Got Tenderness?
Tenderness is described as affection for someone or something other than himself or herself. In the anthology "The Best American Science and Nature Writing " Siddhartha Mukherjee describes tenderness as an intimate connection between human beings and nature (xvii). Mukherjee's interpretation of tenderness applies specifically to science, scientist, and the quality scientist should show when performing any form of scientific work. “ Can Jellyfish Unlock the Secret of Immortality?” by Nathaniel Rich accurately exhibits Mukherjee's interpretation of tenderness towards science, the article describes the patient nature of how science happens, the process of finding new discoveries in the article are a human-made process, and the scientist mentioned shares an intimate connection with his subject. The article " Can Jellyfish Unlock the Secret of Immortality?" by Nathaniel Rich accurately exhibits Mukherjee's interpretation of tenderness towards science, because the article describes the patient nature of how science
…show more content…
Mukherjee claims that "Most of the selected essays share a common thread: they describe how science happens. They do not present facts alone (although facts are abundant in them). They describe the extraordinary process by which scientist extract those facts” ( xix), and in the article, this idea is shown. The author of the article Nathaniel Rich painstakingly goes into detail about the process that Kubota takes into exploring his jellyfish (Turritopsis). Rich does not focus on just the facts alone while he does often add facts to add authenticity to his article. Rich focuses more so on the unfolding of Kubota’s work. An example is when Rich describes the process where Kubota mutilates the Turritopsis to get it to rejuvenate “With two fine metal picks, the began to perforate the medusa’s mesoglea . . . After Kubota poked it six times, the medusa behaved like any stabbing victim . . . But Kubota,
Scientists are constantly forced to test their work and beliefs. Thus they need the ability to embrace the uncertainty that science is based on. This is a point John M. Barry uses throughout the passage to characterize scientific research, and by using rhetorical devices such as, comparison, specific diction, and contrast he is able show the way he views and characterizes scientific research.
Woven throughout Thomas’ The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher is a desire to link scientific phenomena with social behavior—to peruse the symbiotic relationship that we, as humans, are incapable or perhaps unwilling, to contemplate. Thomas’s ridicule of what he has identified as being a sort of human superiority complex is the needle—the mechanism—by which he is able to stitch together these two seemingly divided realms. He has sensed our inherent fear of “touch” and all that it embodies, simultaneously criticizing and enlightening us about our irrational, bizarre attitude towards the natural world. Our repudiation of “the inhuman” and our craving for control, according to Thomas, “[say] something about our century, our attitude toward life, our obsession with disease and death, our human chauvinism” (“Thoughts” 7).
In the short story “The Man Who Evolved” written by Edmond Hamilton, a mad scientist Pollard evolves to human forms under concentrated cosmic rays. The passage is centrally important to the story, as it hints the potential horror scientists may endure if they do not follow scientific procedures responsibly. In the passage, Hamilton compares the results of the scientific research. Through this comparison, he communicates the overarching idea that even though scientific research on evolution may bring some beneficial effect to human beings, its ultimate result should be carefully considered, as in the story the research creates a mind twisted monster that wants to own the entire world.
Deadly and helpful, science is a dual-edged sword. Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of the first to emphasize this through his literary works. “Rappaccini's Daughter” and “The Birthmark” are two of his works where he teaches this lesson through the trials of his characters. Focusing on the motif of the “mad scientist”, Hawthorne brings to light the points that people struggle with humanity, learning to love themselves and others, and that science can be more harmful then helpful.
In the story, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, we learn of a family’s hardship through dealing with the loss of a loved one. It is a captivating view into a world that is filled with grief, but with this heartbreak comes groundbreaking scientific development that offers tremendous potential benefits for millions of others. The case of Henrietta Lacks is one of the most popular and interesting scientific cases in recent history for many different reasons. Henrietta Lacks was a mother of five children when only at age 31, she died of cervical cancer. To her immediate family and all that she knew this was a tragedy, but the closing of the door on her life opened up many more doors in the scientific world. A sample taken
Lastly, Shelley suggests a powerful and dangerous objective of science: the quest for immortality. "I thought," he explains, "that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time . . . renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption." While Shelley's ideas are conveyed through Frankenstein's words and actions, Kass' observation is more blatant: "Indeed, prolongation of healthy and vigorous life-and, ultimately, a victory over mortality-is perhaps the central goal and meaning of the modern scientific project" (Kass, 300).
...ing fascinating about science, one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investments of fact."
...vercome, there is more of a chance to capture such great discoveries. People need to realize that if they never take the time to stop and look around, appreciate the small things in life, they might miss out on important details and or moments that the world has to offer. Scientist didn’t obtain their greatest discoveries by looking at the world with a closed mind. During the months of September through Novemeber, the leaves start to fall off the trees. It is obvious its fall, but what else is occurring? Gravity. Albert Einstein discovered gravity by watching and ordinary object fall. At that moment he became a scientific unscrupulous observer.
Many people are inclined to say why would science even wish to peruse this method of research? Lewis Thomas says in his essay "The Hazards of Science" It would seem to me a more unnatural thing and more of an offense against nature for us to come on the same scene endowed... ... middle of paper ... ... J. Michael Bishop states that "The price of science seems large, but to reject science is to deny the future.
For my final project I chose to compare two works of art from ancient Mesopotamia. A visual work of art and a literary one. The visual work of art I chose was the Statuettes of Worshipers which were created around 2900 to 2350 BCE at the Square Temple at Eshnunna, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The literary artwork I have chosen is the Epic of Gilgamesh written roughly around 2800 BCE by author or authors unknown. It was set in Uruk, another city in ancient Mesopotamia. Both of these works of art share a common theme; the theme of immortality. It is my hopes that within this paper I can accurately show how each of these works of art express this theme, and how it relates to modern society.
The desire to discover and to comprehend the obscure concepts of life is one of our timeless dreams. Many literary works present some of these dreams and demonstrate their result on individuals.. Mary Shelley’s novel , Frankenstein, follows the adventures of a scientist with divine ambitions which ultimately lead him to pursue miraculous capabilities of God. Victor, the protagonist, attempts to attain a status higher than God in order to control life. Dignity, Victor’s primary motivation, emerges throughout the novel along with his exorbitant use of science. The knowledge Victor obtains through his observations and lessons ultimately result in his solitude and defeat.
The story’s tone is one of romantic controversy, a dilemma at a high level of existence. The scientist’s love for his craft competes very intensively with his newfound love for his wife. It is also very psychological, strictly dealing with the raw mind of its subjects as if the ominous narrator told the story from inside their mind, rather than observe it from the outside. He describes the processes that one may take to reach a certain degree of knowledge and to find the elixir of life, which is described in this story as the ultimate goal of the scientific community. Also, the narrator is very opinionated about events in the story.
While scientists pursuing the progress of science today, it would be good if they do it for the benefits of human race. However, if their desires for scientific discovery are caused by their selfish ambition, and they do not take responsibility of them if fail, their creations might become threats for human. As an example of Frankenstein, written by the English author Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, tells the story of a young science Victor Frankenstein who creates a grotesque creature in a scientific experiment, and that cause the tragedy for the rest of his life and the death of many innocent people. When people read this book, many of them might see the creature as a monster as the fact that it has a horrible
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are two horrific tales of science gone terribly wrong. Shelley?s novel eloquently tells the story of a scientist, Victor Frankenstein, who creates a living monster out of decomposed body parts, while Stevenson?s novel describes the account of one, Henry Jekyll, who creates a potion to bring out the pure evil side to himself. Although the two scientists differ in their initial response and action to their creations, there are strong similarities between their raging curiosity to surpass human limitation, as well as their lack of responsibility concerning their actions. These similarities raise an awareness of human limitation in the realm of science: the further the two scientists go in their experiments, the more trouble and pain they cause to themselves and to others.
Frankenstein is a young scientist who is blinded by the fame and dangers of the knowledge of creation. "So much has been done," exclaims Frankenstein after he hears a lecture on famous scientists. "More, far more, will I achieve: treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unk...