Thursday, October 27, 2005
A Frankenstein Solution
Dr. Frankenstein and his assistant Fritz are skulking around a graveyard in the opening sequence of the movie Frankenstein (1931). They are waiting to steal (i.e., dig up and take away) the body of a man who is being buried. If these two guys are behaving as if they are doing something wrong it’s because they are. It is highly illegal (not to mention immoral) to rob a grave, and you can get in big trouble for doing so.
After the graveyard scene, they proceed to steal the body of a man who is hanging from a noose by the side of the road. Then later Fritz steals a brain from the Medical School lecture hall. Of course this is not all these two guys do. They take their ill-gotten body parts, make them into a man, and bring him to life.
Now, what’s the problem here? Part of it is stealing. Clearly Frankenstein should not have stolen these things. But he also used them and created a monster. And that’s the major problem. Would there be a problem if his monster had been well-adjusted and law-abiding? Maybe not. Frankenstein, in that case, may have been hailed as a genius and a hero. Instead, he is considered mad, and his name lives on in infamy.
What is the difference between what Frankenstein did and what today’s scientists are doing? First, I presume that today they are not stealing anything or skulking around graveyards. Universities and large corporations provide them with what they need. But they are using body parts from dead people. (I know there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be alive today if it were not for things such as organ and tissue banks, but there are also a lot of people who wouldn’t be dead.) They took pituitary glands from cadavers to use for their growth hormones, with disastrous results. They have been conducting "destructive human embryo research." Recently they have discovered that stem cells can be harvested from cadavers. They are planning to someday use cloned pigs or cloned humans to provide spare body parts for those in need, a procedure the even our good Dr. Frankenstein may have found abhorrent, or maybe not.
So, what is the difference between Frankenstein and today’s scientists? Frankenstein was not as well funded, he had delusions of grandeur, he was remorseful at the end, and he tried to destroy his monster. Today’s scientists don’t have delusions of grandeur, all except maybe some European doctors who have been rushing to clone human beings. Generally I think scientists are just clock-punchers who go to work every day, solve a few problems, and who go to their kids’ soccer games on the weekends. You know, like you and me. Of course they are not out there destroying their monsters. They’re trying to create more. They have the official sanction of their CEO or their President, and if anything should go wrong with their research, well they can always say that they were just following orders.
How are Dr. Frankenstein and today’s scientists the same? Both deal with things that are dangerous, and neither know the consequences. Frankenstein began with the ideal, however misguided, of creating life. He did not know that he would create a monster instead. Today’s scientists are not nearly so idealistic, but they know from the beginning that they are creating monsters, and they do it anyway. Of course, being only human, their knowledge is limited. They do not know what the ultimate consequences of their work will be. This stems, in part, from the inherent unpredictability that exists when you are dealing with so many novel organisms, as well as the complex interactions in nature. Also, their view is micro, in many ways, confined to one problem in one test tube in one lab. And it is up to people who can have a macro approach to sound alarm bells when the situation warrants it. Many people and groups are sounding these bells. Is anyone listening? Is it doing any good? Not really. The research not only continues, but may even be accelerating.
You know, in my reading it has seemed to me that women are the most vocal on issues of ecology and biotechnology. I know there is Jeremy Rifkin, Ralph Nader, people like that who have been activists and advocates. But there is also Rachel Carson, Mae-Wan Ho, and many other women who have spoken out in favor of nature. To my mind, it’s almost as if it’s the mothers, those "from Venus," against the fathers, those "from Mars," in a struggle to save the world. And I know how the women can do it:
You remember the Lysistrata, the Greek comedy by Aristophanes? All the women refused to have sexual relations with their husbands until the husbands agreed to end the war. Well, if all the women today would refuse to have sex with their husbands until the husbands agreed to stop making monsters, then that would bring about meaningful change. I can see all the CEOs in their boardrooms, frazzled and frustrated, acknowledging that it has become necessary to "alter our corporate plan." Yes! No more transgenic crops! I can see all the scientists calling in sick rather than work on yet another chimera. Maybe some of them would move from research to teaching, or even into a different field altogether, like Philosophy or Musical Composition.
If Elizabeth had refused to marry Frankenstein unless he stopped robbing graveyards, you wouldn’t have a great horror story today, but you would have one less monster. Women don’t always realize the power they have. If they acted together they could change the world. At this point in the development of genetic engineering, such an approach may be the only way.
May 30, 2001
After the graveyard scene, they proceed to steal the body of a man who is hanging from a noose by the side of the road. Then later Fritz steals a brain from the Medical School lecture hall. Of course this is not all these two guys do. They take their ill-gotten body parts, make them into a man, and bring him to life.
Now, what’s the problem here? Part of it is stealing. Clearly Frankenstein should not have stolen these things. But he also used them and created a monster. And that’s the major problem. Would there be a problem if his monster had been well-adjusted and law-abiding? Maybe not. Frankenstein, in that case, may have been hailed as a genius and a hero. Instead, he is considered mad, and his name lives on in infamy.
What is the difference between what Frankenstein did and what today’s scientists are doing? First, I presume that today they are not stealing anything or skulking around graveyards. Universities and large corporations provide them with what they need. But they are using body parts from dead people. (I know there are a lot of people who wouldn’t be alive today if it were not for things such as organ and tissue banks, but there are also a lot of people who wouldn’t be dead.) They took pituitary glands from cadavers to use for their growth hormones, with disastrous results. They have been conducting "destructive human embryo research." Recently they have discovered that stem cells can be harvested from cadavers. They are planning to someday use cloned pigs or cloned humans to provide spare body parts for those in need, a procedure the even our good Dr. Frankenstein may have found abhorrent, or maybe not.
So, what is the difference between Frankenstein and today’s scientists? Frankenstein was not as well funded, he had delusions of grandeur, he was remorseful at the end, and he tried to destroy his monster. Today’s scientists don’t have delusions of grandeur, all except maybe some European doctors who have been rushing to clone human beings. Generally I think scientists are just clock-punchers who go to work every day, solve a few problems, and who go to their kids’ soccer games on the weekends. You know, like you and me. Of course they are not out there destroying their monsters. They’re trying to create more. They have the official sanction of their CEO or their President, and if anything should go wrong with their research, well they can always say that they were just following orders.
How are Dr. Frankenstein and today’s scientists the same? Both deal with things that are dangerous, and neither know the consequences. Frankenstein began with the ideal, however misguided, of creating life. He did not know that he would create a monster instead. Today’s scientists are not nearly so idealistic, but they know from the beginning that they are creating monsters, and they do it anyway. Of course, being only human, their knowledge is limited. They do not know what the ultimate consequences of their work will be. This stems, in part, from the inherent unpredictability that exists when you are dealing with so many novel organisms, as well as the complex interactions in nature. Also, their view is micro, in many ways, confined to one problem in one test tube in one lab. And it is up to people who can have a macro approach to sound alarm bells when the situation warrants it. Many people and groups are sounding these bells. Is anyone listening? Is it doing any good? Not really. The research not only continues, but may even be accelerating.
You know, in my reading it has seemed to me that women are the most vocal on issues of ecology and biotechnology. I know there is Jeremy Rifkin, Ralph Nader, people like that who have been activists and advocates. But there is also Rachel Carson, Mae-Wan Ho, and many other women who have spoken out in favor of nature. To my mind, it’s almost as if it’s the mothers, those "from Venus," against the fathers, those "from Mars," in a struggle to save the world. And I know how the women can do it:
You remember the Lysistrata, the Greek comedy by Aristophanes? All the women refused to have sexual relations with their husbands until the husbands agreed to end the war. Well, if all the women today would refuse to have sex with their husbands until the husbands agreed to stop making monsters, then that would bring about meaningful change. I can see all the CEOs in their boardrooms, frazzled and frustrated, acknowledging that it has become necessary to "alter our corporate plan." Yes! No more transgenic crops! I can see all the scientists calling in sick rather than work on yet another chimera. Maybe some of them would move from research to teaching, or even into a different field altogether, like Philosophy or Musical Composition.
If Elizabeth had refused to marry Frankenstein unless he stopped robbing graveyards, you wouldn’t have a great horror story today, but you would have one less monster. Women don’t always realize the power they have. If they acted together they could change the world. At this point in the development of genetic engineering, such an approach may be the only way.
May 30, 2001
