Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1139–1157 | Cite as

Victor Frankenstein’s Institutional Review Board Proposal, 1790

Original Paper

Abstract

To show how the case of Mary Shelley’s Victor Frankenstein brings light to the ethical and moral issues raised in Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols, we nest an imaginary IRB proposal dated August 1790 by Victor Frankenstein within a discussion of the importance and function of the IRB. Considering the world of science as would have appeared in 1790 when Victor was a student at Ingolstadt, we offer a schematic overview of a fecund moment when advances in comparative anatomy, medical experimentation and theories of life involving animalcules and animal electricity sparked intensive debates about the basic principles of life and the relationship between body and soul. Constructing an IRB application based upon myriad speculations circulating up to 1790, we imagine how Victor would have drawn upon his contemporaries’ scientific work to justify the feasibility of his project, as well as how he might have outlined the ethical implications of his plan to animate life from “dead” tissues. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor failed to consider his creature’s autonomy, vulnerability, and welfare. In this IRB proposal, we show Victor facing those issues of justice and emphasize how the novel can be an important component in courses or workshops on research ethics. Had Victor Frankenstein had to submit an IRB proposal tragedy may have been averted, for he would have been compelled to consider the consequences of his experiment and acknowledge, if not fulfill, his concomitant responsibilities to the creature that he abandoned and left to fend for itself.

Keywords

Research ethics History of science Human subject protections IRB Human ambition Mary shelley Frankenstein Belmont report 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank John Gluck, Vanessa Tan, Peggy Gannon, Katie Trujillo, C. Brooke Cholka and the anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

References

  1. Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belmont Report. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects in research. Washington, DC. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html.
  3. Bledsoe, C. H., Sherin, B., Galinsky, A. G., Headley, N. M., Heimer, C. A., Kjeldgaard, E., et al. (2007). Regulating creativity: Research and survival in the IRB iron cage. Northwestern University Law Review, 101(2), 593–641.Google Scholar
  4. Blumenbach, J. F. (1787; rpt. 1817) Elements of physiology. Trans. John Elliotson. 2nd ed. Philadelphia. [Original work published as Institutiones Physiologicae 1787].Google Scholar
  5. Caplan, A. L. (Ed.). (1992). When medicine went mad: Bioethics and the holocaust. Totowa: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chaplin, S. (2008). Nature dissected, or dissection naturalized? The case of John Hunter’s museum. Museum and Society, 6(2), 135–151.Google Scholar
  7. Davies, H. (2004). Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Medical Humanities, 30(1), 32–35.Google Scholar
  8. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2009). Protection of human subjects. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 CFR46.Google Scholar
  9. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2011). Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Federal Register, 76(143), 44512–44530.Google Scholar
  10. Emanuel, E. J. (2011). Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. The New England Journal of Medicine, 365(12), 1145–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelstein, S. (2008). Anxious anatomy: The conception of the human form in literary and naturalist discourse. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fost, N., & Levine, R. J. (2007). The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA, 298(18), 2196–2198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigante, D. (2009). Life: Organic form and romanticism. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grady, C. (2010). Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA, 304(10), 1122–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hankins, T. L. (1985). Science and enlightenment. Cambridge history of science series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hunter, J. (1786–87). Lectures on the principles of surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Haswell, Barrington & Haswell, 1839. [Originally delivered in 1786–87 for the Royal College of Surgeons.].Google Scholar
  17. Joshua, E. (2001). Marking the dates with accuracy: The time problem in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein’. Gothic Studies, 3(3), 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lo, B., & Barnes, M. (2011). Protecting research participants while reducing regulatory burdens. JAMA, 306(20), 2260–2261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mitchell, P. D., Boston, C., Chamberlain, A. T., Chaplin, S., Chauhan, V., Jonathan, E., et al. (2011). The study of anatomy in England from 1700 to the early 20th century. Journal of Anatomy, 219(2), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pappworth, H. M. (1967). Human guinea pigs: Experimentation in man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  21. Reverby, S. M. (Ed.). (2000). Tuskegee’s truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee syphilis study. Studies in social medicine. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  22. Reverby, Susan M. (Ed.). (2009). Examining Tuskegee: The infamous syphilis study and its legacy. The John Hope Franklin Series in African American history and culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  23. Roe, S. A. (1983). John Turberville Needham and the generation of living organisms. Isis, 74(2), 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saunders, J., & Wainright, P. (2003). Risk, Helsinki 2000 and the use of placebo in medical research. Clinical Medicine, 3(5), 435–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schwartz, M. A. (2008). The importance of stupidity in scientific research. Journal of Cell Science, 121, 1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shelley, M. (1831; rpt. 1985). Frankenstein. Maurice Hindle (Ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Sieber, J. E., & Tolich, M. B. (2013). Planning ethically responsible research (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Silberman, G., & Kahn, K. L. (2011). Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: The state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. The Milbank Quarterly, 89(4), 599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spallanzani, L. (1776). Observations and experiments upon some singular animals which may be killed and revived. Tracts on the nature of animals and vegetables. By Lazzaro Spallanzani. (Dalyell, J.G., Trans). 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1803. Vol. 2, 251-324. (Originally published as Opuscoli di fisica animale e vegetabile, 1776).Google Scholar
  30. Ude-Koeller, S., Knauer, W., & Viebahn, C. (2012). Anatomical practice at Göttingen University since the age of enlightenment and the fate of victims from Wolfenbüttel prison under Nazi rule. Annals of AnatomyAnatomishcer Anzeiger, 194(3), 304–313.Google Scholar
  31. Vila, A. C. (1998). Enlightenment and pathology: Sensibility in the literature and medicine of eighteenth-century France. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  32. von Haller, A. (1755). Dissertation on the sensible and irritable parts of animals. (Tissot, M. Trans.) London: J. Nourse. (Original work published as De partibus corporis humani sensibilibus et Irritabilibus, 1753).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of English, MSC03 2170University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Studies, Department of Philosophy and Department of Biology, MSC03 2180University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations