Why Do We Do Science?

## Explore! Rescue! Protect!

*The Octonauts* is quite straightforward in its argument: science is good because it helps us to do good things. The crew of the Octopod use science to identify problems affecting local marine life and find solutions. Their altruism is not withheld even from those who directly victimise them: when they find out the crustaceans are sick from the algal bloom, the fact that they just moments ago attempted grand theft auto of the Octopod is completely forgotten. This portrayal gives the impression that scientists are selfless, and their primary function is to help others.

This depiction of science is firmly positive, although its value is framed in utilitarian terms of how much good can be done with knowledge, as opposed to knowledge being intrinsically valuable in and of itself.

## 'Your Dog is Alive!'

Roslynn D. Haynes suggest that the Frankenstein mad scientist trope 'exists to protest against the "great men" account of science, which tells us we have nothing to fear because these good and brilliant people are in control and trustworthy.' While this is good at encouraging audiences to dismiss the narrative that science belongs to a certain class of people and to question dominant narratives, it also runs the risk of presenting science as something to be feared. A study suggests that while the Frankenstein scientist trope is good at getting audiences to question the moral implications of science, it also discredits scientists in the public eye and providing a positive twist on the trope would go a long way in improving these relations.

*Frankenweenie* explores these nuances. It appears quite straightforward - do science because of of genuine love of the scientific process and for good reasons. Mr. Rzykruski's final advice to Victor emphasises that science is a mixture of knowledge and passion and care should be taken when experimenting, urging Victor to use science for good reasons. As such, Victor is allowed to essentially play God over the boundary of life and death as he is is presented as someone doing it for selfless reasons who takes responsibility for his creations, unlike his original counterpart.

While this is excellent in presenting science as something capable of good and bad, which is determined by how we use it and urging children to approach the subject responsibly, there is one glaring issue - Victor's motivations and how he is rewarded. Granted, in comparison to the other children Victor's motivations are less selfish as he just wants Sparky back, but they are still ultimately selfish reasons. He falls victim to the problems that Mr. Rzykruski points out when giving advice, in which he only values his experiments in what it gives him (his dog) rather than questioning whether he should be doing this or its implications. Despite the havoc his experiment creates, he is rewarded in the end while the others are punished - Weird Girl's motivations are unclear in replicating the experiment, but did she deserve to lose her cat? If she approached the experiment out of curiosity like Mr. Rzykruski suggests, why is she punished for her efforts while Victor is rewarded?

Ultimately, the depiction of science and the reasons behind it is presented as quite nuanced in *Frankenweenie*, encouraging the audience to approach it with a critical eye, which can be percieved as inclusive in that regard.

### References

1. ↑ Roslynn D. Haynes, *From Madman to Crime Fighter: The Scientist in Western Culture* (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2017) [Kindle edition], loc. 187
2. ↑ Peter Nagy, Ruth Wylie,Joey Eschrich & Ed Finn, 'The Enduring Influence of a Dangerous Narrative: How Scientists Can Mitigate the Frankenstein Myth', *Journal of Bioethical Inquiry*, 15 (2018) pp. 279–292 (pg.280)