Critical Annotated Webiography by Cherry

Qestion 3:

The Discussions on Recent Technology with Frankenstein

This article attempts to investigate the impacts of the science fiction Frankenstein (1818) influence the discussions of recent technology. In the five electronic information resources below, it has been found that the representation of Frankenstein inspired various arguments on biological engineering, especially under the fields of genetic engineering and cloning. Meanwhile, there are arguments stated that the monstrous imagination of Frankenstein was a reflection of public’s fears towards biological technology.

In the article of “The Influence of Popular Cultural Imagery on Public Attitudes Towards Cloning” (1999), the authors evaluated in the level of the impacts made by Frankenstein which affecting public’s perception of biological engineer technology. “… to explore the role of popular culture in helping to shape and express public attitudes … such as Frankenstein can evoke an entire story or 'script', which can be used as an interpretative frame…”.
The writers believed that Frankenstein as a science fiction reflected the public’s attitude of biological engineering technology. The monstrous science fiction represented the public concerns of the negative social consequences of these advanced human technologies would possibly bring. The worries of genetic engineering technology were especially exaggerated in the technology of genetically modified food.
“The metaphors and comparisons used in the discourse about cloning had therefore mainly negative connotations, reflecting and stoking the general public's fears about cloning. This fear is nowadays exacerbated by the anxieties surrounding genetic engineering, especially 'genetically modified' (GM) foods -- "Frankenstein food", including "Frankenfish."” I agree with the author’s concept of expressing fears towards advanced technology by monstrous science fiction. As the authors stated the example of “Frankenstein food” which is the name of genetically modified food called by the public. The above example explains the profound impression on the public by the influence of Frankenstein novel.

Along with the profound image of Frankenstein- the monstrous scientist, the media seems give a big hand to reinforce such representation constantly. In the article “Cloning in the media and popular culture” (2006) launched by Giovanni Maio, he stated that the media was always interested in the topic of cloning. “… most notably Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which itself has become an important symbol for popular myths. It is therefore not surprising that many documentaries on the subject of cloning allude to Frankenstein: von Boehm's documentary is entitled Frankenstein's Children; a round-table discussion on Bavarian television was called Greetings from Frankenstein: Is the Cloned Human on the Way? (1998), and many documentaries feature segments from Frankenstein films.”
The writer stated that “Frankenstein” was the typical representation of myth among the public’s mind. Also, the author gave the examples of documentaries and television program which using the name “Frankenstein” as the themes which were relating to cloning. More than that, the myth of cloning portrayed in the media was stereotyped by certain messages. For examples, the cloned was always evil, the original one was always good, the creator was always being punished lastly, and peace will mostly take place after the elimination of the cloned.
I think the above arguments made by Giovanni Maio stated the fact that cloning is the popular topic which the media interested in. From the Frankenstein novel in 1818 to Resident Evil: Extinction in 2007, there were numerous media texts carried the frame of cloning. Throughout the hundreds years, the enthusiasm of the public about cloning seems has never cooled down.

Other than the studies on media aspect, there are different discussions jointed Frankenstein to the application of genetic engineering and cloning. In “Human Cloning” (1998), the authors James M. Humber and Robert F. Almedar linked the discussion of cloning to Frankenstein. “…the name Dolly suggests an individual, a human or at least a pet… Victor Frankenstein, of course, never named his creature, thereby repudiating any parental responsibility.”
From the name of the artificial reproduced creature, the authors examined their individual identity. Indeed, from the investigation of the identity of these artificial reproduced creatures, the authors believed that human cloning is unacceptable. As James Humber and Robert Almedar argued that human cloning is too risky to the value and the life of human. Moreover, the writers stated that human cloning would encourage the thoughts of viewing human being as commodity which is interchangeable by the others, as human cloning is a biological technology of replicating human being. The argument of viewing human as commodity by the application of human cloning is impressive, and this scholarly writing used the example of cloning a dying child by their parents thus explaining the identity and the relationship between the clone and the original.

Other than the ethic issues, the problems of moral and identity were brought by cloning. In “Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein” (2006), the writers Brian P. Bloomfield and Theo Vurdubakis linked the discussion of cloning to Frankenstein. “…Regarding the natural relationship between generations (that is, mother, daughter, granddaughter and so on), Oddie argued in The Sunday Times…”
As the authors asserted the moral crises raised by cloning, the problem of moral breakdown of nature would be aroused increasingly serious. The authors believed that the above influences of cloning are far more complicated than the Frankenstein’s author could expect. Other than the moral and ethic issues, cloning brought about the difficulties of the self-identity. “If individuals can be ‘copied’ then their individuality is compromised.”
This statement stated clear concept towards the reproductive technology of cloning would destroy human identity embodiment and recognition. Additionally, the authors stated their concern towards the abuse of cloning manipulated by the rich and authorities by copying themselves thus exploiting the poor and powerless. From my viewpoint, though the technology of human cloning would encounter different questions on the moral and ethic issue, I believed such reproductive technology should be developed continually as it might improve the world’s future.

In “Basic Questions on Genetics, Stem Cell Research, and Cloning: Are these Technologies Okay to Use?” (2002), the authors took the public’s imagination on Frankenstein as an example of explaining genetic engineering. “The term genetic engineering often conjures up disturbing images. We might think of laboratory experiments resulting in the creation of Frankenstein- like monsters…”


The authors tried to address the doubt of such human biological technology by dissolving the monstrous imagination on the public’s mind. Also, the authors asserted that the nature of genetic engineering does not contain the value of good or wrong, but the objective of the human biological engineering would finally determine the ethicalness towards its particular use. It is appreciate that the authors advocated determining the value of human biological engineering by its purpose, as I believed that if such technology developed appropriately, some of the fatal illnesses for examples Down's Syndrome and inborn deformity, such illness could be healed by these very advanced biological technology thus improving public’s interests.

In short, there are numbers of discussions on recent technology which lined with the science fiction Frankenstein. The public might look upon Frankenstein as an expression of their anxious towards biological engineer technology. At the same time, some of the scholar jointed their opinion to the application of genetic engineering with the representation of Frankenstein for analyzing potential ethical problems we might encounter. Therefore, the imagination of Frankenstein inspired various discussions on the fields of cultural and the science aspect.



Reference:
Bevington, Linda K., Ray G. Bohlin, Gary P. Stewart, and John F. Kilner. "What is genetic engineering?" Basic Question On Genetics. 2002. Google Beta. 3 Mar. 2009
<http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=-ANtuxKfXyYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=frankenstein+cloning+technology&ots=dIt1X1VkjT&sig=2wr2ac7rmyewUPh-pxYCz4uPEro#PPP1,M1>.

Bloomfield, Brian P., and Theo Vurdubakis. "Re-Engineering the Human: New Reproductive Technologies and the Specter of Frankenstein." Http://www.waset.org/ijss/v1/v1-1-4.pdf. Winter 2006. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 2 Mar. 09
<http://www.waset.org/ijss/v1/v1-1-4.pdf>.

Brigitte, Nerlich, David D. Clarke, and Robert Dingwall. "'The Influence of Popular Cultural Imagery on Public Attitudes Towards Cloning." Nerlich, Clarke and Dingwall: The Influence of Popular Cultural Imagery on Public Attitudes Tow. 1999. Sociological Research Online. 3 Mar. 2009
<http://www.socresonline.org.uk/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?q=imagery&showurl=%2F4%2F3%2Fnerlich.htmlhttp://www.socresonline.org.uk/cgi-bin/perlfect/search/search.pl?q=imagery&showurl=%2F4%2F3%2Fnerlich.html>.

Humber, James M., and Robert Almeder. "There Are No Good or Sufficient Reasons to Clone a Human." Human Cloning: Biomedical Ethics Reviews. Aug. 1998. 3 Mar. 2009
<http://books.google.com/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=34Pu37G5fPoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=frankenstein+cloning+technology&ots=_jMevRLnp4&sig=7786gpiQwkpksv13oqkcSZodzcM#PPP1,M1>.

Maio, Giovanni. "Cloning in the media and popular culture." Cloning in the media and popular culture. Mar. 2006. PubMedCentral. 2 Mar. 2009
<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1456881>.