IMS 103 Assignment Blog

“Nathaniel Hawthorne’s short story “The Birthmark” as well as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein are about over-reaching scientists — scientists who play “God.” Do you feel it is necessary to limit what scientists ought to be allowed to do (think of genetic engineering, for instance), and why or why not? Does Hawthorne think scientists should be limited? Does Shelley? Why, or why not, according to their texts? Do their texts warn us about something, the way that the storyteller’s story warned him about killer cats? If so, what?”

Deciding how to limit scientists is a difficult question. Forbidding a type of research could potentially close doors on finding a cure for a medical condition. Is it ethically right to tell researchers and experimenters, “No, you can’t do X because it against religion Y,” while person Z will die without X? Do you try to appease a group of people or do what’s best for an individual?

Personally, I believe the only limit that should be placed on scientific experimenting and research is “do no harm.” Of course, this limit is wide open and has plenty of room for controversy, but I think that “do no harm” is a good overall constraint. I believe that if a current debatable scientific topic, such as cloning, were to be banned, there will be a scientist who would still do it anyway. That scientist would probably be caught, prosecuted, and banned from the field; while what he was working on could have saved lives. A somewhat extreme example, but I think it’s a plausible one, especially with today’s technological advances.

After reading “The Birthmark” I have the opinion that Hawthorne believes scientists should be limited, at least to an extent. Even though Aylmer is incredibly knowledgeable and well versed in many different scientific disciplines, he inevitably kills his wife. And I believe he was intelligent and talented despite Georgiana’s death. Throughout the course of the story Aylmer becomes a man obsessed with fixing his wife. I think that Aylmer’s belief that Georgiana’s birthmark was an imperfection on her otherwise perfect body is Hawthorne’s way of saying, “Do no harm.” Georgiana’s birthmark is not harming her in any way; there isn’t a pressing need to remove it – some people even believe it is a sign of luck. I feel Hawthorne is trying to make clear to his audience to not mess with something that is better left alone (again, the birthmark isn’t a danger to Georgiana).

In my opinion, Hawthorne is trying to say, “Concentrate on what matters. Do not become obsessed with something that isn’t harmful. Use science to improve what needs fixed, not what is already practically perfect.” For when Georgiana becomes perfect, when Aylmer succeeds in removing the hand from her cheek, she dies. Her death delivers the author’s final message, “Life cannot be without flaws, and science cannot fix everything.”