Directions

Write a unified, coherent essay in which you evaluate multiple perspectives on the pursuit of knowledge. Your essay may be in full agreement with any of the other, in partial agreement, or wholly different. Whatever the case, support your ideas with logical reasoning and detailed, persuasive examples. In your essay, be sure to: 

• analyze and evaluate the perspectives given

• state and develop your own perspective on the issue

• explain the relationship between your perspective and those given 

Essay Prompt

Victor attributes his tragic fate to his ambition and relentless search for knowledge. Like Captain Walton’s obsession with discovering a passage at the North Pole, Victor becomes too vain and focused with his own mind and abilities. And, while studying at Ingolstadt, Victor becomes obsessed with bringing his creation to life and altering nature itself. This ambition and drive towards knowledge keeps Victor apart from his family and friends. However, Victor does make an astounding discovery. His commitment, obsession, and hard work lead him to an incredible discovery about reanimating life. Still, is gaining more knowledge always a good thing? What are the potential successes and dangers that can result from a relentless quest for knowledge?

Read carefully and consider these perspectives. Each suggests a particular way of thinking about the danger of knowledge and ambition.  

“Failures of Forethought”

In the late fall of 2018, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced the birth of the first genetically engineered children, twin girls born with a supposed HIV immunity (Jiankui 177). Although this experiment marked a major milestone in the advancement of gene editing technology, Jiankui’s announcement was met with immense public outrage. As a result of his and other recent genetic experiments, society has been forced to reconsider the ethicality and communal necessity of scientific advancement. While fields like genetic engineering have the potential to do humanity great good, they also have the ability to do serious and irrevocable harm as readers can see in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. While some individuals argue scientific advancement is acceptable due solely to its positive effects, others have noted the controversial history of scientific progress and, in turn, deem the whole practice unnatural. Ultimately, however, neither of these views address the real issue at the heart of the matter, which is not whether or not scientific advancement should be pursued, but instead, how it should be acquired.

To deny the past and potential benefits of scientific advancement is to remain purposefully ignorant. Whether it be vaccines, medications or electrical power, science has moved humanity towards greater overall health and wellbeing. People are living happier, healthier and longer lives as a result of past scientific studies, and many modern scientists promise similarly appealing advances in the near future. Despite the overwhelming claims Doctor He Jiankui’s genetic experiment was unethical, the results themselves actually denoted the possibility of easing societal prejudices and suffering of those born with HIV in China. In an interview with bioethicist James Hurlbut titled Imperatives of Governance: Human Genome Editing and the Problem with Progress, one of the parents taking part in the genome testing explained their involvement by stating, “Drugs can cure disease, but they cannot cure prejudice. At a certain level, our participation in the experiment was indeed forced, but we were not coerced by any person in particular. We were coerced by society” (190). Just like many of its predecessors, He Jiankui’s experiment represented a chance at a better life for thousands of HIV sufferers, not to mention those with other illnesses or genetic defects whose cures may now be on the horizon. To halt the progress of science is to ignore effective solutions to global problems in whatever form they may come.

Of course, no great reward comes without great risk. The kinds of solutions needed to solve the world’s most pressing issues may only come through audacious acts such as Victor’s creation of the monster depicted in Frankenstein. While this experiment was one of undeniable danger, many would argue the potential benefits far outweighed the risks. In fact, Shelley lays out these impressive possibilities quite plainly in the text: “What glory would attend the discovery if I could banish disease from the human frame and render man invulnerable to anything but a violent death” (26). According to this passage, Victor’s motivations were not unlike those of modern scientists- to lengthen life expectancy, eradicate infant mortality, and put an end to genetic disease. Most people would agree these are all worthy ventures; however, victories such as these come at a cost, and as in Victor’s creation of the monster, some attempts may even end in disaster. Therefore, the question society must ask itself is what these advancements are worth? Victor essentially answers this question when he attempts to convince Robert Walton’s crew not to turn back from their perilous journey through the North Pole. Rather than lying about the dangers they may face going forward, Victor instead points to what the crew might accomplish in their success: “You were hereafter to be hailed the benefactor of your species, your name adored as belonging to brave men who encountered death for honour and the benefit of mankind” (Shelley 190). Victors argues, the risk of death or catastrophe is well worth the chance to conquer nature and improve society. Without such daring men, the species would remain stagnant; in the absence of science which pushes the bounds of natural law, humanity would never have left the Dark Ages. To contend with the morality of science is to question the cost of its gifts to mankind- a price many are more than willing to pay.

Once this line of thinking is fleshed out to its full potential, the ends of scientific advancement almost always justify the means. Pushing the bounds of nature or the current ethical climate is the historically proven way to drive the field- and society as a whole- forward. He Jiankui made a striking revelation in one of his last public interviews when he mused, “Barnard’s 1967 heart transplant, Jenner’s vaccination of eight-year-old James Phipps… major breakthroughs are generally driven by one or a couple of risk-taking scientists; heroic scientific achievements are often initially controversial” (183). In other words, when society reaps the benefits of science they rarely complain about its methods. What are few ethical guidelines in the face of the end of genetic disease or illness-based discrimination? What are a few innocent lives lost or one being’s unending suffering when eutopia is on the line? As the fictional explorer, Walton exclaims, “One man’s life or death were but a small price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought, for the dominion I should acquire and transmit over the elemental foes of our race” (Shelley 29). Here, Walton is claiming the losses one takes in the midst of a discovery cannot be compared to the benefits of the final outcome. Essentially, the way in which scientific advancement occurs- whether through exploitation or ethical violations- should not negate or overshadow the knowledge gained or the progress made. Unstifled science has a tendency to produce the most beneficial results, a strong case for it to not only continue but to grow and flourish completely uninhibited.

On the other side of the argument, some believe science which runs contrary to nature should be totally abolished. Although they are sometimes labeled luddites or backward thinking, the increase in support for this philosophical perspective represents a common and timeless fear about the role of mankind in the natural order. Humans are not meant to have power over life and death, and science has reached a point where it aims to achieve little else. This argument has gained a decent amount of traction over the past few decades as geneticists and bioengineers have continued to develop and refine the gene editing process. Many people are uneasy about man having the kind of control over life these fields could provide. When explaining the immense pushback to the ethical violations of the Jiankui experiment Hurlbut states, “The sweet successes of the nuclear age threatened to extinguish civilization itself. Biology’s emerging powers over the stuff of life, though far more subtle, are no less threatening to human integrity” (179). This quote is a stark reminder of the consequences attached to men trying to take the place of God. According to Hurlbut, the  devastating effects of bioengineering malfeasance would be unimaginable, comparable only to the global chaos sparked by the invention of the atomic bomb. The power to control human life is one which attempts to bypass nature entirely, a skill no man is meant to possess. Simply put, mankind needs to understand its place in the world- usurping the role of master and creator comes with far too many consequences. 

No one understands the repercussions of playing God more than Victor Frankenstein. Although the ending of the novel is purposefully ambiguous about his true beliefs regarding the nature of scientific discovery, it is clear Victor began his studies with a great passion for it. When describing his childhood interests Victor recalls, “It was the secrets of heaven and earth that I desired to learn… my inquiries were directed to the metaphysical, or in its highest sense, the physical secrets of the world” (Shelley 23). As time wears on, this desire morphs into a deep obsession, which eventually leads him to search for the cause of life, wisdom reserved, in the eyes of most, for God alone. Victor’s attempt to become something greater than himself took him down a road of death and destruction, which centuries of readers have looked upon in horror. When considering the case of Victor Frankenstein, members of the anti-science perspective would point to his immoral and lofty motivations as the reason why his experiment went wrong. When one attempts to overthrow natural law, a goal which is inherently immoral, every step this individual takes will also be in moral violation. Victor’s endeavors to create life led him to ignore his family, hurt himself, partake in absolutely abhorrent handling of human remains, and ultimately abandon the monster he created. People get hurt when scientists try to play God. Lives are destroyed. Moral boundaries are crossed and most are never fully reinstated. Occasionally, good things can come from the midst of these disasters, but where pro-and anti-science supporters disagree is in deciding whether those successes are worth the cost. Those against scientific advancement would urge readers to listen to Victor- learn from his mistakes. The lure of power is never worth the destruction left in its wake.

Although the chasm between the pro-and-anti science stances is deep and wide, a middle ground does exist. In fact, the voices raised in support of moderation are by far the most diverse of the three perspectives. This variety is allowed to flourish mostly because moderates tend to look at the question of science from a different angle than those of more extreme leanings. Individuals in favor of unbridled scientific advancement base their views on the results, choosing to ignore the dangers stressed by the opposition. Conversely, those against science- because they believe it is a violation of nature- tend to generalize and villainize the motivations behind the research, which then gives them a sense of affirmation when the results are also negative. In the end, both arguments fail to address the real issue behind the matter, which is not the results or the motivation of the experiment. Rather, it is the manner in which the experiment is conducted which should define it. This idea also explains the importance of ethical guidelines in science, and shows why today’s ethical standards need to experience a thorough and critical overhaul if the field intends to continue advancing at its current rate. Only then can the differences between the three perspectives be bridged to form a societal consensus on science.

The stories of Victor Frankenstein and He Jiankui are two which prove the accuracy and necessity of this central position. In order to see the connection, one must first understand the motivations behind the work of these two scientists. According to He Jiankui, the purpose of his gene editing experiment was to “do pioneering work that would gain him ownership of a new technology area—reputationally and commercially.” (181). Similar to Frankenstein, he aspired to fame and glory as well as the opportunity to discover and accomplish something no one before him had been able to. This aspiration is far from uncommon in the scientific community, so the claim regarding the prevalence of less than altruistic, and perhaps overambitious, motives is not technically incorrect. However, it would be naive to assume no good deed has ever been committed in the name of personal advancement. In fact, unlike Victor’s experiment, Jiankui actually produced a result which had an overwhelmingly positive impact. Neither of the infants involved in the experiment showed any sign of undesirable effects, and a massive step was taken towards curing devastating genetic diseases. It is then safe to conclude, in the practical sense, intention doesn’t ultimately determine whether the result of an action will be benevolent. Therefore, even obsessive or overambitious scientific endeavours do not necessarily have to lead to the kinds of treacherous results Shelley and most anti-science supporters warn of. 

However, decent or even humane results do not necessarily indicate sound ethics. Although they had radically different results, the most notable similarity between Victor and Jiankui’s experiments was their methods. In a bioethical analysis of the HIV resistance experiment called Ten Ways in which He Jiankui Violated Ethics, researcher and author Sheldon Krimsky asserts “that the ethical infractions in this work are among the most egregious that have been recorded in modern medical history since the Second World War. There is every reason for researchers across the world to be embarrassed and for the scientific community to speak of this work as ‘reckless’’” (20). Jiankui was charged with nearly a dozen ethical violations and was sentenced to three years in prison, not because his creation actually killed anyone as the monster had, but because he failed to consider the exploitative and risky nature of the experiment itself. Just as Victor had ignored his family and showed a complete lack of forethought about the steps he would need to take once the monster was created, Jiankui failed to recognize the faults in his methods due to his fixation on the outcome. Although he is considering the subject on an entirely personal level, Victor speaks to a much greater problem within the scientific community when he describes this fixation as “the same feeling which made me neglect the scenes around me [and] caused me also to forget those friends who were so many miles absent, and whom I had not seen for so long a time” (Shelley 39). Here, Victor refers to how his obsession with creating life caused him to disregard those closest to him, yet the issue is far more than a personal one. Any scientific interest which requires one to disregard the safety, wellbeing, and rights of others or the sacred state of nature should be abandoned. Once individuals, as well as the overall scientific community, can determine how to create effective ethical and personal guidelines to prevent these types of violations, they will be able to proceed appropriately. When proper consideration and forethought are put into the actions and reactions attached to a specific result, it would also become exceedingly rare for the final outcome to be dangerous. The need for beneficial ends would no longer have to justify terrible means because unethical and gravely controversial methods would be prohibited under strict and comprehensive guidelines. Ultimately, with careful scrutiny and personal restraint, science can and should work in tandem with ethics to create a better, safer, and more knowledgeable life for everyone.

When considering the morality of scientific advancement in the modern world, it is crucial to look at not only its results or motivations, but also the level of planning, forethought, and care displayed in the process itself. When caution is not applied to the scientific method, as was the case in Frankenstein and the story of He Jiankui, devastating and disastrous events tend to ensue. Whether it be creating genetically engineered children or harnessing the power of creation itself, science is pressing forward into uncharted territory while societal consensus on its ethicality lags behind. Eventually, the two must be reconciled or the next rogue scientist may create something far more deadly than the last.