In popular culture, the novel Frankenstein opened a way for science fiction writing. Since cloning has become one of the most promising fields in biotechnology, matters such as the creation of an artificial life through genetic engineering have now been found to be involved in several popular movies. The 48 films analyzed showed how scientists had applied technologies used in those movies. The analysis has indicated a trend of an increasing relationship between science and the film industry (Meyer et al. 9).
In terms of science, Frankenstein revolves around genetic engineering, which has recently been embraced throughout the world. The fiction story described the horror consequences of a scientific experiment that led to tragedy (Davies 33).
There are certain ethical standards of research that have been established when it comes to a study that involves human subjects. As such, this book has provided insights that were valid when Frankenstein was written, yet these insights are still relevant so far (Davies 35). Even though the main theme in Frankenstein is the evil and loss that resulted from a scientific experiment, a critical reading proves that science has a potential to improve human conditions.
Frankenstein, however, has influenced ordinary people to believe that science is a dangerous field through the many movies, although it is a way that helps people understand the environment they live in (Van der Laan 299).
Frankenstein, therefore, focuses majorly on the current debate on biotechnology’s new age, as well as the entertainment industry and literature (Van der Laan 301).
Davies, Hugh. “Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Be Read as an Early Research Ethics Text?” Medical Humanities, vol. 30, no. 1, 2004, pp.32-35.
Meyer, Angela, et al. “Frankenstein 2.0.: Identifying and Characterising Synthetic Biology Engineers in Science Fiction Films.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy, vol. 9, no. 1, 2013, p.9.
Van der Laan, James M. “Frankenstein as Science Fiction and Fact.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 30, no. 4, 2010, pp.298-304.