Malonzo

Robert Malonzo
Prof. Johnson
English 1A
Nov 17, 2014
Unbounded Scientific Research
In the article Biotech Century: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Natures
Designs, author Jeremy Rifkin stated that this century, were up for a breakthrough in
biological engineering. He states that in the not-too-distant past, humans have been able
to clone or replicate living beings or crossbreed them with closely related species. Rifkin
then advances that nowadays, researchers have found a way to combine genes from any
combination of species, disregarding their proximity in the grand gene pool. Rifkin labels
this as somewhat blasphemous believing that the act of biological creation was never
meant for us humans. Another source named Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein,
indirectly supports this idea by proposing that the pursuit of knowledge can be dangerous
as it might interfere with humans calm and peaceful(287) minds. Her standpoint is
basically implying that ignorance is bliss and with knowledge comes sorrow. Both Rifkin
and Shelley oppose the advancement of knowledge in a way, but for different reasons.
Rifkin argues the first reason to place limits on scientific research: natural effects.
Rifkin explains that every single species in the ecosystem exists because of a
tremendously long history of interaction with other species. This interaction plays a major
role in determining whether a species will survive in the long run. If a species cant adapt,
then the law of nature decrees that it perish. Todays species are the ones that passed
evolutions mantra: adapt or perish. It is only possible because of all the adaptations their

Malonzo

ancestors went through. Keeping this in mind, its safe to conclude that a sudden insertion
of a new species will destroy the harmony of the whole system. For example, a sudden
increase in predatory species would gravely endanger the future of prey species. Nature
has an efficient way of keeping everything balanced. Rifkin doesnt believe it would be
wise to interfere with this fact.
Rifkin has another reason to disagree with genetic engineering: the unpredictability
of its subjects. In almost any kind of experiment, there are test subjects observed by
researchers. In this case, its the artificial creations. In an experiment, test subjects are
manipulated and exposed to different stimuli. Each result yielded by the subjects reaction
is recorded by the researcher. This is all well and good, but Rifkin argues that genetically
modified creatures will be very unpredictable since there is no basis to compare them
with. If a subject doesnt have a uniform trait, the experiment is rendered obsolete. It
comes to show that these creatures are not fit for scientific research in the first place. This
is all possible because there are just too many factors that the experiment is depending
on. A living animal has its own emotions, thought process, personality, and complexities.
Any information gathered from one animal may not always be applicable to other
animals, even from the same species.
Rifkin also argues that a living beings ability to produce gets in the way of
research. Because artificial creatures can multiply, in case the experiment goes wrong at
any point, the mistake will be widespread. Its always harder to rectify an error when
dealing with living things. And because theyre unpredictable, theres no way of telling
the rate at which they multiply. In a way, Rifkin implies that research with artificial
beings is considered a one-time, all-or-nothing gamble. It doesnt take a Ph.D. in any of

Malonzo

the sciences to know that there are usually multiple rounds of error-yielding experiment
before getting to the one with desired results. And by then, it might be too late.
Rifkin uses some interesting techniques in advancing his arguments. First, he
provides examples and uses it as a basis of comparison to predict what might happen
next, should the unlimited advancement of science and technology continue. He predicts
events that would threaten our society as a whole. He uses fear to get his message across.
While smarter listeners can detect his technique fairly easy and misbelieve most of what
he says, the majority of our population arent exactly as bright. Nonetheless, Rifkins
technique is effective since he will get the amount of support he needs to efficiently
hinder the advancement of science, particularly genetic engineering.
Rifkin also seems to target a certain group of listeners to join his cause:
environmentalists. As he talks about the ecology and laws of evolution and by taking an
environmental approach, Rifkin adds naturalists to his list of supporters while actually
advancing a valid claim. Although the amount of supporters he has doesnt have a direct
connection with how valid his argument is, it gives the issue on scientific research much
needed attention and opens everyone elses eyes about his point of view. Numbers can
overwhelm almost anything and most of all, it gets things done (or not done, in this case).
Moving on, Mary Shelley presents a broader idea that serves as a reason for
placing boundaries on scientific research. She points out that the pursuit of knowledge
itself is dangerous, as she implies that humans are better off with questions rather than
answers. In a way, she is correct because ever since scientific research has reached
unfathomable heights, science revealed secrets we wished we never knew about. We
discovered almost-incurable diseases, highly dangerous species of animals, malicious

Malonzo

substances hidden in the objects we interact with on a daily basis; the list goes on and on.
This is the reason why intellectual people often show signs of heavy mental stress.
They know problems that most people arent even aware of. They are doomed to idle
around, watching the ignorant cause more and more problems. With this in mind, Shelley
advances that the pursuit of knowledge must be limited to a gradual rate, for the world is
not ready for some particular scientific breakthroughs.
Shelley also talks about the human mind and how its naturally calm and
peaceful. She states that the pursuit of knowledge corrupts our minds with thoughts of
greed. A corrupted mind is the harbinger of human suffering, and it has been witnessed
throughout history. One good example of this is the expedition made by the Europeans to
the land they call The New World. They advanced to the West, searching for god, gold,
and glory, which brought suffering to the natives. Another solid example of this is the
experimentation of Jews during the Holocaust. For the name of science, thousands of
lives were taken, and the lucky ones were actually the ones who had a quick death.
Therefore, the unbounded pursuit of knowledge should not be supported.
Shelley has some techniques of her own. Instead of taking a direct approach and
stating a solution, she relies on heavy symbolism to get her point across. Knowing that
the human mind is a powerful object, Shelley uses ambiguity to make her readers
imaginations working. We all have our own nightmares, and Shelley conjures it for us
individually by associating it with Frankenstein, the monster. She then symbolizes
pursuers of knowledge as Dr. Frankenstein, who was zealous about discovering
knowledge and advancing science. She then takes an abrupt turn by making Monster
Frankenstein turn on his creator. I personally think that this serves as a fair warning for

Malonzo

all seekers of knowledge. It just comes to show that people, by nature, highly value
something they dont have at first. But as they acquire whatever it is they desired, be it
real or intangible, it loses its value. Dangerous knowledge should never be treated this
way, since it can actually harm others regardless of how much interest you still have
towards it. Shelleys writing can serve as an anecdote that will have the same effect on
researchers as the tale of Greek gods and goddesses had on the Greeks.
Mary Shelley wasnt just all about ambiguity, though. She referred to historical
events that would have been avoided by tranquility, had it been present in certain peoples
minds. She notes that: Greece should not have been enslaved, Caesar would have spared
his country, America would have been discovered gradually, and the empires of Mexico
and Peru would not have been destroyed (287).
In conclusion, Rifkin and Shelley provide two aspects of the opposition against
scientific advancement. Rifkin uses known facts to support his claim, while Shelley uses
symbolism to make her message be heard. Rifkin notes the harmful ecological and
economical effects of unbounded scientific research, and Shelley focuses on human
emotion. Shelley also promotes the saying ignorance is bliss and knowledge corrupts
humans naturally calm and peaceful minds. Ever the opposite, Rifkin analyzes the
plausible effects of genetically engineered species. All in all, Rifkin and Shelley agree
that limits should be placed in the pursuit of knowledge, but for different reasons.

Malonzo
Works Cited
Rifkin, Jeremy. Biotech Century: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Natures
Designs. The Presence of Others. 5th ed. Ed. Andres A. Lunsford and John J.
Ruszkiewicz. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. 311-319.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. The Presence of Others. 5th ed. Ed. Andres A. Lunsford
and John J. Ruszkiewicz. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. 285-289.