The Modern God

Frankenstein’s Warning to Modern Scientists

Frankenstein, a gothic-inspired science fiction novel written by Mary Shelley follows the protagonist Victor Frankenstein, a mad scientist who plays God and reanimates various human remains into a living being. After he achieves the supernatural feat of reviving the remains, Victor begins a spiraled descent into chaos as he realizes the catastrophic consequences of his actions. No matter how significant his scientific breakthrough, it is immediately clear that the adverse consequences of being a grand creator far outweighed the positives; especially because the revival is purely out of curiosity and not a necessity. Since the publication of Shelley´s novel in 1818, a new technology with the potential to have similar powers to Dr. Frankenstein has emerged. Genetic editing has quickly become an extremely viable way to completely customize human beings. CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat, was found in 1987 by Francis Mojica. However, its use for gene editing only began in 2005 after the discovery of the Cas9 protein. Recently, more advanced uses of the Cas9 protein have enabled refined versions of genetic editing such as base editing and prime editing. Although this cutting-edge technology has the potential to considerably improve life for millions of people, it also raises several ethical questions that are also (indirectly) explored in Frankenstein. Because both modern scientists and Dr. Frankenstein are able to play “God,” the results and ethical questions of their experiments are quite similar; notably in regards to its effect on the scientists’ patients. Both the author, characters, and scientists in the gene editing field deal with the same concerning issues: the blinding effects that the pursuit of knowledge has on scientists; the abuse of having “God-like” powers; informed consent of patients; the uncertainty of complete success when performing procedures; and the idea of otherness that may be reinforced by the use of technology. Mary Shelley’s disparaging commentary on scientists emulating God is extremely relevant in the 21st century because this critique ultimately serves as a warning in regard to genetic editing; mainly, for the sole purpose of creating designer babies, rather than prioritizing genetic alterations to improve or save lives.

Humanity’s scientific pursuit of knowledge, while often extremely beneficial for society, requires legal regulation both locally and globally because there is always uncertainty in the negative and positive effects of innovation. These negative impacts are evident because, in some countries where CRISPR has been used, nations do not have the proper laws to charge the doctors for misuse of the technology. For instance, in China, after a doctor named He Jiankui used CRISPR to remove a strand of DNA that was linked to HIV he was condemned and put in jail for three years. Although China did not originally have laws in place against genetic editing, a court eventually ruled that he “had deliberately violated national regulations on biomedical research and medical ethics, and rashly applied gene-editing technology to human reproductive medicine” (Normile Dec. 30 et al.). Despite this instance of editing being for a reasonable cause, the irresponsible and illegal actions of Dr. Jiankui required a punishment because allowing unregulated edits, no matter the ethical situation, inspires others and leads them to believe that they can act freely without consequences. As pointed out by Tracey Tomlinson, similarly to free speech and hate speech, it is difficult to draw a straight line between ethical and unethical uses of DNA editing; The difficulty navigating ethical usage of DNA editing explains why “CRISPR remains largely unregulated” not only in the U.S., which has an “outdated regulatory scheme for biotechnology, ” but across the globe. Similarly, Dr. Frankenstein’s unhinged pursuit of knowledge also results in the creation of the Being, the greatest scientific achievement of the era. No other scientist accomplishes this God-like feat. However, this may be a positive, because the consequences of forming the Creature and acting like God outweigh the positive effects the Creation can present in the scientific community. Therefore, if there had been laws prohibiting reanimation, the chaos created by the Being would’ve been avoided. Dr. Frankenstein, a scientist driven by his fascination with the supernatural, like many other real scientists, questions “why there were laws and governments,” as they more often than not get in the way of advancing science (Shelley, 122). His creations’ murderous actions, however, soon make him understand the importance of order and national regulation. Dr. Frankenstein expresses his dismay with his creation when he exclaims, “Begone, vile insect! Or rather, stay, that I may trample you to dust! And, oh! That I could, with the extinction of your miserable existence, restore those victims whom you have so diabolically murdered!” (Shelley, 102). Moreover, Dr. Frankenstein is infuriated by and wishes death upon the Creature because of the murders it committed. Victor understood that the “malice and treachery” radiated by the Creature was a product of his lust for scientific innovation (Shelley, 171). No matter the intention that he created the Being with, the result was clear, and Dr. Frankenstein understood the malevolence of the Being he had introduced to the world. The unhinged and unregulated practice of reanimating life almost drives Dr. Frankenstein to revive another being in order for his original Creature to have a companion.

Misuse of gene editing to alter humans for items that are not life-threatening or significantly life-altering is unethical as is the creation of reanimated beings. The limits of what can be encoded in a human embryo are not very high and the technology is getting better at an exponential rate. With the introduction of base editing, scientists are now able to accurately program an adenine base editor (ABE) to change just one base pair in a DNA. For example, according to the Broad Institute. “33,000 single letter mutations” cause diseases in humans, so using ABE will allow the eradication of these diseases. Although this precision is promising, it also means that the possibility of Super Soldiers is closer than ever before. According to Yang Hui, a leading scientist in the field of genetic editing believes that DNA coding “is similar to weapons and drugs,” and that “Immoral use, such as the creation of a super-baby, should be banned forever” (New Gene-Editing Method Could Lead To “Creation of a Super-Baby”). Only using genetic editing for essential edits that will save a patient or significantly improve their life, debilitates future use where “CRISPR could negatively impact the course of human evolution or be used to create biological weaponry” (Tomlinson). Dr. Frankenstein’s character development throughout the novel allows him too to understand the dangers of playing God unnecessarily. When he first “began the creation of a human being,” he was hopeful that his experiment would be a large breakthrough (Shelley, 54). Unfortunately, it quickly takes a negative turn resulting in the mad scientist understanding the flaws in his scientific endeavor. Fortunately, he learns from his mistake; after his creation claims that he “must create a female for [him],” Dr. Frankenstein knows he can’t use his great power to give life to a partner for the Creature simply because it would make him happier (Shelley, 147). Dr. Frankenstein realizes the ethereal influence he possesses and realizes his development of a partner for his Creature would “form another being of whose dispositions…she might become ten thousand times more malignant than her mate and delight, for its own sake, in murder and wretchedness” (Shelley, 170). Only after suffering the consequences of creating the original creature does he consider the adverse effects of his science and how creating these beings is unnecessary. Humanity cannot afford to have a real world mishap similar to the creation of Dr. Frankenstein’s Creature. Rather, they must learn from examples in literature to understand the harmful consequences of gratuitous DNA manipulation.

Frankenstein also (indirectly) explores how CRISPR children and the Creature essentially have a lack of control over their own destinies with decisions being made by another individual. Similarly to science pertaining to STEM cells, which requires human embryos, DNA alterations raises several questions regarding informed consent of patients who receive genetic editing. Since it happens before the patient’s birth, they have no input on what happens to their body or their life. If a parent wishes to make their child’s eyes blue and later in life a child is upset that they’re the only person with light eyes in his family, they may experience imposter syndrome or suffer other effects of negative mental health. Informed consent is impossible to obtain from an embryo, which leads to the idea that parents and scientists should attempt to make as little alterations, (and therefore decisions,) possible for the embryo. Scientists understand that “people who are seriously ill may overestimate the benefits of early clinical trials while underestimating the risks. This makes properly understanding informed consent, the full knowledge of risks and benefits of treatments, especially important” (“As Genome-Editing Trials Become More Common, Informed Consent Is Changing”). It is essential that parents consider their children’s mental health when changing their DNA. Moreover, it is even more imperative that a physician doesn’t put “undue influence on patients” (Caulfield et al.) to change specific features of their embryo. In Frankenstein, the Creature never had the ability to consent to being created. Furthermore, he had no control over his appearance. His horrendous appearance led to suicidal thoughts. On multiple accounts, the Creature expresses his anguish of his existence. “‘Hateful day when I received life!’ I exclaimed in agony. ‘Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God, in pity, made man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours, more horrid even from the very resemblance” (Shelley, 133). The Creature spites the day he was born, and feels lonely due to an appearance and existence he had no control over. Parents using gene editing to make their kids special will also suffer this unfair consequence. The monster goes on, out right questioning why he is still alive and why he hasn’t already killed himself.

Cursed, cursed creator! Why did I live? Why, in that instant, did I not extinguish the spark of existence which you had so wantonly bestowed? I know not; despair had not yet taken possession of me; my feelings were those of rage and revenge. I could with pleasure have destroyed the cottage and its inhabitants and have glutted myself with their shrieks and misery. (Shelley 138)

Shelley’s repetition of the word “cursed” attempts to emphasize the pain the Being feels. Moreover, exploiting repetition allows for a stronger sense of pathos. Although he detests himself for his unscathed looks, the person he has the most remorse for is his creator. Cursing out his creator is similar to how children may negatively view those who made them different using CRISPR.

Another matter shared by gene editing and the Creature’s formation is the doubt of a full success, particularly with the uncertainty of the potential for catastrophic consequences resulting in scientific ambiguity. CRISPR is achieved by opening DNA’s double helix structure, which leaves it vulnerable to unintended edits. Because “Unintended changes to the genome could be caused by cleaving DNA at sites other than those that are being deliberately targeted,” and CRISPR requires slicing open DNA, it is almost unavoidable (National Academies of Sciences et al.). One edit that had a high frequency of unwanted changes was “in human embryos to try to repair a gene that causes hereditary blindness…it made unintended and unwanted changes, frequently eliminating an entire chromosome or large sections of it” (Marcus). These consequences make the procedure essentially useless because the positive outcomes are substantially outweighed by the negative repercussions. Likewise, Dr. Frankenstein set out with the goal of “ creat[ing] a human being” (Shelley, 54). Rather he “beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom [he] had created” (Shelley, 59). Shelley’s choice of the word “human” before the reanimation and “monster” after the procedure reveals the high expectations that Dr. Frankenstein has for the operation and the negative connotation the mad scientist associates with his creation after the failure. The juxtaposition of his view of the being pre revival and post revival is fascinating because it reveals the true judgmental nature of humans. Even though he is the creator and father figure of the Being, Frankenstein cannot help but be bewildered and upset.

“The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelley, 58).

Although he completed a large feat, the fact that the operation was not a complete success leaves both the patient and doctor feeling empty and disturbed. Frankenstein sees horror in the existence of his creation and is ashamed because he was unable to make it perfect. This directly leads to the loneliness that the Creature experiences.

Lastly, “otherness” links both CRISPR and the Creature because the Creature becomes ousted from society for being different; similarly, those who are unable to afford gene editing, potentially are seen as inferior or less socially accepted. As cited by the Center for Disease Control, “Children who bully others target those who seem to be less powerful or not as strong. Children who bully others also often target children who seem ‘different”(CDC). The rate of bullying for physical deformities is already significantly high and would only be escalated with the introduction and commercial use of DNA alterations. The mass use of CRISPR drastically lowers the amount of people with physical deformities; this leaves the people who don’t receive gene editing feeling even more isolated and unusual. The concerns of CRISPR being a publicly available technology raises even more questions during ethical CRISPR discussions. Specifically, “Could the widespread use of gene therapy make society less accepting of people who are different?” (Controversies in Treatment Approaches: Gene Therapy, IVF, Stem Cells, and Pharmacogenomics | Learn Science at Scitable). Reflecting on Frankenstein allows scientists to understand the toll CRISPR could take on a future society. From the Creature’s first interaction with his creator and father figure, Frankenstein, the person that is supposed to show him the most love and nurture him, he is immediately met with disgust and fear. Impulsiveness leads humans to say both harsh but true ideas. Dr. Frankenstein acts on impulse and reveals that even the closest person someone has to family can still be judgmental. The Creature was feared by all humans because his appearance was different and unconventional compared to traditional beauty standards. The Being believed that his “person was hideous, and [his] stature gigantic” leading him to question “Who was I? What was I?” (Shelley, 131). Eventually he arrives at the conclusion that he is “a miserable wretch, haunted by a curse that shut up every avenue to enjoyment” (Shelley, 160). People with physical disabilities and deformities may also feel this way because they too look different and do not meet society’s definition of beautiful. Similarly to the monster, people may turn to self blame rather than understanding being unique is okay. When the monster sees everyday people, they too are “scared by this horrid apparition” (Shelley, 207). No matter the circumstances, there will always be people who are ousted from society because of their looks. However, the more uncommon an appearance is, the more likely it is one will get bullied for it; unfortunately this bullying may lead to irreversible decisions. For instance, after the insurmountable amount of torment that the Creature experiences, he is led to the decision that it would be best for him to take his own life. Although the novel’s ending is intentionally ambiguous, it can be interpreted that Dr. Frankenstein’s creation kills himself. Similarly, if members of our society are not able to receive edits to their genome because of their socioeconomic status, religion, lack of foresight, or other extraneous circumstances, it is likely that they will be ostracized at a higher rate. Therefore, it is imperative that in order to prevent bullying and a surge in suicide, genetic editing must become affordable and accessible if it is available to the general public. Making this cutting edge technology fiscally sound is the key to a positive public rollout free of negative backlash in the future.

The novel Frankenstein and genetic editing share many ethical concerns about the impact genetic manipulation has on an individual’s personality and psyche. Although both Dr. Frankenstein and scientists have many positive outcomes regarding their experiments, ultimately, the negative outcomes are difficult to decipher. The novel raises ethical questions that must be answered before allowing this technology to advance. Although progress exists, scientists still have not answered questions such as: how governments will limit CRISPR use, and how to prevent those who cannot receive CRISPR from being marginalized by society. Frankenstein is set in the 19th century, long before DNA was discovered. In terms of CRISPR, so much of this science is new that it would be impossible to predict how it might influence society hundreds of years from now, especially when considering future technological advances and scientific breakthroughs. Regardless of that notion, it would be foolish not to acknowledge the parallels between futuristic science and past fiction. The novel is set during the early 1800s, a time period when superstition and religion prevailed in scientific explanations for natural phenomena. The Creature was created through Victor Frankenstein’s “unnatural” science, which was not fully understood at the time. In the past, scientific discoveries were greatly influenced by religious and spiritual thought, preventing scientists from conducting research that did not fit within a religious context. In contrast, CRISPR does not involve a supernatural or spiritual element, but rather provides an explanation for biological phenomena that is based on “natural” science. It is integral that scientists head to Shelley’s forward-thinking lesson regarding the ethics of intervening in the lives of others. In addition, the Creature goes on to express suicidal thoughts before learning to speak or interact with others due to the lack of ethical thought put into his creation. Luckily, modern scientists are much more conscious of ethics, however, this does not mean that they are immune to making ethical mistakes. As the novel alludes to, the creation of the Creature may have led to a surge in suicides. No one knows how the science might be used in the future, or even how other uses of genetic editing might result. If its use will ultimately result in negative effects no matter the precautions taken, scientists must question if it’s worth introducing this technology to society. In order to properly practice all aspects of modern medical science and ensure that it is used in ways that are safe and beneficial for those it affects, medical scientists must consider how their research will be used by others. In Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein fails to consider many ethical issues surrounding his work ultimately resulting in both his own downfall as well as his creations. Will Scientists head the call of Shelley presented in her novel and fully understand the ethical technicalities of CRISPR before releasing it to the public, or will they also have to learn through their own mistakes much like Dr. Frankenstein did with his own creature?

Works Cited

“As Genome-Editing Trials Become More Common, Informed Consent Is Changing.” Genome.Gov, https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/As-genome-editing-trials-become-more-common-informed-consent-is-changing. Accessed 5 Apr. 2021.

Broad Institute. Broad Researcher David Liu Describes the Power of Single-Letter Base Editing. 2017. YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rwft3tairE&ab_channel=BroadInstitute.

Caulfield, Timothy, et al. “Informed Consent in Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Are We Following Basic Principles?” CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 176, no. 12, June 2007, pp. 1722–25. PubMed Central, doi:10.1503/cmaj.061675.

CDC. “Disability and Safety: Information about Bullying | CDC.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 25 June 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandsafety/bullying.html.

Controversies in Treatment Approaches: Gene Therapy, IVF, Stem Cells, and Pharmacogenomics | Learn Science at Scitable. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/controversies-in-treatment-approaches-gene-therapy-ivf-792/. Accessed 5 Apr. 2021.

Jonlin, Erica C. “Informed Consent for Human Embryo Genome Editing.” Stem Cell Reports, vol. 14, no. 4, Apr. 2020, pp. 530–37. PubMed Central, doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2020.03.010.

Lanphier, Edward, et al. “Don’t Edit the Human Germ Line.” Nature News, vol. 519, no. 7544, Mar. 2015, p. 410. www.nature.com, doi:10.1038/519410a.

Marcus, Amy Dockser. “Crispr Gene Editing Can Lead to Big Mistakes in Human Embryos.” Wall Street Journal, 29 Oct. 2020. www.wsj.com, https://www.wsj.com/articles/crispr-gene-editing-can-lead-to-big-mistakes-in-human-embryos-11603983608.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, et al. “The Basic Science of Genome Editing.” Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance, National Academies Press (US), 2017. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447276/.

New Gene-Editing Method Could Lead To “Creation of a Super-Baby.” https://futurism.com/the-byte/gene-edited-babies-super-baby. Accessed 5 Apr. 2021.

Normile Dec. 30, Dennis, et al. “Chinese Scientist Who Produced Genetically Altered Babies Sentenced to 3 Years in Jail.” Science | AAAS, 30 Dec. 2019, https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/chinese-scientist-who-produced-genetically-altered-babies-sentenced-3-years-jail.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein. Penguin Books, 1818.

Tomlinson, Tracey. “A Crispr Future for Gene-Editing Regulation: A Proposal for an Updated Biotechnology Regulatory System in an Era of Human Genomic Editing.” Fordham Law Review, vol. 87, no. 1, Oct. 2018, pp. 437–83.

“What Are the Ethical Concerns of Genome Editing?” Genome.Gov, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Editing/ethical-concerns. Accessed 5 Apr. 2021.