3. Frankenstein continues to occupy the popular imagination as a monstrous scientist. Analyse some of the ways in which Frankenstein haunts discussions of recent technologies.
In this short article, I am trying to show Frankenstein haunts discussions of recent technologies specifically human cloning. I have chosen six online research articles which are all critically annotated and relevant to the existence of Frankenstein in the recent technologies.
According to the article of “Ethics, Human Cloning, and Procreation” written by David Chan[1], human cloning has its own benefits and harms to the human. Human cloning is beneficial because it “widen the range of reproductive choices for the infertile couples and to eradicate certain diseases”. (Chan, p.3) However, some people worry human cloning will create human monsters like Frankenstein. The writer also states that human cloning are “threats to social institutions such as family and marriage, and to the value and sanctity of life.” (Chan, p.3) The clone may have psychological harm and the life of a person is not respected and valued. Moreover, human cloning brings about more benefits than the harms to the human. Since the benefits are immediate that it is new cure and helps for infertile couples. Nevertheless, disastrous consequences are predicted only and have not existed yet because it can be avoided and minimized. They are also often exaggerated. Some people doubt about whether we have the right in gene selection and both parents value a genetic link to the child. The writer points out that human cloning is twinning but not natural reproduction by giving in-vetro fertilization and test-tube babies as examples. This article is useful to illustrate the fear of the people to human cloning which may produce a human monster like Frankenstein did in the past. It also indicates the ethical problems of human cloning and some possible alternatives instead of human cloning.
With reference to the article of “FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND? Monsters Myths and Metaphors in the Debate over Reproductive Technologies” written by Theo Vurdubakis and Brian Bloomfield[2], the writers discuss the New Productive Technology which arouse the concern of the people. People reflect on the role of technology in human affairs after the successful clone of Dolly. The writers also demonstrate that New Reproductive Technology leads to “interpretive struggle and moral controversy”. (Vurdubakis & Bloomfield, p.2) It is a continuous bio-technological revolution. As Vurdubakis and Bloomfield go on to explain, “Concepts such as ‘danger babies’ or ‘genetic engineering’, can be considered ‘monstrous’ insofar they being simultaneously to distinct and even incompatible realms of experience and systems of meaning”. (Vurdubakis & Bloomfield, p.5) New Reproductive Technology goes around a number of monstrosities such as pigs with human hearts which is physical metaphors for border displacement. Some opponents worry that it is a moral breakdown with the use of this technology. The Dolly creation shows that science fiction is true like the story of Frankenstein. Technology turns to be an autonomous force which brings about dilemma between the stance of society and the interest of individuals. The writers believe that, “moral and intellectual failure often accompanies techno-scientific success”. (Vurdubakis & Bloomfield, p.18) In this article, it reveals that Frankenstein still haunts in the discussion of New Reproductive Technology which implies that the story in the science fiction becomes true because of the technology advance. Nevertheless, people are afraid of the possibilities that some may misuse the New Reproductive Technology which creates monsters.
According to the article of “Human cloning and human dignity” written by Dieter Birnabacher[3], the writer first of all questions whose dignity is important in human reproductive cloning. He defines that “in its marginal meaning human dignity means a kind of moral status”. (Birnbacher, p.2) We cannot physically obtain it but we should have it in the society. Furthermore, the writer believes that, “The cloned child is the object of the parents’ wishes”. (Birnbacher, p.3) Because it is existed for some purposes such as saving the life of their children so their parents may particularly select a specific gene in the cloned child. The writer claims that, people have “the wish to prevent the irritation caused by the potential birth of a modern analogue of Frankenstein’s monsters”. ((Birnbacher, p.5) People believe that human cloning does not produce monster even though it highly manipulate. Scientist can distinguish the consequence of creating a monster. Since human cloning is seen as something monstrous, it seems to be objected to origin. The writer not only supports the legal ban of human cloning in the short term, but also in the long term. In this article, it indicates that human cloning bears the risk that it will create a monster although some may believe that the scientist can control themselves critically. This technology harms the human dignity to different aspects including the cloned child and the one who is being cloned.
According to the article of “The Dolly case, the Polly drug, and the mortality of human being”, written by Fermin Roland Schramm[4], he states the bio-techno scientific relevance of the Dolly fact. In the words of Schramm, “SCNT allows to expand procreative techniques in mammals and improve human reproductive health, without going through the standard fertilization procedures”. (Schramm, p.3) It helps the infertile couple to reproduce when they cannot reproduce by using traditional reproduction method. The writer claims that, “it appears unlikely that ‘cloning’ in humans will become commonplace. It is more likely that humans will continue to reproduce using the traditional method, which appears to be much more pleasurable”. (Schramm, p.5) Human cloning is an exception method for the people to reproduce unless the other reproductive methods fail. Time magazine compared Dolly case to Frankenstein. It also implies dictators will make use of the technology of human cloning to produce their clones. Moreover, the United States, England, France have different ideas on the Dolly case and mostly oppose human cloning. Two camps of polarization were formed in France after the Dolly case was exposed. In addition, there are two methods to distinguish whether human cloning is good or bad, that is good or bad in itself and good or bad to its consequences. In this article, it discusses about the recent technology, cloning of Dolly, and derives it to the safety and public perceptions on it. It points out that abuse of human cloning will result from the Frankenstein case.
According to the article of “On Replicating Persons: Ethics and the Technology of Cloning”, written by Frederick Ferre[5], he indicates the ethical problems and concerns in the technology of human cloning. “Clones are being maintained as mere organ farms, manufactured and raised for their spare parts by persons anticipating the need for transplanted hearts or kidneys, livers or lungs”. (Ferre, p.3) This arouses the ethical concern on the human cloning which sounds like a science fiction like Frankenstein. It is impossible in the past but now the technology proves that it becomes possible. Moreover, cloning is not quite new since plants can do so. The writer further indicates the human rights and ethical questions. Scientists have to go through many failures until success while reproducing human cloning. He questions how to deal with the visible human embryo during the cloning process. In this article, human cloning is relevant to the ethical problems of Frankenstein. Visible human embryo is controversial like the monster in Frankenstein.
To sum up, this webliography concentrates on the five articles about reproduction of human cloning which arouses many ethical problems and public concerns on the purpose of applications and the consequences on misusing and abusing.
[1] Chan, David, “Ethics, Human Cloning, and Procreation” <http://www.valueinquiry.net/CloningChan.pdf>, Retrieved on March 8, 2009
[2] Vurdubakis. Bloomfield. , Theo. Brian. , “FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND? Monsters Myths and Metaphors in the Debate over Reproductive Technologies” <http://wickedness.net/Monsters/M2/vurdubakis%20paper.pdf>, Retrieved on March 8, 2009
[3] Birnbacher, Dieter, “Human cloning and dignity” <http://www.gencat.cat/salut/depsalut/pdf/di4.pdf> Nov 5 2004, Retrieved on March 8, 2009
[4] Schramm, Fermin, “The Dolly case, the Polly drug, and the mortality of human cloning” <http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/csp/v15s1/0337.pdf>, Retrieved on March 8, 2009
[5] Ferre, Frederick, “On Replicating Persons: Ethics and the Technology of Cloning” <http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v3n2/pdf/FERRE.PDF>, Retrieved on March 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment