Ok. So redundant was definitely the wrong word to use -- a better one, perhaps, would be irrelevant. All Western governments are secularised. Religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the law, and with the affects of globalization, more people, especially the young, are being exposed to a wider spectrum of religious beliefs. The number of Australians who ticked the 'no religion' box has increased by 14% in the last 3 years, while 24% of 15-30 year olds indicate no connection with religious faith. This is still the minority, but the bigger picture must be seen. Are we playing God? It depends on your religion.
In South Korea, when biologist Hwang Woo Suk reported creating human embryonic stem cells through cloning, he did not apologize for offending religious taboos. He justified cloning by citing his Buddhist belief in recycling life through reincarnation. What does this have to do with Frankenstein? The Romantics believed in the divine connection to nature, and having said that, Shelley's 'Frankenstein' was undoubtedly a reflection not on the dangers of science, but on the consequences of the disrespect to nature.
The fluid boundary between death and life was a dominant theme in bio-medical science in the early 19th century, commonly leading to surgeons participating in the act of grave robbing. What’s more, during the time that Shelley wrote 'Frankenstein', life sciences reached a new peak with the study of teratology – the study of monsters or birth defects. French anatomist Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire conducted numerous experiments designed to produce monstrous births from animal embryos.
But I'm concentrating too much on the values of Romanticism and evading the "big picture". If we put 'Frankenstein' into historical context, there are several other interpretations for what exactly Shelley could have been protesting, from ignoring the metaphysical (and Victor's monster being an extended metaphor for his alter-ego -- a punishment for his neglecting to acknowledge spiritual existence) to idealistc bourgeois education and rejection of the aristocracy.
So why should we read 'Frankenstein' as a warning against the dangers of science if that wasn't even Shelley's intent? Indeed it was written first and foremost as a ghost story in a competition with other Romantic poets -- influenced by old German ghost tales. The truth is, the issue isn't whether or not people are willing to follow the ethics of science, because science isn't something that's widely available to the public. It took 277 tries to successfully clone Dolly the sheep, and it only lasted 6 years.
On the 27th of March, 2009, the British government released a “new ethics” handbook for scientists proceeding a discussion forum in Paris on the introduction of ethics in scientific training. It would be unthinkable to stop the advancements of science considering all its medical benefits, but all we can do is educate ourselves on how to use science responsibly. In Shelley's day biomedical science was highly innovative and questioned the issue of "playing God". But how is that still relevant to today, when the 'Big Bang' theory is widely accepted by the scientific community and Einstein's theory of relativity changed the face of science forever? Of course the issue is still relevant to the 21st century, but why should it still linger over our heads as warning, when the values of the early 19th century aren't applicable to today?
