Experimental: The Visibility of Experimental Animals

Abstract

In post-war America and Britain, increased federal and state sponsorship of science brought scientists into the public spotlight, but with little understanding of scientific methods the public relied on popularized forms of science for information about scientific practices. Whilst much of this information was gleaned from popular science writers who published in magazines, newspapers and other periodicals, films also played their part by producing narratives about scientists for movie audiences.¹ Terzian and Grunzke (2007) argue that the link between the increased public interest in science and the types of representations of scientists that were typically found in Hollywood films between the 1940s and 1960s can be accounted for because ‘people looked to experts — and particularly scientists — to apply their intellects to intelligent ends: to enhance the security of the nation, shield the nuclear family, and elevate the standard of living’ (Terzian & Grunzke, 2007, p. 408). There was a general fascination with science although public feeling about scientists was ambivalent, and this was reflected in the range of representations on offer. Hollywood films established the various clichés of the mad, heroic, morally bankrupt, eccentric, arrogant or absent-minded scientist, and in doing so it was inevitable that their practices, methods and experimental subjects would also become important aspects of the films’ narrative. The depictions served more than one purpose: they opened up a seam of story possibilities based on the prevailing scientific discoveries of the time and offered audiences a series of representations of science, scientists and experimental methods that, although fictional, were unavailable elsewhere.