Frankenstein and Modern Bioscience: Which Story Should We Heed?

IF 0.4 3区 社会学 Q4 MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING
H. Greely
{"title":"Frankenstein and Modern Bioscience: Which Story Should We Heed?","authors":"H. Greely","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2020.0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Frankenstein presents us today with two different stories and two different lessons. The book, especially in the 1818 first edition, tells the story of Victor Frankenstein’s neglect of his parental duties and the harms that followed. The more lasting myth that succeeded the novel, however, became popular as early as the 1823 production of the first theatrical piece based on the book, Presumption; or, The Fate of Frankenstein. This play’s different lesson is that Frankenstein dared too much, presumed to divine powers, and thus instigated the harms that followed. Modern bioscience affords us many unprecedented and disconcerting possibilities through, among other tools, genetics, neuroscience, stem-cell biology, and assisted reproduction. Which lessons should we apply to those possibilities, and from which of the two Frankenstein stories? Henry T. Greely argues that we should mainly fulfill the novel’s views of our duties of care. We should indeed, in Bruno Latour’s words, “Love our Monsters,” though we also need to heed the allure to the public of the myth of presumption.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2020.0028","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

abstract:Frankenstein presents us today with two different stories and two different lessons. The book, especially in the 1818 first edition, tells the story of Victor Frankenstein’s neglect of his parental duties and the harms that followed. The more lasting myth that succeeded the novel, however, became popular as early as the 1823 production of the first theatrical piece based on the book, Presumption; or, The Fate of Frankenstein. This play’s different lesson is that Frankenstein dared too much, presumed to divine powers, and thus instigated the harms that followed. Modern bioscience affords us many unprecedented and disconcerting possibilities through, among other tools, genetics, neuroscience, stem-cell biology, and assisted reproduction. Which lessons should we apply to those possibilities, and from which of the two Frankenstein stories? Henry T. Greely argues that we should mainly fulfill the novel’s views of our duties of care. We should indeed, in Bruno Latour’s words, “Love our Monsters,” though we also need to heed the allure to the public of the myth of presumption.
弗兰肯斯坦与现代生物科学:我们应该听哪个故事?
弗兰肯斯坦今天向我们呈现了两个不同的故事和两个不同的教训。这本书,尤其是1818年的第一版,讲述了维克多·弗兰肯斯坦对父母责任的忽视以及随之而来的危害。然而,继小说之后的更持久的神话,早在1823年第一部根据该书改编的戏剧作品《推定》(Presumption)问世时就开始流行起来;或者《弗兰肯斯坦的命运》。这部剧的另一个教训是,弗兰肯斯坦过于大胆,自以为拥有神圣的力量,从而引发了随之而来的伤害。现代生物科学通过遗传学、神经科学、干细胞生物学和辅助生殖等工具,为我们提供了许多前所未有的、令人不安的可能性。我们应该从这些可能性中吸取哪些教训,从两个弗兰肯斯坦的故事中吸取哪些教训?亨利·t·格里利认为,我们应该主要履行小说中关于我们的注意义务的观点。用布鲁诺·拉图尔(Bruno Latour)的话来说,我们确实应该“爱我们的怪物”,尽管我们也需要注意傲慢神话对公众的诱惑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY
HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信