The Theme of Gene Manipulation in Literature - Term Paper Example

Gene Manipulation We are entering an age of genetics. The biggest biological research projectin history, The Human Genome Project, assured us that it will have our whole genetic structure designed. The media gives information regarding new scientific state regarding genes which are related to disease, environment, behaviors as well as personality traits so often that it looks like we are being given a publication of gene-of-the-week. Genes have already been found out of Cystic fibrosis, Huntingtons disease. Fragile X syndrome, cancer of the breast, the incurable Alzheimers disease, cancer of colon, bipolar disorder, obesity, sexual orientation, and alcohol related disorders, “crime, timidity, bed wetting; etc. James Watson discovered the double helix structure of DNA. Due to which currently we have knowledge of our genes and thus makes it easier to manipulate them. Scientists already have made wonderful discoveries regarding how genes are related to diseases. Discovering the genes for cystic fibrosis as well as Huntingtons disease are without a doubt important achievements, even though new treatments for both the disorders have not been discovered as yet. The discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes of breast cancer were extraordinary accomplishments, even though they are responsible for less than 10 %of all kinds of breast cancer. Scientists will discover significant genetic associations with diseases in the next few years, some of which may eventuate in preventions or treatments that may reduce human suffering. whilst the identifying of for behavior genes are not quite understandable, there is little suspicion that scientific reports regarding new genetic tendencies or basis of behaviors will be a common occurrence in the up coming years . Furthermore, different kinds of genetic "alternative," from selection of sex to the traits of personality to better abilities might become obtainable by means of "gene therapy," which are also known as gene manipulation such as technologies or genetic reproductive or human cloning. This is only the beginning of the age of genetics. Genetic engineering means the human, and hence "artificial" (as in the sense of nature doesnt do this without our help), manipulation of genes. This may involve, as in the case of genetically modified foods, manipulating genes in individual organisms, one at a time. Of course, scientists do not sit there and place new genes by hand into every single potato. There are ways to do this in large batches at a time. But the expectation is that someday not too long from now we will place genes by hand, one at a time, into human fetuses or individual patients to correct deficiencies or replace "bad" genes that cause particular diseases. This sort of individual manipulation is what many people imagine when they hear the term genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is also commonly known as the manipulation of the gene pool, or the entire genes of every the individual in a population. New techniques have recently allowed fertility clinics to determine with a high statistical probability of success whether a fertilized egg is likely to be male or female. If a couple wants only females, perhaps because the parents carry genes that cause disease only in male offspring, then the clinic can pick out the females and implant only those in the mother. This is genetic engineering, the engineering of the genetic outcome of reproduction. Imagine that a clinic allows parents to choose the eggs or sperm that carry the "smartest" or "prettiest" or "strongest" genes and throw away the others. That is also genetic engineering. And it raises additional questions. What we tend to forget is that genetics is not everything. Genetics alone is not destiny, because development and the environment make a great difference in how genes are expressed. Parents of children with Down syndrome (also known as trisomy 21), for example, remind us that children with traits deemed to be a disability can be a real blessing to a loving family and become contributing members of society (Rothman p3). Engineering the gene pool through systematic selections does affect who we are as a species and what potential we have for the future. If we could systematically eliminate all "defective" genes and did so every chance we had, then those societies wealthy enough to do so would become more and more limited in their genetic potential, while poor societies that could not afford such manipulations would retain the full range of genetic potential. In the long run, as environments change and humans face new challenges, this could have profound effects. We should think about such possibilities. These are special questions raised by genetic engineering. At Genetics has captured the popular imagination. Those genes have become something of a cultural icon in American society, used to sell cars or clothes as well as explain human problems (Glass p15). The double helix has become a thing of the popular culture exactly like atom had in 1950. It is a representation of scientific development of the influence of science into the future. The new molecular-biology based genetics is still haunted by the specter of the misuses of eugenics earlier in this century. Genes are a well-liked cultural icon, cultural anxieties regarding the implication of genetics still continue. Frankenstein There are is one well known image of literature that has with time turned into a symbol of the social danger of biology and genetics, Mary Shelleys Frankenstein has produced metaphors that have gone far ahead the books that produced them and turned into cultural images that involve the analysis of science. Frankenstein has led to the to the representation scientists inventing monsters who tend to go out of control. The longevity and resilience of the Frankenstein story is truly remarkable. Mary Shelley published her novel anonymously in the year 1818 even though she had to face many scandals however as centuries passed Frankenstein turned into an important myth. It has literally taken on a life of its own. Many books have been published, and lots of movies have been shot and limitless references prepared which are completely based on the tale of Frankenstein. Turneys calls Frankenstein the "first great myth of the industrial age. The character of Frankenstein is apparent. The story Shelley wrote at the start of the modern era pointed out a number of issues that are still with us. She "produced a story which expresses many of the deepest fears and desires about modernity, especially about violation of the body (Boyd p 12)." Frankenstein is about Victor who was a scientist, his good intentions made him ignore the dangers from his project of creating life he realized the danger when it was too late. As a legend it presents an analysis of science and its uncertainty when it comes to controlling and creating life’s biological realities. Frankenstein symbolizes our ambivalence regarding the powers of science. The story consists of many social and moral hazards: gaining and making use of scientific knowledge; the immense power of knowledge used for creating life; the loosing control of the creation; being irresponsible when it comes scientific responsibility; and if we go in depth then the scientist as inventor of evil. It is often presented as a reproving tale, a terrible warning regarding the likely perils of unrepressed science. By the 1960s after Frankenstein science was going towards molecular biology as well as the manipulation of life in the laboratory like the mutant that was created in Frankenstein. According to Turney, three associated ideas--the centrality of DNA, the idea that life may be shaped by synthesizing DNA, as well as its shape changed by modifying DNA--were the key motifs in the literature which was discursive such as Frankenstein " The chances of genetic engineering altering the heritage and future of plants, animals as well as humans cause a new start of genetic anxieties. Genetic research critics once again related the Frankenstein myth as a rhetorical word of warning that the outcomes of science might result in something evil (Mellor etal p 9). One can only think how the cloning of the lamb Dolly, mentioned in brief, brings forth thoughts about Frankenstein. Turney, a professor of science communication at University College London, gracefully and incisively traces the use of Frankenstein and subsequent popular works explicating the hazards of science. Turney provides a new perception about the power of the myth of Frankenstein and its significance to the promise and dangers of the new genetics. Professor Turney’s Frankensteins Footsteps gives an excellent critical review of an account of public images of biology structured around the image, myth as well as the utilization of the story and intense metaphor of Shelleys Frankenstein. In the novel the victor himself while explaining how playing with nature can be dangerous says to Walton : "I will not lead you on, unguarded and ardent as I then was, to your destruction and infallible misery. Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge, and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow." (Shelley pp51-52) Turney, was critic of Frankenstein, thus in a number places in his book he illustrates the darkness of Frankenstein where he thinks that genetic manipulation is implicitly about Frankenstein (Turney p 23). Turney provides a valuable service, however; by recounting the images of Frankenstein, he highlights the ancestry of this powerful idiom of disquiet for our genetic age. The novel Frankenstein, a man named Victor Frankenstein is determined to discover the link between life and death, by bringing a lifeless creature to life. Frankenstein pursues his experiment to the end. When his outcome reveals that something went terribly wrong, Frankenstein disregards all responsibility, which leads to deadly consequences. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, shows exactly what would happen if human cloning was legalized and practiced today. Using a monster instead of a human clone and a distraught scientist instead of the community of the world; Frankenstein shows the discrimination and conflict that would consume the world if cloning took place (Bloom etal p42). Those against human cloning often refer back to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. On March 17, 1997, in Dr. Leon Kass’s statement to the NBAC, he stated that, "People are worried by a lot of areas of human cloning, one of such area is the Frankensteinian hubris to generate human life and more and more to control its outcome” (Kass p 6). The novel Frankenstein gives word of warning of cloning. One without doubt left out passage of the novel may lead to clarification. Victor Frankenstein, having revealed the secret of animation, arranged to get his charnel-house being to life. He later recalled his reflections at the point. Mary Shelley has set a milestone in the world of science. Her novel permitted the mind to be imaginative and consider that there one day might be an era when humans can produce life from a plain cell to bring back to life loved ones, to heal diseases, and to aid couples who are infertile. Creating life from the dead; or as we see it nowadays is known as cloning. Robert W. Tracinski in this article states that Ever since Mary Shelley wrote the original Frankenstein story in 1818, it has stood as the symbol of a false and destructive idea: the idea that science and technology will inevitably produce monsters. The story of Frankenstein has come to be used, not as a criticism of any particular discovery or invention, but as a smear against reason, science, and technology as such. (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=538) And we all believe that Frankenstein is just a fictional novel; but today’s “mad scientists” are launching plans of designing the modern Frankenstein. A man with an ear that was grown on the back of a lab rat or a woman with cells that were harvested from a goat are today’s advances in technology going to turn humanity into a mob of Frankenstein’s tomorrow. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Like Victor Frankenstein, the scientist in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll pushes beyond the boundaries of the scientific knowledge of his time. What drives people to explore the unknown? Why do scientists take great risks and use time, energy, and money to do and learn new things? Did Dr. Jekyll go too far? What criteria would you use to determine what “too far” means? In your group, discuss several recent scientific discoveries and decide whether they “go too far.” Possibilities to explore include cloning and genetic manipulation, growing new organs for human use, transplanting organs, facilitating artificial intelligence through computers, prolonging life through deep-freezing (cryogenics), and colonizing outer space. (www.glencoe.com/sec/literature/litlibrary/pdf/dr_jekyll.pdf) In making the alteration of Jekyll into Hyde credible, Stevenson demonstrates the restrictions of reason and science in handling the mystical. The logical Utters on is incapable to find out the vagueness till it is found out in lettering at the last part of the novel, as well as the scientific Dr. Lanyon faints as soon as he sees the transformation take place. Dr. Jekyll plans put his theory of the two sides of human nature to the test via performing an experiment on himself by powerful drugs. He realizes death is probable but thinks that the impending knowledge is nothing compared to the risk, thus this novel stated a new trend as today scientists investigate the potential of cloning and creating life without even considering the risks. Conclusion Undoubtedly the use and misuse of scientific knowledge is a hot issue in both political as well as cultural fields But one interesting and less often argued side of this debate is its affluent treatment in our literary tradition. From Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde novelists have always been mesmerized with the implementation of scientific manipulation of human beings in our society. Work Cited Bloom, Harold and Golding, William, Modern Critical Views on Mary Shelley. Edited with an introduction. Chelsea House Publishers, New York, 1985 p 42 Boyd, Stephen. York Notes on Mary Shelleys Frankenstein. Longman York Press, 1992. p 12 Glass R.E., Spirek J., Gene Manipulation and Expression. Croom Helm. London, 1986 p15. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=538 retrieved on 25th May 2008 Kass R Leon, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading, Genesis University of Chicago Press; New Ed edition 2006 p6 Shelley Mary , Frankenstein , Bantam Classics. 1984 pp 51-52 Mellor, Anne K. Mary Shelley. Her Life, her Fiction, her Monsters. Methuen. New York, London, 1988 p 9 Rothman Katz Barbara, Genetic Maps and Human Imaginations: The Limits of Science in Understanding Who We Are," 1998 p3 Turney Jon, Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture, Imagination: Popular Images of Genetics, W. Norton & Company 1998 p25-35 www.glencoe.com/sec/literature/litlibrary/pdf/dr_jekyll.pdf retrieved on 25th May 2008 Read More