This paper examines Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as a cautionary tale about humanity's desire for immortality and the scientific responsibility that accompanies life-extension research. By comparing Victor Frankenstein's abandonment of his creature to modern life-extension science—including stem-cell therapy, nanotechnology, and genetic therapy—the paper argues that contemporary researchers must learn from Victor's failure to take responsibility for his creation. The analysis suggests that advancing life-extension technology without ethical accountability could produce social consequences similar to the creature's suffering and isolation, highlighting the need for scientists to balance innovation with moral obligation.
Humans have long yearned for immortality and everlasting youth—continuing life in a fully functioning body, free from confrontation with death and illness. Frankenstein: Or, the Modern Prometheus, Mary Shelley's most renowned novel, stands as one of the best literary works that showcases humanity's desire for immortality. The main character, Victor Frankenstein, is a gifted scientist who, though positioned as the story's central figure, lacks a clear role as either protagonist or antagonist. After finishing college, he longs to distinguish himself from the rest of the scientific community by accomplishing something no one has done before: creating life from death. Through months of work and sleepless nights, he completes his abnormal experiment, producing a horrendous creature made from the body parts of multiple deceased people. At the mere sight of his horrific creation, Victor flees and fails to take responsibility for what he has done.
Today, with scientific breakthroughs occurring constantly, it seems increasingly possible for researchers to develop anti-aging materials and extend human lifespan. However, just as the creature's unnatural existence led him to be abandoned in his community with no one taking responsibility for him, similar situations could occur when humans finally achieve near immortality. Understanding the implications of life-extension science is therefore essential to preventing such ethical catastrophes.
In modern times, scientists have developed a new scientific field called life-extension science, which focuses on slowing down or reversing the aging process. Researchers in this field attempt to expand both the maximum human lifespan and average life expectancy. According to Mair Underwood, Helen Bartlett, and Wayne Hall, who wrote "Professional and Personal Attitudes of Researchers in Ageing Towards Life Extension," many researchers today actively focus on "strong life extension," which seeks to extend the human lifespan beyond the current observed maximum of 122 years. Although no specific methods to achieve indefinite human lifespan currently exist, several possible approaches have been discussed, including organ cryopreservation, stem-cell therapy, and nanotechnology.
Stem cells are the building blocks of the human body. These underdeveloped, unspecialized cells not only have the ability to develop into any of 220 different cell types in the human body, but they are also capable of self-renewing multiple times. Thus, the use of stem cells can be very effective in replenishing and rebuilding failed cells and tissues. Even though this represents a major scientific breakthrough, controversy in stem-cell research has arisen because the stem cells known to be most effective in treating diseases are harvested from human embryos, a concern debated in Andrew Siegel's "Ethics of Stem Cell Research."
Further development in nano-medicine can enable cellular repair of many processes responsible for aging. Additionally, genetic therapy has been proposed as another future strategy to overcome aging. This therapy seeks to replace deficient genes with artificially modified genes. Many people today also consume products designed to supplement with extra nutrients such as vitamins and minerals to promote healthy and longer lives.
If Frankenstein had utilized stem cells instead of old, dead body parts from other people, he would have avoided many troubles. With stem cells, Victor could have grown a completely new, beautiful, living being in a little over a month. By creating a beautiful living being, he would no longer have been repulsed or frightened by the creature, which would have led him to accept it. This acceptance would have prevented the creature from murdering Victor's family and friends, resulting in a happy ending for all.
"How better methods could have prevented Frankenstein's tragedy"
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.