Skip to main content

Facing the Pariah of Science: The Frankenstein Myth as a Social and Ethical Reference for Scientists

Science and Engineering Ethics volume 26, pages 737–759 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Since its first publication in 1818, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus has transcended genres and cultures to become a foundational myth about science and technology across a multitude of media forms and adaptations. Following in the footsteps of the brilliant yet troubled Victor Frankenstein, professionals and practitioners have been debating the scientific ethics of creating life for decades, never before have powerful tools for doing so been so widely available. This paper investigates how engaging with the Frankenstein myth may help scientists gain a more accurate understanding of their own beliefs and opinions about the social and ethical aspects of their profession and their work. The paper presents findings from phenomenological interviews with twelve scientists working on biotechnology, robotics, or artificial intelligence projects. The results suggest that the Frankenstein myth, and the figure of Victor Frankenstein in particular, establishes norms for scientists about what is considered unethical and dangerous in scientific work. The Frankenstein myth both serves as a social and ethical reference for scientists and a mediator between scientists and the society. Grappling with the cultural ubiquity of the Frankenstein myth prepares scientists to face their ethical dilemmas and create a more transparent research agenda. Meanwhile, by focusing on the differences between real scientists and the imaginary figure of Victor Frankenstein, scientists may avoid being labeled as dangerous individuals, and could better conceptualize the potential societal and ethical perceptions and implications of their research.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Notes

  1. The authors would like to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for bringing this important argument to their attention.

References

  • Allen, G. S. (2009). Master mechanics & wicked wizards: Images of the American scientist as hero and villain from colonial times to present. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthes, E. (2013). Frankenstein’s cat: Cuddling up to Biotech’s brave new beasts. New York, NY: Scientific American.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanassoulis, N. (2017). A positive role for failure in virtue education. Journal of Moral Education,46(4), 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. London: Paladin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, S. J. (2014). Socially responsible science is more than “Good Science”. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education,15(2), 169–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, M., Park, D. J., Kuo, A., & Clark, F. (2014). Occupation in relation to the self. Journal of Occupational Science,21(2), 117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, J. (2007). Science and literature: Towards a conceptual framework. Science and Education,16(2), 115–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., Lawrence, J. W., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Self-discrepancies and affect: Incorporating the role of feared selves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25(7), 783–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S., & Markus, H. R. (1991). Possible selves across the life span. Human Development,34(4), 230–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. PNAS,111(4), 13614–13620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. A. (1996). Anger, madness, and the daimonic: The psychological genesis of violence, evil, and creativity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science,26(6), 538–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P., & Bell, G. (2014). “Resistance is futile”: Reading science fiction alongside ubiquitous computing. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(4), 769–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eatough, V., & Smith, J. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 179–194). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Esvelt, K. M. (2017). What Victor Frankenstein got wrong. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/01/how_frankenstein_helps_a_scientist_think_about_his_research.html.

  • Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review,77(2), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, S. (2014). Elon Musk: Artificial intelligence is our biggest existential threat. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/27/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-ai-biggest-existential-threat.

  • Gibson, D. E. (2003). Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages. Organization Science,14(5), 463–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,3, 42–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrini, A. (2008). Animal experiments and antivivisection debates in the 1820s. In C. Knellwolf & J. Goodall (Eds.), Frankenstein’s science experimentation and discovery in romantic culture, 1780–1830 (pp. 71–86). London: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question: Critical perspectives on AI, robots, and ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, M. K., Guston, D. H., Sadowski, J., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2016). Stitching together creativity and responsibility: Interpreting Frankenstein across disciplines. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society,36(1), 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, H. (2015). Virtue ethics, positive psychology, and a new model of science and engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics,21(2), 441–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, H., & Jeong, C. (2014). Improving epistemological beliefs and moral judgment through an STS-based science ethics education program. Science and Engineering Ethics,20(1), 197–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, H., Kim, J., Jeong, C., & Cohen, G. L. (2017). Attainable and relevant moral exemplars are more effective than extraordinary exemplars in promoting voluntary service engagement. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in Western literature. Public Understanding of Science,12(3), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hielscher, S., Pies, I., Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2016). Rationalizing the GMO debate: The ordonomic approach to addressing agricultural myths. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,13(5), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, D. (2008). Frankenstein: Character studies. New York, NY: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindle, M. (1990). Vital matters: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and romantic science. Critical Survey,2(1), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxford, J. (2000). Framing the future: Science fiction frames and the press coverage of cloning. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies,14(2), 187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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,40(2), 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955). The structural study of myth. The Journal of American Folklore,68(270), 428–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(1), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist,41(9), 954–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory and Cognition,34(5), 1140–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language,49(4), 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature,435(7043), 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, L. (2007). AI armageddon and the three laws of robotics. Ethics and Information Technology,9(2), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics,96(1), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, A. K. (2001). Frankenstein, racial science, and the yellow peril. Nineteenth-Century Contexts,23(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A., Cserer, A., & Schmidt, M. (2013). Frankenstein 2.0.: Identifying and characterizing synthetic biology engineers in science fiction films. Life Sciences, Society and Policy,9(9), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milburn, C. (2010). Modifiable futures science fiction at the bench. Isis,101(3), 560–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, T. (2016). Frankenstein and ecocriticism. In A. Smith (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Frankenstein (pp. 143–157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mousley, A. (2016). The Posthuman. In A. Smith (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Frankenstein (pp. 158–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M. (1996). Frankenstein and the Debate Over Embryo Research. Science, Technology and Human Values,21(2), 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2018). The enduring influence of a dangerous narrative: How scientists can mitigate the Frankenstein myth. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry,15(2), 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C. (2010). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In L. Kahlor & P. A. Stout (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 40–67). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordmann, A. (2017). Undisturbed by reality: Victor Frankenstein’s Technoscientific dream of reason. In D. Guston, E. Finn, & M. Drago (Eds.), Frankenstein: Annotated for scientists, engineers, and creators of all kinds (pp. 223–230). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie, D. M. (1987). The undesired self: A neglected variable in personality research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52(2), 379–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osbeck, L. M., Nersessian, N. J., Malone, K., & Newstetter, W. (2011). Science as psychology: Sense-making and identity in science practice. New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., Destin, M., & Novin, S. (2015). The context-sensitive future self: Possible selves motivate in context, not otherwise. Self and Identity,14(2), 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. R. (1990). Possible selves and Delinquency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59(1), 112–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pepperell, R. (1995). The posthuman condition: Consciousness beyond the body. Bristol: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pittinsky, T. L. (2015). America’s crisis of faith in science. Science,348(6234), 511–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotblat, J. (1999). A hippocratic oath for scientists. Science,286(5444), 1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutjens, B. T., & Heine, S. J. (2016). The immoral landscape? Scientists are associated with violations of morality. PLoS ONE,11(4), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutjens, B. T., Heine, S. J., Sutton, R. M., & van Harreveld, F. (2018). Attitudes towards science. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,57, 125–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimel, J., Greenberg, J., & Martens, A. (2003). Evidence that projection of a feared tran can serve a defensive function. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(8), 969–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schofield, T. M. (2013). On my way to being a scientist. Nature,497(7448), 277–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, H. P. (2001). Victor and victim. Nature,412(6850), 861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. The Journal of Positive Psychology,1(2), 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2016). Scientific contexts. In A. Smith (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Frankenstein (pp. 69–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, Y. (2005). The psychoanalysis of science: The role of metaphor, Paraprax, lacunae and myth. Portland, OR: Sussex Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart, S. (2014). Frankenzebra: Dangerous knowledge and the narrative construction of monsters. Journal of Literary Studies,30(4), 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture. London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vacquin, M. (2002). The monstrous as the paradigm of modernity? Or Frankenstein, myth of the birth of the contemporary. Diogenes,49(195), 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dellen, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (2008). Possible selves as behavioral standards in self-regulation. Self and Identity,7(3), 295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Belt, H. (2009). Playing god in Frankenstein’s footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. NanoEthics,3(3), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vignoles, L. V., Manzi, C., Regalia, C., Jemmolo, S., & Scabini, E. (2008). Identity motives underlying desired and feared possible future selves. Journal of Personality,76(5), 1165–1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, I. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of the Frankenstein Bicentennial Project at Arizona State University. We would like to thank Ira Bennett and Michael Burnam-Fink and the anonymous reviewers for their guidance and thoughtful comments regarding our work.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1516684.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Science and the Imagination, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Peter Nagy & Joey Eschrich

  2. Center for Science and the Imagination, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Ruth Wylie

  3. Arts, Media and Engineering/English, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Ed Finn

Authors
  1. Peter Nagy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth Wylie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joey Eschrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ed Finn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Nagy.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 1.

Table 1 Interviewees’ pseudonyms, general research interest and scientific focus
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 2.

Table 2 Main interview questions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J. et al. Facing the Pariah of Science: The Frankenstein Myth as a Social and Ethical Reference for Scientists. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 737–759 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00121-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00121-3

Keywords

  • Responsibility
  • Science ethics
  • Scientist identity
  • Frankenstein myth
  • Science communication