Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
GIVE 3 ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE OF SCIENCE
mary wollstonecraft impact on society
mary wollstonecraft impact on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: GIVE 3 ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE OF SCIENCE
Good Science
Science has helped to improve the lives of people around the world. Today, science has improved human health and medicine to help people live longer, and help people live with diseases people had little hope of living with a few decades ago, such as AIDS. While our scientific advances continue, ethical questions arise about how science should advance, such as stem cell research. Mary Shelley, author of the novel Frankenstein, and Michael Bishop, who wrote the article Enemies of Promise, have different views about how scientific knowledge affects humanity. Mary Shelley was born the daughter of feminist Mary Wollstonecraft and political theorist William Godwin. While on vacation with her husband, she began to write the novel Frankenstein, about a scientist who created life. The scientists name was Victor Frankenstein. In a selection from the novel, Frankenstein says The dissecting room and the slaughter-house furnished many of my materials; and often did my human nature turn with loathing from my occupation, whilst, still urged on by eagerness which perpetually increased, I brought my work near to a conclusion (232).
Frankenstein is disgusted because he must go to a slaughter-house to get parts for his creation. Frankensteins disgust shows how horrible and demoralizing his scientific endeavors are, and he continues his experiment despite the negative affect his experiment has on his health. He realizes the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasure in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind (233). Frankenstein worked so hard to give life to his creation he thought of nothing else, and he was living his whole life to accomplish one goal. He realizes how much time he has been spending on his experiment and the effect his work is having on him, so he believes humans do not have the ability to deal with work in this manner. Therefore, scientific experimentation is not worth the negative effects the experiments have on the human mind. Eventually, Frankenstein accomplishes his goal, but his creation does not turn out like he expected. After giving his creation life, Frankenstein is horrified and leaves his home. Frankenstein concludes Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to be greater than his nature will allow (231).
In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley tests the motives and ethical uncertainties of the science in her time period. This is a consideration that has become more and more pertinent to our time, when we see modern scientists are venturing into what were previously unimaginable territories of science and nature, through the use of things like human cloning and genetic engineering. Through careful assessment, we can see how the novel illustrates both the potential dangers of these scientific advancements and the conflict between that and creationism.
The setting for Mary Shelly's Frankenstein plays a very important role on both the significance and realism of the story. By the end of the 18th century, smallpox and cholera epidemics throughout Europe had claimed millions of lives and brought about a crisis of faith within both the Catholic and Protestant churches. The formerly profane practices of medicinal healing were only beginning to gain acceptance in major universities as hundreds of cities were put under quarantine for their diseases and high mortality rates. Interdisciplinary learning within the scientific community was unheard of. Had Victor Frankenstein been alive during this period, his practices would have been considered blasphemous. Much more so than Edward Jenner's research on smallpox during the same time, which would eventually save millions of lives in 1796. Frankenstein's intentions were good, but even during this modern age of genetic engineering and cloning, the story of his creation remains entirely evil. Contemporary thought has allowed for tremendous growth in genetic engineering in recent years; the evolution of science from the analytical engine to the modern PC has occurred thousands of times faster than the evolution of our own species, from ape to human.
Shelley, Mary. "From Frankenstein." The Example of Science. Ed. Robert E Lynch and Thomas B. Swanzey. New York: Pearson Publishing, 2000. 152-156.
To begin our analysis, I will look to how Mary Shelley positions Victor Frankenstein's motivations to create life against natural laws within the ideas of individualism, as Victor can correlate directly to the educated human at the center of Enlightenment, Industrialism, and Romanticism values. With the burgeoning interest in scientific discovery during the Industrial Revolution "transform[ing] British culture" and "changing the world"(Lipking 2065), many concepts of society were also changed, which Shelley looked to explore through Victor's actions. Rooted in the scientifically curious spirit of Industrial England, Victor's attempt to create life can show many examples of how an importance of the individual acquisition of knowledge and accomplishment can disrupt society. Victor's...
In Shelley's Frankenstein, it's interesting to use the text to ask the question, whose interest's lie at the heart of science? Why is Victor Frankenstein motivated to plunge the questions that bringing life to inanimate matter can bring? Victor Frankenstein's life was destroyed because of an obsession with the power to create life where none had been before. The monster he created could be seen as a representation of all those who are wronged in the selfish name of science. We can use Shelley's book to draw parallels in our modern society, and show that there is a danger in the impersonal relationship that science creates between the scientist and his work. It seems to me that Shelley was saying that when science is done merely on the basis of discovery without thought to the affect that the experimentation can have, we risk endangering everything we hold dear.
Over two centuries ago, Mary Shelley created a gruesome tale of the horrific ramifications that result when man over steps his bounds and manipulates nature. In her classic tale, Frankenstein, Shelley weaves together the terrifying implications of a young scientist playing God and creating life, only to be haunted for the duration of his life by the monster of his own sordid creation. Reading Shelley in the context of present technologically advanced times, her tale of monstrous creation provides a very gruesome caution. For today, it is not merely a human being the sciences are lusting blindly to bring to life, as was the deranged quest of Victor Frankenstein, but rather to generate something potentially even more dangerous and horrifying with implications that could endanger the entire world and human population.
On Monday, November 15th, 1982 the New York Times published an article entitled “Out of Death, a Zest for Life.” The title caught my eye because it seemed to be the only one that didn’t have to do with politics, the economy, or terrorism. The author, Nadine Brozan, wrote this article based on an interview with a woman named Dr. Gisella Perl. Dr. Perl was a Hungarian gynecologist and a survivor of the Holocaust from one of its most famous death camps; Auschwitz.
With the creation of something that is thought as to be magnificent turns in to a dreadful reality, man’s ending effects are a dark and sad path. The author of the Review of Frankenstein gives clarity to his statement of,” We hope, however, the writer had the moral in view which we are desirous of drawing from it, that the presumptive works of man must be frightful, vile, and horrible: ending only in discomfort and misery to himself” giving clear evidence that man’s efforts can turn utterly wrong.
Victor Frankenstein finds himself exploring the world of science against his fathers wishes but he has an impulse to go forward in his education through university. During this time any form of science was little in knowledge especially the chemistry which was Victors area if study. Victor pursues to go farther than the normal human limits of society. “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow” (Chapter 4). He soon finds the answer he was looking for, the answer of life. He becomes obsessed with creating a human being. With his knowledge he believes it should be a perfe...
He wanted to be a scientist and benefit mankind. Shortly after, this passion soon evolved into a very bad obsession. He became very power hungry and longed to become a godly figure as he mentions in the start of the novel, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me”(55). He sacrificed many things, including his health and family for his crazy ambition. Frankenstein ignored any ideas that his science could be impractical and potentially become dangerous to himself and society. He was very bright and succeeded with his plan, but instead of celebrating his success he gasped at the acknowledgement of creating something so hideous, that even he could not love. His extreme desire to play God had spiraled into a very, very dangerous nightmare. Frankenstein did not realize how much responsibility came along with creating a being that would have to be completely dependent on
Robinson, Bruce. “Human Cloning: Comments by political groups, religious authorities, and individuals.” 3 August 2001. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. 1 October 2001 <http://www.religioustolerance.org/clo_reac.htm>.
Recent advances in science have raised the question of morality in the world. How far will scientists go before experiments are deemed immoral? Frankenstein, the novel, raises a question regarding the line between morality and immorality. This novel refers to the difference between scientific advances as an advantage and a disadvantage. The novel Frankenstein reveals the immorality of creating artificial life beyond the laws of nature.
Paper has officially been replaced with iPads. Just kidding, but there are over 1.5 million iPads that are being used in classrooms by students on a daily bases rather than using printed textbooks as main learning resources (Graduating With Technology). With recent advancements in technology, many school districts have turned the focus off traditional learning methods of using textbooks, and are now focusing on integrating the use of tablets and computers as the main means of learning for students. Technology is going to continue to advance throughout this digital age and is going to gain popularity within education, but there are questions arising of how effective technology is when used in the classroom. The opportunity of using new technology to enhance learning should be seized, but textbooks should not become extinct within the education system or become a secondary learning method due to tablets and other types of technology becoming more popular in the education system. Textbooks are reliable, they can be used by anyone, and there are enough textbooks for each student to have their own, and be able to take them home. Also, technology is impacting the way the brain receives information. Reading digital print isn't as productive for readers as printed text, and there is limited access to resources needed for tablets to be effective when used by students. While this is true there are benefits to using tablets and other forms of technology in the classroom. It is easier for teachers to have assignments emailed directly to them, or post assignments on the internet, the use of technology is required in many core classes, and textbooks are easily worn, and expensive.
Tablets can help improve the way students attain their studies. According to Cam Lincoln “Students who used the iPad version of the textbook scored 20 percent higher on standardized test versus students who learned with traditional textbook”(parag.2).This demonstrates that, students who used the iPad version of the textbook learned more effectively than the students who learned with traditional textbooks. The iPad clearly shows that it can help improved test scores. According to National Association for the Education of Young Children “for children with minimal exposure to technology or limited engli...
As more people began to access the Internet through smart phones and tablets rather than laptops and computers, it is not a surprise that they would also want to transform the American education system by bringing tablets into classrooms. In fact, a few schools around the country have already replaced textbooks with tablets and have seen improvements in students’ standardized test scores. Using tablets instead of textbooks is not only convenient and helpful, but it can also reduce the amount of paper wastes in school. However, it is not a good idea to completely transform textbooks with tablets with the current technology, for it can not only be damaging to the environment and costly to set up, but also might not be effective in improving K-12 education in the long run.