Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Science in Shelley

    Uploaded by

    pelegriffin4274
    1. The document discusses how Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warns about the dangers of pursuing science without consideration for its consequences on humanity. Victor Frankenstein's creation of the monster destroyed his life because he was obsessed with scientific discovery alone. 2. It draws parallels between Frankenstein and modern scientists who pursue advancement without thinking through ethical implications, like human cloning experiments that risk birth defects. 3. The document argues that science must be pursued carefully and openly with society to ensure technologies are developed and applied safely and for the benefit of humanity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Science in Shelley

    Uploaded by

    pelegriffin4274
    28 views8 pages
    1. The document discusses how Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warns about the dangers of pursuing science without consideration for its consequences on humanity. Victor Frankenstein's creation of the monster destroyed his life because he was obsessed with scientific discovery alone. 2. It draws parallels between Frankenstein and modern scientists who pursue advancement without thinking through ethical implications, like human cloning experiments that risk birth defects. 3. The document argues that science must be pursued carefully and openly with society to ensure technologies are developed and applied safely and for the benefit of humanity.

    Original Description:

    Science and Frankenstein

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The document discusses how Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warns about the dangers of pursuing science without consideration for its consequences on humanity. Victor Frankenstein's creation of the monster destroyed his life because he was obsessed with scientific discovery alone. 2. It draws parallels between Frankenstein and modern scientists who pursue advancement without thinking through ethical implications, like human cloning experiments that risk birth defects. 3. The document argues that science must be pursued carefully and openly with society to ensure technologies are developed and applied safely and for the benefit of humanity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    28 views8 pages

    Science in Shelley

    Uploaded by

    pelegriffin4274
    1. The document discusses how Mary Shelley's Frankenstein warns about the dangers of pursuing science without consideration for its consequences on humanity. Victor Frankenstein's creation of the monster destroyed his life because he was obsessed with scientific discovery alone. 2. It draws parallels between Frankenstein and modern scientists who pursue advancement without thinking through ethical implications, like human cloning experiments that risk birth defects. 3. The document argues that science must be pursued carefully and openly with society to ensure technologies are developed and applied safely and for the benefit of humanity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 8

    Science in Shelley's Frankenstein:

    Length: 1795 words (5.1 double-spaced pages)


    Rating: Red (FREE)
    ----------------------------------

    Science in Shelley's Frankenstein

    In Shelley's Frankenstein, it's interesting to use the text to ask the


    question, whose interest's lie at the heart of science? Why is Victor
    Frankenstein motivated to plunge the questions that bringing life to
    inanimate matter can bring? Victor Frankenstein'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 doesn't even heed the advice of his father, and
    remains consumed with his science. In the words of the popular film
    Jurassic Park, 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 it's 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.

    Let me give you a modern day example that hits too close to Shelley's
    pattern of Victor Frankenstein. In a recent article from CNN.com there is
    an article about an Italian scientist named Dr. Severino Antinori. This
    doctor recently held a press conference announcing that the first human
    clone will be born in early January of 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're 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
    experiments subject human beings produced through cloning to a high risk
    of death and deformity. The best way to ensure that cloning is not pursued
    is to pass a comprehensive ban on human cloning. The United States
    should do this as soon as possible and continue to press the case for a
    comprehensive ban treaty in the United Nations. (CNN.com)

    Despite vast social and ethical questions looming about the question of
    cloning, there are scientists who rush ahead anyway. Whose well-being
    are they thinking of? Obviously not the babies they are creating, or they
    would wait until we understand more about the process.

    We repeatedly see this type of pattern in the scientific research


    methods of our day. The term science seems to create a distance
    between an individual and what they are doing. They blindly pursue and
    use knowledge without waiting for the wisdom necessary to wield it. It is
    important to seek after knowledge, but it is more important to know when
    to use the knowledge we have. Shelley saw this in part. She had a severe
    anti-science bias, but it is not science itself that destroys our humanity. It is
    the choices we make that lead our species into self-destructive and
    harmful systems of action.

    In a quote from "Enemies of Promise" Michael Bishop states that


    scientists have a responsibility to work openly with the public for the good
    of all.

    We scientists can no longer leave the problem to others. Indeed, it has


    always been ours to solve, and all of society is now paying for our neglect.
    As physicist and historian of science Gerald Holton has said, modern men
    and women "who do not know the basic facts that determine their very
    existence, functioning, and surroundings are living in a dream world...are,
    in a very sense, not sane. We [scientists]...should do what we can, or we
    shall be pushed out of the common culture. The lab remains our
    workplace, but it must not become our hiding place." (Bishop, 242)

    It is up to us as a society to become more interested and aware of the


    advances science is making, as well as to encourage and promote
    scientists to be more open about their experimentation. Only when we
    take steps to work together, slowly and without a "quick fix" mind set, will
    we be able to function for the good of everyone.

    Victor Frankenstein, like Dr. Antinori and his contemporaries, did his
    work in the dark. He hid his progress from humanity, and did things that
    were at that time socially and ethically immoral. He robbed graves, he
    ignored his family, and he conducted forbidden experiments, and he did it
    all without telling anyone. The side-by-side comparison of Dr.
    Frankenstein and modern scientists are fairly disturbing, but the answer is
    still reachable if we take action now. We have to write our lawmakers and
    elect men with scientific patience. We have to show our own leadership
    that we care about the ways scientific advancement is attained, and that
    we are willing to pay the cost of time, so that we can all be sure of the
    consequences of scientific actions.

    Frankenstein is a novel approach to a concern that should be more


    important in our daily lives. We have to take a moment and ask ourselves,
    when we are experimenting in the realm of science and technology, whose
    interests do we have in mind? How will these advancements affect
    society, and most of all, what harm could this creation cause? Then we'll
    have a society more prepared to shoulder the responsibility that Victor
    Frankenstein so willingly rushed into. He looked at his scientific
    advancement with shame and horror. But if we make the changes in our
    society that need to be made, we can look at what we have done with
    pride and surety that our creation made this life better for everyone.

    Works Cited

    Bishop, Michael. "Enemies of Promise." The Presence of Others. Ed.


    Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's,
    2000, 242.

    "Experts wary of human clone claims." CNN.com Nov. 27, 2002. http://
    www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/11/27/italy.cloning/index.html (Nov. 29, 2002).

    Shelley, Mary. "Frankenstein." The Presence of Others. Ed. Andrea A.


    Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2000,
    235-236.

    How to Cite this Page

    MLA Citation:
    "Science in Shelley's Frankenstein." 123HelpMe.com. 04 Jun 2009
    <http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=18369>.

    You might also like