Creating (public) science in the Noah's Ark case

Abstract

This paper explores how a recent “Creation Science” case from the Australian Federal Courts was used by an informal alliance of science popularizers (science litigant Ian Plimer, science journalists, and the Australian Skeptics) as a vehicle for the celebratory “boundary working” of “public science,” despite the case's contingent and messy processes and unfavourable legal outcome. This “boundary working” was pursued mainly through the mass media, in which a narrow range of narrative strategies involving well-worn metaphors and clichés conforming to the ideology of science dominated the case's coverage. The dominance of these narratives resulted in a marginalized coverage of the legal/policy ramifications of the case, particularly the role of the courts in preserving/limiting freedom of speech. We will conclude our analysis by identifying some similarities between the Ark case and the Science Wars, nothing that both instances show how the “boundary working” of “public science” can be pursued in a cultural space located at a significant distance from contexts where more tangible science policies are being negotiated.