Frankenstein Support (Mock-Persausive Letter Forma Essays - Fiction

Frankenstein Support (Mock-Persausive Letter Forma Essays - Fiction Frankenstein Support (Mock-Persausive Letter Format) (Author's Note: This was a semi-creative project. We had to address the issues in a persuasive letter rather than a boring ol' report, so please become unconfused as far as the format..) Cal Tech Curriculum Committee: Scientists are all too ready to lock themselves away with their research, unwilling - perhaps even incapable - of seeing the consequences of their actions. It is our duty as their educators to provide them with not only a means to gain knowledge but also insights into the society into which they will ultimately release their findings. Since none here are literary or English majors, it may seem difficult at first to integrate such needed sociological concerns into their current courses of study, so it is our duty to give them easily-reliable examples which parallel with their own course of study, examples that will be memorable. And what better to illustrate and retain attention than a tragedy? I suggest that the Mary Shellys novel Frankenstein be included as a central text in the current Humanities courses required here. The reason Frankenstein may hold more relevance as part of the program than say, a classical Greek play, is the subject matter alone. Hopefully, the literary connections are more likely to be drawn, if we can appeal to the students interests as best as we can. Perhaps then they are more likely to believe that the humanities do have something to do with them. The specifics it also raises about ethics and responsibilities of science speak more than enough of the novels behalf.Many scientists in the far-reaching fields today may feel overwhelmed, perhaps even taking on a Gaudi-esque credo to their respective research. That Spanish architect is quoted as saying that he didnt have time to wonder, that he had to spend all of [his] time working. While this is a commendible work ethic, such a belief can lead scientists to bring the curse to mankind that Einstein warns us against. While a piece of art may incite violence, certain sciences may uncover information that can physically provide the means of violence. Scientists provide the power, they are the vehicles of the force - but it is rarely they who end up wielding it. Governments, companies, and monetary sponsors are those that are really calling the shots, and since they only bought out that technology without acquiring that knowledge themselves, they may prove irresponsible with that power. They have no responsibilty towards it, so it is up to the scientists themselves to determine if the rest of the world is ready for thier data. A common misconception is that the computer industry is out of control - but what is really growing beyond its rights is the monopolization and marketing of those computers. Unwitting engineers have explained to the executives how operation systems work, and now that simplified knowledge in turned against the users. This issue is addressed well in the Frankenstein novel as well. Had Victor taken in his monster and walked it into humanity slowly, instead of abandoning it when it needed him, his creation might just have fit in afterall. Could or should maybe do not even enter the picture. Science will continue to refine itself and go onward in some form throughout our lives. Someone will reach the next step or the higher level, and more will build off of it. However, the best precaution to learning and releasing innovative concepts to the society at the right time is giving our future scientists a wide range of possible scenarios to consider. In the novel, Victor understood how to perform his experiments, he had insights into what had been done in reliable fields before. But based on his seclusion and his obsession, his blind devotion to only his ideas, he could never predict the outcome of his experiment. He had no thesis to work towards. Knowing a bit of biology and chemistry does not qualify one to single-handedly delve into potentially dangerous projects. Why did he do it? Passion, obsession, the need for individual worth? We cannot allow egos to interfere with safety. We also cannot be willing to encourage our students complete withdrawal from society, with the possible loss of their own self to their science. A self-absorbed mind is not as likely to make responable conclusions. We should never sacrifice the individual for the collection of data or the progression of technology, because the progression will never stop. Thrown into motion such as it is, it will continue forward until we reach