Frankenstein at 200. Where did he go wrong?
Obscuring the transparency of scientific knowledge inevitably backfires on the innocent. Ask Victor Frankenstein’s fiancée.
I’m surprised there’s been little public notice this year about the 200th anniversary of the publication of Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus (the little-known original subtitle of the classic).
After all, it’s considered the progenitor of two of the world’s most popular literary genres — science fiction and horror— and the source material for some of our most famous movies.
For most of the past two centuries, a wide range of readers have cited the book as a classic example of scientific hubris — of messing with the natural order bequeathed by God or the gods. The subtitle’s reference to Prometheus, who the Greek gods punished for giving humans the gift of fire, fuels that interpretation.
More recently, variations on the title have been used as a pejorative to describe controversial aspects of modern science, from genetic engineering (“Frankenfoods”) to the dangers of lethal superbugs (“Frankenbacteria”) resulting from the overuse of antibiotics.
But to these modern eyes, Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s greatest error wasn’t experimentation run amok. It was his secrecy.
Unlike pioneering scientists such as Alexander Fleming (penicillin), Jonas Salk (polio vaccine) and James Watson (DNA structure), Frankenstein kept his experiments secret. So when things went haywire and his “creature” murdered the doctor’s brother, best friend and fiancée, there was no one to help him, no one with insights into how to capture the creature, no one to learn from his mistakes.
When the doctor destroyed his research documents, then wandered into the Arctic on a suicide mission to stop his creation from doing more harm, his knowledge died with him.
That type of secrecy has disturbing parallels today as political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department and Energy Department try to muzzle scientific studies that support strong anti-pollution proposals.
Political appointees at the EPA and Interior Departments are ignoring their own departments’ scientific findings, censoring web sites, denying scientists the funding they need to attend conferences and firing distinguished scholars from advisory boards — all, they say in Orwellian fashion, “for the good of science.”
The EPA leadership — egged on by Congressional leaders — has even gone so far as to say that scientists shouldn’t be allowed to use human studies if there isn’t full public information on the participants. Of course, EPA leaders know full well that many people won’t participate in studies if they can’t stay anonymous.
And if that means disqualifying research like the oft-verified Harvard “Six Cities” study (the fundamental study detailing the effects of air pollution on humans), “Oh, well.” That way, bureaucrats can write with a straight face that they can’t accurately estimate the benefits of reducing soot below a certain level, as they did in their recent defense of the eviscerated version of the Clean Power Plan regulations.
Somehow, the EPA can figure out all of the monetary downsides, but not all of the upsides for the health of humans, flora and fauna. “So, what do you know, it looks like the costs outweigh the benefits. Case closed!”
It may be naive to ask the current administration to prioritize openness, facts, cooperation and balance at EPA, Energy and Interior. But perhaps asking those agencies’ leaders to read a short 200-year old book might make a little difference.
Maybe the Trump Administration, congressional leaders of environmental committees and their facilitators will take Dr. Frankenstein’s tragic fate into account before it’s too late.
