Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection about Biotechnology
Implication of biotechnology
Social implications of biotechnology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection about Biotechnology
How scientific research in today’s world expresses the true meaning of Frankenstein
Even if humans possess the power to do something, does it necessarily mean that they should? Mary Shelley's book Frankenstein shows how people who pursue power within research will have a lot of bad consequences. Why should Frankenstein scare humans from pursuing scientific research that defies the laws of nature? Victor Frankenstein created his creature because he was interested in and wanted to do it for the sake of scientific research. He did not exactly know the consequences that would come as a result of his creation. Cloning human beings, using biomedical enhancements, and making GMO’d foods is the type of technology that is being used today. No one
…show more content…
knows what the outcomes will be and no one knows if it is psychologically right to pursue this knowledge. One of the most well known technologies that express why Frankenstein should scare humans from pursuing scientific research is cloning. Cloning humans is not psychologically and ethically right. There is no data or information on what the possible outcome may be and there is no past knowledge on how the humans and clones will interact. “...though whether that technology will be safe and effective, as well as legally permitted, is uncertain.” (Brock 1) shows how there is no past knowledge that can tell humans if cloning technology will be effective and safe in the future. In the book Frankenstein, Victor did not raise the question of what the long term result of this research would be. Another reason that cloning should scare humans is that it decreases the human values, individuality, and uniqueness which Brock expresses by “First, cloning would undermine our sense of individuality or uniqueness… [and] the value or worth of human beings” (Brock 1). Cloning would undermine the human values, individuality, and uniqueness. Mary Shelley displays this by writing about Dr. Frankenstein not wanting to make the monster a partner because he did not want monsters to constitute a new race. This shows how Frankenstein did not believe that the monster had any good in him, which shows that Victor does not think that the monster has human values; there would be no freedom for the clone. The last reason that cloning should scare humans is that even though a scientist gives a clone the human genome, does not mean that the clone and the human will be the exact same person after some time. Brock explains “...cloning would produce persons with identical genomes...possessing identical genomes will not lead to qualitatively identical individuals” (Brock 3). Cloning would generate clones with the same genome as a human, but because of different past experiences and different life choices, the clone and human will have different physical and psychological characteristics. Just like the monster had experiences, he turned out differently than expected. This would result in two different human beings. To tie-up, cloning might work out and be a good thing in the future, but no one knows how it will help and how clones may interact with humans and the book Frankenstein shows this. Another example that shows how the book Frankenstein should scare humans from pursuing scientific research by defying the laws of nature is using a biomedical enhancement to make oneself better.
Biomedical enhancements have been used for a long time in everyday life and in sporting events, such as the Olympics, as “Ancient Greek athletes swallowed herbal infusions before competitions. The Egyptians brewed...Viagra at least 1,000 years before Christ… [and] European nations began adopting anti-doping laws in the mid-1960s, and the Olympic Games began testing athletes in 1968” (Mehlman 1). Biomedical enhancements have been used by Ancient Greeks and Egyptians. Steroid make sports unfair, which resulted in the European nations making anti-doping laws for athletes. Another reason that biomedical enhancements should scare humans is saving the youth. The youth of the world is very vulnerable to biomedical enhancements, which is shown by “Another vulnerable population is children...consume powerful, potentially dangerous enhancement substances” (Mehlman 2). Legitimizing these biomedical enhancements would make the youth of the world very vulnerable to these dangerous substances. They don’t understand the everlasting effects of the enhancements. The last reason that biomedical enhancements should scare humans is the true motivation for doing the research is not what it should be, which is explained by “...research focused on enhancement, rather than on therapy…” (Weckert 1). In a lot of cases, research for enhancements is not focused on therapeutical purposes, but is rather conducted for the sake of research. Victor Frankenstein believed that it was important to do research for the sake of research and not for any other reason. Mehlman explains that “Individuals may be vulnerable to harm not only from using enhancements, but from participating in experiments to see if an enhancement is safe and effective... [and] designed to ensure that the risks of the research are
outweighed by the potential benefits…” (Mehlman 3). Many people that volunteer to be research subjects sign documents that are designed to guarantee that the benefits of the research will outweigh the risks, but by being a research subject, these people do not understand that there can be risks and side effects which may lead to worse results. Frankenstein did not understand that by doing his research, other people could get hurt as a result of his actions. The benefits of what the monster could have done will never be known. To sum up, biomedical enhancements used by the Greeks and Egyptians were different than the ones being used today, as modern enhancements are dangerous for the youth and others because of the risks that could occur. The last reason that the book Frankenstein should scare humans from pursuing scientific research is GMO. It is the way that farmers grow foods in the 21st century and it is unknown whether it will help or ruin the way of human life and food. GMO is changing the way food is grown and eaten and can be dangerous as expressed by "...the most dangerous thing facing human beings in our generation" (Caplan 1). This shows how GMO could be dangerous and how it is changing the way that food has been grown for many years. Another reason GMO is dangerous is that it is already having effects on animals. These effects are expressed by “...Paul, who is with the Organic Consumers Association: ‘“Calves are born too weak to walk, with enlarged joints and limb deformities”’(Caplan 1). GMO is having effects on the calves that are born from animals that have eaten GMO'd grasses and other foods. There are some reasons that GMO could help, such as “There is a way to get rid of...unstoppable plant diseases...starvation for hundreds of millions, and cost the world economy billions of dollars. Genetically modified organisms” (Caplan 2). Diseases that kill plants in many countries will make hundreds of millions of people starve, and subsequently cost billions of dollars. So, GMO would save those people from starvation and preserve billions of dollars for the world's economy. The monster was not born bad, however, Victor getting scared of and not making the monster a lover was the reason that the monster got angry. As GMO, the monster could have had some good qualities and could have helped the world, but because of his past experiences, he became angry. Genetically modifying foods is a type of technology that, again, the world doesn’t know enough about to determine whether or not it is going to be truly beneficial in the future, or, on the contrary, truly disastrous. To conclude, Frankenstein shows how people who pursue power within research will have a lot of bad consequences. Should people be allowed to do scientific research today, even though they do not know what the outcome will look like? In Victor Frankenstein’s case, the consequences of his scientific research killed his whole family and everyone he loved. Cloning human beings, using biomedical enhancements, and making GMO’d foods is the type of technology that is being used today. No one knows if these technologies will turn out similar to the monster in Frankenstein. Even if the outcome will be beneficial to humans, does it mean that it is ethically correct to pursue this technology?
Brave New World and Frankenstein - Conflicts Between Scientific Knowledge and Social Responsibility Letter From the Savage ( Brave New World) to Victor Frankenstein ( Frankenstein). Dear Dr. Victor Frankenstein, Your response to my last letter was very prompt. As you know, ever since I set foot into this brave new world, my life has been a disaster. The society of this new world saddens me. The people who occupy this land feel no passion towards anything wonderful or beautiful.
abandoned; this made him feel as if he was the only person with out no
In sports, there are always rules and regulations to what an athlete can ingest or use. They create these rules and regulations so competitors don 't have a physical or psychological advantage over their competition. These restrictions usually pertain to illegal drugs and substances that would give that athlete a boost in their performance. I personally agree with José Luís Pérez Triviño, a senior lecturer in philosophy of law, who believes technological developments, as well as many minor substances, will create transgenic athletes. D.A. Baker, explains that “prosthetics should be compared to some standard measure”. Prosthetics and technological enhancements should be considered as a restriction, considering it is an advantage just like
In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley tests the motives and ethical uncertainties of the science in her time period. This is a consideration that has become more and more pertinent to our time, when we see modern scientists are venturing into what were previously unimaginable territories of science and nature, through the use of things like human cloning and genetic engineering. Through careful assessment, we can see how the novel illustrates both the potential dangers of these scientific advancements and the conflict between that and creationism.
Since the beginning of time man has been infatuated with the idea of pushing the human body to its limits by the use of science. The Space program is the best example of science helping humans accomplish things never before thought possible. In the age of technology and scientific advancement ideas that once seemed like science fiction, for example people walking on the moon, are now a reality. In order to push human development, ethics and morals have been pushed to the side. Necessary evils have been accepted as part of science without a second thought. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein a scientist, Victor Frankenstein, plays God by creating a monster out of body parts and bringing it to life. When Frankenstein realizes the full extent to what he’s done, he abandons the monster leaving it confused and lonely. The monster then
Technology is supposed to be seen as such an advancement and great accomplishment. What others may not always know is sometimes it isn’t all fun and games, it could be dangerous. As seen when we created the atomic bomb and guns, their only purpose is to destroy and cause pain to others. Although they are not always in use they are a constant threat to our well being. We need to take into consideration the positives and the negatives of the technology we create now in present day. Many people change their position on this overarching question: What responsibility do people have when developing new technology? In the texts “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley, “the Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot, and “De-Extinction” answers the questions that it may impose. Each of these texts share one same belief: Society holds
native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his
Science is not inherently evil and never will become evil. Though the knowledge gained from science can be used toward producing evil, intended or not, and can be dangerous. The story of Victor Frankenstein shows the irresponsibility possible in the advancement of science and furthers the caution which humanity must take when it attempts to master its environment or itself. The proponents of cloning humans today should remind themselves of the lesson which Victor Frankenstein before they have to deal with the products of their research and learn the hard way.
Potential grave consequences that can result from irresponsible, or criminal, medical experiments. While we must be vigilant to protect innocent victims from such experimentation we cannot let that stifle our duty to continue making advances in healthcare and improving the lives of patients.
...f science it is a risky business. Victor Frankenstein broke these ethics when his creation came to life and thought he could play God. Consequently, this backfired on him when he did take responsibility for his creation and it lead to deaths of his family and friends. As to what Mary Shelley has shown through her novel, Frankenstein, it is that ethics are not meant to be broken but followed in order to keep a balance between human knowledge and natural occurrences.
Mary Shelley’s Sci-Fi horror known as Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus has become a classic novel in history. This dark tale touches on every subject of humanity. One of Shelley’s biggest themes is a big question in the science world we live in, nearly 200 years after publication of the book. That question being can science go too far, is there a line that shouldn’t be crossed? Shelley uses the plot of her story to serve as a warning to readers to be careful when dealing with this imaginary line. Shelley’s tale of a mad scientist and the repercussions he suffers from his experiment is a timeless story. As technology is being pushed to the brink of morality in the modern day, this question has become a huge part of the modern world of science we are living in.
Which is more powerful science or nature? Author Mary Shelley shows us exactly what could happen when science and nature are pitted against each other in her novel “Frankenstein Or, The Modern Prometheus”. In the novel the life of a scientist named Victor Frankenstein spirals out of control after the death of his mother. He consequently becomes dangerously obsessed with death. His mission becomes to go against nature in order to figure out the science of life. In his journey of giving a “torrent of light into our dark world” (Shelley, 61) Victor Frankenstein is faced with the consequences going against nature. I believe that Mary Shelley was against science that went over the bounds set by nature.
Human genetic engineering has the power to take the human race ahead in the 21st century. With it, we will be able to enhance every aspect of our physical and mental existence. It is crucial that we make the right decisions now, with the needs and wants of future generations in consideration. Genetic enhancement is our next step to a better living experience for everyone, regardless of status. Creating a world where everyone is genetically enhanced and can function at a higher level will transform the future of the human race. After examining the true facts and reasons behind genetic enhancement, it is clear that the human race will benefit greatly. As such, it is important that normal civilians do not disregard these practices as foreign and taboo, but rather encourage scientists in their quest for the ultimate panacea.
..., Kjetil K. "Why We Shouldn’t Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport." Academia.edu. Academia.edu, 1 Apr. 2011. Web. 06 Jan. 2014. .
Human enhancement is any attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial means. It is in our human nature that we somehow increase our life expectancy, become stronger, fearless, independent and smarter. It is no surprise we turn to all sorts of technologies – neurotechnology, nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology – to improve human performances. While they might improve our performances and abilities, their use raises serious health, ethical and economic issues, furthermore, not enough is known about the long-term consequences.