Mr

SCIENCE AND FRANKENSTEIN

Alex Howell

LaShea Stuart

World Literature II

20 March 2007

Alex Howell

LaShea Stuart

World Literature II

20 March 2007

Science and Frankenstein

In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, it's interesting to use the text to ask the question, whose interest's lie at the heart of science? Why Victor Frankenstein is motivated to plunge the questions that bringing life to inanimate matter can bring? Victor's life was destroyed because of an obsession with the power to create life where none had been before. The monster he created could be seen as a representation of all those who are wronged in the selfish name of science. We can use Shelley's book to draw parallels in our modern society, and show that there is a danger in the impersonal relationship that science creates between the scientist and his work. It seems to me that Shelley was saying that when science is done merely on the basis of discovery without thought to the affect that the experimentation can have, we risk endangering everything we hold dear. When describing the monster he had created, Frankenstein says:

No mortal could support the horror of that countenance. A mummy again endued with animation could not be so hideous as that wretch. I had gazed on him while unfinished; he was ugly then; but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it became a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived. (Shelley, 235)

This was Victor's response to the reaching out of the monster towards Victor on the night of his creation. Victor, who for months had worked on this creation, was suddenly confronted with the results of his scientific pursuit. He had labored night and day in an effort to do something that had never been done by man before. He had figured out the scientific way to bring life to that which was dead, so he blindly went forth and did it. He never really stopped to think what the consequences of his action might be. He knows that the creature he is making is ugly, but he never wonders what will happen to the creature after he is brought to life as a result of that ugliness. The monster is made oversized so it's easier for Victor to work on him, yet no thought is taken about how the creature might feel about such a form. Victor does not even heed the advice of his father, and remains consumed with his science. He got so busy wondering if he could do something that he forgot to think about whether he should do something. This is a main theme of Shelley's novel. Frankenstein never stopped to consider the consequences of his action on his fellow human beings, or the creature he was creating.

We can see what Shelley was talking about in our day. We create Nuclear power and weapons in the name of science, ignoring the costs of radiation poisonings and places like Hiroshima. We genetically alter animals without regards to the effect on the rest of the food chain. We create ways to bring water to southern California, ignoring the fact that we're destroying another habitat in Colorado. We continue to produce vehicles powered by combustion engines when we know they destroy the environment. The examples go on and on, and they show no signs of slowing down. Shelley had an insight on the future when she wrote Frankenstein because she saw that we couldn't trust science alone to solve our problems. It is up to us to make educated decisions about the way science should be used.

What we can take from Shelley's novel and from its modern day parallels is that humanity needs to develop a sense of scientific patience. In our world everyone seems to be concerned with the quick fix. We want all the good results right away, without any of the consequences. Victor Frankenstein behaved exactly the same way. He wanted all the glory of bringing life to the dead without facing the ugly reality that the act might bring with it. We cannot and should not restrict the areas of learning that science can open for us, but we should adopt a careful, patient approach to answers. We have to judge whether we are doing something in the interest of greed, or power, or prestige, or if we are doing it instead to better the world we live in and help those around us. Scientists seem to get caught up in the ways to do things, but they need to start examine the reasons why they do things.

In 2002, Dr. Severino Antinori held a press conference announcing the first human clone would be born in early January of the following next year. The article implies that Antinori might not be making reliable claims, and that most of the scientific community is skeptical about Antiorni's truthfulness because he has not come up with any proof. But this was not is the most disturbing part of the article. The piece quoted several renowned scientists, and they all seemed to be saying the same thing. Michael Le Page, the biomedical news editor of New Scientist magazine said, "If anyone cloned a human baby I would be surprised if they would make an immediate announcement." Le Page also said that if a cloned baby was made public, and that a year or so later showed signs of deformity or retardation the scientist would look, "a bit silly." It absolutely boggles my mind that these scientists are talking about a human life. They are talking about causing the retardation of a human child, and the only consequence they mention is that the scientist might look "a bit silly." The scientists say that even if a human baby had been cloned, the public would be the last to know, because the researchers are worried about their image. John Kilner, the president of a U.S. think tank called The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, was quoted saying

While there are well-founded reasons to be skeptical of Dr. Antiorni's claim that a woman is due to give birth to a clone soon, he reminds us that there are those who would continue this dangerous, unethical quest. Such