In Mary Shelly's novel, Frankenstein. Deep moral questions about scientific progress are raised, pondering the idea that one day science might go too far and reach the realm of the gods. This is a recurring theme in the novel, reflecting the period in which the book was written, a time of new discoveries and advances such as electricity, modern chemistry, and atomic theory. Today is a time of different progress but the same questions about science and morality. As science advances with new ideas such as the Human Genome Project, it is easy to get lost in the magnificence of the technology, but we must remember to keep science grounded in a moral bond, a soul in the science. As Shelly shows in Frankenstein, it is important to have a strong soul and motivation when striving to advance science, lest a veritable monster be created in today's society to the continuation of innovations such as the human genome project. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The Human Genome Project is truly one of humanity's greatest achievements. This project, which finally involves sequencing the entire human genome, opens the door to numerous applications. By examining a person's DNA, it is possible to determine the diseases to which they are exposed, their risk of developing a mental disability, and even information as insignificant as their preferred sleeping habits. This knowledge will help develop new drugs and make diagnoses and prescriptions more accurate than ever. As people yearn for knowledge, greater pressure develops for more knowledge, and this is how science reaches new heights. Some might then argue that the entrenchment of scientific progress might simply hinder it, making all of the aforementioned achievements impossible. This is the opinion of Paul Northam in the following: “Surely no reasonable person can condone the idea of ​​turning our back on the vast potential of genetic research. » (Northam 4) Pesky things like morality seem like mere obstacles to be removed to make way for more progress. As James Watson says: “If we [scientists] don’t play God, then who will? » Scientists seem to be at the forefront of humanity's progress in some field, and they are the ones who "play God" for the advancement of humanity's knowledge and power. This parallels another story with disastrous consequences that seemed to be nothing more than a quest for knowledge. “I had desired it with an ardor which far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream disappeared, and breathtaking horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelly 35). As science continues with a disregard for morality and concern, it leaves in its wake unprecedented problems that are the opposite. of the beauty envisaged. Desire alone is not enough to create greatness, one must keep the soul in science, to prevent such horrors from occurring, like those of Frankenstein. Due to these factors, one could call this the golden age of scientific progress, as the future of scientific study appears to be completely bright and golden, but this is only an assessment of the outer surface. Beneath the surface, there are a number of potential problems to be aware of if science is used incorrectly. It is possible that information from the human genome ismisused, in a blatant perversion of what they were originally intended for. The knowledge provided by the disease project could potentially be used by companies to separate employees based on their genetic profile. Who would hire someone who has an 80% chance of having heart disease, knowing the cost of medical benefits and the added complications that this brings? This is not the only potentially dark aspect of the human genome. Designer babies, children genetically engineered to have ideal characteristics, seem entirely positive. While they have the potential to benefit humanity, they also raise a moral conflict similar to that seen in the novel, as they can be created with complete apathy and minimal involvement from loving parents. At the same time, these "perfect" children may not be as perfect as we believe, as P. Tittle shows in the following: "Those who advocate and fear genetic engineering for its application to designer children seem to forget that we are both natural and cultivated products. » (Title, 4) Scientists often forget that humans are a product of both nature and culture, and in this way it is easy to see how so much scientific effort ends up being misused. In a scenario like this, one really has to ask whether this is an enriching and humane endeavor or just another scientific endeavor. As P. Tittle also says, “Having intelligence or ability is not as important as knowing what to do with it.” So success is not necessarily goodness. » (Tittle, 2) This quote can be compared to similar messages from Shelly throughout Victor's story. He focused single-mindedly on acquiring knowledge and discovering how to create life. “I have succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and of life; moreover, I myself became capable of giving animation to lifeless matter. (Shelly, 30) This knowledge was misused and resulted in the creation of a horrible monster. With this, it can be understood that Shelly wouldn't care if humans can actually have these babies or sequence the genome, she would wonder if they should do it or not. Shelly's analysis and argument still have a strong presence today, and rightly so. Shelly's monster in the novel, Frankenstein, provides a metaphor for the outcome of any scientific endeavor if it goes too far without containing any soul or morality. She argues that there must be a soul in science with the experiences of fictional characters rather than real-world events. In doing so, his argument is immortalized and can be interpreted and applied to science well beyond his lifetime, a prime example being the Human Genome Project. Shelley makes several key points that can be applied to the human genome project. The first is creation without morality. “You would destroy, with a satisfied conscience, your own creature. » (Shelly 68) Shelly's choice of words and perspective here show that science can sometimes be apathetic and dismiss any creation as a failure. “When the test fails, the subject is dismissed. Genetic engineering is not tested on humans because it is against the law, animals having the same rights is a highly debated subject.” (Curezone, 8) The acceptability of this is called into question when it comes to living things, as Shelley said over 200 years ago. Shelly also argues that science needs a moral basis, otherwise one of its monsters will be created unintentionally. There are a number of potential problems with knowledge?