The Science Project

This paper is not a treatise on the benefits of time spent ingesting popular science. Rather it critically investigates the reasons the books themselves present to their readers on why they (and by extension, science) are ‘good for you’. It applies the Horrible Science books case study, which tend to start and end with explicit statements on why reading them is a worthwhile experience. Many of the statements relate to specifics of the book’s style; promising jokes about teacher’s dress sense or stories of blood and snot. However they also refer to the advantages of scientific knowledge more broadly; suggesting their topic as particularly interesting and/ or useful, and with this making claims about the role of science to individuals and wider society.

I suggest that the appeals made by Horrible Science fall into three categories: appeals to the ridiculous (comedy and the grotesque); the sublime (awe and beauty) and practical promise (mainly individual benefits of 'cultural capital', but also social or environmental goods). I take a critical approach to this, drawing on work in the sociology of humour, and developing a sociological analysis of sublimes of contemporary science. In conclusion, I argue these appeals are complex and, on occasion, contradictory; aiming to both demystify science for the child in an empowering sense, but also sell science on its mystical beauty and suggest children can use the scientific knowledge learnt in the book to amaze and outsmart friends, family and teachers.