Sandi Banna

Mrs. Montgomery

AP English Literature

03 March 2022

Knowledge is a double-edged sword with promise on one edge and threat on the other

(Rauch). Throughout history, humans have utilized science and technology to develop a better

and more advanced world. Thanks to science, scientists have been able to develop inventions

“from vaccines and antibiotics to abundant food and energy [liberating] most of humanity from

the worst of disease and want” (Esvelt). However, they also invented things that led to the

destruction of many, such as nuclear weapons. Scientists have always fallen into the dilemma of

when to keep going and when to stop? The question is to what extent can humans pursue

science? In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the brilliant genius Victor Frankestien, with his

obsessive desire for and secretive pursuit of knowledge as well as his irresponsibility, pushes

science too far beyond his nature by creating and instilling life into a being. This dangerous

pursuit of knowledge led to the demise of himself and his innocent loved ones, as well as his

creation. Frankestein himself admits, “how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how

[sorrowful is] he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.” (Shelley Vol I Ch

III). Shelley’s Frankestein serves as a warning against the dangers that accompany excessive

intelligence, causing harm and destruction rather than improvement, as Hugh Davies puts it in

words, “The possibilities and dangers of science are recognised as are the strengths and frailties

of human beings” (Davies).

Throughout the novel, Frankenstein leads an obsession towards knowledge and its

pursuit. Upon his meeting with Walton, Frankenstein warns him against knowledge’s “seductive
 Banna 2

power” (Davies) and the “enticement of science” (Shelley Vol I Ch III) in which he was

“enthusiatic[ally] mad” (Shelley Vol III Ch VII). It is this very compulsion that led to everyone’s

demise in Frankestein’s tale. As quoted by Samuel Gibbs, Elon Musk describes the invention of

artificial intelligence as “summoning the demon”, and although scientists are confident they can

control the “demon”, they can not indeed (qtd. in Gibbs). When he irresponsibly abandoned his

creation (Shelley Vol I Ch IV), Frankenstein did not think the daemon was of any danger. The

daemon, however, burned the De Laceys’ cottage in one rash and vengeful act (Shelley Vol II Ch

VIII). Later, he progresses as a murderer with his last murder, that of Elizabeth (Shelley Vol III

Ch VI), being planned and calculated, emphasizing how the daemon came out of control.

Frankenstein’s knowledge which he used to create the daemon proves deadly as the daemon,

being unstoppable, proceeds to inflict death and destruction. Frankenstein’s irresponsibility in

calculating the consequences of his abandonment to the being he created in the pursuit of science

underscores his foolishness as a scientist. He lacked the wisdom of “knowing whether, when, and

how to develop [the daemon]—and when to lock [him] away” (Esvelt). Frankestein’s shunning

of the daemon, thinking all was under control, instead left the daemon miserable allowing the

monster inside of him to unleash and exact malice upon the innocent. His creation of a superior

being whom he could not predict nor prevent his actions emphasizes his inability to control the

monster. Thus, not only does Frankestein pay the price of knowledge by himself but coerces his

innocent friends and family to pay that price with him through their blood, highlighting the

deadliness that accompanies knowledge above one’s nature and capability.

Along with unwise practice of knowledge, Frankenstein’s continuance to pursue science

in secrecy throughout the novel proves menacing. “Keeping research plans secret [...] is

appallingly inefficient and outright dangerous”, because not only does it hinder development, but
 Banna 3

also “invites global catastrophic risk” (Esvelt). When in Ingolstadt, Frankenstein created the

daemon alone in his lab (Shelley Vol I Ch III), and when Clerval arrived, he “darted up towards

[his] own room” in fear that Clerval may see the monster (Shelley Vol I Ch IV). As a “scientist

working alone, divorced from family and society” (Davies), Frankenstein continues to keep the

creation of the daemon a secret as all his loved ones continue to be murdered by the daemon. In

Rauch’s words, “[Frankenstein] is unable to appreciate the value of science to the community”

and it is this “secretive approach to knowledge production” that brings forth a “disaster”

(Rauch). Mary Wollstoncraft, as quoted by Rauch, notes that “Truth must be common to all, or it

will be inefficacious” (qtd. in Rauch). A scientist must “recognize that all knowledge has

monstrous quality and the way to introduce knowledge is to demonstrate it”, exhibiting and

describing it to the public; thus creating a relationship between the pursuit of knowledge and the

communication of knowledge (Rauch). Frankenstein, however, in keeping his knowledge a

secret to himself, “rejects the central tenets of scientific practice[...] missing the apparent point of

science” (Rauch). Consequently, he presents no procurement to science “dismissing the scientific

community that validates that knowledge” (Shelley qtd. in Rauch). Alternatively, Frankenstein

places all his scientific grasps into one “separate and distinct body of knowledge” which led that

body, the daemon, an “incarnation of that knowledge”, to set foot on the world “without

introduction and without precedent” (Rauch). Therefore, the dameon roams around in solitude

rejected by all whom he came across highlighting the devastation which he experienced through

Frankenstein’s secretive approach to the knowledge by which he created him. Thus, the daemon

becomes “malicious because [he is] miserable” of his isolation due to his existence’s sacred

secrecy. Later, upon the daemon’s request for a female mate (Shelley Vol II Ch IX), Frankenstein

was in complete terror. All alone in his expertise, he feared the consequences of both his
 Banna 4

agreeing and disagreeing with the daemon’s request. In other words, “When confronted with the

very real problem of what to do with the knowledge that he generated, Frankestenstein [was] at a

complete loss” (Rauch). Accordingly, Frankenstein’s continued secrecy and his refusal to share

all that have occurred with another led to the daemon’s persistent misery and malicious revenge

upon the innocent Clerval and Elizabeth, which further underscores the possible perils of

knowledge.

The continued danger of science is also evident as it continuously blinded Frankestein

from seeing the process of his creation causing him to only focus on his goal: creating and

instilling new life. This erroneous idea of a “product-oriented rather than process-oriented”

research stemmed from Frankenstaein’s misleading studies of Paracelsus, Cornelius Agrippa, and

Albert Magnus (Rauch). As Frankestein progressed through his research and experiment, he

recalls that “a kind of enthusiastic frenzy blinded [him, and while his] mind was intently focused

on the sequel of his labor[, his] eyes [were] shut to the horror of [his] proceedings” (Shelley Vol I

Ch II). Science is extremely enticing that “even those who are normally quite sensible lose all

sense” when new possibilities are presented to them (Wolpert). Similarly, Frankenstein lost all

sense and virtue as he drifted through his experiment highlighting his inability to properly

reason. Quoting Godwin, “Knowledge and the enlargement of intellect are poor when unmixed

with sentiments of benevolence and sympathy” (qtd. in Rauch). This very lack of virtuous

responsibility Frankenstein continues to portray manifests the treacherous ability of science to

blind scientists. Frankenstein “in neglecting his responsibility as a scientist, is oblivious to what

seems obvious and humane” (Rauch). The creation of the daemon is evidence that Frankenstein

did not “lack for knowledge, [..] but he is clearly unable to see how the application of that

knowledge can be used in a way that is proper and judicious as well as humane and rational”
 Banna 5

(Rauch). Frankenstein was capable of creating life “from the dead”; however, he later “passively

accepts the deaths of those around him” (Rauch), which further emphasizes his incompetence to

apply his knowledge to the rationals due to his compulsive fixation on the irrationals. It is the

goal to create a new species that blinded Frankestein from seeing the successful

accomplishments in his experiment. He was “fascinat[ed] with the concept of life [..] wholly

dependent on a parasitic devotion to death”, thus the idea of “restoring life” to those who are at

the “brink of death or only just recently dead” was ungraspable to him (Rauch). Since

Frankestein had the required knowledge to create and instill life, he could have been able to help

his family by restoring life into them. He was, however, blinded from the obvious science that

accompanied his accomplishments “dismiss[ing] a long tradition in which small but useful

discoveries accumulate to create [...] scientific knowledge” (Rauch). As the luring glory of

science and the pursuit of the knowledge he held on to from outdated scientists acted as a veil

between him and the world, Shelley underscores the dangers of misleading sciences and

pursuance of irrational reasoning which stem from the obsession of discovery and knowledge.

Frankenstein's shortcomings and his tragedy emphasize the dangers of knowledge and

sciences above human nature. As a scientist, Frankenstein underwent many errors that act as a

guide to scientists as they continue to experiment in the field. His irresponsibility in setting the

daemon out in the world which is followed by his obliviousness to his ability in controlling what

he had created himself proves dangerous and deadly as the daemon exerts malice upon

Frankenstein’s innocent family. Additionally, Frankenstein’s secretive approach to his knowledge

as he attempts to apply it alone without the counseling of others leads him to the improper

application of knowledge. Thus not only paying the price for his experiment himself, but with his

family who had absolutely no say or agreement in his research. Finally, Frankenstein’s
 Banna 6

close-minded viewpoint of science prevents him from seeing the positive and helpful outcomes

of his research and leads him to only see the “ugliness” (Shelley Vol II Ch II) of his creation.

Thus, Frankenstein is unable to use his achievements for his family’s good as well as the

public’s, but rather lets them suffer from his shortcomings. Therefore, the knowledge scientists

like Frankenstein possess present undeniable dangers upon the public.

 Banna 7

Work Cited

Davies, Hugh. “Can Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein Be Read as an Early Research Ethics Text?”

Medical Humanities, 06 December 2004, mh.bmj.com. Accessed 23 February 2022.

Esvelt, Kevin M. “What Victor Frankenstein Got Wrong.” Slate, 25 January 2017, slate.com.

Accessed 22 February 2022.

Gibbs, Samuel. “Elon Musk: Artificial Intelligence Is Our Biggest Existential Threat.” The

Guardian, 27 october 2014, theguardian.com. Accessed 23 February 2022.

Rauch, Alan. “The Monstrous Body of Knowledge in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein.’” Studies in

Romanticism, vol. 34, no. 2, Boston University, 1995, pp. 227–53,

knarf.english.upenn.edu. Accessed 23 February 2022

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein or, The Modern Prometheus. London, Printed for Lackinton,

Hughes, Harding, Mavor, & Jones, 1818. The Project Gutenberg, www.gutenberg.org.

Wolpert, Lewis. “Is Science Dangerous?” Nobel Symposium, 26-29 May 2002, nyman.org.

Accessed 23 February 2022.