# data[].attributes.body
Through conducting research throughout this project I have learned a lot about bioethics and our involvement with it. Some decisions that we are forced to make goes further than science itself. Reading further into some studies such as the experiment conducted in the Netherlands shows how technology can only get us humans so far and keep us content for so long until we have to make difficult decisions like euthanasia. I think we are able to do more than we can ever imagine in science it's just up to us if we want to make unethical and non-moral decisions such as baby modification or ending someone's life who cannot make the decision for themselves. I think that this is the extent to which we can do with science. A lot of people devote their lives to causes and religion in which I think interferes with people's judgment and beliefs of scientific involvement. Personally I am a very religious person and some scientific experiments nowadays go against my faith, but personally I think science can help us out a lot, and the faith of the people and possibly scientists prevent this. This project really helped expand my knowledge and make connections between Frankenstein and bioethics which I never thought had a connection before conducting research.

Nick Couch

# data[].attributes.body
As far as all of these beliefs and miraculous changes in technology and human disease are concerned I personally disagree with most if not all of them. The risk of creating further violence and mental issues runs far too high for me as a major in psychology. The human mind is sensitive and susceptible to things even we have yet to understand. Running the risk launching more hate in the world or ignorance to mental illness is not something I am willing to support for blue hair as a natural hair color...
Hate in this world runs deep and prejudices against skin color still exist why willingly give people the ability to create more people to hurt and oppress? This world has far more problems to fix then eliminating  disease in the human population.

It may not be a widely accept belief either, however disease helps to route undesirable traits in ALL animals. Eliminating these diseases would simply make way for new or even Emerging Infectious Diseases (EIDs).  Or old diseases making a come back. Then these two will have to be cut out. When would it be enough, how much would we cut out? Would be keep going until we are barely human anymore? Also it is highly doubtful this would be readily available to the majority of the population, the people diseases affect the most would be at a loss because sicknesses statistically are far more prevalent in the poor. Should the poor be shunned simply because they are not wealthy enough to compensate for the technology? There are simply too many ethical fine lines in this concept to accept it for the good of civilization.
Michayla Cash

# data[].attributes.body
Through reading both of these cases and comparing it to Frankenstein, it makes us think of these situations not only through a scientific standpoint and if it's good or bad, but a moral/ethical standpoint. In these situations you may think that deciding things for helpless people such as dementia patients and babies is right for them in the long run, but morally you may have complications deciding because in these situations, these people cannot decide for themselves. Specifically looking at dementia patients, the person who is legally responsible for them has a decision that goes past the what is good or bad for the patient but whether or not they should euthanize them. The definition of Dementia is a general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life. Alzheimer's is the most common cause of dementia. With the obvious loss of some brain function, the person who is affected by dementia most likely does not know what is best for them so therefore their life is put into someone else’ s hands. This relates to the concept of bioethics because when looking at these patients' current state, medical professionals and caretakers are struck with tough decisions resulting in euthanization. In the Netherlands, a. recent study explored whether it is ethical to allow an individual in the mild stages of dementia to commit suicide with assiatnce from physicians, with the patient's conceptions of a good life. There has also been situations in the Netherlands where  doctors were asked by patients to kill them when they reach a certain severity of dementia. An abundance of  hospice programs provide appropriate models for end of life care. I believe that the options for end of life care should look at the quality of life of these individuals and whether they are satisfied with the inevitability of death rather than delaying life and possibly making these patients suffer even more. This same issue is addressed and seen in Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein. We can first see this in the initial creation of the monster. The monster's horrific appearance and lack of nurturing leads to hate and rejection against him,causing the creature to turn on Frankenstein. The monster says, “Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition; for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me. The monster says that, like Satan, he is excluded and  envies happiness in life. The monster also explains how Satan’s unhappiness is caused by his alienation from his creator, God. This relates to the idea Euthanization with dementia patients because in some cases these patients are extremely unhappy and do not want to live much like the monster who never asked to be in his current situation. The second situation where we see bioethics relating to euthanization is at the end of the novel when the monster wants to kill himself. The monster states, “I shall quit your vessel on the ice-raft which brought me hither, and shall seek the most northern extremity of the globe; I shall collect my funeral pile, and consume to ashes this miserable frame, that its remains may afford no light to any curious and unhallowed wretch, who would create such another as i have been. I shall die.” The monster’s continual unhappiness from constant rejection from humanity leads him to want to take his own life. This is related to Euthanization and bioethics of dementia patients because the person affected by dementia in the Netherlands study want to take their own life much like the unhappy monster in Frankenstein and you wonder whether someone with more human knowledge should step in or not to prevent that from happening.

# data[].attributes.body
Bioethics is becoming a more widely used word with the advancement of technology and what should be done when it comes to modification on other humans.  The combining of the two words 'bio' or living things, and 'ethics;' a philosophical belief in what people generally believe is right or wrong. Essential it is the application of ethics to the field of medicine and healthcare. Bioethics come into to play when we talk about issues such as euthanasia, abortion and genetic engineering involving human beings. It entails the objective appraisal of how our values, desires and actions affect others, including animals and the environment.

# data[].attributes.body
The story of Frankenstein and his monster can lead to extremely touchy subjects when humanity and inhumane practices are brought into the equation.
One of these prominent practices around the world currently is the testing of CRISPR enzymes, also known as; clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Or the cutting of DNA strands by using this enzyme molecule to intercept undesirable genes.
In the NPR daily article scientist, He Jiankui, discusses the use of CRISPR to delete the gene transfer of HIV from two embryos, closing the door for said disease to enter.
This was the first breakthrough of such technology in the world.
However, this miraculous accomplishment raises the question of how far will this technology be allowed to alter embryo gene transfer?
CRISPR enzymes grant scientist the ability to deposit desirable phenotypic genes, or the genes the present in a persons appearance.
This raises the question of human free will and human choice. The ethics of such gene altering technology presents problems when choice is brought up. Should parents be able to choose what their child looks like, or should they accept what their mix of genes will make.
This question is brought up due the the undeniable fact that an embryo does not have the ability to make this choice for its self.
This same set of questions can be viewed through Mary Shelley's perception in her 1818 novel Frakenstein. 'The Creature' as called in the novel, was not given the chance to choose it's appearance. Victor Frankenstein's choices lead to a life of pain and suffering for The Creature. Sending the being into a spiral of manic depressive episodes and bouts of violence, end in murder. His appearance made it terribly difficult to live a simple life, make friends, and learn. “All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things!” This quote proves The Creatures inability to find a peace of mind in life, and his difficulty in connecting with humanity. If CRISPR allows the modification of human phenotype, will modified children have a harder time in school for potentially looking different than the 'norm?' Will these modifications make it harder for children or people in general to accept change and looks outside of what everyone is relentlessly used to seeing?  Which leads to the question of the ethical humaneness of such concepts. Embryos do not have the ability to choose what they will look like as children or full grown adults but should parents be given this selfish self-serving power knowing their choices could go sideways and cause their child a life of suffering and pain?

# data[].attributes.body
This will be the second portion of part two. An article I found myself. Citations will be included at the bottom.

It is known that humans are social creatures and this social yearning teaches us all the do's and don'ts of society. Humans have to have social connections to function proper mentally. Otherwise the motivational inspiration we have to live burns out like an overused wick. In the article Why Are We Wired to Connect? by Matthew Lieberman he explains the need to connect socially and how lack of this necessity affects the human psyche.
This article further connects my previous point on how DNA modification of babies and making 'designer babies' affects the social abilities of these humans as children or grown adults. The Creatures yearning of acceptance and love and lack there of lead the being to extreme behaviors to receive such treatment. At one point The Creature had even asked for a 'mate,'  "You must create a female for me, with whom I can live in the interchange of those sympathies necessary for my being." A quote from Why Are We Wired to Connect, "When this happens in childhood it can lead to long-term health and educational problems."  Exhibits the humans need for social connection, without this one important event in our lives life long problems erupt. The Creatures begging of wanting another was not only a cry for help but a demand of mental and physical health. The Creature had first hand experience into what could happen to a secluded functional being. His desire to avoid this is plenty enough proof that babies phenotypic genes should not be fiddled with. Creating environments that cause children to suffer social pain at an early age where they cannot comprehend what they have done if anything sets them up for failure later in life. It creates a barrier between social understanding and interaction. Adults will no longer understand how to behave when encountering social seclusion, possibly growing violent and aggressive.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Quote of Frankenstein it says “ if I cannot inspire live I will cause fear” In this the real life situation will be trust, I felt like with this quote, the Frankenstein felt like he couldn’t trust anyone anymore and was forcing his love which was not wanted by anyone but who made him, so in this case he was willing to cause fear to get what he wanted, so then the trust was gone.
Another Quote in the real life situation would be desperation. The quote “I am alone and miserable. Only someone as ugly as me could love me”  Frankenstein is basically saying that he is desperate for love, but no one wants to love him because of his appearance. Now he is desperate for love anywhere and will do anything for it, even if that means expressing how he feels.

# data[].attributes.body
In doing research for this project, I have really learned the advancement of science and technology and the benefits it brings to the world. The utilization of science is not done in a way that is beneficial to all, and when it comes to the topic of the extent to which humans can and should intervene in the natural world, I am conflicted. In one case because of our involvement in science in nature we can prevent endangered spices from going extinct and find better ways to help keep the environment clean. Then there are times when because of science we destroyed nature like when we use nuclear bombs or the Chernobyl incident. If I must pick a side, I would say the boundary is where scientific expertise intrudes on human nature. I do believe that are scientifical limits when it comes to the modification of unborn babies. Science, as a tool, has no values and it is up to us as a society to determine how it's ok and not ok to use this tool. Science has been a tremendous net benefit to society, but it has been used unethically before, like the Little Albert experiment by Watson. For example, sonograms and invitro testing can now identify many genetic and congenital defects which in the context of science is a good thing that we are able to identify these things early, but with the advancement of science where do we stop. If given the opportunity to design your own baby can we really expect people not to take that twisted option. It's like we would be taking one step closer to playing god. Science is like a tool. Just like a hammer, it has certain tasks it is suited for and others not so much. Science is a powerful tool which has few limits within its own world, but there are many aspects of the human experience for which science is not applicable.
By. Jordan Woods

# data[].attributes.body
In this project we talk a lot about bioethics. Having the knowledge to changes things but is it wise to do so. I think Frankenstein is trying to convey that even though scientific curiosity and knowledge is good, and beneficial to humanity, you can never know the consequences that scientific curiosity and knowledge could bring to the world and that in the end could ultimately cause harm. Thought history there are many instances where in scientific advancement and the pursuit of knowledge has led to the death of thousands. When you hear this, you think of other great minds like Albert Einstein and how he regrets his involvement in the atomic bomb experiment and how his scientific curiosity led to the deaths of thousands of people which he regretted into his death. Just because we have the Knowledge to create things doesn’t mean we should.  I think this picture reflects how the temptation of Knowledge can make use go against are better judgment. Like how Adam let Eve convince him to bit the apple.

# data[].attributes.body
In this picture we see a man that looks to be fallen form haven. As we know Shelley was thinking about Paradise Lost as she wrote Frankenstein. In Paradise Lost Book 9 it quotes, "The Infernal Powers, in one day to have marred, What he, Almighty styled, six nights and days". I think this line is telling us that we can destroy something faster than we can make it, and how as humans we ourselves can be our own greatest downfall. This can be looked at how Victor destroyed his own life because of the actions he made in the book.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Frankenstein, the monster is never given a true name. Victor just call him a monster and continues to do so till his death. As read the book we start to question who the real monster is and began to think of Victor as the monster. Dr. Frankenstein is the monster because he had no business creating life in the way that he did, impulsively pillaging the remains of bodies, sewing them together, and with little consideration, forcing a tortured being into life simply to satisfy his own ego, and not only that, he rejects the creature, who understands him and is hurt by his creator's disgust with him.Victor Frankenstein, by playing god and feeding his ego, became the very monstrosity he was disgusted by.

# data[].attributes.body
In the picture it shows that there are many gods that people believe in. In the book we seen many times where you can compare Victor to playing god. Reading the book, I viewed Victor as God because he created the monster and gave him life, and because of this you can think of Victor as a god of science.