Summarized by Laura and Chris
Introduction• We are both mesmerized with and concerned about the progress of the biological sciences over the last century and into the 21st century.
• Author uses Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a “framing device” for public images of new technology and biology: “…when we look for ways to interpret the latest developments, the hot news from the lab, the technological promises for the twenty-first century, when we look for stories to tell about what we are about to do, we commonly reach back to a story which is almost two hundred years old” (p. 2). Frankenstein is identified as a “myth of modernity.”
• Shelley offered “concerns which go to the heart of our response to science” (p. 3)—namely, ambivalence towards the power of the biological sciences: the idea that progress in the sciences in its striving towards “power over the body” can be cause for “celebration,” but also always accompanied by “unease” (p. 10).
• Author feels that there is a clear relationship between “art” (in this case, popular conceptions of science in historical literature and film) and “science” and that art may, in fact, influence scientific developments: “My premise is that fictional representations matter, that the science and technology we ultimately see are partly shaped by the images of the work which exist outside the confines of the laboratory report or the scientific paper” (p. 3). Shelley’s Frankenstein can be seen as one way to understand the “source” of contemporary attitudes towards and perceptions of present-day science:
(1) Motif of the mad scientist, both inspired and tortured by his (or her) creation
(2) The consequences of playing God and creating life (manifested in current debates over genetic engineering).
(3) Meeting scientific progress with a mix of excitement and ambivalence
(4) A Pandora’s Box of unknown consequences.
Chapter 1: Mary Shelley’s Creation
• Author draws our attention to Shelley’s original novel, arguing that the central theme of the “Frankenstein myth” relates to getting/using knowledge and the power conferred—“dramatized by the creation of life” (p. 13). Ambivalence about this power is central to the story.
• Author compares Frankenstein to other creation myths in Western culture; in the case of Frankenstein, there is no “supernatural agency” (p. 14), as the human acts on his own. Frankenstein also brought to light new ideas about a “mechanistic” view of living things” (p. 16). In her myth, “science is a substitute for God” (p. 23).
• Points out Shelley’s personal background and the idea that she blended together scientific (e.g., Erasmus Darwin, Humphrey Davy) and literary sources (e.g., Byron) to shape her tale. Shelley was well versed in the “science of her time” (p. 22), and her familiarity with social issues of the time (e.g., grave-robbing) also become apparent.
Chapter 2: Hideous Progeny: Frankenstein Retold
• While Shelley’s novel is interesting on its own accord, it’s even more fascinating to look at how the story has become “embedded in our culture” (p. 26): is it folklore, legend, or myth? The author goes on to explore different definitions of these terms, and what various critics have had to say about the book.
• The story propagated in many ways: first published in 1818, then published in “simplified form”, then to the stage, then to film. There were various transformations of the story in each of these genres. Along with Dracula, Frankenstein helped provide a blueprint for the “horror movie.” The author notes that movie versions would draw particular attention to different facets of the story (e.g., more attention on the creator than the creature itself).
• Why has the myth endured? Or, what about the story has endured? Most importantly, according to the author, the “science” element of the story has been maintained in all the adaptations: “…the endurance of the myth plainly does testify to a deep disquiet at the potentialities inherent in scientific discovery in general, and the science of life in particular”(p. 36).
Chapter 3: As Remorseless as Nature: the Rise of Experimental Biology
• The image of the biologist has changed immensely since the mid-19th C: “the transition between the first image of the biologist, the frock-coated skull-hefter, and the second, the white-coated microscopist; the transition from natural historian to experimenter” (p. 45).
• Author provides a timeline of some of the developments/trends in biology, including Victorian “antivivisection” movement (experimentation on animals) as well as the eugenics movement.
• Certain popular novels at the time are pointed to as perpetuating images of the biologist at the time period (e.g., the biologist as the “unfeeling obsessive” as portrayed by Jack London’s characters—see p. 54, Wells’ Dr. Moreau).
Chapter 4: Creating Life in the Laboratory
• The possibility of spontaneous generation of (artificial) life became a focus of biologists and source of growing optimism in the power of science at the end of the 19th C. Jacques Loeb was the first major scientist to be linked with possibility of creating life in the lab. Alexis Carrel was also an important “visible” figure in the beginnings of transplant surgery and tissue culture.
• The author seems to stress that, emerging from these scientists’ very publicized work, was the view that life could be “controlled” and “manipulated.”
• These developments were often viewed publicly as positive, but also with growing unease. In some cases, there were clear “spiritual” and “moral” implications that the public saw as related to these developments. These feelings of ambivalence that we see even today in regard to biological advancement, are not new.
Chapter Five: Into the Brave New World
• Interwar period of biology is considered, a time when the “high hopes” of the pre-war vision of biology were somewhat dampened when life was shown to be much more complicated than first understood.
• More general awareness of the complexity of human life led to the conclusion that creation of life in a lab was, perhaps, not so imminent as previously predicted; however, the press still functioned to forward the idea (“prophecy”) that scientists could, in fact, perform this feat.
• Karel Capek’s play (1921) R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots): explores idea of artificially created humans and production lines. This work, while “symbolically rich, lacked any referenced to contemporary research” (p. 99).
• Haldane’s Daedalus or Science and the Future: outlines a history of futuristic, somewhat improbable scientific developments that are thought to be “just over the scientific horizon” (p. 101).
• Aldous Huxley’s A Brave New World (1932): future-oriented view of how biology would/could affect the human condition: “The emphasis on biology was deliberate, born of Huxley’s wish to portray ‘the advancement of science as it affects human individuals’” (p. 114). The book deals with, among other things, the reproduction of identical humans, recalling Capek’s R.U.R and “a society in which the ultimate result of applied science is to bring development to a halt—a direct contradiction of the actual experience of modernity” (p. 115). The book had a tremendous impact on both scholarly and popular thinking, and continues to be cited today; however, it was (and continues to be) seen mostly as “distant prophesy” (p. 117).
• Importantly, the ideas that these popularized writers seemed to be suggesting (or foreseeing) would be revisited by science later: “More significantly, perhaps, some researchers and orchestrators of research have been directly inspired by the vision of biological control” (p. 118).
Chapters 6-10
• Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are case studies in how the Frankenstein myth pervades our attitudes toward scientific achievement: Lauded for their potential to provide energy “too cheap to meter,” but also feared for their unique ability to benefit the world as a whole or end it all together.
• Second case study: current debate over genetic engineering. Life sciences could change the very essence of what it means to be “human.” We can create, not just modify, life (i.e., cloning).
(1) Frankenstein myth – creating life (a new modern Prometheus?)
(2) Brave New World motif – engineering the essence of being human.
• “If ever a research program drew on fictional images from its inspiration, and interpretation, it was the work which led to human in vitro fertilization. The Frankenstein script has been generalized to apply to almost any technology, even though it still has a special affinity with technologies of life. The idea of conception outside the body identified with Brave New World has a more specific connotation. And once that script established its hold, any research which seemed to offer control over reproduction was readily figured as a step toward Huxley’s world” (p. 160).
** How far should we go in our quest for knowledge? When do we cross into the realm of the forbidden, whether it involves nuclear proliferation or in vitro fertilization? **
Conclusion:
• Frankenstein may be just a book, but it tells a story just like science and history – about our past, present and future and how we have interacted, are interacting, and will interact with technology
• Telling stories to make sense of an issue (implications, meaning), to predict outcomes, and promote interpretations/perspectives in the course of debate in the public arena.
• “Together, all these stories form part of a diffuse public debate about science and technology, about what research is desirable or permissible, what applications are to be hoped or feared, about how our society shapes and is shaped by the science it builds (p. 201)
No comments:
Post a Comment