Critical Annotated Webliography

Q3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein continues to haunt discussions of recent technologies.

Before starting to write the webliography, the first thing I need to do is to read the required readings to have a basic concept why ‘Frankenstein’ is related to today’s technology although it is only a fiction. People are fear that the ‘Frankenstein science’ today would bring harm to our society. Then I start searching in the search engine ‘Google’. I use the key words ‘Frankenstien’, ‘Cloning’, ‘Reproduction’ and ‘Fertilization’. Various types of articles come out. Most of them have a clear perspective against the idea of ‘Frankenstein science’. Only a few of them support these new kinds of technology.

The article of Kai Li Liu [1] provides a comprehensive view of why the idea of Frankenstein should be banned. It analysis what the story of ‘Frankenstein’ inspire us. The story was not only a science fiction, but also a warning. Mary Shelley, believes that a newly born technological society results in exploitation of nature, which means that “a morally irresponsible scientific development can release a monster and destroy human civilization.” (Liu, 2003) Similar to our reality, we got the technology to manipulate life forms like cloning and vitro fertilization. She advice us should be very careful with it and should not create something that would harm our lives. Although the aim of advanced technology is to bring us convenient, there is also a great impact on moral values. Finally the writer emphasis that breaking the nature can be dangerous. We should think deeply what the story told us. The purpose of choosing this article is the investigating of the fiction itself. It also provides us a clear understanding and good background information about the side effects of technology. The write don’t tell us why we shouldn’t rely too much on technology directly, but by using the content to hint us.

‘A Warning As Science Catches Up On Cloning’ [2] is an article examining different science fiction movies to illustrate one point – ‘Do not play around with the creation of life or you will come to a bad end.’ (Caryn, 1997) For example, Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’, is a warning about the technology. Although it is conceived in 1816, its warning still resonates today and brings fear to the society. In another story, “Multiplicity”, when the master orders his clone to do housework, this clone orders clone 2 and clone 3 to do for him. This proves that copy can never better than the original. Also, the writer claims that, the motive of these cloning comedies is to tell us human nature is preferable. This essay is suitable is it reflects the side effects of cloning through various cloning comedies.

The article ‘Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator’ [3] is an interesting topic. From a God’s believer angle, they believe all the thoughts against God are unacceptable. First of all, the writer thinks that the novel ‘Frankenstein’ and the concept of cloning are similar. And cloning is the modern Frankenstein. Cloning means the reproduction asexually, which is controversial to the church. Harmony points out that scientists have the desire to be God. They want to be the creator but cloning is only imitating something that already exists. Unlike God creates everything with his imagination at the beginning. Therefore human cannot compare with God. Furthermore, Eve listened to serpent and believes eating the apple can made her as great as god. That’s why Adam and Eve were punished. This proves that try to gain the power of God will results in extinct. Like the story of ‘Frankenstein’, the creator was killed. The writer re-emphasis that human is the created, while God is the creator. The article provides a strong argument. It discusses the matters of the newly technology from a different perspective, not form the normal citizen, or scientist perspective, but from the Christian’s view, which is very unique.

Mariam Durrani [4] expresses her feeling on human cloning through a story. The success of the first fully cloned mammal, Dolly, was celebrated by most of the scientists. They saw this success as the step of entering the realm of human cloning. But the writer disagrees with their point, because the scientists didn’t mention the hundreds of sheep sacrifice. Although the scientists mentioned the technology of human cloning was not for making human babies, but for therapeutic cloning. The inconsistent opinion of different countries shows the fear of such technology. On the other hand, the scientific company Clonaid, found by a religion called Raelians, declared that they had the motive to human cloning. Although they guaranteed that they only want a healthy baby, the writer worry about the situation. Mariam states that these cloning human are not natural. Human isn’t composing of muscles and nerves only, human are very complicate, their souls cannot be created. This article is suitable because it shows the fear of human cloning. Although cloning is a great step in science, most of the people ignore the consequence if the experiment is fail.

Unlike the previous articles, “Frankenstein for Cloning Tech” [5] is supporting the idea of cloning. People have different views on cloning. To the scientist, the science of cloning can save many people’s life, including those are dying, handicapped, by transplanting the organs of the clones to them. On the other hand, people argue clones also have lives and they should not sacrifice for saving another person. They should be treated as individual. What the writer wants to say is, those people who disagree with cloning are not objective enough. Frankenstein, the scientist in the novel, just saw his invention as a failure. But he hasn’t notice that his creation, which involve body repairing, has scientific value and beneficial to our society. He can use his idea to help many people. Cloning also offer positive results. Because Victor has a negative view, that’s why there is an unfavorable consequence. The writer emphasis having a positive point of view helps making a wise decision. The article is very valuable because it teaches us every thing has both sides. We cannot have bias in making decision. If we try to think on the opposite side, we may find the merit of cloning.

In Julian Savulescu and John Harris [6] article, a few reasons were given to those accepting natural reproduction should also accept cloning, as natural production is a creation lottery same as reproductive cloning. About 80% embryos perish in natural reproduction. Even the embryos can survive, some babies may be born disable. The death of embryos and the production of disable babies are unavoidable. On the other hand, it is possible for not producing spare embryos during assisted reproduction. The deaths of spare embryos can be avoided. That’s why people accept natural reproduction should accept cloning also, because it is more safety and efficiency. On the other hand, if people deny the way using genetic testing to choose the best people, they should not say that human by natural reproduction is superior to those from new ways of reproduction. The writer claims sometimes natural does great harm. For example, natural disease, floods, fire, can cause serious damage to human life. We should not prioritized and glorify natural. The reason for choosing it is because it provides a very strong and persuasive point for choosing cloning.

From the articles collected, the perspective from both sides, supporting or challenging the idea of ‘Frankenstein’ can be seen. For the supporting sides, the writers tell us don’t always think about the side effects, try to look at the positive. While the opposing side use the novel to show us the implied meaning inside, cloning should be banned, otherwise it will cause harm to our society. All the points and examples given by these articles are valuable and suitable for my webliography.

References

[1] Kai Li, Liu, “The probable future world forecasted in Mary Shelly’s ‘Frankenstein’ and H.G. Wells’ ‘The Time Machine’”
<http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:P9XjcT6HH-YJ:www.knu.edu.tw/knu1/web/teach/IGECC/%E4%B8%AD%E5%BF%83%E5%AD%B8%E5%A0%B1/03/Frankenstein%2520and%2520The%2520Time%2520Machine.doc+The+probable+future+world+forecasted+in+Mary+Shelly&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=hk>, June 2003, [accessed 28 March 2008]

[2] James, Caryn, “A Warning As Science Catches Up On Cloning”
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04EFDD1631F935A15751C0A961958260> 26 February 1997, [accessed 28 March 2008]

[3] Harmony, Wheeler, “Frankenstein vs. Cloning – Man: Created or Creator” <http://harmoniousglow.blogspot.com/2007/06/frankenstein-vs-cloning-man-created-or.html> 21 June 2007, [accessed 29 March 2008]

[4] Mariam, Durrani, “The 21st Century Frankenstein”
<http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/95/69/03_3.html> 28 November 2001,
[accessed 28 March 2008]

[5] “Frankenstein for Cloning Tech.” <http://azninja66.tripod.com/Rafeng/essay.html> [accessed 30 March 2008]

[6] Julian, Savulescu and John, Harris, “The Creation Lottery: Final Lessons from Natural Reproduction: Why Those Who Accept Natural Reproduction Should Accept Cloning and Other Frankenstein Reproductive Technologies” <http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/Resources/Cloning_StemCell/creation_lottery_harris_savulescu.pdf> [accessed 28 March 2008]