• Home
  • Frankenstein
  • Victor Frankenstein’s Creation and Contemporary Biological Science Advances Comparison

Victor Frankenstein’s Creation and Contemporary Biological Science Advances Comparison

Victor Frankenstein’s Creation and Contemporary Biological Science Advances Comparison
  • Page:
  • Words:
  • Downloads:
Disclaimer: This work has been donated by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service.


The Modern Prometheus is totally a work of fiction by Mary Shelley, portraying Frankenstein the creator of a monster as the main character. Partly motivated by her personal life, Shelley designed this novel to fit the environment of its creation. As a matter of fact, care full analysis of the text, aligns its content with the existing biological advancement at the time of its publication.

The whole life of Frankenstein is guided by curiosity. He was raised in a noble family but later discovering that not all parents were as humble to their children, Frankenstein becomes curious of discovering more secrets of the world. Through his curious nature, he discovers that alchemy did not exist as he later blames his dad for not informing him earlier. Frankenstein finally lands into science where he develops his career and he is happy claiming his genes were in line with discoveries. Concurrently, scientist was specializing with certain fields to make detailed reports rather than the general science prevailed before (Tuohy et al 297). As a matter of fact, biological science was rampant in Greece than in other regions. . Science had originated from Greece and thus more discoveries being made in the region implies that the science character was more of inherited than acquired. This reflects Frankenstein’s argument that he had being curious since childhood and the study of chemistry in the university only advanced his curiosity which was in his genes.

Secondly, Frankenstein creates a monster after discovering the life content of human beings to in cells. Although the monster refers him as its creator, Frankenstein denial to take full responsibility implies that he isn’t the biological father and thus no gene connection between him and the minister. Moreover, given that his father was polite and humble, the rude nature of the minister that leads it to its destruction through revenge proves existence of different human characters. Conversely, the in real world phenomenon the myth that that sperms are parasites is dropped after J.B Dumas discovers that they are fertilization agents. This fact was enriched later by Kar Von Baer who discovered the mammalian egg in the ovaries. Therefore, the creation story of the monster symbolizes the combination of sperm and the mammalian egg which normally happens in the womb, but Frankenstein extends it that given the conditions of the womb, the creation can also be attained in a lab(Rana & Fazale 193). With time and experiments this has been attained through test-tube babies and thus Frankenstein had simply expanded the biological science knowledge at the time. Note that, apart from the size, the monster isn’t that different from a normal human being, it can learn, read, socialize and reason.

Just as in real world phenomenon, Frankenstein studies, understands and applies his understanding of life to make more discoveries. This character of many scientists is trademarked by that each act has a pros and cons. Either the lifespan of the scientist is too short to enable conquer ramifications of his discovery or they are either unable or ignorant to do so (Rana & Fazale 214) . Frankenstein creates a very harmful creature that destroys his threatens the peace of his family. In correction he tries to please it by creating a female monster but upon discovering that they would multiply and threaten the whole human race, he destroys it, making the male monster revenge. He dedicates the work of eliminating this disaster to another person before he dies, just the same as the scientist who discovered hemophilia and its causes and transmission modes didn’t get its cure.

Morals and ethics

Generally, discovery is driven by desire to earn knowledge. This thirst for knowledge has been seen to pose some moral hazards and thus in some circumstances might be deemed unethical (Schneeberger 163). For instance, Frankenstein’s desire to explore the secrets of life leads him to dreaming a very dangerous creature that d destroys this loved ones. What might be termed as a successful adventure turns out a very sad story for the discoverer. Moreover, his death resulted from attempts to destroy his creation. Note that the repercussions of science affect the whole family and a simple mistake to impress the monster would have made deprived the whole human race its happiness.

Secondly, science is all about creation and destruction. In most cases, more destruction prevails than destruction. The scientists themselves do not seek to solve the problems but create more discoveries which mean extra damages. Just as Shelley leaves it to the reader to determine whether, Frankenstein’s acts had any moral advantage, and whether they were ethical or not, scientists discoveries and implications bring about the same mixed reactions, for instance the discovery of HIV virus and its application in both apes and human beings has been more of a social disaster than a productive science discovery.

Work cited
Lederer, Susan E, Elizabeth Fee, and Patricia Tuohy. Frankenstein: Penetrating the Secrets of Nature : an Exhibition by the National Library of Medicine. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 2002. Print.
Rana, Fazale. Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2011. Print
Schneeberger, Aaron F. Aesthetics of the Brink: Environmental Crisis and the Sublime in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Missoula, Mont.: The University of Montana, 2011. Internet resource
Shelley, Mary W, and James Rieger. Frankenstein, Or, the Modern Prometheus, the 1818 Text. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Print