Photo: Keystone / Science Photo Library / Hubble Legacy Archive / Nasa / Esa / Robert Gendler

Interstellar gas with religious connotations

“This Hubble image shows the formation popularly known as the ‘Pillars of Creation’, some 7,000 light years away from us. When NASA published an initial version of this photo in 1995, people reacted with amazement and enthusiasm. The fascination it exerts on us comes from the fact that it reveals something that would be impossible for humans to see without help from technology. It also triggers something on a psychological, philosophical level. This perspective on the Universe expands our understanding of space and time, revealing just how minuscule we humans are, and how insignificant our worries.

“The title ‘Pillars of Creation’ is especially significant in this regard, because it affords a religious aura to how we interpret the image. It suggests that there is a creative force at work out there somewhere. In other contexts, it’s possible that a far more profane title might have been chosen for it – such as ‘elephant trunks’, which is a term actually used in astronomy to describe structures like these that are made of interstellar gas and dust.

“The power of this image can also be explained by the fact that people place a great deal of trust in its origins. Just as in classical nature photography, it looks like a faithful representation of nature. In fact, however, this image is a scientific construct that was put together from 32 individual photos and then coloured. The light that emanates from sulphur atoms is shown in a reddish colour, oxygen in blue and hydrogen in green. Without this colouring, we’d see nothing but black splodges against a grey background. Such an image would be incomprehensible to laypeople and would lack all evidential value”.

Photo: Keystone / EPA / STR

Science out of control – or not?

“This image of the so-called ‘ear mouse’ became world-famous due to an error of judgement. In 1997, a BBC TV crew visited the medical researcher Charles Vacanti in his laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The BBC was filming a documentary about tissue cultivation, and Vacanti was considered an expert in the field. He suddenly asked the BBC’s reporter: ‘Do you want to see something cool?’

“He then brought in a mouse from the next room that appeared to have a human ear growing on its back. In fact, this structure consisted of bovine cartilage cells that were growing on an implanted polymer scaffold in the shape of a human ear. Vacanti had previously shown pictures of the mouse at conferences without getting much of a response, so he had no problems letting the BBC film it.

“But when taken out of context, shown in brief and with emotionally laden commentary from the media, this image developed a dynamic of its own that Vacanti had never imagined. The ‘ear mouse’ was intended to demonstrate the potential of tissue cultivation for purposes of reconstructive surgery on humans. Instead, for many it became a symbol of how science was out of control. This supposed hybrid between human and animal triggered anxiety and fear, even making some people think of Frankenstein’s monster.

“At the same time, however, this image also prompted important discussions. What actually constitutes responsible research? Should we be allowed to use animals as growth platforms for tissue? And how should researchers communicate their work to a broader public? All these questions remain relevant today”.

Illustration: Rudolph Zallinger for Time-Life Books’ Early Man (1965)

The pinnacle of creation, abridged

“This depiction of the ‘March of Progress’ by the artist Rudolph Zallinger has become firmly embedded in Western popular culture. There’s barely another graphic that’s used so often in memes or on T-shirts. Golf enthusiasts have added a golfer at the end of the evolutionary line, while anti-nuclear activists depict a freak contaminated with radiation.

“The popularity of this image proves that there’s a lot about it that the artist got right. It’s got a convincing, clear structure that we are able to understand intuitively. The aesthetic quality of the original drawings undoubtedly also played a role in its success. Zallinger was one of the finest painters of natural history in his time.

“When folded out completely, the original version has 15 figures; when folded up, it has six. But it was the shorter version that became established in the schoolbooks. This heightens the impression of a continuous evolutionary ascent, with the figures getting bigger and bigger as we go from left to right. The linear arrangement and the direction of their march also help to suggest a steady progression, right up to Homo sapiens sapiens, the pinnacle of creation. This aspect was heavily criticised later on.

“Critics also pointed out that the depiction of evolution offered here is misleading. It wasn’t a linear process, but one that involved splitting and dead ends. In fact, those responsible for publishing the graphic were perfectly aware of this, because their accompanying texts for the longer version included phrases such as ‘A likely side branch on man’s family tree’ (the fourth figure) and ‘an evolutionary dead end’ (seventh figure). But this visualisation of human evolution simply developed a powerful momentum all of its own”.