use of this value-laden adjective as well—the text could have been quite different (or not). Therefore, Ball does not argue that the book suggests that science is dangerous, but, instead, the novel is there to be interpreted by us and that those interpretations actually reveal what it is that we hope and fear rather than (or at least in addition to) the things its author did.

Extrapolating, then, if we fear science and the strides that are made in cloning, gene-splicing, and the like, then that is what we will take away from the text; we will read it as an indictment of science. If we fear the loss of compassion and empathy in an increasingly Enlightened world, then that is what we will take away.

Ball wrote this article after MIT released a new publication of Frankenstein, one which was annotated for scientists and engineers. Within these extra notes, he found surprisingly little about the growing reproduction and biomedical advances of our modern age, which Shelley envisioned in the most basic forms with her early nineteenth century knowledge. Ball sees this as an oversight in the new publication.

Frankenstein does examine the possibilities of creating an "unnatural" being, which Ball asserts is flawed nomenclature in itself because it carries the weight of judgement. The creature is stitched together with various body parts to create a new human. Ball likens this to IVF, where embryos are created not through sexual intercourse but by collecting both sperm and eggs from a couple and then using technology to individually select one sperm at a time, injecting it into an egg to initiate fertilization. Progress is then monitored for 3–6 days in a reproductive laboratory until the point at which the most healthy new embryos are transferred back to a uterus to hopefully continue growing.

Ball points out that this doesn't follow the natural laws of biological reproduction, yet he leaves room for whether this is "unnatural." He then takes this idea one step further. If creating humans in ways that circumvent biology reflects the creation of Frankenstein, one might infer that these creations are "freaks," like the creature in the novel. Is this where human cloning derives an overall strongly negative public opinion? He argues that labeling such efforts as "unnatural" is dangerous because it shuts down conversation before it is allowed to begin.

The body of Frankenstein's creature is stitched together from random body parts, resulting in a hideous end result. Although he stitched the body with his own hands, Frankenstein is blinded to regarding the end result until the creature is brought to life. Ball also mentions gene editing, which is a new biotechnology scientists are working on to remove lethal and harmful genes from an individual's genome sequence. This can only be done in the very earliest stages of embryonic development, but let's say that cystic fibrosis runs in a mother's family. She and her husband create a set of embryos using IVF technologies, and each embryo is tested for the genome sequence coding for cystic fibrosis. (Of course, the goal is to eventually be able to locate and correct genes for everything from blindness to intellectual disabilities to sickle cell anemia.)

With genetic editing, the "incorrect" coding is removed and a new "healthy" sequence is inserted in its place. While Shelley could not have foreseen the minuscule-scale implications of stitching together humans, there are strong parallels in these processes—and perhaps the end results. Are scientists blind to what will eventually be the outcomes? Is there room for unintended human consequences within such stitching efforts? Ball maintains that Frankenstein asks us to continue asking "challenging questions about research like this that touches on interventions in human life," but to say that Frankenstein asks us to abandon those efforts doesn't do the novel justice.

Science is not presented as dangerous in this novel. It is the misuse of science that is the danger. Victor Frankenstein's problem is not that he is interested in science but that he has too much ambition. He is determined to achieve greatness by becoming the first person ever to create life from inanimate body parts. His driving, compulsive ambition makes him heedless of the dangers of what he is doing, as well as oblivious to his obligation to the life he will create.

When the novel opens, the young Victor is attracted by the grandiose ideas of alchemy, until he learns that it is not worth much and will not bring him the power he desires. He then states that he

entertained the greatest disdain for a would-be science [alchemy] which could never even step within the threshold of real knowledge.

However, when he gets to the University of Ingolstadt, he encounters M. Waldman, who speaks of the power of the modern sciences. M. Waldman states,

They [the modern sciences] have acquired new and almost unlimited powers; they can command the thunders of heaven, mimic the earthquake, and even mock the invisible world with its own shadows.

At this point, Victor's ambitions are reignited. He thinks,

my mind was filled with one thought, one conception, one purpose. So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein—more, far more, will I achieve; treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.

The problem is not that science is dangerous but that Victor's quest for greatness through science is. He is far too ambitious: he oversteps the boundaries of what humans are meant to do and behaves as if he is a god.

The novel functions as a cautionary tale, warning against using science for purposes for which it was not intended. We face the same moral issues more acutely in today's life as we grapple with humankind's power to alter the human genome.