Cool Geeks, Dangerous Nerds, Entrepreneurial Scientists and Idealistic Physicians? Exploring Science and Medicine in Popular Culture

  • Joachim AllgaierEmail author


The public image of scientists, researchers and physicians and their work is not only influenced by what people learn in school or hear in the news. How medicine, science and research are represented in popular and entertainment culture also has an influence on how many people perceive them and what they think about it. In this chapter we will explore various interactions between science, medicine and popular and entertainment culture. For instance, physicians and scientists are also citizens that consume products of popular and entertainment culture. Fictional depictions of science and medicine can sometimes inspire people working in these fields and give them bright ideas. However, representations of science, research and medicine in popular culture can also be heavily biased and wrong. Fictional representations of scientists, researchers, physicians and psychiatrists are also important for the public perception of these fields and keep changing over time. We will explore how the public legitimacy of science and medicine is also connected to depictions of scientists and physicians in entertainment culture. Various scientific institutions have created programmes that ensure that the representations of science and physicians are positive and that the storylines in entertainment programmes are scientifically accurate. Another important aspect in the various relationships between science, medicine and popular culture is the recruitment of young people for biomedical and scientific careers. Here it does help if scientifically literate and tech-savvy people in the entertainment culture of today can be depicted as being “cool”, quite in contrast to depictions of former decades.


  1. Alexander, M., A. Pavlov, and P. Lenahan. 2006. Cinemeducation: A comprehensive guide to using film in medical education. London: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Allgaier, J. 2010. When boffins go POP: Eduard Kaeser expects that the bubble of spectacular science may burst. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication 9(4). Available online:
  3. ———. 2013. On the shoulders of YouTube: Science in music videos. Science Communication 35 (2): 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2014a. Bluegrass, beards, tattoos, and stem cells: The broken circle breakdown and the human view on science and technology. In The science and entertainment laboratory. September 29, 2014. Available online:
  5. ———. 2014b. The press and the public interest. In The right to know and the right not to know: Genetic privacy and responsibility, ed. R. Chadwick, M. Levitt, and D. Shickle, 165179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2016a. YouTube Science: Wo Wissenschaft auf Populärkultur trifft. In Web Video Wissenschaft, ed. T. Körkel and K. Hoppenhaus. Heidelberg: Spektrum der Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2016b. Wissenschaft und Populärkultur. In Handbuch Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation, ed. H. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomberg, and M.S. Schäfer. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2016c. Science and South Park, Reddit and Facebook, Leonardo da Vinci and the Vitruvian Man, and modern fairy tales about emerging technologies: Science communication and popular culture. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication 15(02). Available online:
  9. Allgaier, J., and H. Riesch. 2015. Science in society: From elite media to mass and entertainment culture. Conference report of #POPSCI2015: Science, research and popular culture. EASST-Review 34 (4): 21–23. Available online: Scholar
  10. Allgaier, J., and A.L. Svalstog. 2015. The communication aspects of the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Western Africa – do we need to counter one, two, or many epidemics? Croatian Medical Journal 56 (5): 496–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bankes, E. 2016. The dangers of ‘Miss Information’: Science and comedy in South Park. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication 15(02). Available online:
  12. Bauer, M. 1998. The medicalization of science news – from the “rocket-scalpel” to the “gene-meteorite” complex. Social Science Information 37 (4): 731–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. BBC news. 2011. Leicester royal infirmary to open ‘Star Trek sick bay’. September 1, 2011. Available online:
  14. Broks, P. 2006. Understanding popular science. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Burnham, J.C. 1982. American medicine’s golden age: What happened to it? Science 215: 1474–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caulfield, T. 2015. Is Gwyneth Paltrow wrong about everything?: How the famous sell us elixirs of health, beauty & happiness. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  17. Chyka, P.A., P. Chyka, and W. Banner. 1999. The history of poisoning in the future: Lessons from star trek. Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology 37 (6): 793–799.Google Scholar
  18. Czerwiec, M.K., I. Williams, S.M. Squier, M.J. Green, K.R. Myers, and S.T. Smith. 2015. Graphic medicine manifesto. Philadelphia: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dahms, K., Y. Sharkova, P. Heitland, S. Pankuweit, and J.R. Schaefer. 2014. Cobalt intoxication diagnosed with the help of Dr House. Lancet 383 (9916): 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Drux, R., ed. 1999. Der Frankenstein-Komplex: Kulturgeschichtliche Aspekte des Traums vom künstlichen Menschen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  21. Dudo, A., D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, D.A. Scheufele, and M. Morgan. 2011. Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research 48: 754–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dudo, A., V. Cicchirillo, L. Atkinson, and S. Marx. 2014. Portrayals of technoscience in video games: A potential avenue for informal science learning. Science Communication 36 (2): 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fahy, D. 2013. The chemist as anti-hero: Walter white and Sherlock Holmes as case studies. In Hollywood chemistry: When science met entertainment, ACS Symposium Series, ed. D. Nelson, J. Paglia, S. Perkowitz, and K. Grazier, 175–188. Washington, DC: The American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flicker, E. 2003. Between brains and breasts – Women scientists in fiction film: On the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence. Public Understanding of Science 12 (3): 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flores, G. 2002. Mad scientists, compassionate healers, and greedy egoists: The portrayal of physicians in the movies. Journal of the National Medical Association 94 (7): 635–658.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2004. Doctors in the movies. Archives of Disease in Childhood 89 (12): 1084–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forest, B., and P.R. Gross. 2004. Creationism’s Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frayling, C. 2005. Mad, bad and dangerous? The scientist and the cinema. London: Reaktion.Google Scholar
  29. Görke, A., and G. Ruhrmann. 2003. Public communication between facts and fictions: On the construction of genetic risk. Public Understanding of Science 12: 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gregory, J., and S. Miller. 1998. Science in public: Communication, culture and credibility. London: Plenum Trade.Google Scholar
  31. Guevin, J. 2015. A real-life medical tricorder: XPrize wants to make it so. C|net July 8, 2015. Available online:
  32. Hansen, B. 2009. Picturing medical progress from Pasteur to polio: A history of mass media images and popular attitudes in America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hartings, M.R., and D. Fahy. 2011. Communicating chemistry for public engagement. Nature Chemistry 3 (9): 674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haynes, R.D. 1994. From Faust to Strangelove. Representations of the scientist in western literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2014. Whatever happened to the ‘mad, bad’ scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Undertanding of Science.
  36. Hinshaw, S.P. 2007. The mark of shame: Stigma of mental illness and an agenda for change. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Horkheimer, M. 1941. Art and mass culture. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science 9 (1): 290–304.Google Scholar
  38. Huang, C.J., and J. Allgaier. 2015. What science are you singing? A study of the science image in the mainstream music of Taiwan. Public Understanding of Science 24 (1): 112–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Junge, T., and D. Ohlhoff, eds. 2004. Wahnsinnig genial. Der Mad Scientist Reader. Aschaffenburg: Alibri.Google Scholar
  41. Kaeser, E. 2009. Pop Science: Essays zur Wissenschaftskultur. Basel: Schwabe reflexe.Google Scholar
  42. Kirby, D.A. 2004. Extrapolating race in GATTACA: Genetic passing, identity, and the science of race. Literature and Medicine 23 (1): 184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2007. The devil in our DNA: A brief history of eugenics in science fiction films. Literature and Medicine 26 (1): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ———. 2010. Labcoats in Hollywood. Science, scientists and cinema. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2014. Science and technology in film: Themes and representations. In Handbook of public communication of science and technology, ed. M. Bucchi and B. Trench, 97–112. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Kirby, D.A., Chambers, A.C., Macauley, R. 2015. What entertainment can do for science, and vice versa. In The science and entertainment laboratory. August 10, 2015. Available online:
  47. Kohlenberger, J. 2015. The new formula for cool: Science, technology, and the popular in the American imagination. Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lin, S.F., H.S. Lin, L. Lee, and L.D. Yore. 2014. Are science comics a good medium for science communication? The case of public learning of nanotechnology. International Journal of Science Communication, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement 5 (3): 276–294.Google Scholar
  49. Lodge, H. 2015. Jay Hosler interview: Comics are the “most powerful” medium for teaching. In The beat: The news blog of comics culture. April 7, 2015. Available online:
  50. Lupton, D. 2012. Medicine as culture: Illness, disease and the body. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Maio, G. 2006. Cloning in the media and popular culture. EMBO Reports 7: 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marsh, O. 2016. “People seem to really enjoy the mix of humour and intelligence”: Science humour in online settings. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication 15(02). Available online:
  53. Meyer, A., A. Cserer, and M. Schmidt. 2013. Frankenstein 2.0.: Identifying and characterising synthetic biology engineers in science fiction films. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 9: 9. Scholar
  54. Nelkin, D., and M.S. Lindee. 2004. The DNA mystique the gene as a cultural icon. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nickell, J. 2011. ‘Pop’ culture: Patent medicines become soda drinks. Skeptical Inquirer 35 (1): 14–17. Available online: Scholar
  56. Ontario Genomics Institute. 2011. Educational resources. Available online:
  57. Pansegrau, P. 2008. Stereotypes and images of scientists in fiction films. In Science images and popular images of the sciences, ed. P. Weingart and B. Hüppauf, 257–266. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Penley, C. 1997. NASA/Star Trek. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  59. Petersen, A.R., A. Anderson, and S. Allan. 2005. Science fiction/science fact: Medical genetics in news stories. New Genetics and Society 24 (3): 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Riesch, H. 2015. Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science 24 (7): 768–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rohn, J. 2008. Reenacting real scientists on screen: ReGenesis guru Aled Edwards. LabLit. 20 January 2008. Available online:
  62. Rützel, A. 2014. Nerdingers Fratze. Wired Germany, 55–57. November 2014.Google Scholar
  63. Schneider, W. 2004. Menschen-Maschinen und ihre Schöpfer. Eine ‘post-moderne’ Schöpfungsgeschichte am Beispiel von Robocop. In Wahnsinnig genial. Der Mad Scientist Reader, ed. T. Junge and D. Ohlhoff, 38–62. Aschaffenburg: Alibri.Google Scholar
  64. Skal, D.J. 1998. Screams of reason: Mad science and modern culture. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, M. 2010. Health communication and the use of entertainment education and PSA’s. Washington, DC: American University. Available online: Scholar
  66. Steinke, J. 2005. Cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of female scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication 27 (1): 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stollfuß, S. 2010. Wissenschaft in Serie: Zur Inszenierung von Wissenschaft in aktuellen Fernsehserien. Medienwissenschaft 3: 292–303.Google Scholar
  68. Svalastog, A.L., and Allgaier, J. 2016. Hollywood heroes in high tech risk societies: Modern fairy tales and emerging technologies. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication 15(02). Available online:
  69. Tatalovic, M. 2009. Science comics as tools for science education and communication: a brief, exploratory study. JCOM – Journal of Science Communication 8 (4): 1–17. Available online: Scholar
  70. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2004. Entertainment education and health in the United States. In The Henry Kaiser Family Foundation issue brief. Spring 2004. Available online:
  71. Tudor, A. 1989. Monsters and mad scientists. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  72. Turney, J. 1998. Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Van Riper, A.B. 2002. Science in popular culture: A reference guide. Westport: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  74. ———. 2003. What the public thinks it knows about science. EMBO Reports 4 (12): 1104–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Virzi, A., S. Dipasquale, M.S. Signorelli, O. Bianchini, G. Previti, F. Palermo, and E. Aguglia. 2011. Movie portrayals of physicians and the doctor-patient relationship. Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies XI (2): 275–285. Available at: Scholar
  76. Weingart, P. 2006. Chemists and their craft in fiction film. HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 12 (1): 31–44.Google Scholar
  77. Yandell, K. 2013. Defending science communication. The Scientist. June 10, 2013. Available online:


  1. The Big Bang Theory. Prod. Lorre, C and Prady, B. Warner Bros. Television. 2007–.Google Scholar
  2. Breaking Bad. Prod. Gilligan, V. Sony Pictures Television. 2008–2013.Google Scholar
  3. The IT Crowd. Prod. Atalla, A. Talkback Thames. 2006–2013.Google Scholar
  4. ReGenesis. Creat. Jacobson, A. The Movie Network; Movie Central. 2004–2008.Google Scholar
  5. Silicon Valley. Prod. Krinsky, D; Altschuler J; Judge M. 3 Arts Entertainment; Scott Rudin Productions. 2014–.Google Scholar
  6. Sturm des Wissens. Prod. Böhm, T. Rostocker Schule. 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science, Technology and Society StudiesAlpen-Adria-UniversityKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations