UK Walter
Mr Mike
English
29 Febuary 2012
The Frankenstein Syndrome
In Shelley's Frankenstein, it is interesting to use text to ask the question, who's interest lie at the heart of science? Why Victor Frankenstein motivated to plunge the questions you bring life to inanimate matter can? Life of Victor Frankenstein was destroyed because of the obsession with the power to create life where none was before. The monster created shows a representation of all those who are evil in the name of science for selfish cuases. We can use the book to draw parallels of our modern society, show that there is a danger that science creates via a personal relationship between the scientist and the creator of his work. It seems to me that science is done without thought to any affect experiments can have on the basis of disclosure, we may risk all that is dear to us for our creation or study. This is the Frankenstein Syndrome.
When describing the monster he created, Frankenstein says:
“No mortal could support the horror of this expression. Mother given forth with animation could not be that bad this poor. I looked at him while unfinished, he was ugly then, but when those muscles and joints were rendered capable of motion, it has become that even Dante could not imagine.” (I, 235)
It was Victor's reaction to the monster's that caused him to reach out to working in the night. Victor, who for months worked on creating this, suddenly confronted the results of his scientific pursuit. He labored day and night trying to do something never been done by someone in the past. He understood the scientific path to life that died, then blindly driven by the urge to be greater than those before him he went and did it. He did not stop to really think what the consequences of his action could be. He knows he makes an ugly creature, but he never asks himself what would happen after being resurrected as a result of this ugliness. The monsters size is so it's easier for Victor to work on, but no thought is taken about how the creature may feel on this form. Victor ignored even his father's advice and remained consumed with his science. In the words of the popular movie Jurassic Park, “he was so busy wondering if he could do something he forgot to think about whether he should do something.” This is the central theme of Shelley's novel. Frankenstein did not stop to think about the consequences of his action to his fellow human beings, or the creature he creates, this is the prime example of the Frankenstein Syndrome.
We can see in science today that we create nuclear energy and weapons, in the name of science, while ignoring the costs of radiation poisoning in places like Hiroshima. We genetically modify animals without concern to the effect on the rest of the food chain. We create ways to bring water to Southern California, while ignoring the fact that we are destroying more habitat in Colorado. We continue to produce vehicles powered by combustion engines even while we know they are destroying the environment. The examples go on and on, and they show signs of slowing. Shelley had an insight into the future when she wrote Frankenstein, because she saw that we can not only rely on science to solve our problems. It's up to us to get educated so as to be capable of making proper decisions about the way science should be used.
What can we take from Shelley's novel and of the modern reception of the day is that humanity needs to develop a sense of scientific patience. In our world everyone seems to worry about a quick fix. We want all the good results immediately, without any regret or concern. Victor Frankenstein behaved exactly the same way. He wanted all the glory of bringing life to the dead without facing the ugly reality that this may bring. We can not and should not limit the learning areas of science that can open to us, but we should take a cautious approach, the patient answers are most commonly the greatest and most precise. We need to judge whether we are doing something for greed or power or prestige, or if we do it in a better place than world in which we live and help those around us. Scientists seem to strive to create complicated ways of doing things, but they should begin to examine the reasons why they are doing these things.
Let me give you an example of modern hits too close to my pattern of Victor Frankenstein. CNN.com has an article she wrote recently on an Italian scientist named Dr. Severino Antinori. Doctor that recently held a press conference and announced that the first human clone will be born in early January of next year. Article suggests that Antinori claims can not be trusted, and that most The scientific community is skeptical about the veracity of Antiorni that he did not come up with proof. but it was not the most disturbing of the article. piece quoted scientists to name a few, and everyone seemed to be saying the same thing. Michael to her page, news editor of the magazine Bio New Scientist and said: "If someone cloned human baby I'd be surprised if they make the message immediately." La Page also said that if a baby clone was made public, and that one year later showed signs of distortion or retardation scientist look "a little stupid." It is really shocking the opinion that these scientists are talking about human lives. They talk about causing retardation of a human child, the only result they mention is a scientist might look "a little stupid." Scientists say that even if a human baby has been cloned, the public will be the last to know, that researchers are concerned image.
John Kilner, president of the United States think tank called the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, was quoted as saying
“While there are reasons to be skeptical of the claim based Dr. Antiorni woman is expected to have a clone soon, he reminds us that there are those who continue this journey is dangerous, unethical. These human trials are produced by cloning subject to high risk of death distortion. The best way ensure that cloning is not synonymous is to pass a comprehensive ban on human cloning. United States should do it as quickly as possible and continue to press the case of a comprehensive ban treaty at the UN.” (CNN.com)
Although social and ethical questions looming huge on the question of cloning, some scientists who rush ahead anyway. Whose welfare they thinking of? Obviously not the babies they produce, or they wait until we understand more about the process.
Again and again we see this type of molding methods of modern scientific research. Science in the optical to create distance between the person and what they do. They blindly continue to use the knowledge without waiting for the wisdom necessary to run it. It is important to search for knowledge, but more important to know when to use the knowledge we have. I saw that part. She had a severe prejudice against science, but it's not science itself that destroys our humanity. It's the choices we make, that lead our species into a destructive and harmful systems operation.
Quote from the "Enemies of Promise" Michael Bishop states that “Scientists have a responsibility to work openly with the public for the common good. We, the scientists can no longer leave the problem to others. Indeed, ever since our resolve, and the whole society now pay for our neglect. As a physicist and science historian Gerald Holton said, modern men and women "who do not know the basic facts that determine the existence, function, and the environment live in a world of dreams ... are, in a sense very, insane. We [scientists] ... should do what we can, or appeared to be pushed out a common culture. lab remains our workplace, but it must not be our hiding place. It's up to us as a company interested in promoting more aware of doing science, as well as encourage and promote research to be more open about their experiments. Only when we are taking steps to work together, slowly, without the "quick fix" mindset, we can work for everyone.” (Bishop, 242)
Victor Frankenstein, like Dr. Antinori and his contemporaries, he did his work in the dark. He hid the progress of humanity, did things that were at the same time social moral ethics. He robbed graves, he ignored his family, he experimented with forbidden, and he did all this without telling anyone. A side-to-side comparison of Dr. Frankenstein and modern scientists are quite disturbing, but the answer is still attainable if you act now. We have to write the legislature and choose men with scientific patience. We need to discover our leadership, because we care about ways to advance the science is achieved, and we are willing to pay the cost of time, so we can all be sure of the implications of scientific actions.
Frankenstein is a novel approach to this concern should be more important in our daily lives. We have to stop for a moment and ask ourselves, when we perform experiments in science and technology, whose interests we have in mind? How these will affect the progress of society, above all, what harm it can cause the creation? Then we have in society are more willing to bear the responsibility of Victor Frankenstein quickly so wanting to. He looked at his scientific advancement with shame and horror. But if we make the changes in our society that need to be, we can look at what we proudly guarantee that our work life better for everyone.

Sources:

Shelly, Mary. "Fankenstein Book Notes Summary." Book Rag. N.p., 16 N. Web. 7 Mar 2012. .

Fleming, Grace. "Frankenstein." About.com. The New York Times Company, n.d. Web. 7 Mar 2012. .

Bishop, Michael. "Enemies of Promise". Other's presence. Ed. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2000, 242.

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

Mine, Mary. "Frankenstein". Other's presence. Ed. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruskiewicz. Boston: Bedford / St. Martin's, 2000, 235-236.