Dorothy Nelkin (1933–2003)

In Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology, Revised Edition, Dorothy Nelkin examines the field of science journalism up to the 1990s. She writes, “For most people, the reality of science is what they read in the press. They understand science less through direct experience or past education than through the filter of journalistic language and imagery. The media are their only contact with what is going on in rapidly changing scientific and technical fields, as well as a major source of information about the implications of these changes for their lives” (pg. 2). Further, “By their choice of words and metaphors, journalists convey certain beliefs about the nature of science and technology, investing them with social meaning and shaping public conceptions of limits and possibilities” (pg. 11). Nelkin’s work resembles John C. Burnham’s examination of the role of the media in constructing popular ideas of science.
She writes, “Scientists still appear to be remote but superior wizards, culturally isolated from the mainstream of society. Such heroic images are most apparent in press reports about prestigious scientists, especially Nobel laureates. But the mystique of science as a superior culture is also conveyed in the coverage of scientific theories, and even in stories about scientific misconduct and fraud” (pg. 14). Nelkin continues, “Most reports on technology are promotional, conveying the message that each new development will provide the magic to solve economic problems or ameliorate social ills. This promotional bias is most apparent in the coverage of computers and biotechnology” (pg. 32). Discussing the role of media coverage, Nelkin writes, “Trying to balance opposing positions, the media seldom explore the scientific issues involved in risk disputes or the methods of risk analysis that would provide a basis for meaningful judgments about competing claims” (pg. 48). In this way, “confused by complexity, most reporters remained silent on the nature of the evidence and the substance of the scientific dispute, simply balancing the views of contradictory sources” (pg. 50). Further, “By creating public issues out of events, the press can force regulatory agencies to action simply out of concern for their public image” (pg. 75).
Examining change over time, Nelkin writes, “As scientific research expanded after World War I, increased public interest in science was reflected in a growing popular science press. This press focused mainly on applications; science became a way to get things done” (pg. 80). She continues, “In the 1960s the expansion of an advocacy press with a critical and reformist ideology forced the mainstream press to reconsider the conventions of journalism, and news articles became more interpretive, investigative, and adversarial in character. Science writing reflected these trends” (pg. 89). Further, Nelkin argues that journalists struggle with “having to assimilate and simplify vast amounts of sometimes extremely complex material…This so-called information explosion has many consequences for journalists, who, even if scientifically trained, cannot possibly keep up with the latest details of all specialties” (pg. 117). Finally, “While scientists see public communication of scientific information as necessary and desirable, they are also aware that it extends their accountability beyond the scientific community. Once information enters the arena of public discourse, it becomes a visible public affair that is open to external investigation and regulation” (pg. 148).
Nelkin concludes, “This book has suggested that many of the characteristics of science and technology reporting reflect the nature of the relationship between journalists and their sources. Concerned about their legitimacy in the political arena and anxious to receive support for their work, scientists are sensitive to their image in the press. Hoping to shape that image, they are becoming adept at packaging information for journalists. Like advocates in any field, they are prone to overestimate the benefit of their work and minimize its risks” (pg. 163).… (altro)

In The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon, Dorothy Nelkin and M. Susan Lindee write, “Three related themes underly [sic] the metaphors geneticists and other biologists use to describe work on the human genome. These are a characterization of the gene as the essence of identity, a promise that genetic research will enhance prediction of human behavior and health, and an image of the genome as a text that will define a natural order” (pg. 6). They continue, “The history of science is the story of the selective analysis of reality, and many of the most interesting problems raised by historians and sociologists focus on this selectivity; that is, on how science, as a human and cultural process, can both depict nature and create culturally specific knowledge” (pg. 11). According to Nelkin and Linee, “Popular culture matters. For many consumers, media stories, soap operas, advice books, advertising images, and other vehicles of popular culture are a crucial source of guidance and information. These are not simply escapist sources. They are narratives of meaning, helping their attentive listeners deal with social dilemmas, discover the boundaries of socially acceptable behavior, and filter complex ideas” (pg. 11). In this way, “The gene is…a symbol, a metaphor, a convenient way to define personhood, identity, and relationships in socially meaningful ways” (pg. 16).
Nelkin and Lindee write, “The gene has become a way to talk about the boundaries of personhood, the nature of immortality, and the sacred meaning of life in ways that parallel theological narratives. Just as the Christian soul has provided an archetypal concept through which to understand the person and the continuity of self, so DNA appears in popular culture as a soul-like entity, a holy and immortal relic, a forbidden territory” (pg. 41). They continue, “The gene itself has been endowed with the qualities of a sacred object and the genome has become a fundamental text. In both the language of scientists and the parables of popular culture, the biological structure called DNA has assumed a nearly spiritual importance as a powerful and sacred object through which human life and fate can be explained and understood” (pg. 57).
Discussing social views, Nelkin and Lindee write, “The idea that ‘good’ and ‘bad’ character traits (and destinies) are the consequence of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ genes appears in a wide range of popular sources. In these works the gene is described in moral terms, and it seems to dictate the actions of criminals, celebrities, political leaders, and literary and scientific figures” (pg. 80). Further, “This construction of responsibility and blame suggests the ideological utility of genetic essentialism in the 1990s, for genetic explanations of individual actions have been incorporated into both popular media and social policy debates in ways that absolve the social order. Genetic deviance, a property of individuals and their DNA, relieves state and society of collective responsibility for the social conditions that foster violence. Genetic explanations therefore appeal to neoconservatives as a way to rail against the liberal, egalitarian theories of the 1960s” (pg. 129). They argue, “The rise of a new genetics – mediated not by state policy but by social and institutional pressure – is made more likely by certain ideas conveyed in popular culture. Stories of genetic essentialism and biological determinism facilitate public acceptance of the control of reproduction for the common good” (pg. 171).
Nelkin and Lindee conclude, “The narratives of mass culture shape what is seen in the world and what is invisible; what seems to be a problem and what promises solutions; what we take for granted and what we question. Today these narratives present the gene as robust and the environment as irrelevant; they devalue emotional bonds and elevate genetic ties; they promote biological solutions and debunk social interventions” (pg. 204).… (altro)

Workers at Risk is a powerful and moving documentary of workers routinely exposed to toxic chemicals. Products and services we all depend on—glass bottles, computers, processed foods and fresh flowers, dry cleaning, medicines, even sculpture and silkscreened toys—are produced by workers in constant contact with more than 63,000 commercial chemicals. For many of them, the risk of death is a way of life.

More than seventy of them speak here of their jobs, their health, and the difficult choices they face in coming to grips with the responsibilities, risks, fears, and satisfactions of their work. Some struggle for information and acknowledgment of their health risks; others struggle to put out of their minds the dangers they know too well. Through extensive interviews, the authors have captured in these voices that double bind of the chemical worker: "If I had known that it would be that lethal, that it could give me or one of my children cancer, I would have refused to work. But it's a matter of survival and we just don't consider all these things. Meanwhile, we've got to make money to survive."… (altro)