Frankenstein by Mary Shelly

As a teenager in 1816 Mary Shelley began her famous book, Frankenstein, as the result of a challenge from Lord Byron to see who could write the scariest ghost story. Shelley was unaware that her book title would be used in the future to identify all that is negative in science. The prefix ‘franken’ is used nowadays commonly as a despairing way to identify almost anything - from ‘frankenfood’, to ‘frankengenes’. So how has this Frankenstein, mad-scientist image of science come to influence society via movies, public imagination, literature, and poetry? To some extent it has helped to fuel the rift between science and literature that Snow was talking about. It is one example of how the distrust of science has begun. Admittedly, there is ample evidence of this from a historical perspective in religion, literature and poetry as well. Galileo’s story, for one will attest to that. Other science fiction has played its part. The role of science fiction in books like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, and the numerous recent books like State of Fear and Prey by Michael Crichton. In her book Shelley states:
The ancient teachers of this science [chemistry] promised impossibilities, and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little; they know that metals cannot be transmuted, and that the elixir of life is a chimera. But these philosophers, whose hands seem only made to dabble in dirt, and their eyes to pore over the microscope or crucible, have indeed performed miracles. They penetrate into the recesses of nature, and show how she works in her hiding- places. They ascend into the heavens; they have discovered how the blood circulates, and the nature of the air we breathe. They have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of the heavens, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows. (p 27)

Shelley’s words seem extraordinary considering her age. Science in isolation is a collage of facts and processes, but science is not isolated. It does not exist in a vacuum. Science is connected to the people that ‘do the science’ and the world that ‘inherits the results’ whether they are good or bad. Foreseeing the almost unlimited power of science and the yin-yang aspects of it are remarkable for a young girl at that time. Debate continues as to whether Dr. Frankenstein is truly reflective of the mad-scientist or just motivated to do science. Had he any idea of the result of his work would he have proceeded? The comparison here to modern science is powerful. Are Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller (responsible for the atom and hydrogen bombs) to be considered modern day Dr. Frankensteins? Is our monster our nuclear arsenals? With any scientific discovery, the question of who is ethically responsible is not considered in basic science. Is the scientist, or the person(s) who apply the discovery, or both responsible? Just as the soul of Frankenstein was misguided propelling him to pioneer unknown powers; are modern-day scientists in a similar position? Are human cloning, star wars, nanotechnology, etc. potentially the new frankendiscoveries? Shelley states, “The labours of men of genus, however erroneously directed, scarcely ever fail in ultimately turning to the solid advantage of mankind.” (page 28) Is she being naïve here? Yes, the fact that science has given an unbelievable amount of wonderful advantages to mankind is unarguable, but there are some that believe that science is on the edge of madness. Others believe that science should be unfettered to go as far into any direction that a creative mind will lead. Human cloning does not seem so distant from Shelley’s monster. Or has she influenced society to the point that the monster’s aging voice will lead the fight to oppose what could be considered just another advance in science. There are many who look upon scientific discoveries, which will be discussed later, as the work of madmen who have let loose on the world, god-like, Frankenstein discoveries. Shelley’s book is just one example of how society can be led to demonize science and perceive its results as evil
even if the creation may not be inherently harmful.