [1]. Similarly, Bowdoin Van Riper has suggested
that [p]opular culture probably does more than formal
science education to shape most peoples understanding of
science and scientists. It is more pervasive, more eyecatching, and (with rare exceptions) more memorable
(p.1104) [2].
Given the potentially significant role of popular culture
as a vehicle of science communication, it is no surprise that
both the nature and impact of science in popular culture has
been the subject of academic inquiry. For example, the
issue of accuracy has been explored and critiqued by
numerous commentators [25], as has the potential impact
of popular culture in shaping public opinions about science
and related social issues [6, 7]. While the relationship
between popular culture representations and public opinion
is undoubtedly complex [8], it is widely acknowledged that
it plays an important role in bringing science and
technology to the publics attention.
What does the science community think about popular
representations of science? Studies have investigated
how scientists view their interactions with the news
media [9], but few touch on their impressions of popular

T. Caulfield (*) : A. Zarzeczny

Health Law Institute, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
e-mail: tcaulfld@law.ualberta.ca

culture more broadly. To explore this question, we

surveyed members of Canadas Stem Cell Network
(SCN) in order to shed light on their views regarding
popular representations of science and their perceived
impact on public opinion, policy and the conduct of
science. Respondents (56 in total) included senior scientists, trainees, SCN staff and other attendees of the SCNs
2009 annual general meeting.
The majority (57.1%) of our respondents agreed that
science is playing an increasingly important or prominent
role in popular culture (e.g. movies, television, books, etc.).
At the same time, however, many had concerns about the
accuracy of these representations. As shown in Fig. 1,
almost no one thought the portrayals of science were
accurate or highly accurate. Indeed, nearly all were at least
somewhat sceptical about the portrayals, particularly when
asked about specific topics, including cloning, the role of
genetics in health, stem cell research generally, induced
pluripotent stem cell research, and the efficacy of unproven
stem cell therapies offered abroad (sometimes referred to as
stem cell tourism).
An overwhelming majority (85.7%) of our respondents
believe that popular culture has an effect on public opinion
about science and 12.5% think it sometimes has an impact.
Only 1.8% believes it does not. While the role of popular
representations of science on public perceptions is clearly a
complex, nonlinear, phenomenon (i.e., the media both
reflects and helps to shape public opinion) [10], the opinion
of the respondents do fit well with other research that
suggests that popular culture, such as movies and television, often lead to a changed perception or understanding
of science or a scientific phenomena (p.180), including
encouraging excitement, instilling fear . . . or . . . leading
to the development of stereotypes of science and scientists
(p.181), among other effects [11].

338

Fig. 1 How accurate are popular representations?

We also asked the participants about the potential impact

of popular culture on public opinion. A significant
percentage (47.3%) feels that it tends to make people more
suspicious of technology (41.8% think it makes people
more accepting of it). Again, this result is, in general,
consistent with conclusions from other studies. For example, Nisbet et al. found that people who watch television
frequently are more likely to have reservations about
science and technology (p.601) [1], and that heavy
viewers of television find that misconceptions of science
are either confirmed or created anew (p.603) [1].
A number of commentators have speculated about why
scientists are concerned about media portrayals. It has been
suggested that scientists believe popular cultural portrayal
is connected to popular opinion and thus funding (p.57)
[7] and, as such, worry that [i]f accurate portrayal can
lead to increased public support for science, then inaccurate portrayal has the possibility of decreasing public
support (p.246) [12]. This suggestion is supported by our
results. 48.2% of our respondents believe popular culture
representations of science do have an impact on funding
decisions, and an additional 32.1% believe they sometimes
have an impact. Further, 76.8% agreed popular culture
representations of science affect policy decisions (i.e., what
kind of research is or is not permitted in a jurisdiction), and
19.6% believe they sometimes have an impact. To clarify
their views, participants offered a range of comments, such
as: politicians are informed by pop culture; laws are not
made by scientists; decision makers are scientific
laypeople, too!; the people that see these pop culture
representations are those that make funding decisions, and
very much since this same population [the general public
who are exposed to popular culture representations] elects
the people making these policy decisions.
We also asked the participants about popular culture as a
forum for critical consideration of attendant issues. As

Stem Cell Rev and Rep (2010) 6:337339

noted by Kitzinger, fiction is a potential avenue for

enabling discussion about social context and can allow for
upstream engagement (public consideration of an outcome
before it has happened) (p.84) [8]. Interestingly, our
respondents were evenly split about this issue. 41.1%
believe popular culture is an appropriate mechanism for
critiquing the benefits and risks of science, while 44.6%
think it is not. We do not know why some researchers hold
a negative view about the role of popular cultures
commentary in this context, but it seems reasonable to
speculate that it is connected to the scientific communitys
concern about accuracy. If you believe the media is an
inaccurate source of information (which is far from a
certain conclusion [4]), then it seems reasonable to see it as
a less than ideal forum for commentary.
Despite the relatively negative views of our respondents regarding the role and impact of popular representations of science, a reasonable number agreed that these
representations have an impact on their work. 44.6%
said that popular culture representations of science have
made them think about their work in a different way and
19.6% agreed that they have thought about popular
culture representations of science when making decisions about what project(s) to pursue. That said, 39.3%
felt that popular culture representations of science have
nothing to do with their work.
Finally, it is interesting to note that 92.9% of respondents
have had a member of the public (including friends or
family) question them about their work, or a related area of
science, after seeing a popular culture representation of it.
This result is an intriguing metric of the ability of popular
culture to stimulate interest and discussion.
While a small survey of a relatively discrete scientific
community, the data provide some interesting insight. The
results fit well with the notion that popular culture
representations of science are indeed seen as being highly
relevant in a number of respects by members of a leading
scientific community, in this case, Canadas Stem Cell
Network. This group had the impression that popular
culture, while largely inaccurate, was having an impact on
public opinion, funding decisions and policy. This small
survey invites further work on the scientific communitys
views, including a more in-depth examination of the
perceived sources of inaccuracy and why the scientific
community is uncomfortable with the social commentary
role of popular representations.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Canadas Stem Cell

Network (SCN) for funding and support for this initiative, the
University of Albertas Health Law Institute for administrative
support, Robyn Hyde-Lay and Christen Rachul for their helpful
comments on our survey instrument, and the SCN members who
participated in this research.

Stem Cell Rev and Rep (2010) 6:337339

References
1. Nisbet, M., Scheufele, D., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., &
Lewenstein, B. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise?: A
media effects model for public perceptions of science and
technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584608.
2. Bowdoin Van Riper, A. (2003). What the public thinks it knows about
science; popular culture and its role in shaping the publics perception
of science and scientists. EMBO Reports, 4(12), 11041107.
3. Stern, M. (2004). Jurassic Park and the moveable feast of science.
Science as Culture, 13(3), 347372.
4. Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. (2004). Do the print media hype
genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peerreviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal,
170, 13991407.
5. Rose, C. (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, 289296.

339
6. Locke, S. (2005). Fantastically reasonable: ambivalence in the
representation of science and technology in super-hero comics.
Public Understanding of Science, 14, 2546.
7. Kirby, D. (2003). Science advisors, representation, and Hollywood
films. Molecular Interventions, 3(2), 5460.
8. Kitzinger, J. (2010). Questioning the sci-fi alibi: a critique of how
science fiction fears are used to explain away public concerns
about risk. Journal of Risk Research, 13(1), 7386.
9. Peter Peters, H., et al. (2008). Science communication: interactions with the mass media. Science, 321, 204205.
10. Ten Eyck, T. (2005). The media and public opinion on genetics and
biotechnology: mirrors, windows, or walls? Public Understanding of
Science, 14, 305316.
11. Barnett, M., Wagner, H., Gatling, A., Anderson, J., Houle, M., &
Kafka, A. (2006). The impact of science fiction film on student
understanding of science. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 15(2), 179191.
12. Kirby, D. (2003). Science consultants, fictional films, and
scientific practice. Social Studies of Science, 33, 231268.