Don't thread on meeeeeee.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/long-shadow-frankenstein

Science Magazine put out this feature for the 200th anniversary of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The articles are linked under "Special package: A modern monster".

There is only some small mentions of issues related to anthro development. I listed a few I found below. The tone of the articles is also not universally critical of genetic engineering or even the creation of a "monster":

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/specter-frankenstein-still-haunts-science-200-years-later#sidebar_graphic

Starting from scratch

Why build a human from spare parts if you can make one to order from an embryo? Sci-entists agree it is already feasible—albeit wrong—to clone a human. A 21st century Shel-ley might call on gene editing to eliminate diseases and endow the creature with specific qualities, including size, strength, and eye or hair color.

What’s next: Tweaking humans will get easier as scientists further unravel how our genes influence physical traits. One day, the creature could be grown in an artificial womb. Scientists warn that countless things could go wrong along the way, and you might end up with something monstrous—just as Frankenstein did.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2018/01/09/frankenstein/

Whereas most of the essays focus on the ethical, social, and responsibility components of research, Jane Maienschein and Kate MacCord delve into legal concerns, questioning whether an unartfully created monster can achieve personhood. The authors parley that discussion into the politically charged area of abortion, specifically discussing whether the incomplete development of an embryo withholds its legal rights of personhood. A similarly informative discussion could have focused on the nearly equally controversial area of AI and personhood, an issue now under consideration by many governments.

Finally, a lesson:

A dental radiologist of all people published an insightful two - part essay in The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1994 that underscores what some argue is the real moral of the book: not the danger of scientists violating the natural order, but the dire fate that awaits creators who fail to care for their creations. "Read the book and weep for those we have rejected, and fear for what revenge they will exact, but shed no tears for Frankenstein," the essay advises, referring to the doctor. "Those who think, in ignorance of the book, that his is the name of the Monster are in reality more correct than not."

Do you think science has gone too far? Or have pop culture fears impeded progress?

Always thought the real monster was the mob. As for the scientist, it's like having a kid for its own sake without realizing "Oh shit. I'm responsible for their well-being now."

kamimatsu said:
Always thought the real monster was the mob. As for the scientist, it's like having a kid for its own sake without realizing "Oh shit. I'm responsible for their well-being now."

Less of a mob than individuals in the novel. Frankenstein's creature is stealthy in the novel.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Less of a mob than individuals in the novel. Frankenstein's creature is stealthy in the novel.

Anything with a mob mentality is a mob.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Don't thread on meeeeeee.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/long-shadow-frankenstein

Science Magazine put out this feature for the 200th anniversary of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The articles are linked under "Special package: A modern monster".

There is only some small mentions of issues related to anthro development. I listed a few I found below. The tone of the articles is also not universally critical of genetic engineering or even the creation of a "monster":

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/specter-frankenstein-still-haunts-science-200-years-later#sidebar_graphic

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2018/01/09/frankenstein/

Finally, a lesson:

Do you think science has gone too far? Or have pop culture fears impeded progress?

Didn't the monster also get angry because the doctor refused to make another? It certainly was wrong of Dr Frankenstein to label his creation an abomination, but making another probably would have been even more irresponsible. He really didn't know what he was doing.