Frankenstein. Letter 1. To Mrs. Saville, England. St. Petersburgh, Dec. 11th, 17—. You will rejoice to hear that no disaster has accompanied the commencement. `I am pleased you all saw that huge figure,' Frankenstein said. During the days, while the Captain worked on the ship, Frankenstein wrote down his story, and. Frankenstein apparently came to Mary in a dream. Later that year, back in Mary Shelley found her inspiration for Frankenstein in Greek Oxford OX1 1ST.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Frankenstein is probably one of the best-known horror stories in the world. Many people have heard the story of the "mad doctor" who uses dead bodies to. Synopsis: An engaging classroom playscript. Frankenstein is the famous story of a young man who thinks he can change the world by making better human. Frankenstein Oxford Bookworms Stage 3 - Download as PDF File .pdf) or view presentation slides online. story book.
I shall commit my thoughts to paper, it is true; but that is a poor medium for the communication of feeling. I desire the company of a man who could sympathise with me; whose eyes would reply to mine. You may deem me romantic, my dear sister, but I bitterly feel the want of a friend. I have no one near me, gentle yet courageous, possessed of a cultivated as well as of a capacious mind, whose tastes are like my own, to approve or amend my plans.
How would such a friend repair the faults of your poor brother! I am too ardent in execution, and too impatient of difficulties. But it is a still greater evil to me that I am self-educated: for the first fourteen years of my life I ran wild on a common, and read nothing but our uncle Thomas's books of voyages.
At that age I became acquainted with the celebrated poets of our own country; but it was only when it had ceased to be in my power to derive its most important benefits from such a conviction that I perceived the necessity of becoming acquainted with more languages than that of my native country.
Now I am twenty-eight, and am in reality more illiterate than many schoolboys of fifteen. It is true that I have thought more, and that my day dreams are more extended and magnificent; but they want as the painters call it keeping; and I greatly need a friend who would have sense enough not to despise me as romantic, and affection enough for me to endeavour to regulate my mind.
Well, these are useless complaints; I shall certainly find no friend on the wide ocean, nor even here in Archangel, among merchants and seamen. Yet some feelings, unallied to the dross of human nature, beat even in these rugged bosoms.
My lieutenant, for instance, is a man of wonderful courage and enterprise; he is madly desirous of glory: or rather, to word my phrase more characteristically, of advancement in his profession. He is an Englishman, and in the midst of national and professional prejudices, unsoftened by cultivation, retains some of the noblest endowments of humanity. I first became acquainted with him on board a whale vessel: finding that he was unemployed in this city, I easily engaged him to assist in my enterprise.
The master is a person of an excellent disposition, and is remarkable in the ship for his gentleness and the mildness of his discipline. This circumstance, added to his well known integrity and dauntless courage, made me very desirous to engage him. A youth passed in solitude, my best years spent under your gentle and feminine fosterage, has so refined the groundwork of my character that I cannot overcome an intense distaste to the usual brutality exercised on board ship: have never believed it to be necessary; and when I heard of a mariner equally noted for his kindliness of heart, and the respect and obedience paid to him by his crew, I felt myself peculiarly fortunate in being able to secure his services.
Mary Shelley herself took pains to point out that the theme of her gothic novel was not entirely the product of her own imagination. In the popular imagination, based more on retellings and especially on Hollywood movies than on the original novel, the Frankenstein story has been reduced to the straightforward, one-dimensional tale of a mad scientist who created a hideous and rampaging monster. Some interpreters have drawn attention to other neglected aspects of the novel.
Frankenstein is a recurrent reference point in modern debates on biotechnology and synthetic biology. Bioethicist Bernard Rollin, for example, referred to the Frankenstein story when discussing the ethical and social aspects of animal biotechnology [ 51 ].
However, forewarned by the furore caused by Dolly the cloned sheep, he was smart enough to first solicit ethical advice from a panel of leading bioethicists and theologians which he himself installed, the so-called Ethics of Genomics Group led by Arthur Caplan and Mildred Cho.
Craig Venter. Rather than living in dread of his appalling creature, he could have assembled a panel of bioethicists and theologians to bless it, applied for a Swiss government grant to research it, and hired an investment bank to explore an initial public offering—FrankenCell Inc.
Ball later went back on this statement, as we will see below. If the construction of artificial life forms only deserves to be called creation of life when it is created literally out of nothing creatio ex nihilo , then we can be pretty sure that this elusive aim will never be achieved.
Belatedly, Venter also takes a more modest stance. For the ETC Group, such declarations simply expose the incurable hubris from which many molecular and synthetic biologists suffer [ 52 ]. It seems that synthetic biologists can switch rather easily from a posture of defiance or arrogance to a posture of humility and back again.
It seems to me that it might be helpful to consider the two contrasting postures, arrogance and humility, as different registers from the same rhetorical repertoire, which scientists can play according to the demands of the situation.
For me as an engineer, there is a big difference between the words creation and construction. Creation implies I have unlimited power, perfect understanding of the universe, and the ability to manipulate matter at a godlike level. I have an imperfect understanding, a budget, limited resources, and I can only manipulate things quite crudely.
The question is do we want to do it responsibly or not? Obviously, such responses come from more latitudinarian schools of thought. Needless to say, there are also more orthodox views in religious circles. A liberal theologian like Ted Peters would not pretend to speak on behalf of all believers.
In this connection the expositions of the Dutch theologian Frits de Lange on the doctrinal differences between orthodox and heterodox views are particularly illuminating, even though he confines his discussion to the various denominations within Protestantism.
De Lange distinguishes between the restoration model of redemption, which is endorsed by orthodox Protestants and which considers redemption as a return to the situation before the Fall, and the liberal model of redemption, which sees redemption as the completion or perfection of Creation. Sinfulness in this connection is just the blockage that occurs when salvation is frustrated by people. Ethics here is forward-looking. The good creation can be better; it is still before us. It is the future that supplies the norm, not the past.
Orthodox Protestants would rather be guided by the idea that man is inclined to all evil and incapable of doing any good.
Engineering is one of the main things that humans do well. What is Life? A Silly Question? In an article published in Science magazine in December , the panel stated that the attempt to create a minimal genome and by implication the rise of synthetic biology can be interpreted as the culmination of a long-standing reductionist research agenda about the meaning and origin of life.
As might be expected, the panel of liberally-minded bioethicists and theologians did not object to the attempt to create a minimal genome as such. But life need not be understood solely in terms of what technology permits scientists to discover.
This may threaten the view that life is special. The bioethicists and theologians seem to be dispensing far too easily with the issue here.
As if the only thing we need to guard against is that things are presented this way. A very sanctimonious thought indeed! When we can synthesize life, it makes the notion of a living being less special. Even scientists trying to set up criteria for what constitutes life are accused of exhibiting a vitalist deviation. Neither is life a solitary phenomenon, the editorial further explains, because cells come together in colonies and organisms in ecosystems.
The formation of a new being is gradual, contingent and precarious. The intervention of Nature in the debate on the meaning of life is remarkable for several reasons. Furthermore, the question needs to be asked whether the rejection of thresholds and qualitative transitions is warranted on purely natural scientific grounds or whether it stems from a preconceived dogma that only gradual transitions exist. Proponents justify this age limit by pointing out that this is the moment when the so-called primitive streak appears and cells start to differentiate [ 34 ]: Consistency would demand that Nature reject this liberal solution.
If participants think that these kinds of arguments help to convey their concerns or promote their cause, they cannot be prevented from using them. Still, it may come across as a little weird for secular organizations like the ETC Group to accuse synthetic biologists of assuming the role of God and only slightly less weird to compare them with Dr Frankenstein. It is the presumed sacredness of nature that the modern life sciences threaten to profane.
Overstepping these boundaries may be construed as inviting unknown and unprecedented risks. To accuse scientists of playing God may thus be just another way of alerting the wider public to the recklessness of their pursuits in the relentless quest for profit and glory. The Catholic social teaching tradition and its principle of the universal destination of goods fundamentally conflicts with the negative right conferred by gene patents.
Thus Warner arrives at a very critical position with regard to biotech patents on the basis of the traditional social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
This example is quite provocative. One could read this article as an implicit message from a Catholic priest to a secular organization like the ETC Group: stop raising questions about synthetic biologists playing God, but concentrate your critical effort on questioning the legitimacy of their patents! By the way, in his public lectures, Venter is conspicuously silent about the role of patents in synthetic biology.