Playing God

In one of our previous class discussions, we mentioned the idea of "playing God" as a prevalent and recurring theme in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. While watching the film on Monday, I tried to pay attention to any themes from the novel that were echoed by the actors' dialogue as well as themes that we had not noticed in class. On different occasions, the movie suggested that Frankenstein was working against the thoughts and wants of God by creating a human being. In the opening of the film, the man who warns viewers of the horrors they are about to witness says that Dr. Frankenstein "sought to create a man of his own image without reckoning upon God". At the very moment the statement was said, I immediately thought of Adam--the man of clay created in the image of the Lord. The choice of words is quite interesting(and somewhat blasphemous)--comparing the actions of Frankenstein to those of God while also stating that his actions persisted without "dialogue" with the one who creates life. The dialogue alone did not place the theme of "playing God" in the forefront of the film--Frankenstein's actual actions showed that he had no time to worry about God when his experiment on life was on his mind. In the first few minutes of the movie, we see Frankenstein and his assistant digging up a dead body that was buried only moments before. With this very action, Frankenstein seems to be playing God against God--he seeks to give life to a body that God has already claimed as dead. When Elizabeth goes with a friend to see one of Frankenstein's mentors, he mentioned that Frankenstein has dedicated his time "first to destroy life, then to create it". In the animation scene, Frankenstein seems to be joyously overwhelmed with the power that he has over human life. He even says the words: "now I know what it feels like to be God", and stares at his hands, marvelling over the life that they have created. It is obvious that Frankenstein is blinded by all of the power that comes with playing God before his monster actually comes to life...I wonder how the film deals with this theme after Frankenstein's monster enters the human world...

Contemporary Links

Here are a couple links to organizations that make use of Madison's "American experiment" phrase from _The Federalist Papers_:
Center of the American Experiment
Renewing the American Experiment


I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on these sites. What curency do these organizations find in the notion of an American experiment? To what ends do they seek to appropriate the phrase?



Graphic: Jasper Johns, _Flag_ (1962-68)

New Harmony, Indiana

So far in our class discussions and readings, we have dealt with scientific experiments and we are now getting into political experiments. But are these two categories mutually exclusive?

Think back to 1825. George Rapp and his group of religious followers, after escaping religious persecution in Germany twenty years earlier, establish an experimental society in the southwest corner of Indiana. Money was banned. Property was public. Four years later, this communistic experiment came to a halt, and the town felt apart due to numerous disputes.

Following the dissolution of the society, Josiah Warren, a participant in the New Harmony experiment, said, “It appeared that it was nature's own inherent law of diversity that had conquered us ...our 'united interests' were directly at war with the individualities of persons and circumstances and the instinct of self-preservation... and it was evident that just in proportion to the contact of persons or interests, so are concessions and compromises indispensable.”

This story right here seems to encapsulate much of what we have discussed so far in the class. Specifically, New Harmony clearly relates to Bacon’s New Atlantis and the American experiment readings we read this week. At first glance, Bacon’s story and the Declaration of Independence seem to be entirely unrelated, as one deals with a scientific experiment and the other is a political experiment, we can definitely draw some connections. New Harmony, Indiana, combines the scientific, Utopian aspect of New Atlantis with the American political experiment of democracy. Thinking about it for a while, however, I’ve begun to believe that political experiments are scientific experiments. In setting up a new type of government or living arrangement, the experimental aspect is to see if it will succeed. This success ultimately depends on the reactions of the people and consequences of people’s actions. This is science AND politics. The experiment at New Harmony would then be classified as an experiment in political science.

So then, how are the separate entities of politics and sciences related? Do political experiments always involve some sort of science? In scientific experiments, do politics affect them in some ways (e.g. Royal Society)? Any thoughts on these questions…

[pic from Virginia B. Ball Center for Creative Inquiry http://www.bsu.edu/ourlandourlit/Literature/Authors/snedekercd.html]

Pessimism

What I have found so surprising is the pervasiveness of negative attitudes in the literature we've been reading. All of the works of fiction have had either a distinctly negative view of science, or were meant to be informational. When authors stray into the realm of science fiction, it is traditionally negative. Why is this? For every utopian novel, there exists dozens of dystopian visions. Do we always assume the future will be worse than today?

Moreover, this is a trend that has continued. Shelley writes about both the dangers of human involvement in the creation of life and the downside to over rationalization of emotions. One hundred years later the first stories about the dangers intelligent robots would present to mankind began to arise. Two-hundred years after Shelley, stories are being written about the potential disasters of cloning.

In fact, this pessimism is not even always linked to the future. Rappaccini's Daughter is not a predictive story, yet also warns against an obsession with science. Why don't the stories consider millions of lives that have been improved by science? Do scientists still have a negative connotation today? Was this belief held because science was such a young profession? While nuclear energy is potentially dangerous, millions of people are experiencing improved quality of life because of it. While cloning may cross some ethical boundaries, it has the potential to save and extend human life. And most importantly, the improvements in technology should make individuals more involved with politics, not slaves to a totalitarian state as is so often predicted.

Personally, I think it is likely more fun (and marketable) to worry than to rejoice. Furthermore, the science fiction that we have read appears to be extremely reactionary. The author may be writing about different time periods, or individuals, but is usually writing in response to something they have experienced. In particular, Shelley was responding to the Romantic Movement and the Age of Enlightenment that was a contemporary worry for her. Perhaps, the tendency is not pessimism so much as a questioning of change, and a desire for stability. Surprisingly, this may be a theme throughout time in the genre. Even when writing about the future, dystopias are often critiques of change from the present status-quo.

American Democracy as Frankenstein's Monster?

In his book, De Tocqueville makes an interesting analogy between Democracy and a being who is forced to grow up on the streets without parent or education. "Democracy has consequently been abandoned to its wild instincts, and it has grown up like those children who have no parental guidance, who receive their education in the public streets, and who are acquainted only with the vices and wretchedness of society" (Democracy in America, 7-8 ). In relation to the experimental nature of Democracy, we can use this analogy to show similarities between Frankenstein's monster and this experimental form of government.
The monster was ignored by it's creator and forced to raise itself on the streets without education or a way of understanding. It was alone and isolated, but through natural survival instincts it was able to seek out shelter where it learned about the world through observation of a family. It was at this very early stage in its life that the monster was as it describes itself, "benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity" (66). During this time it also did good deeds, specifically for Felix's family, who it helped protect and keep well. However, as it aged and learned the ways of the world, it grew hardened and was at one point scorned at which it changed from it's benevolent, humane ways to that of a wretched creature who seemingly lacked all form of conscience.
In this way, an interesting parallel can be seen between these two creations of men. Both Victor and the Founding Fathers studied their respective sciences and then created an entity based on their studies. The creation of Frankenstein's monster was peaceful and helpful in it's early life, but then turned vengeful and violent in its later life.
Will American Democracy follow the same path?

Can Humanity Survive?

So I was just browsing NY Times online and found this interesting article titled, "Can Humanity Survive?" It speaks about how various people have predicted the end of the world due to different circumstances. For example, some physicists think that nuclear weapons will be the cause for our end, while others believe that global warming and climate change will mark our end.

I find it interesting that in all cases, science, which is generally meant to increase the longevity of our lives, efficiency in our tasks, and knowledge of the world, may also be the thing that ultimately precipitates the downfall of mankind.

In fact, one cosmologist, Dr. Rees, gives humanity no greater than a 50% chance of surviving past the year 2100, which is quite disturbing, especially given that some of us may actually be able to live close to or even past that year.

My point in bringing this article up for discussion is that it parallels the theme of dangerous knowledge that is pervasive throughout Frankenstein. For example, when the monster constructs fire he obtains knowledge about light and warmth, but as he touches the fire it hurts him--symbolizing the theme of dangerous knowledge.

Thus, will humanity ultimately fall because of something we created? Nuclear energy has been great in terms of energy efficiency, yet it also possesses the power to kill tens of thousands in a single blast. Our CO2 emissions are a result and symbol of our booming industries and production, but at the same time these emissions are trapping heat in our atmosphere causing an overall warming of the climate, which could have disastrous, unpredictable results.

Personally, I am much more optimistic in seeing no end to humanity (or at worst much past the year 2100). Although I do agree that science may have devastating effects that may wipe out large numbers of people in the coming 100s of years, I feel that it is our continuous push to further science, seeking this "dangerous knowledge" as Victor does, that will bail us out. I believe that knowledge is unlimited, and although we may be stuck in this cycle of discovering new technology to rectify the harms caused by the old technology, I see humanity enduring.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

The Island

I recently saw the movie The Island for the first time, and thought there were many parallels that could be drawn between discussions we had had in class and themes and ideas present in the movie.

At first, the people in the movie live in a seemingly Utopian society. Everyone is equal, everything is bright, fresh and clean. Every day is the same. There are no politics or religion, or anything by which people can become divided. The characters are told that this Utopian place is the only location on Earth that hasn't been contaminated by some detrimental nuclear or chemical incident. The only location other than "the island," which is also uncontaminated, but has limited space, so the residents play a "lottery" to see who gets to leave and go to paradise, "the island."

As the movie continues you learn that these people are actually clones or real humans on a very much "uncontaminated" and alive Earth. They are bought by the wealthy as literal life insurance policies. If you need an organ transplant, no worries, you have a clone who can give up life in Clone-World so you can have a new organ.

The parallels I drew were between the idea of a Utopian society, like in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. The difference is, the rest of the world new about this Clone World, while the clones knew absolutely nothing about the rest of the world. They lived in isolation and complete falsehoods.

Also, the concept of "playing God" should be noted, as the doctor and president of this clone company literally creates human beings. They are bought to life as adults, the same age as their counterparts in the real world. This reminds me of Victor Frankenstein and how he created a monster.

The movie raises a lot of ethical questions about cloning and humanity. Are these clones humans? They have emotions and relationships, yet they are killed at any point in time when their counterpart needs something. Is this right?

Is it right for Frankenstein to create a monster, and then want to kill him?

Can living with your head in the sand in isolation really by Utopian?

Victor as the Monster

Victor Frankenstein classifies his creation as a monster due to its appearance, however, he is originally gentle, and kind. His creator left him alone to figure how to survive. Due to his appearance people mistreat him and perceive him to be a monster just because he his big and ugly. He cares about the DeLacey family and brings them firewood in the night. He observes them and even learns their language. He shows compassion and love. Victor on the other hand does not. He hates the monster just because he is ugly, he runs away from it and wishes for it to die. The monster did nothing wrong, his brutal actions are a result of being abused and neglected by humans.
As time goes on the Victor’s physical appearance becomes more monster like. He is often described as a wretch who looks like death. He may not be as physically ugly as the monster but his character is. He refused to create a companion for the monster even though the monster promised to hide in South America with no human contact. Victor condemns the monster to a life of solitude; so the monster gets even. He kills Elizabeth so Victor too will know what its like to be companionless. His actions, although harsh, can be justified. If someone, i.e. his creator, had taught him right from wrong, the few instances of monstrous behavior that he exhibited would not have happened.

"My Hideous Progeny"

In the back of our edition of Frankenstein, there are many critiques of the work both contemporary and modern. Ellen Moers' "Female Gothic: The Monster's Mother" particularily pertains to the motif of absent mothers we were discussing on Wednesday. Negative connotations in relation to birth also pop up, along with the missing maternity. The Monster, made in a "workshop of filthy creation", calls himself "miserable and abandoned". Examples such as those lead Moers to find Mary Shelley's "fanatasy of the newborn as at once monstrous agent of destruction and piteous victim of parental abandonment" (222 Mores), with personal conflict the source for such morbidity entwined with childbirth. At sixteen, Mary became pregnant with Percy Shelley's child, and gave birth prematurely. On the day her child died, only a month old, Mary simply recorded in her journal, "Find my baby dead. Miserable day" (221 Moers).

I had often wondered at Victor's obsession with re-animation throughout the novel, feeling that it wasn't properly explained (and even then, a bit underwhelming) until the end. Moers again looks into Mary's history for an explanation. Mary apparently dreamed of warming her child before a fire to bring her back to life, which Moer links with Victor's own ambitions: "I thought, that if I could bestow animation upon lifeless matter, I might in process of time renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption" (222 Moers). The forward to Frankenstein mentioned the richness found in the work when reading it in context of the political and social conflict of its time, as well as the author's own life. Knowledge of Mary does indeed make Frankenstein more powerful in its impact on readers. This being my first reading of the it, I sometimes found myself seeing the novel's events as uber-melodramtic '50s sci-fi. Still, my sparse knowledge of Mary Shelley helped in getting beyond the superficial or physical details of the plot.

One more thing: I think we were getting to it at the end of class last time, the trouble with sexuality in Frankenstein. A friend of mine wrote a paper last semester on the Monster as Victor's homosexual doppleganger, (which made no sense whatsoever as I was reading the book) began to make more sense on Wednesday. Its interesting to think on how in the 'human' relations in the novel there's hardly any suggestion of physical desire, even between Victor and Elizabeth, who plan to consummate a "semi-incestuous love" (224 Moers). The Monster actually exists as the most sexual being in the book (perhaps due to his 'animalistic' tendencies?), requesting a female counterpart.

"The Rebel God"

Something that I think we've failed to mention in discussing Frankenstein and its connections to other aspects of culture, is the alternate title that Shelley suggests for the novel. On the original page it can be seen that the title page says Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. According to Greek mythology, Prometheus was the creator of mankind. He also stole fire from heaven and brought in to the men he created. As punishment, Zeus sentenced Prometheus to be tied to a boulder where each day an eagle would come eat his liver. Because of this, Prometheus is sometimes referred to as "The Rebel God."

This story's parallel to Frankenstein is quite clear. Frankenstein essentially created this monster, whom he gave life to by discovering this "spark of life" and infusing it into the being. As a result, Frankenstein is sentenced to a life of misery and ill-fate. According to the Latin version of the myth, Prometheus is said to have made men from clay and water; throughout the novel, Shelley often refers to the "man of clay" when mentioning the monster. Frankenstein is a "Rebel God" in that he defies God's laws by creating an unnatural being. The ties between Prometheus and Frankenstein are many, but what strikes me most is the word "modern."

Why "The MODERN Prometheus?" What makes this parallel story modern? With this question, we can begin to get at the social relevance of this piece of fiction. It's evident that Shelley was a religious woman, as their are various references to Biblical passages and stories. As this novel was written during the growth of Enlightenment science and the rise of industry, perhaps Shelley was comparing the monster (and Prometheus) to the development of science. The creation of life and Enlightenment science are great mysteries, that could potentially create numerous benefits for the world. However, with this great knowledge comes great responsibility and also puts the world at severe risk. Therefore, it seems like Shelley is arguing for a retreat to the spiritual world, away from this new science.

The Role of Missing Women

I think that Frankenstein portrays the way women were treated during that time period. Caroline Beaufort dedicated herself to her family and died taking care of them. Innocent Justine served as a scapegoat, and took upon herself the murder of William. Elizabeth dedicates herself to serving her family and making them happy. In each case the woman is serving men. Another point is that women are never engaged in the pursuit of knowledge. When Victor was a child he was educated and eventually sent to college; however, no such future existed for Elizabeth. Victor sought the secret of life, and Elizabeth cared little for gaining such knowledge. Walton is engaged in discovering the secrets of the North Pole; however, his sister remains at home.

I think that Shelley is addressing the role of women in society at the time when Frankenstein was written. Throughout Frankenstein their prevalence is at home, and not out pursuing new endeavors. In my opinion, Shelly uses their death to show that this is not the way women should live. They should not be contained in the house, and if they are, then they perish. She supports this idea with Safie, who escapes living in a harem, and lives freely with Felix and his family.

She also alludes to women being oppressed by men, because Elizabeth and indirectly Justine both die by the creation of Victor. Also the female monster, although never finished, was destroyed by Victor. I think that Shelly’s overall message is that women are being oppressed by a male dominated society, and that women’s status in society needs to change.

Role of Multiple Story Layers

In class, we began to discuss why Frankenstein's story and that of the monster was revealed through so many levels of characters (at times, the monster spoke to Victor, who then was speaking to Robert Walton who was writing to his sister). I agree with what one student said about the role of this multiple layering of stories--that it parallels the idea that Frankenstein was etched from various different pieces just as the stories are. I also believe that there are other more important roles the layering of the story plays.

The most important role is that these various layers allow us to see the characters through differing perspectives. For example, we can see the development of Frankenstein through Victor's eyes. Victor first regards the monster as a hideous creation. However, as time passes, listening to the eloquence of the monster, Victor begins to understand that the monster has similar feelings of solitude, etc. From another stance, we can see the admiration of Victor that Robert Walton shows, who says that Victor's downfall was due to external circumstances, while Frankenstein directly blames Victor.

Another role the layers of stories may play is to mirror the original purpose of the story as a ghost story. This may be a stretch, but from remembering my childhood ghost stories were best told through people's voices, and the layering of sources kind of draws this element in.

Anyone have any other ideas on what roles are played by revealing the story through various characters?

In class we discussed the commentary on reason that Shelley is trying to make by writing this novel. It is important to note that prior to the time period in which Shelley wrote this novel the driving force in people’s lives and understanding of the world was their religious beliefs. Religion served as a check against people’s passions and kept the morality of individuals, as well as the whole, in check. During the age of reason, however, people started to turn towards science and away from religion. In Frankenstein, Shelley uses this dichotomy that exists between passion and reason to demonstrate the dangers of both. The danger of both reason and passion is that they block individuals from doing what is morally right and, as a result, they are punished in Shelley's novel. Frankenstein submits to passion and uses reason to create the monster, a totally unnatural being, who by even his own admission has no place in this world. By Frankenstein impiety in his attempts to use science to play God, he has created the very unholy being that will be his undoing. On the same vein, the monster seems to have a strong ability to reason but is completely unable to control his passions and is continually committing heinous acts, like slaughtering numerous innocent people. Again, a being without God (since he was created by something that was not God nor in a way that God intended) cannot and should not exist in Shelley's world as there are extreme dangers through such a "miserable existence."

Frankenstein=Monster

It seems kind of ironic to me that most people think the name of the monster is Frankenstein, since in the book they actually end up being so similar. In my opinion, the monster is more of a mirror through which Frankenstein sees himself, or even a physical manifestation of some of his less enviable attributes. From the beginning Frankenstein is proud and selfish, as is evidenced by the natural philosophers who first catch his fancy. They are all men who seek grandiose findings, such as the elixir of life, and Frankenstein seems more entranced by the accolades such a discovery would garner rather than the actual scientific process which might go into finding them. Even though he later finds his former idols to have been proven wrong he carries the spirit of their endeavors with him into his actual scientific research. In addition to his pride Frankenstein proves to be relentlessly selfish throughout the novel, especially with regards to his family. He leaves Elizabeth, the woman whom he supposedly loves for years at a time, and while she patiently waits for him at home and agonizes over his absence he barely thinks about her at all and writes every once in a while when hes not feeling too lazy. The monster exhibits these very same, with his pride in the rapid learning he achieves which ultimately contributes to his own downfall, and his selfishness in the lives he sacrifices to make himself feel better.
In the end these traits combine to destroy Frankenstein, both mentally and physically. His guilt and shame eat away at his mind until in the end he is barely sane, and the monster destroys everything in the real world who he knows and loves.

A Female Frankenstein?

Watch “Monster.”

A 2003 film and Oscar winner for best leading actress: Charlize Theron, but you probably won’t be able to recognize her. It’s a little scary what make-up can do.

My writing 20 topic was called Crime Scene Imagination and it was basically a study of serial killers, so for my final paper, I decided to focus on a comparison between male and female killers. So far in Frankenstein, we have only been introduced to primarily male characters. Women have a much smaller role; it is almost as if they were created only to be destroyed. The mothers have all died of illness, Elizabeth Lavenza was strangled by the monster, and the second creation was quickly torn to pieces. In class, we have mentioned how women and mothers are loving and affectionate; they are the caretakers. However, after studying a good deal about serial killers, I was surprised to find that women can be quite monstrous as well.

Take for example, Aileen Wuornos, the first nationally publicized female serial killer. If you watch the film that I mentioned above, you can get a good documentation of her life story. She was, in my opinion, one of the worst cases having killed seven men on separate occasions. But what I found particularly interesting about her was that instead of missing a mother figure in her life, she grew up without a father. Actually, in many cases of serial killers, the individuals were missing some sort of parenting figure or were abused/neglected by them during their developmental years. I wonder if this has anything to do with violence at a later age. Is anger and violence tied with resentment for not having both a present and nurturing mother and father?

Society as Dr. Frankenstein

The plight of Frankenstein’s monster shows an interesting societal phenomenon – the violent monsters we fear are not naturally occurring, but created by the currents and perceptions of society. While there are certainly people and animals born with defects that render them physically abnormal, it is important to note (at least in my opinion) that everyone is born with a blank slate. Even Frankenstein’s monster is initially naïve and benevolent, seeking nothing more than love and understanding. Only when he fully realizes that society shudders at and hates him for his outer monstrosity does he revert to a primitive, blood-seeking monster.

His violent and merciless nature is that of a stereotypical monster; I wonder, is his the only case in which bloodthirstiness is brought on by society’s condemnation and isolation? Do those which/whom we consider monsters fit that stereotype of cruelty only because of the way we treat them? If so, are we the propagators of our own nightmares, needlessly torturing ourselves with fears of monsters that are out to kill us? In that case, we aren’t too different from the Dr. Frankenstein.

It is also interesting to think about the possibility that even though we are scared out of our minds by monsters, we as humans need the monstrous around us. With so many examples of abnormality, all we need to do is look around to be assured of our individual humanness, individual status as normal as opposed to “abnormal.”

Frankenstein of the Opera?

The presences of love-hate evoking storylines in the Phantom of the Opera and Frankenstein are astounding. Both characters are parentless, friendless, physically deformed and shunned from society. But the common trait between the phantom and the monster that catches my interest is how both characters are portrayed in a way that both lose and gain compassion from the reader thoughout the story.

In the Phantom of the Opera, the phantom is a deformed orphan that is enslaved and tortured as a circus side-show freak. He later uses his traumatic childhood as a justification to kill innocent people. He tricks the main female character, Christine, and kidnapps her in hopes of forcing her into marriage. As the plot unfolds and more of the phantom's evil doings are complete, contempt for the phantom is drawn from the reader. However, in the end when Christine does not reciprocate his love and he is left in the under-belly of the opera house all alone, I ironically felt really bad for the phantom realizing that no one would ever love him for him and he would die friendless and loveless.

Mary Shelley uses the same characteristic shifts in Frankstein. The monster is abandoned upon his first momments on earth by the only person that can appreciate the wonderment of his creation, Victor Frankenstein. Much like the absence of the phantom's mother, the one person whose love you are supposed to be guaranteed on earth, the monster is denied love from his parent/creator. The monster murders almost all of Victor's familial circle who were blameless in the monster's torment. Yet remarkably at the deathbed of Victor, the monster reveals his only wish and aim was to have someone to love and appreciate him despite his deformity. When the possibility of that one wish was extinguished the monster was left all alone and become a tender and pitiful being that drew my compassion even though he was still a deranged murderer.

What is the authors' motive for writing this type of narrative in which they maticulously evoke a feeling of wanting to simultaneaoulsy strangle and hug the villain?

The missing link

My family and friends are some of the most important people in my life. It is comforting to know that I am connected to a large group of people who both love and care about me, as well as sharing some of my interests and passions. As human beings, we thrive upon the connections that we have with other people in this world. Even if we are not emotionally attached to our families, we still believe in the unbreakable scientific bond that connects a mother, a father, and a child. But what would happen if there was no longer that link? If there was no longer that one connection that we could depend on, how could we move forward? The monster in Frankenstein is suffering from that missing link. He has no mother, no father, only his creator, who refuses to acknowledge or even glance upon him. He has no friend to share his feelings or accomplishments with. He knows of no other being upon the earth that looks like him. That missing link drives him to commit murder--he slowly destroys the link that Frankenstein has to those that he loves, and inflicts the same pain upon his creator that he has felt.

I wonder how human beings would survive with missing links--with no one to confide in or love or share their lives with. On many occasions, I feel as though no one could possibly understand the things that I'm going through (as though my problems are so much more than any other person could comprehend); however, in many cases, this is not true. But Frankenstein's monster is not a human being: he is the only one of his kind. It is quite possible that no one will be able to understand how he feels without a link to anything or anyone in the world. He looks at the portrait of Frankenstein's mother and wonders what it would be like to have someone to care and nurture him. That most vital link--the connection to a mother, is something that the monster cannot even begin to obtain. He was created from the hands of man and not the birth of woman. He tries quite unsuccessfully to maintain the only link that he has in the human world--his creator, but only succeeds in destroying familial connections, and in the end, Frankenstein's life.

Human beings will continue their search for more connections and more links as time passes. The necessity for those who share your passions and experiences will never die. This being said, I challenge all of us to look through the eyes of the monster, and imagine what it would be like to live with that missing link...

Creationalism: What is "Natural?"

One thing that I have found really interesting from our discussion in class is this idea of creationalism how it relates to defining what is “natural” versus “unnatural.” I believe that the basic consensus in class was that Mary Shelley was using the lack of mothers to define those that are “unnatural beings” namely the monster and Frankenstein. The monster was of an unnatural birth as be didn’t come from woman and was thus brought into the world without any familial connections. Frankenstein’s mother died when he was young and thus he didn’t have a constant feminine figure in his life. The story infers that it is this lack of feminine exposure during development creates a being of who is over ambitious and passionate to a fault.

This idea of defining what is “natural” made me think of science today as a whole. In my opinion, it is obvious the creature Frankenstein created is not natural. For one thing, what was done is impossible but more importantly the creature was never born. He never went through adolescence and started life as an adult. He didn’t start as single celled organism created by the union of an egg and sperm cell.

So that made me wonder, are genetically engineered organisms “natural?” Cloned animals start from a single diploid somatic cell (non sex cell) to develop into a baby, an adolescent, and finally an adult. So according to my argument above, clones are not natural beings, but they are close. I think that most people, myself included, would say that clones are unnatural.

If we assume that a clone is unnatural what does this say about the issue dealt with in the novel My Sister’s Keeper? This is the story of a human person who was genetically engineered to be a bone marrow match for her sister. This young girl went through all the same developmental processes as the rest of us and even was carried for nine months inside of a mother’s womb, but was conceived in a laboratory. And if we define this as unnatural, does the definition also demand that individuals conceived through artificial insemination are unnatural? Artificially insemination does not mean that the genetic information of the embryos was altered. So theoretically, under the correct conditions, those births may have been possible without outside help.

For every question that I tried to answer as far as defining what is a natural creation, it instead just lead me to more and more questions. Do you have another definition of what is “natural?”

What is a Monster?

I feel that one of the key topics Shelley raises throughout Frankenstein is the definition of the term monster. Frankenstein's creation is often referred to as a monster, and becomes known, primarily, as "the monster". However, the definition is not so clear cut. Is Shelley commenting on the creation's lack of humanity? Should the world fear those who are grotesque and abnormally unattractive? Does murder make him a monster, or was he born a monster? Is Frankenstein the true monster for how he treats his creation and his friends?

I do not believe that there is a clear, simple answer to these questions. Personally, I feel that both Frankenstein and his creation are monstrous. They treat each other as animals not worthy of respect, but only as tools to achieve some greater goal. Furthermore, I do not believe that the creature's physical appearance plays a role in his monstrosity. I do acknowledge that humans despised him for how he appeared, but refuse to believe that his appearance was a signal that he was dangerous and evil. Instead, Shelley is commenting on social practices of the day. Grotesque features or strange circumstances of birth do not make a monster. There is a monster within everyone, and if the right triggers are pushed than our dark side may surface to everyone's horror. Driven to kill by emotion or over rationalization, Frankenstein and his creation bring out the monster in each other, and the innocent dead in their wake should remind the world what dangers lie within.

This theme of what makes someone evil resonates with humanity still today. Movies, television shows, and books all attempt to define what makes someone evil. Whether it is Crime and Punishment, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or even Harry Potter, the qualifications for a monster are always being redefined.

"To strike terror into the hearts of men"

Trailer from the 1931 _Frankenstein_ film, starring Boris Karloff.




(Class: Feel free to respond or comment to video posts)

Religion and Science; A Conflict of Interests

I feel like the conflicts between religion and science will never be resolved. Science is defined as the study of the natural world. It is knowledge of the physical, tangible world gained through observation and experimentation. Conversely, one could define religion as the study of the supernatural world. Religions are sets of beliefs regarding the creation, nature, and purpose of our universe.

Religion seems to conflict so much with science, to me, what's fact and what can be proven. For example, according to the Bible the Earth is only a mere 4,000 years old. On the other hand, scientific proccesses, specifically carbon dating, disproves this assertion with ease. The problem then, is that religion places it's basis on faith, not fact and direct observation. My opinion is that religions are doctrines, set of principles, created and divulged by individuals. These ideas spread, become popular, and morph into the world religions we see today. As time goes on and on, and the technology we have becomes more and more advanced, an increasing number of religious beliefs are disproved. It's much like a principle that applies often in math, some things are disproved because of the proof in another. Because some things are inherently, positively, and always true, others simply cannot, ever, be true.

But religious people often deny the truth and fact in science because it does contradict and render erroneous their beliefs. Religion is based on faith in intangible things. When tangible things are proven that directly disprove religious faith, the religion is put in jeopardy, and people lose faith.

FYI: Call for Entries

For any artistically-inclined class members:

Call for Entries (questions can be addressed to me at bmr6@duke.edu, or in person, of course)

Thesis | Antithesis | Prosthesis:
Histories and Futures of Prosthetics

Prosthesis: An Etymology
1553, "addition of a letter or syllable to a word" from Latin; from
Greek: prosthesis "addition," from prostithenai "add to," from pros
"to" + tithenai "to put, place." Meaning "artificial body part": first
recorded 1706.

The contemporary moment is marked by two general trends in the use of prosthetics:
(1) Using material/technology to replace what is "lacking" from our bodies. (2) the embodiment of material/technology to transform experience and make oneself conscious of realities otherwise unimaginable.

CALL FOR ENTRIES: Contemporary artists whose work explores these trends and the spaces in between (bodies, definitions, etymologies, histories, identities, technologies). We are especially interested in work which connects up with the history and science of prosthetics. In addition, we are looking for pieces that can help broaden the scope of prosthetic art to include questions of race, class, gender, and cultural identity.

To Submit:
We are accepting work in all media (including performance art). Please send 4 digital files (in internet friendly format) documenting your work to technorganics@gmail.com. Along with the images please include two short paragraphs, the first of which should describe and offer context on the submitted images, the second of which should speak to how the work might fit into the context of the show.

The Show is sponsored by The Transom Gallery in Durham, North Carolina: www.thetransomgallery.com

Your Friendly Neighborhood MRI

I was over at Student Health earlier this week, and while waiting, noticed a rather intriguing ad. A Nordic-looking preteen, surrounded by butterflies and colors vaguely reminescent of the Northern Lights, clutches onto a parent's hand while eagerly pointing with the other at a chic-ly designed MRI. The company (can't remember who, but I'll find out) just plainly states its name at the bottom. Somehow, this ad disturbed me. Maybe 'disturb' is a bit strong, but such a portrayal of an MRI interests me. What was in these advertisers heads when they decided to mesh a "modern, New-Age-y, but still family-oriented" vibe with a generally dreaded scientific contraption? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that this particular edition of an MRI actually doens't involve any tight squeezes due to its engineering, making it more appealing to hospital-goers. I might add that I saw this in Good Housekeeping, which again reinforces the family image the makers of this MRI were trying to convey.

What does this ad say about the popular portrayal of science? Audience reaction, intent behind ad design, the actual design and aesthetic; all these are markers of science and its perception in culture. Maybe science is 'scary', and the ad feels it should reassures us with images we'll find calming. But I wasn't calmed; the ad's artificialty created the creepiness it meant to avoid. I've thumbed through Science and the ads in there define concise. You're lucky if you even get a picture of the product. Not that I prefer these ads to the Good Housekeeping MRI one; the dryness of Science's ads only propagate the stereotype of the indifferent and isolated scientist. In today's Chronicle, Randy Olson commented on the "growing gap between scientists and the general public". The MRI illustrates what might be an attempt to bridge that gap, superficially, through advertising.

(for the full article, by Joe Clark, check here:Marine Biologist Asks to Put Stop to Science Speak )

New Atlantis

We discussed during class the pairing of Christianity with Science in the House of Solomon. At the time I felt these two clashed, and still feel so, but I think I may better understand now why the House of Solomon might have actually "introduced" Christianity to the society's people.

Foremost, the reason I think there is conflict is that one of the messages or ideals of this Utopian society seems to be that humans' desires and indulgences should not be resisted, but rather fulfilled, and such is allowed through science and progress. This contrasts what other philosophers in the past have supported, such as a higher moral or Divine state where we are free from greed and want. But Christianity, as I understand, pushes people to a more Divine understanding. Thus, here is where I saw conflict between the two, as the scientists in Bensalem desire to achieve the power of divinity (which is much more than simply a state of it).

However, this conflict can be appeased when one understands that Bacon is pairing religion with science to make it almost more acceptable and beautiful. The House of Solomon may have introduced Christianity in order to bring about the effect of a moral sense for the people, although the government here seems to be somewhat corrupt, which is apparent from people who rush quickly out, etc.

Thus, applying this to the real world, the only way for science to become accepted among humanity was to shield it with religion, so that people who may be opposed to the advancements of science would feel that religion is justifying the progress and new advancements.

Open Communication

Bacon ends “New Atlantis” with the Father of Salomon’s House telling the traveler that they should go and tell other nations about their isolated and unknown civilization, a place that has been kept secret since the beginning of its existence. This ends the story with the Bacconian idea that knowledge should be shared. If the people of Bensalem had created a utopian society that was perfect in everyway then it should be shared with other nations so everyone can live in a perfect world. His ideas about sharing information later reappears with the creation of the Royal Society, a place devoted the exploration of the sciences. Bacon understood that to make advancements in any way, shape or form, the more people that know about it and can contribute to it the better. Nearly all of the most famous and important scientific discoveries were not the result of a single person but of numerous people, each contributing little pieces of the puzzle.
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark” provides evidence for why scientific exploration is not something that should not be done alone. Aylmer, even though considered a scientific genius, ends up killing his own wife in an experiment gone wrong. Aylmer isolates himself in his laboratory with Aminadab who was “incapable of comprehending a single principle,” but “he executed all the details of his master’s experiments” (Hawthorne 89). With no one to question his concoction to remove the birthmark on his wife’s cheek, or the ethical issues behind it, Aylmer poisoned his wife.
It is clear that sharing information is important to discovery and learning. I believe that working together should be encouraged, especially in a collegiate atmosphere. By working together students can get more out of their work.

Science versus Religion

I found it interesting that in Bacon’s Utopia religion and science are closely coupled, because many times throughout history and even today there has been conflict between science and religion. The first example that comes to mind is Galileo’s argument with the church about the Sun being the center of the solar system, as opposed to the Earth. Another more recent controversy is the theory of evolution, and whether or not it should be taught in schools. I was wondering why there is such a lack of acceptance in religion for new ideas.
As long as history has been recorded people have been curious about the world around them. Early civilizations used religion as a means to answer questions about the world that could not be explained. Because there was no better explanation for phenomena that was observed such as the sky being blue, the reason “because God made it that way” prevailed among these early civilizations. This same explanation was given for many other observations that otherwise could not be explained. Through religion, these ideas became ingrained in society.
Religion has a hard time accepting new ideas because if religion admits it was wrong on one idea, then maybe it is wrong about other ideas. When religion is wrong it loses its credibility, and people lose faith in religion. People’s faith is all religion has, without faith there would be no religion.
The formation of the Royal Society with its new theories and discoveries backed by the king’s funding marked a major turning point in the relationship between science and religion. At first, many people ridiculed scientists for their discoveries because they went against religious beliefs. However, scientists not only provided a theory for explaining phenomena, but also their theories were supported by concrete, repeatable experiments. This gave scientific theory the upper hand because experiments enabled people to see the theory at work first hand.
I think religion certainly has become more flexible and now is not attacking scientists with every discovery they make. It is interesting, living in an era when scientific breakthroughs and discoveries are constantly happening, to look back at an earlier time when being a scientist meant that any discovery you made would be attacked.

Isolation= perfection?

As I was attempting to decide which reading, scientist or ideal was best to focus on for my first blog posting, I found myself continually coming back to this ideal of Utopia found in Francis Bacon's New Atlantis. I began to wonder just how a Utopia might work if it were indeed possible to form.

Realistically, Utopias are impossible to develop, at least on our modern Earth. With so many differing opinions between societies as well as within them, it would be ridiculous to ever even consider forming a Utopian society. However, it brings up a subject for debate in my mind; if, as in New Atlantis, a group of people were able to isolate themselves from the rest of mankind from the beginning of their existence, would a Utopia actually be possible? It seems that, in such isolation, people would have to have very similar views of the world due to their lack of outside resources and opinions. If one person became the leader of such a group, and had a certain set of ideals, what else would the people have the ideals to compare to?

In New Atlantis, the people of the nation of Bensalem know of other countries and peoples around the world, but they themselves remain unknown; this allows them to keep up their Utopian society without outside forces interfering with their way of life. However, I can't help but wonder if in fact this would actually cause discontent among the people of Bensalem. While yes, their society is "perfect", it seems like there would have to be a group of people, or at least a single individual, on the island who would look at the ways of other countries and wonder whether they should change some of their ways in order to be more like the rest of the world, be it governmentally, socially, or religiously. This would cause discontent within the Utopian society, and lead to more problems and arguments, disqualifying the land as a Utopia.

I feel that Bensalem would not be able to remain a Utopia as it does in New Atlantis because of the knowledge they acquired of other countries around the globe. It seems that a society would need to be in complete isolation from others in order to remain Utopian, for with other countries and their ideals displayed to the people of a Utopia, the Utopia would be no more; but of course, as the word Utopia literally means, "no place" can really be that perfect in reality.

The New World

What I find most interesting in this introduction to scientific experimentation and the Age of Enlightenment is the role of the New World. In both the introduction to "American Curiosity" by Parrish and "New Atlantis" by Bacon, the New World is the center of ideal scientific discovery. I contend that it is not a coincidence that the United States of America leads the world in scientific discovery today, but rather a natural development from the circumstances of the New World's discovery by Europeans.

While Europe was more technologically advanced and scientifically innovative than the Americas during the 15th and 16th centuries, America had a distinct advantage in the world of empiricism. Western Europeans viewed the New World as a land of savages to be conquered and experimented with. The great wealth of resources, untouched by mankind previously, was seen as possession of the European explorers by divine right. However, this willingness to experiment on the sub-human life forms and nature actually jump-started the introduction of empirical science in the Americas. In "American Curiosity" it is this mindset that inspires natives, and slaves to learn and accept both science and experimentation at a remarkable rate. Bacon argues in "New Atlantis" that the isolation presented by the oceans, in addition to the great wealth of natural resources allows for the development of a utopian culture based on scientific knowledge of the world.

Furthermore, I believe that because the settlers came to the New World with the intention of discovering new species of plant and animal, that America was destined to become home to innovative science, brash experimentation, and creative use of natural resources. Just as the early settlers influenced the US's position as a haven of religious and political freedom, similarly the early intentions of explorers created the ideal country for the development of science and technology.

Science Trap

Science has hypnotizing effects. In our time, as everything is becoming much faster paced, many of us are losing our quality of patience. We want to discover solutions and possess materialistic goods with as much immediacy as possible. Our curiosity has further driven us to become possessed by our desire for quick results and science has become our bridge to these answers and objects. The problem is that we often become consumed with the task of delivering results and forget or downplay the consequences that could arise. So instead of discussing the order of theory and experimentation as we did in class, I want to bring up the idea of how scientific results overshadow consequences. Should we be putting more consideration into the possibility of repercussions before we even go about conducting the experiments?

In my opinion, the obvious answer to that question is ‘yes’, but it is often not the case. As shown in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Birthmark, Aylmer is a good representation of our scientific society today. This ‘man of science’ is overwhelmingly possessed by his task of removing a mark that graces his wife’s cheek that he knows no boundaries and devalues the consequences at stake. For Aylmer, the balance between Georgiana’s life vs. beauty falls to the latter of the two. And what hypnotized this scientist “became the central point of all” (Hawthorne 86). He was surprised at what “lengths which he might find in his heart to go for the sake of giving himself peace” (Hawthorne 87). That desire for results took away his rationality and replaced it with blind fervor. The life of his wife was but a necessary sacrifice for the possibility of even the slightest fade in her facial blemish.

Today, I think we are being trapped by our demand for immediate results and are overlooking the consequences that could result. We are so focused on the task at hand that we are in a way hypnotized from reality. If we continue to choose experimentation before contemplating repercussions, then we may find ourselves in Aylmer’s shoes at the end of The Birthmark, trapped by our own stupidity for rashness.

The Laboratory of Science

In general, after reading the variety of texts we have encountered thus far, I have become somewhat overwhelmed with trying , in addition to comprehending the texts, to distinguish the readings and their main themes from each other. Therefore, clearly there are some overlying themes that connect these texts beyond just the content regarding the idea of the experiment.

One major connection that I was able to draw is in many of our readings there is a defined place to study science. In Hawthorne's The Birthmark, Aylmer and Aminadab had an isolated "laboratory" full of magical elixirs and poisons. When Georgiana was taken out there, the scientific arena seemed so foreign to her, establishing a clear division between the study of science and everything else, which also includes the practice of these experiments as well. In Bacon's The New Atlantis, we find a similar place in Salomon's House, which has "three of these..." and "two of those" to enhance their study of science. Generalizing this common theme, we could even include the Royal Society in these places where science is studied. While some of these are institutions and others are actual houses/rooms, these texts clearly represent the use of a "laboratory" of science.

Going along with this laboratory to study science, we can see through these same examples that in many cases the laboratory is entirely exclusive and/or foreign. In The Birthmark, Georgiana was so out of place in Aylmer's study rooms, glaring at the potions on the wall as if she were deciphering a foreign language. Similarly, in Bacon's writing, the reader enters the situation from the beginning as an outsider on this Utopian world. Finally, in class we discussed the exclusivity of the Royal Society, comparing the social status of the writers discussing the contemporary issues. The question that comes to mind is why is science discussed as only something for the elite, be it elite of mind or elite of status?

What distinguishes those who can study science from those who cannot? While this question doesn't have a clear answer in our texts, Parrish's writing seems to possess underlying analogies comparing the exploitation of slaves and women to the exploitation of nature for our benefit. Parrish writes, "[t]hey had seen the persistent allegorization of 'Nature' as a naked female body laid open to male investigation" (17). From this statement we can derive both that women probably were amongst this group generally excluded from the "laboratory" of science (with the exception of Cavendish and a few others), and we can also note the theory behind science, to understand nature in order to manipulate it further. The dilemma we thus arrive at is: where do we draw the line between science and technology? And therefore, maybe science isn't a harmful investigation, technology may just be an immoral manipulation.

On Monstrosity

On Wednesday we talked briefly about monstrosity, making speculations as to why Cavendish was so obsessed with how microscopes and magnifying glasses distorted everyday objects (needles and the like) to disturbing degrees. I've always been fascinated by the concept of monstrosity and the fact that society, like Cavendish, is so fixated on singling out examples of gross abnormality. In other words, I often wondered (and continue to do so) why we feel the need label things or people as monstrous.

When I think carefully about it, I realize that I can't come up with a definitive definition of the word monster. All that comes to mind are descriptive phrases along the lines of grossly aberrant, repulsive and hideous, strange and dangerous -- there is no one image that represents a monster (whereas an egg is easily represented by a picture of an egg, a monster could technically be represented by pictures of anything from a vampire to an excessively hairy child). So what does the fact that there are so many representations of monsters mean? Are there really that many weird, freakish 'things' out there, or are we as a society simply overly afraid of the monstrous (or even worse, being monstrous)?

I think it all comes down to a core, innate fear of the unknown. After all, the idea of a troll is especially terrifying because no one has actually encountered one; because no one really knows what a troll is capable of, we all assume that it is capable of doing us harm. The key here is that we as people associate the unknown with danger. So... when we label the things/people we don't understand as monsters, we might be trying to put a recognizable face on the unknown. And by being able to see examples of monsters, we are just a bit closer to understanding or at least defining them. With this understanding, the threat of danger is diminished.

Beauty in Science

It seemed interesting to me that many of our readings thus far have contained some element, whether stated or implied, of the importance of beauty in science. Most obvious was the Hawthorne piece in which science fell short of achieving perfect beauty in the form of Georgina. More so even than in achieving happiness and peace of mind for himself and his wife, it appeared that Aylmer was ultimately concerned with seeing his science triumph by creating unmarred beauty. The Cavendish piece was another example of the concern for beauty exhibited by "scientists" during the 1600's (as well as later centuries). Though in the beginning of the piece she admits she was "not able to give a solid judgment of the art of micrography and the several dioptrical instruments belonging thereto", basically saying she has no idea how microscopes work, she deems herself worthy of dismissing the usefulness of this instrument based pretty much on one criterion. The images revealed by the microscope turn ordinary objects into disfigured caricatures of their unmagnified forms, a progression from beautiful to ugly. Cavendish sees the aim of science as illuminating and beautifying the world around her, and since the microscope accomplishes the opposite it must be defective and without value. The final example I saw of the importance of beauty in science came from the Bacon piece. As the lost voyagers become more acquainted with the ways of the island, they grow more and more impressed. Bensalem is a model country endowed with a fair and just government, a friendly populace, and a deep commitment to religion (Christianity) and morality, and wow, they even tolerate Jews. However the final revelation of Bensalem's greatness is accomplished through the author's conversation with the Father of Salomon's House. The Father explains the amazing wealth of knowledge and technological prowess enjoyed by Bensalem's population of resident scientists, and constantly reiterates that their science is far more advanced than that of other countries. Thus it seems that in Bacon's world the place of greatest beauty (in terms of morality, justice, peace, etc.) is supported by its possession of the most advanced science.

diet coke + mentos = fun stuff

Theroy vs. experiment is a hot topic in the Hacking reading Representing and Intervening. Is one more noble or deserving of reverence more so than the other? Is expiriment based soley on a happenstance observation a violation of the scientific method? If scientists or ordinary people ignored the strange and unexplained events of life and raw observation was completely ignored, all sorts of interesting and useful endevors could easily be overlooked. Take for example, the mixture of Diet Coke and Mentos. For those of you unaware, this is a relatively new finding that the mixture of these two ingredients produces an extremely carbonated reatcion in the form of a foam gyser. The science behind the reaction, is legitamate enough. The air pockets on the surface of mint Mentos candies attracts the CO2 molecules from the Diet Coke and a chemical reaction takes place in which all the CO2 in the Diet Coke makes a rapid ejection from the rest of the liquid. As legitamate as the reaction behind the observation is, the actual experiment is kind of goofy and if legitamte science required a well-thought out theory before experimentation could take place, then accidental finds such as the Diet Coke/Mentos gyser would be left out of the science books...or at least off of TV. The show Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel tested this reaction and the chemists behind the experiment were interviewed on their experience. Click here to read the interview from the Mythbuster's chemist: interview
And click here to see a video of the reaction first hand: video

Cosmetic Surgery

After reading The Birthmark by Nathaniel Hawthorne, I couldn’t help but think how some of the issues within the piece are still pertinent. Like Geogiana, many people today are so self-conscious about their physical appearance that they are willing to go to any lengths the repair what is deemed ugly. Just as Geogiana gave herself over to her scientist husband to remove her “deformity,” many people give themselves over to plastic surgeons to do the same every year. In 2005 11.5 million cosmetic procedures were performed in the United States alone. (click here for more cosmetic surgery statistics) It is obvious that some people are of the same mentality as Georgiana. “Either remove this dreadful hand (her birthmark) or take my wretched life.” It makes me wonder, why are there so many cosmetic procedures being performed? Who or what puts these pressures on individuals to feel that their natural appearance isn’t good enough? Is it internal or external, as in Geogiana’s case where previous to her husband’s “shutter” she was perfectly happy with her appearance? Maybe it is a mixture of the two. These are just some things to think about. If you are interested, here are some of the reasons found by American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS). (reasons for plastic surgery)

Theorists v. Experimenters (Hacking) and thoughts about American Curiosity

In the Hacking article, he discusses the role of class and caste in the "argument" between theory and the experiment. Although he mentioned that certain philosophers "such as Bacon and Leibniz show we don't have to be anti-experimental", it is interesting to note that the more revered scientists during that period of time were those who spent time developing theories (150). The idea of "leisure" that we brought up at the end of Wednesday's class discussion also plays a role in this "theory versus experiment dilemma". Theorists were not required to see their theories come to fruition; they merely spent time coming up with ideas and left them to be tested by experimenters. In his article, Hacking mentions that the theoretical insights of many experimenters were ignored, for example Robert Hooke, because they were of a lower social ranking than theorists. Similarly, many experiments performed by theorists have been ignored because their theories have made considerable strides in science. As we mentioned in class, this argument continues presently as we try to determine whether theory or the experiment is more beneficial to science. I believe that we have narrowed the gap between the social rankings of theorists and experimenters; however, I do think that we still consider theorists to be on a different intellectual level than experimenters because of their ability to decipher and explain abstract thought in a way that will benefit their specific area of scientific study.

On a totally different note, I found the introduction to American Curiosity to be more interesting than the other articles that we have read thus far. As the colonists sought their independence from the British monarch, it was intriguing to learn about how they used science to show that their intelligence matched that of their English counterparts. Although their intelligence may have not been exactly equal, it was clever of the colonial men and women to use "novel or beautiful specimens of American nature" to truly convince the critics in England (17). It was also interesting to learn of Crevecoeur's ideas that "cold, rugged climates produced virtuous hardworking citizens, whereas hot climates necessarily produced the monstrous twins of tyranny and slavery"(20). I believe that it was quite easy for Crevecoeur to come up with this idea after seeing what had taken place historically in colonial America and well as in Africa and helped to further spread the belief in America's "national virtue"(20). Because of Crevecoeur's seemingly stringent belief in the climate's effects on every aspect of life as well as his belief in the superiority of America, I wonder what he would have thought about the emergence of slavery in the American South...

F.Y.I.

Class--FYI: the footnotes to the Bacon piece includes an introduction to _New Atlantis_. It also includes a plot summary, if you need some help guiding your reading.

My Sister's Keeper

I just finished reading Picoult's book titled My Sister's Keeper, which brought attention to and further developed ethical issues that science currently faces. I was fascinated by the book's discussion. Just as a brief summary, the book describes the life of Anna (who is about 13 years old in the book), who has undergone multiple surgeries, transfusions, etc. in order to help her older sister, Kate (about three years older than Anna), live. Kate has been battling leukemia since an early age. The issue is that Anna was conceived by her parents as a bone marrow match for Kate. Anna begins to question this role and sues her parents for medical emancipation. This lawsuit falls at a time where Kate is in dire need of Anna's kidney.

Without giving too much away about the book, I wanted to discuss whether it was ethical for Anna's parents to even conceive a child with the notion that she will help her sister live. Shouldn't a child be conceived out of love and care? Although Anna's parents truly love her, Anna was almost pressured into this role.

I felt throughout the book that Anna was doing the right thing when she was seeking medical emancipation. Although it becomes a very difficult decision, especially when the beneficiary is one's brother or sister, to stop undergoing transfusions, etc., Anna's parents forced her into such a situation, which is not fair. Thus, she should have the right to decide whether to continue with such procedures.

I was just wondering what other people thought on the issue or if anyone has read this book? There are more detailed summaries online if that helps...

Weird Science: The Year in Review

The oddest science stories of 2006 (according to MSNBC online): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16381098/



Photo Credit: Takashi Shinohara, Kyoto University/PNAS.

Dolly for Dinner?

The FDA approves: "Cloned Meat Safe"

Just a few weeks ago, the Food and Drug Administration affirmed that cloned meat is safe to eat. However, a ban will remain in effect until after input on the issue is collected from the public.

I'm curious to know: Why are people afraid of eating cloned meat? To be be honset, the thought of it turns my own stomach, but I'm not quite sure why. After all, as a recent
webmd article notes, "Cloning is not the same as genetic engineering. No new genetic material is added to the animals. Instead, the animals are exact genetic copies of the animal being cloned." Technically, any kind of twins are clones since they share the same genes. Cattle farmers certainly don't keep twin cows out of the food supply.

I wonder if anxieties about consuming cloned meat has something to do with widespread cultural anxieties about cloning, including fears about scientists "playing God" or intervening into the processes of Nature. Cloned meat is imagined to be "tainted" if not only because of recent public controversies surrounding genetic engineering, cloning and other technologies. Perhaps more generally, people are wary of eating things they have imagined (either rightly or wrongly) as being produced in a lab (a Frankenstein situation?). We want to know where our food comes from and what is in it, but the reality is that our food supply is already plenty "unnatural": chicken pumped with estrogen, genetically modified vegatables, fruit sprayed with pesticides--just a few examples of the other kinds of chemical and biological modifications made to our food, all of which are FDA-approved. (Many European countries have been wary about these kinds of techniques. For example, genetically modified organisms, or GMOs for short, are banned for human consumption in the EU).

Any other thoughts on fears about cloned meat?

(Note: Dolly, the sheep, was the name given to the world's first cloned animal, the first animal, that is, cloned artificially through scientific intervention)

Margaret Cavendish: A Bio

Since you have short bios of Sprat and Hooke, here is Wikipedia's entry for our third early modern author for Wednesday's reading: Margaret Cavendish

how, exactly, does one "blog"?

Wikipedia defines a blog
as "a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order." The noun (n.) blog comes from 'Web log." For more on the history of blogs, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog

(Note: Wikipedia is itself a user-generated site--an online encyclopedia that has been composed, and is continually revised, by a community of users)

Looking for blogging models for your own responses throughout the semester?
Try out:
The Science American Blog
(by the editors of *Scientific American*)
-and-
The Valve: A Literary Organ
(a blog of literary and cultural criticism; analyses of texts, novels, criticism, film, etc...)