Censorship In Frankenstein

Another adverse effect this novel could produce is the incitement of censorship. The theme that knowledge is dangerous in the wrong hands could lead one to think that knowledge should be contained, as not to let it slip into the wrong hands. There are a multitude of problems with this idea, the most flagrant being that anyone who would want to keep knowledge from others is probably a bad person to give knowledge (or power, as knowledge is power) to in the first place. The logical continuation of this idea after the containment of knowledge is refuted would be to limit research. This too is problematic, as research may be unethical and sometimes produce negative effects, the positive effects of research far outweigh them. Imagine if this

In an increasingly scientific and technological world, ethics and responsibility continue to dominate scientific discussion. These themes are especially noteworthy in the field of biotechnology. Biotechnology is not inherently controversial, as humanity has been doing it for “generations.” These efforts yielded better and healthier crops for human consumption along with preferred breeds of horses, sheep and other animals.” (Facts on File) Selective breeding in animals and agriculture are both benign and accepted practices, but still fall under the umbrella of biotechnology. Therefore, it is important before making an ethical analysis to differentiate between benign and intrusive biotechnology. That divide is where genetic engineering comes in. Genetic engineering, the “scary” type of biotechnology, is the practice of altering an organism’s DNA to give it the preferred genes. This practice has led to much good, such as making crops bug resistant, dispelling the need for harmful pesticides, or curing immune diseases, but there is also potential for harm. One area where this is especially relevant is agriculture. Agriculture has less shock value than genetically engineered animals or humans, but is more applicable to the average person. In 2012, 60 to 90 percent of all agriculture was genetically engineered, meaning that the majority of the population eats something that has

Supporters argue that it gives parents with low chances at parenthood or complications a shot at the joy of having a family. Who would take that away from them? One may also speculate that banning this practice because picking a child’s genes for purely aesthetic purposes is heartless is hypocritical, as it would be enforcing a child to look a certain way (granted, how the child would naturally look), which is precisely what detractors are fighting against. In the end, one’s opinion on this measure comes down to worldview, and how much power one wants over others. However, as Shelley was quite a purist when it came to the manipulation of nature (as she did write a 200 page novel about it), one can infer that she would be against