Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Dialogs Between Fiction and Science Teaching

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we present reflections on the possible dialogs between literary creation and science teaching. Our considerations will be directed to the work of Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the role of science and science education over the text that gave rise to the genre “science fiction.” This work aims at presenting the possibilities of using Shelley’s work in order to explore historical, methodological, conceptual, social, and political implications that may be useful for motivating reflection in teaching science in the classroom in times of “post-truth.” In order to do this, we base our notes on the conceptions of Science, Technology, and Society (STS); in rationality and reasonability; in aspects of bioethics; and on the man–machine implications according to the scientific community in the educational field. In addition to the pedagogical mediation of concepts by the teacher, we seek to look at different strategies as alternatives for pedagogical action in science teaching, through dialog.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not applicable

Code Availability

Not applicable

Notes

  1. For Habermas (1984) “communicative action” opens possibilities for the rationalization of the individual’s worldviews, as it considers the contexts of the world of life (elements of culture, society, and personality).

  2. According to Official U.S government information about the GPS, 24 GPS satellites are available to the world population 95% of the time, with a total of 31 active GPS satellites and 1 inactive GPS satellite. (https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/), data from 07/24/2021 (National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing, 2021).

  3. That understood in the sense of mediating discussions, questioning, debates, and problematizations around the search for the meanings of the descriptions of doing science, i.e., in the comprehension of knowledge. This is not about presenting a chronological order to scientific theories but understanding them as world transformations.

References

  • Aredes, A. F, et al. (2010). Knowledge of patients to undergo the implantation of a definitive cardiac pacemaker about the main home care. Latin American Journal of Pacemaker and Arrhythmia, 23 (1), 28–35. https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/lil-560315. Accessed 18 Dec 2020.

  • Azambuja, M. A., & Guareschi, N. M. F. (2016). The emergence of the brain as a device for risk and life management. In: MARASCHIN, Cleci; TIRADO SERRANO, Francisco Javier (orgs). Biosafety and biopolitics in the 21st century. Porto Alegre: ABRAPSO, p. 29–57.

  • Bacon, F. (1963). Advancement of learning. In: SPEDDING, J.; LESLIE, R. & HEATH, D. D. (Ed.). The works of Francis Bacon London: Longman/Stuttgart/Bad-Cannstatt/Frommann/ Holzboog, [1857-1874]. v. 3, p. 253-491. (ADV).

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (p. 208). University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vicent, B., & Stengers, I. (1996). History of chemistry (p. 404). Piaget Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, V., & Noronha, A. F. (2013). Stimulation of neocolagenesis through radiofrequency. Electronic Journal Health and Science, 3(2), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogar, Y. (2019). Synthesis study on argumentation in science education. International Education Studies, 12(9), 1–14. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1226632.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2021.

  • Brante, T. (1993). Reasons for studying scientific and science-based controversies. In T. Brante, S. Fuller, & W. Lynch (Eds.), Controversial science: From content to contention. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevallard, Y. (1991). The transposition didactique: Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné (p. 126). La Pensee Sauvage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clericuzio, A. (2000). Elements, principles and corpuscles a study of atomism and chemistry in the seventeenth century Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Descartes, R. (2004). Meditations on first philosophy. Multilingual Philosophy Collection. Trad. Fausto Castilho. Unicamp. 232 p.

  • Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. A study of relation of Knowledge and action. Gifford Lecture. 316 p.

  • Duhem, P. (2008). Believer Physics. Trad. Artur Morão. LusoSofia. Covilhã.

  • Fernandes, L. M. (2014). La Mettrie’s man-machine. Alamedas Magazine, 2(1), 76–86. http://e-revista.unioeste.br/index.php/alamedas/article/view/10463. Accessed 9 Dec 2020.

  • Figueiredo, R. P. (2009). Frankenstein, the promised modern science, literature and education. 137 f. Thesis (Doctorate in Education) - Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, 2009. http://repositorio.ufrn.br:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/14213. Accessed 9 Dec 2020.

  • Filgueiras, C. A. L. (2015). Origins of chemistry in Brazil, Campinas, Ed. Unicamp, 504 p.

  • Florescu, R. (1998). In search of Frankenstein: Mary Shelley’s monster and its myths. Translation by Luiz Carlos Lisboa. Mercuryo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, F., & Doudna, J. A. (2017). CRISPR–Cas9 structures and mechanisms. Annual Review of Biophysics, 46, 505–529. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-biophys-062215-010822 Accessed 10 June 2021.

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society, translated by Thomas McCarthy (p. 469). Beacon press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2020). Going beyond STS education: Building a curriculum for sociopolitical activism. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20(4), 592–622. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42330-020-00114-6. Accessed 15 July 2021.

  • Jardim, W. T., Guerra, A., & Schiffer, H. (2021). History of science in physics teaching. Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00191-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junqueira, C. R. (2007). Consent in assistance relations. In: RAMOS, DLP Bioethics and professional ethics. Guanabara-Koogan.

  • Koyré, A. (1992). Descartes considerations (4th ed.). Editora Presença.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1978). The structure of scientific revolutions. 2. ed. Perspectiva. 257 p.

  • La Mettrie, J. O. (1982). The machine man. Translation by Antônio Carvalho. Introduction and notes by Fernando Guerreiro. Editorial Estampa. 200 p.

  • Ladrière, J. (1996). Ethics and scientific thinking: Philosophical approach to the issue of Bioethics. Trad. Hilton Japiassu. Letras & Letras.

  • Ladrière, J. (2013). The rational and the reasonable. In: MORIN, E. The reconnection of knowledge. Bertrand Brasil. 500–520 p.

  • Latour, B. (1994). We were never modern. Rio de Janeiro, Ed. 34. MARTINS, RA 152 p.

  • Lima, N. W., et al. (2019). Science education in post-truth times: Metaphysical reflections from Bruno Latour’s science studies. Brazilian Journal of Research in Science Education, 19, 155–189. https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/rbpec/article/view/4933. Accessed 13 Jan 2021.

  • Martins, R. (1999). Alessandro Volta and the invention of the battery: Difficulties in establishing the identity between galvanism and electricity. Acta Scientiarum, 21, 4, 823–835. http://www.ghtc.usp.br/server/pdf/ram-73. Accessed 14 Jan 2021.

  • Mcintyre, L. (2018). Post- truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press PABLO Ortellado: Brazil was at the forefront of fake news. Veja, São Paulo, May 11, 2018. https://veja.abril.com.br/videos/em-pauta/pablo-ortellado-brasil-esteve-na-vanguarda-das-fake-news/. Accessed 20 Jan 2021.

  • Miller, S. L. (1953). A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. 1953, Science, Vol. 117, p. 528. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/117/3046/528

  • Morin, E. (2005). Introduction to complex thinking (p. 120). Sulina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naquet, R. (2013) Ética e Ciência da vida. In: MORIN, Edgar. A religação dos saberes: o desafio do século XXI. Bertrand do Brasil, p. 185–194.

  • National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing. (2021). GPS.GOV. Official U.S government information about the GPS. https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/. Accessed 19 June 2021.

  • Neves, M. C. D. (2002). Lessons from the darkness or revisiting old ghosts of doing and teaching Science. Letras Market.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, M., & Brady, D. J. (2000). Joy and the paradox of control. International Journal of Education & the Arts. 1, (1). March, 15. http://www.ijea.org/v1n1/index.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2020.

  • Parent, A. (2004). Giovanni Aldini: From animal electricity to human brain stimulation. Historical Neuroscience, 31(4), 576–584. http://www.biusante.parisdescartes.fr/chn/docpdf/parent_aldini.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2020.

  • Pessini, L. (2013). The origins of bioethics: From Potter’s bioethical creed to Fritz Jahr’s bioethical imperative. Revista Bioética, 21(1), 9–19. https://www.scielo.br/pdf/bioet/v21n1/a02v21n1. Accessed 15 Dec 2020.

  • Petrone, C. M. (2018). Volcanic eruptions: From ionosphere to the plumbing system. Geology, 46, 927–928. https://doi.org/10.1130/focus102018.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyle, D. M. (2017). Volcanoes. Encounters through the ages: Bodleian Library, University of Oxford. 223 p.

  • Rama, J. L. (2012). Man-machine: Mistrust in a post-human body. Valise Magazine, Porto Alegre, Vol. 2, n. 3, year 2, July, p. 63–74. https://seer.ufrgs.br/RevistaValise/article/view/26095/18972. Accessed 23 Jan 2021.

  • Redman, M., King, A., Watson, C., & King, D. (2016). What is CRISPR/Cas9? Archives of Disease in Childhood: Education and Practice Edition, 101, 213–215. https://ep.bmj.com/content/edpract/101/4/213.full.pdf.

  • Resnick, L. B., & Schantz, F. (2015). Talking to learn: The promise and challenge of dialogic teaching. In: Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (441–450). American Educational Research Association, 480 p.

  • Robock, A. (2000). Volcanic eruptions and climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 38, 191–219. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998RG000054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salgado-Neto, G. (2009). Erasmus Darwin and the tree of life. Brazilian Journal of History of Science, Rio de Janeiro, v.2, n.1, p. 96–103. Jan -Jun. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262725579. Accessed 30 Jan 2021.

  • Santos, C. A. (2014). Bioelectricity and cell dynamics. Science Today Magazine. http://cienciahoje.org.br/coluna/bioeletricidade-e-dinamica-celular. Accessed 30 Jan 2021.

  • Sharon, A. J., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2020). Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life? Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelley, M. (2017). Frankenstein or the modern Prometheus. Trad. Márcia Xavier de Brito, Carlos Primati. Rio de Janeiro, Ed DarkSide Books, 205 p.

  • Toulmin, S. (1976). Knowing and acting: An invitation to philosophy (p. 330). Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Túlio, J. R., & Taques, A. K. (2005). HeartSine: Instruction manual for automatic external defibrillator. heartSine Technologies LTd, 30 p.

  • Vasbinder, S. H. (1984). Scientific attitudes in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Umi Research Pr, 146 p.

  • Wood, G. D. (2014). Tambora: The eruption that changed the world. Princeton University Press, 293 p.

  • Zaterka, L. (2004). Experimental philosophy in 17th century England: Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle. FAPESP / Humanista, 686 p.

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs42330-020-00114-6. Accessed 21 June 2021.

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal Technological University of Paraná (PPGECT - Brazil), Doutor Washington Subtil Chueire, 330 - Jardim Carvalho, Ponta Grossa - Paraná. CEP: 84017-220 - Brazil., Ponta Grossa, Brazil

    Ingrid Aline de Carvalho Ferrasa, Elaine Ferreira Machado, Awdry Feisser Miquelin, Bruna Elise Sauer Leal, Micheli Kuchla & Luciane Kawa Reis Oliveira

  2. State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Brazil

    Ingrid Aline de Carvalho Ferrasa

  3. SEED-PR, Ponta Grossa, Brazil

    Ingrid Aline de Carvalho Ferrasa, Elaine Ferreira Machado, Micheli Kuchla & Luciane Kawa Reis Oliveira

  4. Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil

    Awdry Feisser Miquelin

  5. Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil

    Awdry Feisser Miquelin, Ronei Clécio Mocellin & Adriane Marie Salm Coelho

  6. University of Paris X, Nanterre, France

    Ronei Clécio Mocellin

  7. UFPR – Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

    Ronei Clécio Mocellin

  8. State University of the Midwest, Guarapuava, Brazil

    Micheli Kuchla

  9. Federal Technological University of Paraná (DAENS), Ponta Grossa, Brazil

    Adriane Marie Salm Coelho

Authors
  1. Ingrid Aline de Carvalho Ferrasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elaine Ferreira Machado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Awdry Feisser Miquelin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronei Clécio Mocellin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bruna Elise Sauer Leal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Micheli Kuchla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Luciane Kawa Reis Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Adriane Marie Salm Coelho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Ingrid Aline de Carvalho Ferrasa, Elaine Ferreira Machado, Awdry Feisser Miquelin, Ronei Clécio Mocellin, Bruna Elise Sauer Leal, Micheli Kuchla, Luciane Kawa Reis Oliveira, and Adriane Marie Salm Coelho. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Ingrid Aline de Carvalho Ferrasa and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingrid Aline de Carvalho Ferrasa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Carvalho Ferrasa, I.A., Machado, E.F., Miquelin, A.F. et al. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Sci & Educ 32, 399–420 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00309-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00309-9

Search

Navigation