The Thing That Would Not Die

Abstract

Today debate rages about the problematic impact of science on society in issues such as assisted dying, multiple pregnancies, fetal reduction, gene therapy, designer babies and resuscitation refusal. We may consider them questions of the moment but they are not as modern as we might assume. Older texts can assist us in the search for answers on these subjects and mirror our modern doubts and fears. In particular three texts: Frankenstein, R. U.R. (Rossum 's Universal Robots), and Brave New World. Although they were written decades ago they contirtually illuminate society's apprehension about science and scientists. The first, Frankenstein, was written by Mary Shelley in 1818. Shelley wrote about a young scientist who wishes to defeat death by reviving the deceased. The next book, R. U.R., is a play written by Czech author and political activist Karel Capek in 1923. Capek uses science fiction to point out contemporary issues which occupied him. Topics such as human prosperity, justice, and quality of life on our planet, are examined through dealing with subjects such as industrialization and its waste, labor management, and human follies and emotions. Brave New World, the dystopic novel written in 1930 by Aldous Huxley describes a futuristic world where humans are manufactured in an assembly. Family, history, creativity, knowledge and love have been eliminated from culiure and death has become insignificant. In these three books the authors emphasize the shortcomings of scientific attempts to solve issues relating to the creation and termination of life. We the readers are left with an image of scientists as deranged, morally repugnant people, who act without responsibility or thought. Writers, on the other hand, use art, imagination, and care. They recognize the fact that humans are more than just a mechanical assembly of certain chemicals which react with one another. Artists may imitate God but they do not try to perfect or rival divine creation.