Skip to main content

Victor Frankenstein’s Institutional Review Board Proposal, 1790


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. For a thorough summary of scholarly attempts to date the events of Frankenstein, as well as a solidly argued case for two possible chronologies, see Joshua (2001).


  • Beecher, H. K. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274(24), 1354–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Blumenbach, J. F. (1787; rpt. 1817) Elements of physiology. Trans. John Elliotson. 2nd ed. Philadelphia. [Original work published as Institutiones Physiologicae 1787].

  • Caplan, A. L. (Ed.). (1992). When medicine went mad: Bioethics and the holocaust. Totowa: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin, S. (2008). Nature dissected, or dissection naturalized? The case of John Hunter’s museum. Museum and Society, 6(2), 135–151.

  • Davies, H. (2004). Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Medical Humanities, 30(1), 32–35.

  • Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2009). Protection of human subjects. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 CFR46.

  • 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.

  • Emanuel, E. J. (2011). Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. The New England Journal of Medicine, 365(12), 1145–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fost, N., & Levine, R. J. (2007). The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA, 298(18), 2196–2198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigante, D. (2009). Life: Organic form and romanticism. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grady, C. (2010). Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA, 304(10), 1122–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hankins, T. L. (1985). Science and enlightenment. Cambridge history of science series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.].

  • Joshua, E. (2001). Marking the dates with accuracy: The time problem in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein’. Gothic Studies, 3(3), 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, B., & Barnes, M. (2011). Protecting research participants while reducing regulatory burdens. JAMA, 306(20), 2260–2261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappworth, H. M. (1967). Human guinea pigs: Experimentation in man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Roe, S. A. (1983). John Turberville Needham and the generation of living organisms. Isis, 74(2), 158–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, J., & Wainright, P. (2003). Risk, Helsinki 2000 and the use of placebo in medical research. Clinical Medicine, 3(5), 435–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. A. (2008). The importance of stupidity in scientific research. Journal of Cell Science, 121, 1771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelley, M. (1831; rpt. 1985). Frankenstein. Maurice Hindle (Ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

  • Sieber, J. E., & Tolich, M. B. (2013). Planning ethically responsible research (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • Vila, A. C. (1998). Enlightenment and pathology: Sensibility in the literature and medicine of eighteenth-century France. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

Download references


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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to William L. Gannon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harrison, G., Gannon, W.L. Victor Frankenstein’s Institutional Review Board Proposal, 1790. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 1139–1157 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: