ABSTRACT
In this chapter we explore the visual and textual figurings of contemporary life scientists associated with human reproductive or therapeutic cloning. We examine how these scientists are represented in both factual and fictional representations in a range of media genres. We begin by clarifying why the figure of the scientist is so crucial in understanding and investigating modern science. We then enlist the notion of the ‘modest witness’ (Haraway 1997), reviewing why this critical concept may be useful in exploring the processes whereby the reputable scientist is identified and attributed with ‘epistemic authority’ (Gieryn 1999). We link this construction of the exemplary scientist with specific processes of the ‘virtual witnessing’ (Shapin and Schaffer 1989 (1985)) of sciences that are facilitated by the mass media. We then turn our attention to more ambivalent or negative figures whose features contrast with those of the modest witness: the maverick, the madman and the fallen hero.We outline some of the cultural resources drawn upon to frame these figures and we analyse recent versions of these that have emerged in the field of human cloning. The dominant figure of the scientist (whether reputable or maverick) is masculine. However, we conclude by offering a brief analysis of the narrative and visual framing of two women scientists associated with cloning. It is important to note that the scientific figures mentioned above (the
modest witness, the maverick, the madman, the fallen hero) are generally produced, at least implicitly and frequently explicitly, in relation to each other. Furthermore, as Rosalind Haynes (Haynes 1994) and Jon Turney (Turney 1998) have documented, these figures draw on and circulate within a rich stock of historical and fictional resources. In making the distinction between fact and fiction, we are mindful of Haraway’s observation that: ‘It seems natural, even morally obligatory, to oppose fact and fiction; but their similarities run deep in western culture and language’ (Haraway 1989: 3). Not only are we sceptical about such ‘natural’ or ‘morally obligatory’ distinctions, but, in this book, we have deliberately set out to trace the circulation of discourses and figures across and between genres and forms that are typically located on both sides of this divide. We develop our main arguments about the interrelationship of
truth claims and media genres in Chapter 6. At this point we simply signal our awareness that this is an issue that requires further consideration.
