↓ Skip to main content

Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Why Frankenstein is a Stigma Among Scientists
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9936-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Nagy, Ruth Wylie, Joey Eschrich, Ed Finn

Abstract

As one of the best known science narratives about the consequences of creating life, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) is an enduring tale that people know and understand with an almost instinctive familiarity. It has become a myth reflecting people's ambivalent feelings about emerging science: they are curious about science, but they are also afraid of what science can do to them. In this essay, we argue that the Frankenstein myth has evolved into a stigma attached to scientists that focalizes the public's as well as the scientific community's negative reactions towards certain sciences and scientific practices. This stigma produces ambivalent reactions towards scientific artifacts and it leads to negative connotations because it implies that some sciences are dangerous and harmful. We argue that understanding the Frankenstein stigma can empower scientists by helping them revisit their own biases as well as responding effectively to people's expectations for, and attitudes towards, scientists and scientific artifacts. Debunking the Frankenstein stigma could also allow scientists to reshape their professional identities so they can better show the public what ethical and moral values guide their research enterprises.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Lecturer 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 10 24%
Arts and Humanities 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,368,923
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#409
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,375
of 321,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#14
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.