research articles on frankenstein

Latest Issue

The majestic cell

How the smallest units of life determine our health

Recent Issues

• Psychiatry’s new frontiers Hope amid crisis
• AI explodes Taking the pulse of artificial intelligence in medicine
• Health on a planet in crisis
• Real-world health How social factors make or break us
• Molecules of life Understanding the world within us
• All Articles
• Let’s talk about it
• The spice sellers’ secret
• Who’s training whom?
• Making sense of smell
• Before I go
• View all Editors’ Picks
• Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Infectious Diseases
• View All Articles

Why Frankenstein matters

Frontiers in science, technology and medicine

By Audrey Shafer, MD

Illustration by Michael Waraksa

“Clear!” At some point during medical education and practice, every physician has heard or given this command. One person — such as a closely supervised medical student — pushes a button to deliver an electric shock and the patient’s body jerks. The code team, in complex choreography, works to restore both the patient’s cardiac rhythm and a pulse strong enough to perfuse vital organs. 

After a successful defibrillation effort, team members do not have time to dwell on the line crossed from death to life. It is even difficult to focus on the ultimate goal: to enable the patient to leave the hospital intact, perhaps to grasp a grandchild’s — or grandparent’s — hand while crossing the street to the park.

Despite these dramatic hospital scenes, many scientists, doctors and patients balk at any mention of the words Frankenstein and medicine in the same breath. Because, unlike the Victor Frankenstein of Mary Shelley’s novel, the reanimators at a hospital code have not toiled alone in a garret; assembled body parts from slaughterhouses, dissecting rooms and charnel houses; or created an entirely new being. Nonetheless, in this bicentennial commemorative year of the book’s publication, it is not only germane, but important to consider the impact of this story, including our reactions to it, on the state of scientific research today.

Shelley’s Frankenstein has captured the imaginations of generations, even for those who have never read the tale written by a brilliant 18-year-old woman while on holiday with Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley and Dr. John Polidori amid extensive storms induced by volcanic ash during the so-called year without a summer. Mary Shelley (her name was Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin at the time) was intrigued by stories of science such as galvanism, which she would have heard through her father’s scientist (then called natural philosopher) friends.

With Frankenstein , Shelley wrote the first novel to forefront science as a means to create life, and as such, she wrote the first major work in the science fiction genre. Frankenstein, a flawed, obsessed student, feverishly reads extensive tomes and refines his experiments. After he succeeds in his labors, Frankenstein rejects his creation: He is revulsed by the sight of the “monster,” whom he describes as hideous. This rejection of the monster leads to a cascade of calamities. The subtitle of the book, The Modern Prometheus , primes the reader for the theme of the dire consequences of “playing God.”

A framework for examining morality and ethics

Frankenstein  is not only the first creation story to use scientific experimentation as its method, but it also presents a framework for narratively examining the morality and ethics of the experiment and experimenter. While artistic derivations, such as films and performances, and literary references have germinated from the book for the past 200 years, the current explosion of references to  Frankenstein  in relation to ethics, science and technology deserves scrutiny.

Science is, by its very nature, an exploration of new frontiers, a means to discover and test new ideas, and an impetus for paradigm shifts. Science is equated with progress and with advances in knowledge and understanding of our world and ourselves. Although a basic tenet of science is to question, there is an underlying belief, embedded in words like “advances” and “progress,” that science will better our lives.

Safeguards, protocols and institution approvals by committees educated in the horrible and numerous examples of unethical experiments done in the name of science are used to prevent a lone wolf like Victor Frankenstein from undertaking his garret experiments. Indeed, it is amusing to think of a mock Institutional Review Board approval process for a proposal he might put forward.

But these protections can go only so far. It is impossible to predict all of the consequences of our current and future scientific and technologic advances. We do not even need to speculate on the potential repercussions of, for example, the creation of a laboratory-designed self-replicating species, as we can look to unintended consequences of therapies such as the drug thalidomide, and controversies over certain gene therapies. This tension, this acknowledgment that unintended consequences occur, is unsettling.

Science and technology have led to impressive improvements in health and health care. People I love are alive today because of cancer treatments unknown decades ago. We are incredibly grateful to the medical scientists who envisioned these drugs and who did the experiments to prove their effectiveness.

As an anesthesiologist, I care for patients at vulnerable times in their lives; I use science and technology to render them unconscious — and to enable them to emerge from an anesthetized state.

But, as the frontiers are pushed further and further, the unintended consequences of how science and technology are used could affect who we are as humans, the viability of our planet and how society evolves. In terms of health, medicine and bioengineering, Frankenstein resonates far beyond defibrillation. These resonances include genetic engineering, tissue engineering, transplantation, transfusion, artificial intelligence, robotics, bioelectronics, virtual reality, cryonics, synthetic biology and neural networks. These fields are fascinating, worthy areas of exploration.

‘Frankenstein’ is not only the first creation story to use scientific experimentation as its method, but it also presents a framework for narratively examining the morality and ethics of the experiment and experimenter.

We, as physicians, health care providers, scientists and people who deeply value what life and health mean, cannot shy away from discussions of the potential implications of science, technology and the social contexts which give new capabilities and interventions even greater complexity. Not much is clear, but that makes the discussion more imperative.

Even the call “Clear!” and the ritual removal of physical contact with a patient just about to receive a shock is not so “clear,” as researchers scrutinize whether interruptions to chest compressions are necessary for occupational safety — that is, it may be deemed safe in the future for shocks and manual compressions to occur simultaneously.

We need to discuss the big questions surrounding what is human, and the implications of those questions. What do we think about the possibility of sentient nonhumans, enhanced beyond our limits, more sapient than Homo sapiens? Who or what will our great-grandchildren be competing against to gain entrance to medical school?

Studying and discussing works of art and imagination such as Frankenstein , and exchanging ideas and perspectives with those whose expertise lies outside the clinic and laboratory, such as artists, humanists and social scientists, can contribute not just to an awareness of our histories and cultures, but also can help us probe, examine and discover our understanding of what it means to be human. That much is clear.

Audrey Shafer, MD

Audrey Shafer, MD, is a Stanford professor of anesthesiology, perioperative and pain medicine, the director of the Medicine and the Muse program and the co-director of the Biomedical Ethics and Medical Humanities Scholarly Concentration. She is an anesthesiologist at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System.

Email the author

Frankenstein Reflects the Hopes and Fears of Every Scientific Era

The novel is usually considered a cautionary tale for science, but its cultural legacy is much more complicated.

The bicentennial of Frankenstein started early. While Mary Shelley’s momentous novel was published anonymously in 1818, the commemorations began last year to mark the dark and stormy night on Lake Geneva when she (then still Mary Godwin, having eloped with her married lover Percy Shelley) conceived what she called her “hideous progeny.”

In May, MIT Press will publish a new edition of the original text, “annotated for scientists, engineers, and creators of all kinds.” As well as the explanatory and expository notes throughout the book, there are accompanying essays by historians and other writers that discuss Frankenstein ’s relevance and implications for science and invention today.

It’s a smart idea, but treating Frankenstein as a meditation on the responsibilities of the scientist, and the dangers of ignoring them, is bound to give only a partial view of Shelley’s novel. It’s not just a book about science. Moreover, focusing on Shelley’s text doesn’t explore the scope of the Frankenstein myth itself, including its message for scientists.

This is one of those stories everyone knows even without having read the original: Man makes monster; monster runs amok; monster kills man. It may come as a surprise to discover that the creator, not the creature, is called Frankenstein, and that the original creature was not the shambling, grunting, green-faced lunk played by Boris Karloff in the 1931 movie but an articulate soul who meditates on John Milton’s Paradise Lost . Such misconceptions might do little justice to Shelley, but as the critic Chris Baldick has written, “That series of adaptations, allusions, accretions, analogues, parodies, and plain misreadings with follows upon Mary Shelley’s novel is not just a supplementary component of the myth; it is the myth.”

In any case, the essays in the MIT edition have surprisingly little to say about the reproductive and biomedical technologies of our age, such as assisted conception, tissue engineering, stem-cell research, cloning, genetic manipulation, and “ synthetic human entities with embryo-like features ”—the remarkable potential “organisms” with a Frankensteinian name.

That feels like a missed opportunity. Frankenstein is still frequently the first point of reference for media reports of such cutting-edge developments, just as it was when human IVF became a viable technique in the early 1970s. The “Franken” label is now a lazy journalistic cliché for a technology you should distrust, or at least regard as “weird”: Frankenfoods, Frankenbugs. The “wisdom of repugnance,” the phrase coined by the U.S. bioethicist Leon Kass and which informed the decision of the George W. Bush administration to pose drastic restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research in 2001, harked back directly to Mary Shelley’s novel.

Let’s be in no doubt: Frankenstein is one of the most extraordinary achievements in English literature. It’s not flawlessly written, the construction is sometimes awkward—yet it is a profound and unsettling vision, deeply informed about the science and philosophy of its day. That it was written not by an established and experienced author but by a teenager at a very difficult period in her life feels almost miraculous. It’s in fact those troubled circumstances and those flaws that have helped the book to persist, to keep on stimulating debate, and to continue attracting adaptations and variations—some good, many bad, some plain execrable.

It’s too often suggested—some of the commentaries in the MIT edition repeat the idea—that Frankenstein is a warning about a hubristic, overreaching science that unleashes forces it cannot control. “Victor’s error is failing to think harder about the potential repercussions of his work,” writes the bioethicist Josephine Johnston. To Mary Shelley’s biographer Anne Mellor, the novel “portrays the penalties of violating Nature.” This makes it sound as though the attempt to create an “artificial person” from scavenged body parts was always going to end badly: that it was a crazy, doomed project from the start.

But Mary Shelley takes some pains to show that the real problem is not what Victor Frankenstein made, but how he reacted to it. “Now that I had finished,” he says, “the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.” He rejects the “hideous wretch” he has created, but nothing about that seems inevitable. What would have happened if Victor had instead lived up to his responsibilities by choosing to nurture his creature?

One might answer that the result would have been a pretty dull and short novel. But I’m not so sure. Imagine the story of Victor struggling to have the creature accepted by a society that shunned it as vile and unnatural. We would then be reading a book about social prejudice and our preconceptions of nature—indeed, about the kind of prospect one can easily imagine for a human born by cloning today (if such as thing were scientifically possible and ethically permissible). The moral and philosophical landscape it might have explored would be no less rich.

That Victor did not do this—that he spurned his creation the moment he had made it, merely because he judged it ugly—means that, to my mind, the conclusion we should reach is the one that the speculative-fiction author Elizabeth Bear articulates in the new volume. It is for Victor’s “failure of empathy and his moral cowardice,” Bear says—for his overweening egotism and narcissism—that we should think ill of him, and not because of what he discovered or created.

Mary Shelley, however, gives her readers mixed messages. What she shows us is a man behaving badly, but what she seems to tell us is that he is tragic and sympathetic. All of her characters think so well of “poor, dear Victor” that we’re given pause. Even Robert Walton, the ship’s captain who finds Victor pursuing his creature in the Arctic and whose letters describing that encounter begin and end the book, sees in him a noble, pitiable figure, “amiable and attractive” despite his wrecked and emaciated state. Frankenstein’s only critic is his creature.

This could be seen as a rather exquisite piece of authorial artifice, an early example of the unreliable narrator. It seems more likely to me that Shelley herself wasn’t clear what to make of Victor. In her revised edition of 1831, she emphasized the Faustian aspect of the tale, writing in her introduction that she wanted to show how “supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world.” In other words, it was preordained that the creature would be hideous, and inevitable that its creator would recoil “horror-stricken.” That wasn’t then a character failing of Victor’s.

This idea invites the interpretation that Mellor offers in the new edition: “Nature prevents Victor from constructing a normal human being: His unnatural method of reproduction spawns an unnatural being, a freak.”

She sees this as a feminist interpretation (Nature being, in her view, feminine and inviolable), I feel that to the extent that Shelley’s book supports a feminist reading, it is not this, and to the extent that one might draw this interpretation, it is not a feminist one. To condemn Victor for violating “Mother Nature” with his “unnatural being” seems plain disturbing in the 21st century. Certainly it bears out the complaint of the British biologist J. B. S. Haldane in 1924:

There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god. But if every physical and chemical invention is a blasphemy, every biological invention is a perversion.

By accepting that Victor’s work is inherently perverted and bound to end hideously, Mellor’s accusation leaves us wondering what exactly is meant by “unnatural.” Which real-life interventions are guaranteed to produce a freak? Might that be so with IVF, as its early detractors insisted? Is it the case for so-called “three-parent babies” made by mitochondrial transplantation, a misleading term apparently invented for the very purpose of insisting on its unnaturalness? Would the first human clone be the next “unnatural freak,” if ever that technology becomes possible and desirable?

“Unnatural” is not a neutral description but a morally laden term, and dangerous for that reason: Its use threatens to prejudice or shut down discussion before it begins.

There’s something of this rush to judgment also in the commentary of Charles Robinson, the Frankenstein scholar who introduces the new annotated text. Speaking about the evils released from Pandora’s box by Prometheus’s brother Epimetheus in Greek myth—Shelley subtitled her novel “The Modern Prometheus”—Robinson says that such terrible consequences of careless tampering are reflected in “the pesticide DDT, the atom bomb, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl,” and the British government’s allowing a stem-cell scientist to perform genome editing “despite objections that ethical issues were being ignored.”

But each of these modern developments in fact involved a complex and case-specific chain of events, and incurs a delicate balance of pros and cons. Some, such as the Chernobyl nuclear accident, had rather little to do with the intrinsic ethics of the underlying technology, but were a consequence of particular political and bureaucratic decisions. To imply that they unambiguously show a lack of foresight (Epimetheus’s name means “afterthought”) or indeed of responsibility on the part of the scientists whose work made them possible would be to cheapen the discourse and to evade the real issues.

The decision on genome editing, meanwhile—presumably this refers to the granting of a license by the U.K. Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority for gene-editing of very early stage, non-viable embryos—supports medical research that might, among other things, help to reduce rates of miscarriage. Such work will never be free of ethical objections raised by those opposed to all research on human embryos. Without a doubt, Frankenstein asks challenging questions about research like this that touches on interventions in human life. But to suggest that it warns us to abjure such work doesn’t do Mary Shelley justice.

What, then, does the story of Victor Frankenstein’s doomed and misguided quest have to tell us about modern science in general, and technological intervention in life in particular? I think that, to find an answer, we needn’t try too hard to discern Shelley’s own intentions. Her text arose not out of a conscious desire to tell a moral tale—not, at any rate, one about science—but literally out of a nightmare. In her preface to the 1831 edition she described how the “ghastly image” of a “pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together” came to her as she tried to sleep after listening to conversations between Byron and Percy Shelley deep into the night, concerning the “principle of life.”

That retrospective account surely included some embellishment, but it seems fair to accept Shelley’s assertion that “my imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me.” The impact and enduring fascination of her novel depend on the author not having worked too hard to impose a meaning on the “ghastly image” she dreamed, to resolve the conflicts that it evoked in her, or to maintain a consistent attitude as she reworked her book.

So we can draw Luddite conclusions if that’s what we look for, just as we can read into the text Shelley’s fears about childbirth, her frustration and anger at her father’s rejection, political worries about the destructive potential of the inchoate mob, or an examination of male terror of female sexual and procreative independence.

But it surely matters at least as much now not just what Frankenstein is about but what the Frankenstein myth is about—what as a culture we have made of this wonderful, undisciplined book, whether that is Hollywood’s insistence that the artificial being be a stiff-limbed quasi-robotic mute or more contemporary efforts to tell a story that is sympathetic to the creature’s point of view. Frankenstein , after all, was never intended as an instruction manual to the bioethicist or the engineer. It is better seen as a catalyst, even an agent provocateur , that lures us into disclosing what we truly hope and fear.

The ambiguity of the book is an essential feature of myth, and all modern myths come from a similar fertile lack of authorial control. That isn’t a failing. Everyone loves a well-crafted story, but those crafted partly by the unconscious and delivered to us misshapen and unfinished hold a particular potential to be reanimated, time after time, to fit and to dramatize the anxieties of the age. Like Victor, we make Frankenstein in our own image.

About the Author

More Stories

A Tiny, Lab-Size Wormhole Could Shatter Our Sense of Reality

The Universe Is Always Looking

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus : a classic novel to stimulate the analysis of complex contemporary issues in biomedical sciences

Irene cambra-badii, elena guardiola, josep-e baños.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding author.

Received 2020 Nov 27; Accepted 2021 Feb 16; Collection date 2021.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Advances in biomedicine can substantially change human life. However, progress is not always followed by ethical reflection on its consequences or scientists’ responsibility for their creations. The humanities can help health sciences students learn to critically analyse these issues; in particular, literature can aid discussions about ethical principles in biomedical research. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus (1818) is an example of a classic novel presenting complex scenarios that could be used to stimulate discussion.

Within the framework of the 200th anniversary of the novel, we searched PubMed to identify works that explore and discuss its value in teaching health sciences. Our search yielded 56 articles, but only two of these reported empirical findings. Our analysis of these articles identified three main approaches to using Frankenstein in teaching health sciences: discussing the relationship between literature and science, analysing ethical issues in biomedical research, and examining the importance of empathy and compassion in healthcare and research. After a critical discussion of the articles, we propose using Frankenstein as a teaching tool to prompt students to critically analyse ethical aspects of scientific and technological progress, the need for compassion and empathy in medical research, and scientists’ responsibility for their discoveries.

Frankenstein can help students reflect on the personal and social limits of science, the connection between curiosity and scientific progress, and scientists’ responsibilities. Its potential usefulness in teaching derives from the interconnectedness of science, ethics, and compassion. Frankenstein can be a useful tool for analysing bioethical issues related to scientific and technological advances, such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and cloning. Empirical studies measuring learning outcomes are necessary to confirm the usefulness of this approach.

Keywords: Health sciences, Science fiction, Bioethics, Frankenstein, Scientists’ responsibility, Teaching

In the last two centuries, scientific discoveries and technological innovations in biomedical sciences have improved the lives of most human beings immensely. However, education in the health sciences often fails to analyse the myriad consequences of scientific and technological advances from a bioethical point of view. In part, this failure derives from the compartmentalization of higher education. Bioethics is classified as a branch of moral philosophy, which is considered to lie in the sphere of the humanities rather than in the sphere of science and technology, and health sciences education largely ignores the humanities [ 1 – 6 ]. Moreover, traditional teaching methods like lectures are poorly suited to teaching issues related to bioethics, such as compassionate care or appropriate relationships among health professionals, patients, and society, which require active pedagogical techniques that help students develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving competences [ 7 , 8 ].

Literature can help students appreciate the complexity of biomedical scenarios and improve their understanding of illness [ 9 ]. Various authors have suggested that literature can enhance future health professionals’ reflective thinking and improve their ability to analyse biomedical issues scientifically and honestly [ 10 – 16 ].

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus , published in 1818, is one of the most influential works in the history of English literature. It has influenced scientific thinking [ 17 , 18 ] and has become a modern myth [ 17 , 19 – 24 ]. Its value lies not only in its literary qualities, plot, and characters, but also in its reflective focus and compassionate approach to the character of Frankenstein’s creature [ 25 ].

Mary Shelley’s novel has come to be considered a canonical work. Its literary value and importance for science perdure today, more than 200 years after its first publication. Its place in the canon is ensured by its inclusion in educational curricula, especially in higher education [ 26 ], just as its place in popular culture is ensured by cinematic adaptations—especially James Whale’s (1931) and Kenneth Branagh’s (1994) versions, known worldwide. The current paper aims to examine the value of this work for ethicists and health sciences students, beyond popular culture or critical acclaim.

In a previous paper [ 27 ], we presented a content analysis of articles in the scientific literature that used the novel to discuss issues related to ethics, bioethics, science, technology, or medicine. We concluded that these articles focused mainly on Dr Frankenstein’s personality and scientific research rather than on ethical aspects related to his research or to the results of this research. Most of the papers analysed dealt with the importance of Frankenstein for reflecting science [ 17 , 28 – 31 ], scientists [ 20 , 32 ], the limits of scientific activity [ 22 , 24 , 33 ], and the need for peer review in research [ 32 , 34 ].

In the current article, we review the literature on Frankenstein in the medical humanities and health sciences and propose different ways that Shelley’s novel can be used in teaching future health professionals.

Searching PubMed using the term Frankenstein combined with ethics, bioethics, science, technology, medicine, education, and/or medical humanities yielded only two articles that reported empirical results about using the novel to teach health sciences. In the first, Koren and Bar [ 28 ] used a closed questionnaire, an essay, and a semi-structured collective interview about literary works including Frankenstein , The Physicists , Gulliver’s Travels , Jurassic Park , Faust , Microbe Hunters , Galaxies , and Wrinkles in Time to assess Israeli high-school students’ attitudes towards science and scientists. They found that Frankenstein was associated with the stereotypical “mad scientist”. In the interviews, a few students justified Frankenstein’s behaviour, but their ambivalent opinions were evident in sentences like “his intentions were relatively good to help the doctors and humanity afterwards he tried to fix it. But it was kind of too late.” (p.156).

In the second, Reginato et al. [ 1 ] used the field diary of a first-year biomedical sciences classroom in Brazil to evaluate the impact that reading and discussing Frankenstein had on their students in the context of a course that aimed to promote internal reflection about knowledge and the concept of science, responsibility and bioethics, and dehumanization in research. Students’ reflections focused mainly on two aspects: issues to be considered in science education beyond technical aspects, particularly the moral and ethical responsibility in research, and the influence of scientists’ actions in society.

Given the scarcity of research exploring the value of using Frankenstein in health sciences education, we sought to identify themes in the novel that would be of interest in this field and to develop ways that the novel could be exploited for teaching. Our critical analysis of the academic papers suggested three broad approaches: literature and science, bioethical dilemmas in research, and the need for empathy and compassion in medical care and research.

Literature and science through Frankenstein

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is usually classified in the science fiction genre because it provides a critical vision of the future resulting from technoscientific advances [ 35 ]. However, the term science fiction was not coined until a century after Shelley’s novel was published. Frankenstein might also fit in the fiction-about-science genre [ 20 ] or even the science-in-fiction genre [ 36 ], where scientific facts are plausibly incorporated into fictional narratives to probe ethical dilemmas that might otherwise be difficult to tackle. Regardless of how we classify it, two hundred years after its initial publication, Frankenstein continues to lend itself to a critical analysis of science, knowledge, and responsibility. We will explore the use of literature for teaching health science students through three approaches.

First, discussions about whether the novel fits better in the science fiction or science-in-fiction genre can tackle various questions: What is science fiction literature? What are the science fiction elements in Frankenstein ? What image of the future does the novel put forth? What other science fiction novels could be read together in the same context? (Answers to this question might include H. G. Wells’ The Island of Dr Moreau for considering human research or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World for analysing human values). What films could be used to explore science fiction? (Answers to this question might include Matrix to review the fear of the technology beyond human control or The Fly to analyse research on human subjects).

Second, it could be interesting to analyse the historical and scientific context in which Frankenstein was written and its connections to literary works and later scientific developments. Along these lines, learning about the author’s private life and the scientific sources that inspired the novel could also be interesting. In the summer of 1816, Mary Shelley stayed in Villa Diodati, close to Lake Geneva, with her lover and future husband, Percy Shelley, her step-sister, Jane Clairmont, and her lover, Lord Byron and his personal physician John William Polidori. Bad weather confined them to the villa, where they had long conversations that served as inspiration for the scenes of galvanism and resuscitation in the novel [ 37 ]. It is fascinating to explore the state of scientific knowledge in the early nineteenth century to see how recent discoveries and currents of thought were adapted and incorporated into the novel, including Volta’s experiments with electricity; Galvani, Aldini, Bichat, and Weinhold’s investigations into electricity in animals and human beings and the influence of vitalism; Erasmus Darwin and the voluntary motion of vermicelli in a glass case; the antecedents of the alchemy of Paracelsus, Agrippa, and Albertus Magnus; Halley's magnetic theories; and the chemical processes of Davy and Bichat, some of which are explicitly mentioned in Mary Shelley’s introduction to the novel, written in 1831 [ 22 , 23 , 31 , 38 – 49 ]. This approach shows the deep connections between the history and philosophy of science and bioethics and the health sciences. Learning about the scientific and sociohistorical context at the time the novel was written can help students understand the novel more deeply and gain insight into the relationships between the humanities and science. In this sense, it can be interesting to work not only with the content of the literary work, but also with the context in which it was created.

Third, Frankenstein can be used to discuss some issues in gender ethics in literature and science, beginning with its authorship and the circumstances of its publication. Mary Shelley’s name did not appear until the second edition of the novel, published in 1831. The first edition was published anonymously, and readers ascribed it to her husband, the romantic poet Percy B. Shelley, who had written the preface. Given the position of women in society at the beginning of the nineteenth century, in her preface of 1831, Mary Shelley took pains to explain how she was capable of producing a complete story without any help.

Gender roles and representations in the novel are also well worth analyzing. As previous researchers have pointed out, the novel seems to delimit two gender spheres: a masculine sphere that is scientific, ambitious, rational, active, and public, contrasting with a feminine one that is emotional, passive, and domestic [ 50 – 53 ]. Especially for teaching health science students, it can be interesting to discuss how the novel is narrated through the two male protagonists’ letters or diaries, while the female characters’ point of view is only intimated through two letters Elizabeth wrote to Victor before he created the creature. Not only is the human female perspective absent, however: the female creature, unlike her male counterpart, is not given the opportunity to discuss her plight in a monologue. To recover the voice of women, health science students can role play different scenarios incorporating the female characters’ views. Bibliographic searches about female scientists in Mary Shelley’s time can further enrich the discussion.

Finally, to discuss the relationship between literature and science, the narrative can be analysed in conjunction with other works and myths to explore the synergy between literature and science. The Frankenstein story has transcended the novel to become a modern myth [ 2 , 17 , 19 – 24 , 49 , 54 , 55 ], building on the representational force of Prometheus and the Christian myths found in the novel. The reference to the myth of Prometheus explicitly present in the title is obvious, but the Frankenstein story also has connections with the Golem myth, inviting reflection on differences between the animate and the inanimate and between the human and inhuman. Frankenstein can also be considered together with Goethe's Faust , a scientist with uncontrollable ambitions, and with Stevenson’s Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde , another paradigm of human duality. The characters and plots allow us to reflect on the limits of human behaviour, what is and what is not permissible in scientific research, and whether these bioethical limits are time-dependent or should never be violated.

Just as Frankenstein was inspired by earlier myths, the story can also inspire new myths. The novel could be considered a template for science narratives, a social construction that helps people make sense of science and conceptualize its social and technical implications [ 17 ]. Nagy et al. [ 19 ] refer to the Frankenstein myth’s association with bad or dangerous science as a stigma that continues to haunt scientists. Thus, it would be useful to study whether students could identify negative images of science and scientists in Frankenstein , in other works of fiction, and in history as well.

Bioethics dilemmas in research

Frankenstein is a good tool to examine the stereotype of the mad scientist [ 19 – 21 , 54 – 56 ]. This stereotype calls attention to the risks associated with unsupervised research and can shed light on the evolution of society’s perception of science and scientists. Consciously or unconsciously, this stereotype is related to considerations of the bioethical limits of scientific research and the dilemmas that stem from scientific discoveries and technological advances. Frankenstein can help spark debate and focus discussion about these topics in health sciences classes.

Interestingly, as Nagy et al. [ 19 ] point out, the word scientist is not mentioned in the novel, because when Frankenstein was written, there was no term to refer to people who were dedicated to science. Victor Frankenstein nevertheless acts like a scientist, experimenting to gain new knowledge. Thus, despite the lack of references to the scientific profession, Frankenstein illustrates the power that comes with knowledge (scientific in this case), and this is one of the “lessons” that other authors have ascribed to the novel [ 20 ]. As Victor Frankenstein says, “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” [ 57 ].

Shelley’s work can also be analysed in relation to concerns about scientific and technological advances, their impact on human life, and the bioethical limits of current research. Indeed, the word Frankensteinian , when applied to practices in health sciences, refers to the risk involved in transgressive actions carried out without adequate prior consideration. In a sense, this meaning was articulated with Gaylin's [ 18 ] Frankenstein factor , a construct referring to the fear of poorly understood technological sophistication and the apprehension that technology can change the “nature” of species. Indeed, the name Frankenstein has often been used pejoratively as a warning in such scientific controversies [ 17 , 33 ]. On the other hand, Frankensteinian is also used to refer to an attitude that values pure science or technology over reflection [ 58 ], a practice that is widespread not only in science, but also in education.

Names like “Frankenscience” [ 59 ], “Frankenfood” [ 60 ], or “Frankenstein syndrome” [ 61 , 62 ] create cultural frames for viewing scientific enterprises and procedures in very specific and visceral ways that imply premeditated actions to alter nature [ 31 , 63 , 64 ]. These terms have being applied as warnings against “playing God” in applying practices such as transplantations [ 49 ]; robots, androids, and artificial intelligence in general [ 65 , 66 ]; genetic engineering, gene therapy, or genomic editing with CRISPR-9 [ 24 , 31 , 67 ]; cloning [ 45 ]; and non-human bioengineered species [ 68 ].

Table 1 lists some papers that we consider especially useful for stimulating discussion about Frankenstein stigmas and current issues in science. Reflecting on these sources and some concrete case studies can help students appreciate the challenge of determining the limits and responsibilities of contemporary scientists in a variety of scenarios related to the fields mentioned above, as well as to others such as assisted reproductive technology, medical prolongation of life, use of organs and human tissues, the horizon of concern for eugenics [ 69 ], and the consequences that oppression and segregation have on human beings [ 20 , 70 ].

Some suggested readings to stimulate discussion on Frankenstein stigmas and ethical issues in current science

Health science students can compare the contents of these papers to Frankenstein’s story or choose a recent controversial scientific advance and analyse the bioethical limits that could be involved and possible connections with Frankenstein . Furthermore, they could consider whether these warnings are based on moral opinion or on scientific assertions, taking into account the specific social context [ 71 ] and predictions of how these issues might be viewed in the future, while bearing in mind that moral values might be temporal [ 72 ].

The debate about creating life and the morality of “playing God” could lead into lessons about scientific ambition and ethical responsibilities in scientific advances [ 22 ]. Beyond technical and moral questions, “it is the inherent nature of science to push boundaries, discover new things, and commit overreach” [ 19 ], and students need to learn the importance of constant review of research and of supervision and feedback from expert colleagues and the general public. It is important to remember that Frankenstein's work is hidden, not shared with others, and removed from society [ 29 , 48 ].

It can be useful to compare Frankenstein's acts and attitudes with those prescribed by current bioethical standards, principles, and guidelines for safe and ethical medical research. Although we must be cautious about judging the past based on current moral standards, this comparison can help students think about bioethics. They can identify the aspects of scientific research that were insufficiently protected in Frankenstein’s experiment and discuss the ethical dilemmas that biomedical advances imply for the present and future of humanity. They can also discuss to what extent views of events depend on the viewers’ perspective and the importance of historical context for bioethical principles. Table 2 summarizes a proposal for an activity relating Frankenstein to the bioethics of some fields of research.

An example of how Frankenstein can be used to discuss the bioethical limits of some contemporary scientific discoveries

The need for empathy and compassion in medical care and research

Beyond the distinction between human and non-human creatures, this approach could delve into the themes related to the creation of living beings and scientists’ responsibility for their creations, as well as these creatures’ place in society and how they should be cared for.

In the novel, only a blind man treats Frankenstein’s creature kindly, and the creature cannot understand why his creator and society reject him. The creature shows that he has emotions and explains his desire to be accepted. He articulates his need for the companionship of a creature like him, promising to disappear peacefully if Dr Frankenstein creates a female creature to live with him and vowing to wreak havoc if he does not. Dr Frankenstein has misgivings about this project and undertakes it reluctantly, out of guilt, only to renege on his promise and destroy this second creation before it is finished.

In addition to analysing scientists’ responsibilities toward their creations, this approach can be used to explore the doctor-patient relationship. Given that empathy is a complex phenomenon that involves the ability to experience and share others’ feelings [ 73 , 74 ] and compassionate care requires empathy for those who are suffering and efforts to alleviate their suffering [ 75 ], the novel can be used to discuss both of these concepts.

Frankenstein is an epistolary novel, so it allows us access into different memories as narrators change throughout the text although, as mentioned above, female voices are notably absent. Subjective, reflective, and perspectival memories are presented, but we must bear in mind which character is speaking in the novel [ 20 ]. The creature’s perspective can be an interesting point to discuss, especially his monologue about love and company.

Victor Frankenstein has difficulties manifesting empathy for the creature he has created and providing it with compassionate care; in fact, he does everything in his power to avoid these responsibilities, despite the creature’s obvious need for humane treatment. Some scenes in Kenneth Branagh’s (1994) film Frankenstein of Mary Shelley (e.g., the creature’s monologue and Victor Frankenstein’s response) illustrate this point masterfully. It is important for students to make the connection between the emotions evoked in the story and bioethical responsibility and to realise that bioethical responsibility is inseparable from empathy. Exchanging opinions about Frankenstein’s responsibilities as a scientist regarding the protection of the creature and society can help them make this connection, and examining the creature’s plight can help students understand three empathic abilities that they will have to develop in their careers as health professionals [ 76 ]: the ability to understand the patients’ situations (including their perspectives and feelings), the ability to communicate that they understand this situation, and the ability to use their understanding of the patient’s situation to improve on it.

Another approach is to have students prepare a debate in which they take the roles of the two characters, focusing on their emotions, needs, and responsibilities. The class can also reflect on situations where they felt cut off from their peers by any kind of discrimination or segregation, the prejudices in our society, and how they could change them.

Our approach underlines the importance of responsibility, bioethics, and compassionate care in health sciences. These themes can also lead to a discussion of attitudes toward science and bioethics from the point of view of aesthetics—the emotions they evoke, their utility or harmfulness, and their effects on society, the environment, and the family. These discussions are especially important for showing the connections between science and empathy through examining the different roles and situations in the story, for example, by discussing the relationship between scientific advances and Victor Frankenstein’s and the creature’s feelings and emotions. Table 3 summarizes some teaching objectives that can be considered when using Frankenstein as pedagogical tool.

Some examples of general teaching objectives when using Frankenstein as a pedagogical tool

Conclusions

Our earlier findings indicated that the scientific literature on Frankenstein focused mainly on science and the personality of the scientist rather than on the creature he created or on ethical aspects of his research [ 27 ]. The current paper explores how Frankenstein can be used to help health sciences students learn about bioethical issues through exploring the connections between science and literature, the need for bioethical limits, and how those limits relate to empathy and compassionate care.

Professionals and students of the health sciences need to assess advances in biomedical research from a critical bioethical viewpoint. The rapid advance of new technologies and their impact on human beings necessitate a sound bioethical analysis and deep reflection on scientists’ and healthcare professionals’ responsibilities in their implementation. The humanities, and especially literature, offer a powerful tool for reflection, since the characters and stories allow us to discuss current problems that have already appeared in completely different contexts and thus avoid focusing the debate exclusively on a specific contemporary situation.

Mary Shelley’s novel can be a good tool for analysing issues such as scientific research, the nature of science, and bioethical conflicts. Two centuries after its first publication, this literary work is far from being outdated or obsolete. It remains a valuable tool for reflecting on personal and social limits, the connection between curiosity and scientific progress, and the scientist’s responsibility in research.

We propose an active and participatory approach to learning based on exploration through questioning rather than on supplying ready-made answers. Frankenstein can reaffirm its value as a case study in teaching and expand the role of literary sources in the education of health sciences students. Future research should include studies to collect empirical evidence about the actual pedagogical effectiveness of this approach.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the present manuscript. ICB and EG searched the literature and analysed the documents, establishing major categories for the teaching approaches. JEB contributed to data analysis and data interpretation. ICB wrote the first draft, which was then reviewed and discussed by all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

No funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• 1. Reginato V, Gallian DMC, Marra S. A literatura na formação de futuros cientistas: lição de Frankenstein. Educ Pesqui. 2018;44(1):1–16. [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. O’Neill D, Jenkins E, Mawhinney R, Cosgrave E, O’Mahony S, Guest C, Moss H. Rethinking the medical in the medical humanities. Med Hum. 2016;42(2):109–114. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2015-010831. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Moreno-Leguizamon C, Patterson J, Gomez RA. Incorporation of social sciences and humanities in the training of health professionals and practitioners in other ways of knowing. Res Humanit Med Educ. 2015;2:18–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Gallian DMC, Pondé LF, Ruiz R. Humanização, humanismos e humanidades: problematizando conceitos e práticas no contexto da saúde no Brasil. Rev Int Humanid Méd. 2012;1(1):5–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Macnaughton J. Medical humanities’ challenge to medicine. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(5):927–932. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01728.x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Halperin EC. Preserving the humanities in medical education. Med Teac. 2010;32(1):76–79. doi: 10.3109/01421590903390585. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Popil I. Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(2):204–207. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.06.002. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Gunn TM, Grigg LM, Pomahac GA. Critical thinking in science education: can bioethical issues and questioning strategies increase scientific understandings. JET. 2007;42(2):165–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Hawkins AH, McEntyre MC, editors. Teaching literature and medicine. New York: Modern Language Association; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Barber S, Moreno-Leguizamón CJ. Can narrative medicine education contribute to the delivery of compassionate care? A review of the literature. Med Humanit. 2017;43(3):199–203. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2017-011242. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Baños JE, Guardiola E. Literature in medical teaching: the crucial importance of literature in the education of medical students. Mètode Sci Stud J. 2018;8:215–221. doi: 10.7203/metode.8.10555. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Orefice C, Baños JE, editors. The role of humanities in the teaching of medical students. Barcelona: Fundación Antoni Esteve; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Shapiro J, Nixon LL, Wear SE, Doukas DJ. Medical professionalism: what the study of the literature can contribute to the conversation. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2015;10:10. doi: 10.1186/s13010-015-0030-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Bolton G. Medicine and literature: writing and reading. J Eval Clin Pract. 2005;11:171–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00521.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Baños JE. El valor de la literatura en la formación de los estudiantes de medicina. Educ Med. 2003;6:93–99. [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Lancaster T, Hart R, Gardner S. Literature and medicine: evaluating a special study module using the nominal group technique. Med Educ. 2002;36:1071–1076. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01325.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Nagy P, Wylie R, Eschrich J, Finn E. The enduring influence of a dangerous narrative: how scientists can mitigate the Frankenstein myth. J Bioeth Inq. 2018;15(2):279–292. doi: 10.1007/s11673-018-9846-9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Gaylin W. The Frankenstein factor. N Engl J Med. 1977;297:665–667. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197709222971211. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Nagy P, Wylie R, Eschrich J, Finn E. Why Frankenstein is a stigma among scientists. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(4):1143–1159. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9936-9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Koepke Y. Lessons from Frankenstein: narrative myth as ethical model. Med Humanit. 2019;45(1):27–36. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2017-011376. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Haynes RD. Whatever happened to the 'mad, bad' scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Underst Sci. 2016;25(1):31–44. doi: 10.1177/0963662514535689. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Holmes R. Science fiction: the science that fed Frankenstein. Nature. 2016;535(7613):490–492. doi: 10.1038/535490a. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Ginn SR. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: exploring neuroscience, nature, and nurture in the novel and the films. Prog Brain Res. 2013;204:169–190. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00009-9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. van den Belt H. Playing God in Frankenstein's footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. Nanoethics. 2009;3(3):257–268. doi: 10.1007/s11569-009-0079-6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Ferry-Danini J. A new path for humanistic medicine. Theor Med Bioeth. 2018;39:57–77. doi: 10.1007/s11017-018-9433-4. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Fishelov D. The indirect path to the literary canon exemplified by Shelley’s Frankenstein. CLC. 2016;18(2)
• 27. Cambra Badii I, Guardiola E, Baños JE. The ethical interest of Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus: a literature review 200 years after its publication. Sci Eng Ethics. 2020;26(5):2791–2808. doi: 10.1007/s11948-020-00229-x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Koren P, Bar V. Science and it's images—promise and threat: from classic literature to contemporary students' images of science and the scientist. Interchange. 2009;40(2):141–163. doi: 10.1007/s10780-009-9088-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Kupferschmidt K. The long shadow of Frankenstein. Science. 2018;359(6372):146–147. doi: 10.1126/science.359.6372.146. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Davies H. Can Mary Shelley's Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Med Humanit. 2004;30(1):32–35. doi: 10.1136/jmh.2003.000153. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Hammond K. Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism. Cult Geogr. 2004;11(2):181–198. doi: 10.1191/14744744004eu301oa. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Harrison G, Gannon WL. Victor Frankenstein's institutional review board proposal, 1790. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(5):1139–1157. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9588-y. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Campbell CS. Biotechnology and the fear of Frankenstein. Camb Q Health Ethics. 2003;12(4):342–352. doi: 10.1017/S0963180103124048. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Baños JE, Aramburu J, Sentí M. Biocinema: the experience of using popular movies with students of biology. J Med Movies. 2005;1:42–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. Miller G, McFarlane A. Science fiction and the medical humanities. Med Humanit. 2016;42(4):213–218. doi: 10.1136/medhum-2016-011144. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Djerassi C. Ethical discourse by science-in-fiction. Nature. 1998;393(6685):511–513. doi: 10.1038/31088. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Seymour M. Introduction. In: Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. London: The Folio Society; 2004. p. ix-xviii
• 38. Micheletti S. Hybrids of the romantic: Frankenstein, Olimpia, and artificial life. Ber Wiss. 2018;41(2):146–155. doi: 10.1002/bewi.201801888. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Pheasant-Kelly F. Reflections of science and medicine in two Frankenstein adaptations: Frankenstein (Whale 1931) and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (Branagh 1994) Lit and Med. 2018;36(2):312–336. doi: 10.1353/lm.2018.0016. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. López-Valdés JC. Del romanticismo y la ficción a la realidad: Dippel, Galvani, Aldini y «el moderno Prometeo». Breve historia del impulso nervioso [From Romanticism and fiction to reality: Dippel, Galvani, Aldini and “the Modern Prometheus”. Brief history of nervous impulse] Gac Med Mex. 2018;154(1):105–110. doi: 10.24875/GMM.17002889. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 41. Genís MD. The sleep of (scientific) reason produces (literary) monsters or, how science and literature shake hands. Mètode. 2016;6:14–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• 42. Mackowiak P. President's address: Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the dark side of medical science. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2014;125:1–13. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Severino S, Morrison N. Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein, or the modern Prometheus: a psychological study of unrepaired shame. J Pastoral Care Counsel. 2013;67(4):1–10. doi: 10.1177/154230501306700405. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 44. Pulido TG. Vida artificial y literatura: mito, leyendas y ciencia en el Frankenstein de Mary Shelley. Tonos. 2012;23:1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• 45. Doherty S. The 'medicine' of Shelley and Frankenstein. Emerg Med. 2003;15:389–391. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00483.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 46. Goulding C. The real Doctor Frankenstein? J R Soc Med. 2002;95(5):257–259. doi: 10.1177/014107680209500514. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 47. Williams C. «Inhumanly brought back to life and misery»: Mary Wollstonecraft, Frankenstein, and the Royal Humane Society. Womens Writ. 2001;8(2):213–234. doi: 10.1080/09699080100200190. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 48. de La Rocque L, Texeira LA. Frankenstein, de Mary Shelley, e Drácula, de Bram Stoker: gênero e ciência na Literatura. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2001;8(1):10–34. doi: 10.1590/S0104-59702001000200001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 49. Bishop M. The «makyng» and re-making of man: 1. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. J R Soc Med. 1994;87(12):749–751. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 50. Mellor AK. Frankenstein, Gender, and Mother Nature. In: Guston D, Finn E, Scott RJ, editors. Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus: Annotated for Scientists, Engineers, and Creators of All Kinds. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 2017. pp. 239–244. [ Google Scholar ]
• 51. Laplace-Sinatra M. Science, gender and otherness in Shelley's Frankenstein and Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation. ERR. 1998;9(2):253–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• 52. Cross A. “Indelible impressions”: Gender and language in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Womens Stud. 1998;27(6):547–580. doi: 10.1080/00497878.1998.9979233. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 53. London B. Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the spectacle of masculinity. PMLA. 1994;108(2):253–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• 54. Haynes R. From alchemy to artificial intelligence: stereotypes of the scientist in western literature. Public Underst Sci. 2003;12(3):243–253. doi: 10.1177/0963662503123003. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 55. O’Neill RD. “Frankenstein to futurism”: representations of organ donation and transplantation in popular culture. Transplant Rev. 2006;20(4):222–230. doi: 10.1016/j.trre.2006.09.002. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 56. Robert JS. Rereading Frankenstein: What if Victor Frankenstein had actually been evil? Hastings Cent Rep. 2018;48(6):21–24. doi: 10.1002/hast.933. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 57. Shelley M. Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus. London: Colburn/Bentley; 1831. p. 39. [ Google Scholar ]
• 58. Reboul O. Les valeurs de l’education. In: Jacob A, dir. Encyclopédie universelle. Tome I: L’univers philosophique. Paris: PUF; 1989.
• 59. Turney J. Frankenstein’s footsteps: science, genetics, and popular culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• 60. Hellsten I. Dolly: scientific breakthrough or Frankenstein'’s monster? Journalistic and scientific metaphors of cloning. Metaphor Symb. 2000;15(4):213–221. doi: 10.1207/S15327868MS1504_3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 61. Syrdal DS, Nomura T, Hirai H, Dautenhahn K. Examining the Frankenstein syndrome. In: Mutlu B, Bartneck C, Ham J, Evers V, Kanda T, editors. Social robotics. ICSR 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer; 2011. pp. 125–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• 62. Rollin BE. The Frankenstein syndrome: ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• 63. Hellsten I, Nerlich B. Synthetic biology: building the language for a new science brick by metaphorical brick. New Genet Soc. 2011;30(4):375–397. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2011.592009. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 64. Cohen J. How a horror story haunts science. Science. 2018;359(6372):148–150. doi: 10.1126/science.359.6372.148. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 65. Szollosy M. Freud, Frankenstein and our fear of robots: projection in our cultural perception of technology. AI Soc. 2017;32:433–439. doi: 10.1007/s00146-016-0654-7. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 66. Mazlish B. The man–machine and artificial intelligence. Stanf Humanit Rev. 1995;4(2):21–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• 67. van den Belt H. Frankenstein lives on. Science. 2018;359(6372):137. doi: 10.1126/science.aas9167. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 68. Westra L. Response: Dr. Frankenstein and today’s professional biotechnologist: a failed analogy? Between Species. 1992;8(4):216–223. doi: 10.15368/bts.1992v8n4.6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 69. Nowlin C. 200 years after Frankenstein. Perspect Biol Med. 2018;61(3):430–449. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2018.0054. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 70. Kakoudaki D. Unmaking people: the politics of negation in Frankenstein and Ex Machina. Sci Fict Stud. 2018;45(2):289–307. doi: 10.5621/sciefictstud.45.2.0289. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 71. Jochemsen H. Normative practices as an intermediate between theoretical ethics and morality. Philosophia Reformata. 2006;71(1):96–112. doi: 10.1163/22116117-90000377. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 72. Prinz JJ. Where do morals come from?—A plea for a cultural approach. In: Christen M, van Schaik C, Fischer J, Huppenbauer M, Tanner C, editors. Empirically informed ethics: Morality between facts and norms Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy. New York: Springer; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• 73. de Waal FB. Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:279–300. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 74. Hall J, Schwartz R. Empathy present and future. J Soc Psychol. 2019;159(3):225–243. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2018.1477442. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 75. Chochinov HM, Hassard T, McClement S, Hack T, Kristjanson LJ, Harlos M, Sinclair S, Murray A. The patient dignity inventory: a novel way of measuring dignity related distress in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2018;36:559–571. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.12.018. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 76. Mercer SW, Reynolds WJ. Empathy and quality of care. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(Suppl):S9–12. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

• View on publisher site
• PDF (893.0 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: exploring neuroscience, nature, and nurture in the novel and the films

Affiliation.

• 1 Program in Social Sciences, Rowan-Cabarrus Community College, 1531 Trinity Church Road, Concord, NC, USA. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 24041324
• DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00009-9

The story of Victor Frankenstein's quest to conquer death produced a legacy that has endured for almost 200 years. Powerful in its condemnation of the scientist's quest to achieve knowledge at any cost, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is one of the most enduring novels of all time. It has never been out of print and has been translated to both stage and screen many times since its "birth." Numerous novels, short stories, and scripts have drawn upon Shelley's primary theme: the creation of a living organism from the dead, dying, and decaying body parts of human beings. Although Mary does not provide details of the animation process, particularly in her first edition, the process has been explored with a great deal of imagination and originality in the various cinematic portrayals of the story. Equally important as the theme of the scientist's quest for knowledge is the role that a creator plays in the life of its creation. Mary Shelley's novel pondered on how rejection would affect the offspring of such "unnatural" origins. In keeping with the "scientific" basis of the Creature's birth, cinematic portrayals attempted to provide a scientific rationale for the Creature's descent into madness and its evil behavior. From Robert Florey's initial script for the 1931 film directed by James Whale to the more recent films and television series, an abnormal brain is considered to be the cause of the madness and malignity of the Creature.

Keywords: Hammer films; James Whale; John William Polidori; Kenneth Branagh; Luigi Galvani; Naturphilosophen; Robert Florey; Universal Studios.

© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Publication types

• Historical Article
• History, 18th Century
• History, 19th Century
• Literature / history*
• Motion Pictures / history*
• Neurosciences / history*

Personal name as subject

• Mary Shelley

The Ethical Interest of Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus : A Literature Review 200 Years After Its Publication

• Original Research/Scholarship
• Published: 12 June 2020
• Volume 26 , pages 2791–2808, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Irene Cambra-Badii   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1233-3243 1 , 2 ,
• Elena Guardiola   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8002-1415 3 &
• Josep-E. Baños   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8202-6893 1 , 3  

3719 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Two hundred years after it was first published, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the modern Prometheus remains relevant. This novel has endured because of its literary merits and because its themes lend themselves to analysis from multiple viewpoints. Scholars from many disciplines have examined this work in relation to controversial scientific research. In this paper, we review the academic literature where Frankenstein is used to discuss ethics, bioethics, science, technology and medicine. We searched the academic literature and carried out a content analysis of articles discussing the novel and films derived from it, analyzing the findings qualitatively and quantitatively. We recorded the following variables: year and language of publication, whether it referred to the novel or to a film, the academic discipline in which it was published, and the topics addressed in the analysis. Our findings indicate that the scientific literature on Frankenstein focuses mainly on science and the personality of the scientist rather than on the creature the scientist created or ethical aspects of his research. The scientist’s responsibility is central to the ethical interest of Frankenstein; this issue entails both the motivation underlying the scientist’s acts and the consequences of these acts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Scheme based on: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;7:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

Similar content being viewed by others

• Frankenstein

Gothic Science: The Failure of Education in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Banerjee, S. (2011). Home is where mamma is: Reframing the science question in Frankenstein. Women's Studies . https://doi.org/10.1080/00497878.2011.527783 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Barns, I. (1990). Monstrous nature or technology?: Cinematic resolutions of the “Frankenstein Problem”. Science as Culture . https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439009526278 .

Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education . https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063 .

Bishop, M. (1994). The “making” and re-making of man: 1. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and transplant surgery. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87 (12), 749–751.

Google Scholar  

Brem, S., & Anijar, K. (2003). The bioethics of fiction: The chimera in film and print. American Journal of Bioethics . https://doi.org/10.1162/15265160360706787 .

Burgess, M. (2014). Transporting Frankenstein: Mary Shelley's mobile figures. European Romantic Review . https://doi.org/10.1080/10509585.2014.902902 .

Campbell, C. (2003). Biotechnology and the fear of Frankenstein. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180103124048 .

Chambers, T. (2018). On cute monkeys and repulsive monsters. Hastings Center Report . https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.930 .

Childress, J. F., & Beauchamp, T. L. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics . New York: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, J. (2018). How a horror story haunts science. Science . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.359.6372.148 .

Davies, H. (2004). Can Mary Shelley's Frankenstein be read as an early research ethics text? Medical Humanities . https://doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2003.000153 .

de La Rocque, L., & Texeira, L. A. (2001). Frankenstein, de Mary Shelley, e Drácula, de Bram Stoker: gênero e ciência na Literature. História, Ciências, Saúde—Manguinhos . https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702001000200001 .

Djerassi, C. (1998). Ethical discourse by science-in-fiction. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/31088 .

Doherty, S. (2003). The 'medicine' of Shelley and Frankenstein. Emergency Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00483.x .

Fairclough, M. (2018). Frankenstein and the “Spark of Being”: Electricity, animation, and adaptation. European Romantic Review . https://doi.org/10.1080/10509585.2018.1465701 .

Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014). Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113481790 .

Fischer, J. (2014). What kind of ethics?—How understanding the field affects the role of empirical research on morality for ethics. In M. Christen, C. van Schaik, J. Fischer, M. Huppenbauer, & C. Tanner (Eds.), Empirically informed ethics: Morality between facts and norms. Library of ethics and applied philosophy (Vol. 32). New York: Springer.

Gaylin, W. (1977). The Frankenstein Factor. The New England Journal of Medicine, 297 , 665–667.

Genís Mas, D. (2016). The sleep of (scientific) reason produces (literary) monsters or, how science and literature shake hands. Mètode, 6 , 14–20.

Ginn, S. (2013). Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: Exploring neuroscience, nature, and nurture in the novel and the films. Progress in Brain Research . https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63287-6.00009-9 .

Goswami, D. (2018). “Filthy creation”: The problem of parenting in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities . https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v10n2.20 .

Goulding, C. (2002). The real Doctor Frankenstein? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680209500514 .

Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B.-M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002 .

Greenshields, W. (2018). Frames, vanishing points and blindness: Frankenstein and the field of vision. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities . https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v10n2.18 .

Hammond, K. (2004). Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern environmentalism. Cultural Geographies . https://doi.org/10.1191/14744744004eu301oa .

Harrison, G., & Gannon, W. (2014). Victor Frankenstein's Institutional Review Board Proposal, 1790. Science and Engineering Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9588-y .

Haste, H. (1997). Myths, monsters, and morality: Understanding 'antiscience' and the media message. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 22 (2), 114–120.

Haynes, R. (2003). From alchemy to artificial intelligence: Stereotypes of the scientist in western literature. Public Understanding of Science . https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662503123003 .

Haynes, R. (2014). Whatever happened to the “mad, bad” scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science . https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514535689 .

Hellsten, I. (2000). Dolly: Scientific breakthrough or Frankenstein's Monster? Journalistic and Scientific Metaphors of Cloning. Metaphor and Symbol . https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1504_3 .

Holmes, R. (2016). Science fiction: The science that fed Frankenstein. Nature . https://doi.org/10.1038/535490a .

Jochemsen, H. (2006). Normative practices as an intermediate between theoretical ethics and morality. Philosophia Reformata . https://doi.org/10.1163/22116117-90000377 .

Kakoudaki, D. (2018). Unmaking people: The politics of negation in Frankenstein and Ex Machina. Science Fiction Studies . https://doi.org/10.5621/sciefictstud.45.2.0289 .

Koepke, Y. (2018). Lessons from Frankenstein: narrative myth as ethical model. Medical Humanities . https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2017-011376 .

Koren, P., & Bar, V. (2009). Science and it’s images—Promise and threat: From classic literature to contemporary students’ images of science and “the Scientist”. Interchange . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-009-9088-1 .

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology . London: Sage.

Lacefield, K. (2016). Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the Guillotine, and Modern Ontological Anxiety. Text Matters . https://doi.org/10.1515/texmat-2016-0003 .

Laplace-Sinatra, M. (1998). Science, gender and otherness in Shelley's Frankenstein and Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation. European Romantic Review . https://doi.org/10.1080/10509589808570051 .

Lederman, N. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of research in science teaching . https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404 .

Mackowiak, P. (2014). President's address: Mary Shelley, Frankenstein, and the dark side of medical science. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 125 , 1–13.

Mccurdy, H. (2006). Vision and leadership: The view from science fiction. Public Integrity, 8 (3), 257–270.

Mellor, A. (2001). Frankenstein, racial science, and the yellow peril. Ninet Century Contexts . https://doi.org/10.1080/08905490108583531 .

Micheletti, S. (2018). Hybrids of the romantic: Frankenstein, olimpia, and artificial life. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte . https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.201801888 .

Miller, G., & McFarlane, A. (2016). Science fiction and the medical humanities. Medical Humanities . https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2016-011144 .

Mitra, Z. (2011). A science fiction in a gothic scaffold: A reading of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 3 (1), 52–59.

Moreno, J. (2018). From Frankenstein to Hawking: Which is the real face of science? The American Journal of Bioethics . https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1461468 .

Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2018a). Why Frankenstein is a stigma among scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9936-9 .

Nagy, P., Wylie, R., Eschrich, J., & Finn, E. (2018b). The enduring influence of a dangerous narrative: How scientists can mitigate the Frankenstein myth. The Journal of Bioethical Inquiry . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-018-9846-9 .

Nowlin, C. (2018). 200 years after Frankenstein. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2018.0054 .

Oakes, E. (2013). Lab life: Vitalism, Promethean Science, and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 16 (4), 56–77.

O'Neill, R. (2006). “Frankenstein to futurism”: Representations of organ donation and transplantation in popular culture. Transplantation Reviews . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trre.2006.09.002 .

Pheasant-Kelly, F. (2018). Reflections of Science and Medicine in Two Frankenstein Adaptations: Frankenstein (Whale 1931) and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (Branagh 1994). Literature and Medicine . https://doi.org/10.1353/lm.2018.0016 .

Prinz, J. J. (2014). Where do morals come from?—A plea for a cultural approach. In M. Christen, C. van Schaik, J. Fischer, M. Huppenbauer, & C. Tanner (Eds.), Empirically informed ethics: Morality between facts and norms. Library of ethics and applied philosophy (Vol. 32). New York: Springer.

Pulido Tirado, G. (2012). Vida artificial y literatura: Mito, leyendas y ciencia en el Frankenstein de Mary Shelley. Tonos digital: Revista electrónica de estudios filológicos, 23 , 1–17.

Reginato, V., Claramonte Gallian, D. M., & Marra, S. (2018). A Literature na formação de futuros cientistas: Lição de Frankenstein. Educacao e Pesquisa . https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-9702201610157176 .

Reich, W. T. (1978). Encyclopedia of bioethics . New York: Free Press.

Robert, J. S. (2018). Rereading Frankenstein : What if Victor Frankenstein had actually been evil? Hastings Center Report . https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.933 .

Sariols Persson, D. (2011). L'enfant monstre, le monstre enfant. Enfances et Psy . https://doi.org/10.3917/ep.051.0025 .

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice . London: Sage.

Schroll, M., & Greenword, S. (2011). Worldviews in collision/worldviews in metamorphosis: Toward a multistate paradigm. Anthropology of Consciousness . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-3537.2011.01037.x .

Severino, S., & Morrison, N. (2013). Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley's Frankenstein, or the modern Prometheus: A psychological study of unrepaired shame. Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling: Advancing Theory and Professional Practice through Scholarly and Reflective Publications . https://doi.org/10.1177/154230501306700405 .

Stern, M. (2006). Dystopian anxieties versus utopian ideals: Medicine from Frankenstein to the visible human project and body worlds. Science as Culture . https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430500529748 .

Syrdal, D. S., Nomura, T., Hirai, H., & Dautenhahn, K. (2011). Examining the Frankenstein Syndrome. In B. Mutlu, C. Bartneck, J. Ham, V. Evers, & T. Kanda (Eds.), Social robotics. ICSR 2011. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7072). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25504-5_13 .

Szollosy, M. (2017). Freud, Frankenstein and our fear of robots: Projection in our cultural perception of technology. AI and Society . https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-016-0654-7 .

Trichet, Y., & Marion, E. (2014). Le corps, son image et le désir du scientifique dans la fiction cinématographique. Cliniques Mediterraneennes . https://doi.org/10.3917/cm.090.0255 .

Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics, and popular culture . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

van den Belt, H. (2009). Playing God in Frankenstein’s footsteps: Synthetic biology and the meaning of life. Nanoethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-009-0079-6 .

van den Belt, H. (2018). Frankenstein lives on. Science . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9167 .

Villacañas, B. (2001). De doctores y monstruos: la ciencia como transgresión en Dr. Faustus, Frankestein y Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Asclepio, 5 , 10. https://doi.org/10.3989/asclepio.2001.v53.i1.177 .

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Westra, L. (1992). Response: Dr. Frankenstein and today's professional biotechnologist: a failed analogy? Between Species, 8 (4), 216–223.

Williams, C. (2001). “Inhumanly brought back to life and misery”: Mary Wollstonecraft, Frankenstein, and the Royal Humane Society. Women’s Writing . https://doi.org/10.1080/09699080100200190 .

Download references

The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Irene Cambra-Badii & Josep-E. Baños

Bioethics Chair, Universitat de Vic–Universitat Central de Catalunya, Vic, Spain

Irene Cambra-Badii

School of Medicine, Universitat de Vic–Universitat Central de Catalunya, Casa de Convalescència, Dr. Junyent 1, 08500, Vic, Spain

Elena Guardiola & Josep-E. Baños

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josep-E. Baños .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cambra-Badii, I., Guardiola, E. & Baños, JE. The Ethical Interest of Frankenstein; Or, the Modern Prometheus : A Literature Review 200 Years After Its Publication. Sci Eng Ethics 26 , 2791–2808 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00229-x

Download citation

Received : 14 October 2019

Accepted : 30 May 2020

Published : 12 June 2020

Issue Date : October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00229-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Literature analysis
• Feature films
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research