Abstract
Two hundred years after it was first published, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus remains relevant. This novel has endured because of its literary merits and because its themes lend themselves to analysis from multiple viewpoints. Scholars from many disciplines have examined this work in relation to controversial scientific research. In this paper, we review the academic literature where Frankenstein is used to discuss ethics, bioethics, science, technology and medicine. We searched the academic literature and carried out a content analysis of articles discussing the novel and films derived from it, analyzing the findings qualitatively and quantitatively. We recorded the following variables: year and language of publication, whether it referred to the novel or to a film, the academic discipline in which it was published, and the topics addressed in the analysis. Our findings indicate that the scientific literature on Frankenstein focuses mainly on science and the personality of the scientist rather than on the creature the scientist created or ethical aspects of his research. The scientist’s responsibility is central to the ethical interest of Frankenstein; this issue entails both the motivation underlying the scientist’s acts and the consequences of these acts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Scheme based on: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;7:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banerjee, S. (2011). Home is where mamma is: Reframing the science question in Frankenstein. Women's Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00497878.2011.527783.
Barns, I. (1990). Monstrous nature or technology?: Cinematic resolutions of the “Frankenstein Problem”. Science as Culture. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439009526278.
Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063.
Bishop, M. (1994). The “making” and re-making of man: 1. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87(12), 749–751.
Brem, S., & Anijar, K. (2003). The bioethics of fiction: The chimera in film and print. American Journal of Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1162/15265160360706787.
Burgess, M. (2014). Transporting Frankenstein: Mary Shelley's mobile figures. European Romantic Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509585.2014.902902.
Campbell, C. (2003). Biotechnology and the fear of Frankenstein. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180103124048.
Chambers, T. (2018). On cute monkeys and repulsive monsters. Hastings Center Report. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.930.
Childress, J. F., & Beauchamp, T. L. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. (2018). How a horror story haunts science. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.359.6372.148.
Davies, H. (2004). Can Mary Shelley's Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Medical Humanities. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2003.000153.
de La Rocque, L., & Texeira, L. A. (2001). Frankenstein, de Mary Shelley, e Drácula, de Bram Stoker: gênero e ciência na Literature. História, Ciências, Saúde—Manguinhos. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702001000200001.
Djerassi, C. (1998). Ethical discourse by science-in-fiction. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/31088.
Doherty, S. (2003). The 'medicine' of Shelley and Frankenstein. Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00483.x.
Fairclough, M. (2018). Frankenstein and the “Spark of Being”: Electricity, animation, and adaptation. European Romantic Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509585.2018.1465701.
Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014). Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113481790.
Fischer, J. (2014). What kind of ethics?—How understanding the field affects the role of empirical research on morality for ethics. In M. Christen, C. van Schaik, J. Fischer, M. Huppenbauer, & C. Tanner (Eds.), Empirically informed ethics: Morality between facts and norms. Library of ethics and applied philosophy (Vol. 32). New York: Springer.
Gaylin, W. (1977). The Frankenstein Factor. The New England Journal of Medicine, 297, 665–667.
Genís Mas, D. (2016). The sleep of (scientific) reason produces (literary) monsters or, how science and literature shake hands. Mètode, 6, 14–20.
Ginn, S. (2013). Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Exploring neuroscience, nature, and nurture in the novel and the films. Progress in Brain Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00009-9.
Goswami, D. (2018). “Filthy creation”: The problem of parenting in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v10n2.20.
Goulding, C. (2002). The real Doctor Frankenstein? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680209500514.
Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B.-M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002.
Greenshields, W. (2018). Frames, vanishing points and blindness: Frankenstein and the field of vision. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities. https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v10n2.18.
Hammond, K. (2004). Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism. Cultural Geographies. https://doi.org/10.1191/14744744004eu301oa.
Harrison, G., & Gannon, W. (2014). Victor Frankenstein's Institutional Review Board Proposal, 1790. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9588-y.
Haste, H. (1997). Myths, monsters, and morality: Understanding 'antiscience' and the media message. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 22(2), 114–120.
Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in western literature. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123003.
Haynes, R. (2014). Whatever happened to the “mad, bad” scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514535689.
Hellsten, I. (2000). Dolly: Scientific breakthrough or Frankenstein's Monster? Journalistic and Scientific Metaphors of Cloning. Metaphor and Symbol. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1504_3.
Holmes, R. (2016). Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/535490a.
Jochemsen, H. (2006). Normative practices as an intermediate between theoretical ethics and morality. Philosophia Reformata. https://doi.org/10.1163/22116117-90000377.
Kakoudaki, D. (2018). Unmaking people: The politics of negation in Frankenstein and Ex Machina. Science Fiction Studies. https://doi.org/10.5621/sciefictstud.45.2.0289.
Koepke, Y. (2018). Lessons from Frankenstein: narrative myth as ethical model. Medical Humanities. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2017-011376.
Koren, P., & Bar, V. (2009). Science and it’s images—Promise and threat: From classic literature to contemporary students’ images of science and “the Scientist”. Interchange. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-009-9088-1.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage.
Lacefield, K. (2016). Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the Guillotine, and Modern Ontological Anxiety. Text Matters. https://doi.org/10.1515/texmat-2016-0003.
Laplace-Sinatra, M. (1998). Science, gender and otherness in Shelley's Frankenstein and Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation. European Romantic Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509589808570051.
Lederman, N. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of research in science teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404.
Mackowiak, P. (2014). President's address: Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the dark side of medical science. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 125, 1–13.
Mccurdy, H. (2006). Vision and leadership: The view from science fiction. Public Integrity, 8(3), 257–270.
Mellor, A. (2001). Frankenstein, racial science, and the yellow peril. Ninet Century Contexts. https://doi.org/10.1080/08905490108583531.
Micheletti, S. (2018). Hybrids of the romantic: Frankenstein, olimpia, and artificial life. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte. https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.201801888.
Miller, G., & McFarlane, A. (2016). Science fiction and the medical humanities. Medical Humanities. https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2016-011144.
Mitra, Z. (2011). A science fiction in a gothic scaffold: A reading of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 3(1), 52–59.
Moreno, J. (2018). From Frankenstein to Hawking: Which is the real face of science? The American Journal of Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1461468.
Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2018a). Why Frankenstein is a stigma among scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9936-9.
Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2018b). The enduring influence of a dangerous narrative: How scientists can mitigate the Frankenstein myth. The Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9846-9.
Nowlin, C. (2018). 200 years after Frankenstein. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2018.0054.
Oakes, E. (2013). Lab life: Vitalism, Promethean Science, and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 16(4), 56–77.
O'Neill, R. (2006). “Frankenstein to futurism”: Representations of organ donation and transplantation in popular culture. Transplantation Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trre.2006.09.002.
Pheasant-Kelly, F. (2018). Reflections of Science and Medicine in Two Frankenstein Adaptations: Frankenstein (Whale 1931) and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (Branagh 1994). Literature and Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1353/lm.2018.0016.
Prinz, J. J. (2014). Where do morals come from?—A plea for a cultural approach. In M. Christen, C. van Schaik, J. Fischer, M. Huppenbauer, & C. Tanner (Eds.), Empirically informed ethics: Morality between facts and norms. Library of ethics and applied philosophy (Vol. 32). New York: Springer.
Pulido Tirado, G. (2012). Vida artificial y literatura: Mito, leyendas y ciencia en el Frankenstein de Mary Shelley. Tonos digital: Revista electrónica de estudios filológicos, 23, 1–17.
Reginato, V., Claramonte Gallian, D. M., & Marra, S. (2018). A Literature na formação de futuros cientistas: Lição de Frankenstein. Educacao e Pesquisa. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-9702201610157176.
Reich, W. T. (1978). Encyclopedia of bioethics. New York: Free Press.
Robert, J. S. (2018). Rereading Frankenstein: What if Victor Frankenstein had actually been evil? Hastings Center Report. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.933.
Sariols Persson, D. (2011). L'enfant monstre, le monstre enfant. Enfances et Psy. https://doi.org/10.3917/ep.051.0025.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage.
Schroll, M., & Greenword, S. (2011). Worldviews in collision/worldviews in metamorphosis: Toward a multistate paradigm. Anthropology of Consciousness. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-3537.2011.01037.x.
Severino, S., & Morrison, N. (2013). Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein, or the modern Prometheus: A psychological study of unrepaired shame. Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling: Advancing Theory and Professional Practice through Scholarly and Reflective Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/154230501306700405.
Stern, M. (2006). Dystopian anxieties versus utopian ideals: Medicine from Frankenstein to the visible human project and body worlds. Science as Culture. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430500529748.
Syrdal, D. S., Nomura, T., Hirai, H., & Dautenhahn, K. (2011). Examining the Frankenstein Syndrome. In B. Mutlu, C. Bartneck, J. Ham, V. Evers, & T. Kanda (Eds.), Social robotics. ICSR 2011. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7072). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25504-5_13.
Szollosy, M. (2017). Freud, Frankenstein and our fear of robots: Projection in our cultural perception of technology. AI and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0654-7.
Trichet, Y., & Marion, E. (2014). Le corps, son image et le désir du scientifique dans la fiction cinématographique. Cliniques Mediterraneennes. https://doi.org/10.3917/cm.090.0255.
Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics, and popular culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
van den Belt, H. (2009). Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. Nanoethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0079-6.
van den Belt, H. (2018). Frankenstein lives on. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9167.
Villacañas, B. (2001). De doctores y monstruos: la ciencia como transgresión en Dr. Faustus, Frankestein y Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Asclepio, 5, 10. https://doi.org/10.3989/asclepio.2001.v53.i1.177.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Westra, L. (1992). Response: Dr. Frankenstein and today's professional biotechnologist: a failed analogy? Between Species, 8(4), 216–223.
Williams, C. (2001). “Inhumanly brought back to life and misery”: Mary Wollstonecraft, Frankenstein, and the Royal Humane Society. Women’s Writing. https://doi.org/10.1080/09699080100200190.
Funding
The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cambra-Badii, I., Guardiola, E. & Baños, JE. The Ethical Interest of Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus: A Literature Review 200 Years After Its Publication. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 2791–2808 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00229-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00229-x