Thisessay involves an evaluation of Frankenstein film which shows theinteraction between science, technology, culture, religion, ethicsand other themes. This paper looks at how these themes interrelate inthe film. As it comes out, scientists find themselves on a wrong pathwhen they disregard culture and ethics1.Moreover,science and technology are inventions that must be controlled andalso can get out of control. Therefore, there are the two sides ofscience in which scientists should focus on maximising the benefits.Using science for personal agendas can also be equally risky and thefate of Dr. Frankenstein can still be repeated.


Inthe film, science has been portrayed as an element that is essentialto human beings. However, there is a discrepancy between whatcultures and ethics require of scientists and what they are actuallydoing in the film. There is the issue of creating life which brings alot of cultural and religious objections. According to the cultureand religion that people have been brought up in, God is perfect andhas his own way of balancing things. However, the film portrayed Dr.Frankenstein as an imperfect form of &quotGod&quot since he createslife using science but is not good at taking care of his creation asGod is. An analysis of the role played by Dr. Frankenstein indicatesthat he is a big failure in terms of responsibility even though hehas made great inventions in science2.

Anotherperspective that one can see from the film is that God is perfect andthe greatest scientist. Culture shows that God created everything asportrayed in the Bible and his knowledge cannot be compared to anyman’s who was his creation. This brings out the issue of thedangers of exploring biological material using science. In as much asthere are many benefits of science, there are also dangerousapproaches that go against the societal morals and ethical standardsin the science world. In other words, technology has been very usefulto the society. However, there are limitations in terms of what toexplore especially when it comes to the lives of human beings. Theculture agrees that the only accepted creation is the one made by Godas per the biblical narratives. In as much as science is evolving andadvancing, there are still things that are determined by the moralsof the society3.

Thereis also the consequence of technology that is uncontrollable. Forexample, some scientific experiments are very sensitive and they cancause greater harm than good if something goes wrong. As a result ofthis, science and technology are criticized since somehow scientistscan lose control of technology. To get things under control again,scientists would have to destroy their own creation again. Thisindicates that science has to follow the ethical standards and theculture still restricts scientists in terms of what they can create.Having harmful creations as seen in the film poses harm to humans.Therefore, technology and science still have the potential to destroyhuman race which has existed for so many years. Science may bedeveloped but it is inaccurate in very many ways. On the other hand,God is seen as the perfect scientist who made a creation that is wellcontrolled and balanced in a natural way4.

Itis a fact that humans are “creators” in their own sense. However,their power to create is restricted by morality. Morality calls forscientists to be accountable so as to avoid destroying the universewith their scientific creations. It is also vital to understand thatthe ethics in the practice of science should be created and followedbecause of the real risk posed by science. Some things like geneticengineering and cloning should be guided by morality and ethics so asto avoid doing harm in the name of science and technology. Whenscientists ignore morality and ethics, they present both themselvesand their inventions as monsters in the world5.

Accordingto culture, what Dr. Frankenstein created was innocent, but this didnot prevent the monster from innocently killing a young girl. Thereason for this is that Dr. Frankenstein did not have control overhis creation. It is also torture to the creature since it has to livewith the horror of life after death. Technology is also a strongweapon that can turn against its creators as seen in the film6.Therefore being a scientist requires one to be both moral and ethicalregarding what they create.


Insummary, science and technology can in most cases be useful. But, itcan also be destructive when it gets out of scientists’ control.Science and technology also exist in a society when a culture,morals, and ethics exist. These three act as a guide regarding whatthe boundaries of science are. Being unorthodox, as seen in the filmnot only causes harm but it also presents the scientists as unethicaland irresponsible. Knowledge in science should, therefore, be usedonly to the required standards which can benefit people.


Bowen,James. &quotThe Scientific Revolution of the 17th Century.&quotIn&nbspTheCoral Reef Era: From Discovery to Decline,pp. 11-19. Springer International Publishing, 2015.

Jugenheimer,Donald W., Larry D. Kelley, Jerry Hudson, and Samuel D.Bradley.&nbspAdvertisingand public relations research.ME Sharpe, 2014.

Pennock,Robert T., and Michael O’Rourke. &quotDeveloping a scientificvirtue-based approach to science ethics training.&quot&nbspScienceand engineering ethics(2016):1-20.

1 Jugenheimer, Donald W., Larry D. Kelley, Jerry Hudson, and Samuel D. Bradley.&nbspAdvertising and public relations research. ME Sharpe, 2014.

2 Donald, Kelley, Hudson, and Bradley.&nbspAdvertising and public relations research. pp. 13-17.

3 Pennock, Robert T., and Michael O’Rourke. &quotDeveloping a scientific virtue-based approach to science ethics training.&quot&nbspScience and engineering ethics(2016): 1-20.

4 Robert, and O’Rourke. &quotDeveloping a scientific virtue-based approach to science ethics training.&quot pp. 1-20.

5 Bowen, James. &quotThe Scientific Revolution of the 17th Century.&quot In&nbspThe Coral Reef Era: From Discovery to Decline, pp. 11-19. Springer International Publishing, 2015.

6 James. &quotThe Scientific Revolution of the 17th Century.&quot In&nbspThe Coral Reef Era: From Discovery to Decline, pp. 11-19.