Dec. 14, 2021
Frankenstein: success or failure?
Frankenstein: success or failure? Viewed from the 21st-century biologist.
Victor Frankenstein, «a man of science», who was he? Infantile dreamer or great scientist? Is there any difference?
In this essay, I don’t want to write about the «God role» or the ethics of the experiments with a human being. The ethic is so changeable and depends on time. Being a bastard was awfully not so long ago. Today, people are frightened by genetically modified organisms. Tomorrow, maybe it will be as normal as having illegitimate children.
Frankenstein, who dreamt about giving life, gets success in it. It was an incredible event, but Victor fined his creature terrifying. So it was both a success and a failure.
What was the success? He creates life in his laboratory.
The failure: he had dreamt about creating a man, but he created a «monster», who could not adapt to the human world, because he was too strong, too ugly and too frightening.
What were the reasons for the failure?
One Finnish scientist told me about the «Russian» style of carrying the experiments. «You (Russian scientists), always start to do smth without careful thought, but always think why it won’t work».
First, he didn’t have a proper experimental design.
He didn’t carry out enough previous experiments. He should first experiment with mousses, then dogs, then chimpanzees.
He worked alone. It would be better for him to discuss his methods and technics with other specialists.
He should do the main procedure by himself, and not delegate them to the apprentice. If Igor hadn’t stolen the abnormal brain of a criminal from the laboratory of a professor, who knows what it would turn out to be?
And if we return to the ethical side, I really think that forbiddance on experiments with embryos older than 2 weeks will not stop scientists who want to work in this area. There is already He Jiankui, who has edited twins genomes. However, if these experiments will be open and there will be a normal law base controlling such experiments, we will be able to avoid the consequences of the creation of Frankenstein.
Frankenstein: success or failure?
Frankenstein: success or failure?
Viewed fromFrom the point of view of the 21st-century biologist.
"of *a* 21st-century biologist" also works. Using "the" implies that most 21st-century biologists in general would be in agreement with you.
Victor Frankenstein, « is often called "a man of science»", but who was he really?
1. »« aren't really used in English, only "" or (less often) „" is used.
2. Added some words for flow
IAn infantile dreamer or a great scientist?
Adding the articles is technically optional here, but this follows better from the previous sentence.
Just saying "Victor Frankenstein: infantile dreamer or great scientist?" could have been another way of using it.
Is there any difference?
In this essay, I don’t want to write about the «God role» or the ethics of theethics of "playing God" experiments withon a human being.
"playing God" is a common expression used in this sort of "violating/controlling nature" situation.
The ethic is so changeableEhtics are ever-changing and dependsant on timehe time period.
Being a bastard waschild born out of wedlock was considered awfully not so long ago.
"bastard" is considered an insult nowadays (which I find quite in line with what you're saying, haha)
Today, people are frightened by genetically modified organisms.
Tomorrow, maybe it will be as normal as having illegitimate children.
Frankenstein, who dreamt about giving life, gets succeseds in itdoing so.
It was an incredible event, but Victor fineound his creature terrifying.
"found" is the past tense of "find"
So it was both a success and a failure.
What was the success?
He createsd life in his laboratory.
The failure: he had dreamt about creating a man, but he created a «"monster»", who could not adapt to the human world, because he was too strong, too ugly and too frightening.
Well-written sentence!
What were the reasons for the failure?
One Finnish scientist told me about the «"Russian»" style of carrying theout experiments.
«"You (Russian scientists), always start to do smthomething without careful thought, but alwaysnever(?) think why it won’t work»."
I'm not sure whether the usage of "always" here was a mistake.
Firstly, he didn’t have any proper experimental design.
He didn’t carry out enough previous experiments.
He should have first experimented with moussesice, then dogs, then chimpanzees.
"mice" is the plural of "mouse"
He worked alone.
It would be better for him to discuss his methods and technicques with other specialists.
He should dohave done the main procedure by himself, and not delegate them to the apprentice.
"should have done", since we're talking about a story which has already been written down, and happened in the (fictional) past. (I know it's a bit confusing)
If Igor hadn’t stolen the abnormal brain of a criminal from the laboratory of a professor, who knows whathow it would've turned out to be?
Your sentence isn't wrong, but "it" is a bit vague.
Saying "who knows what the experiment would've turned out to be" would be more clear.
And if we return to the ethical side, I really think that forbiddanceprohibition on experiments with embryos older than 2 weeks will not stop scientists who want to work in this area.
"forbiddance" isnt really a word, but good try at using derivations.
There is already He Jiankui, who has edited twins' genomes.
"twins' genomes" (here "twins" is a plural noun) or "twin genomes" (here "twin" is an adjective) can both work
However, if these experiments will be opentransparent, and there will be a normal law basenew regulations controlling such experiments, we will be able to avoid the consequences of the creation of another Frankenstein.
1. "transparent" here means 'honest, not hiding anything about the process'.
2. Added "another" near the end for flow, it fit better (may just be my opinion though).
Feedback
Really well-written, with quite an ambitious topic! Enjoyed reading, and I liked your take on it :)
|
Frankenstein: success or failure? Viewed from the 21st-centu |
|
Victor Frankenstein, «a man of science», who was he? Victor Frankenstein 1. »« aren't really used in English, only "" or (less often) „" is used. 2. Added some words for flow |
|
Infantile dreamer or great scientist?
Adding the articles is technically optional here, but this follows better from the previous sentence. Just saying "Victor Frankenstein: infantile dreamer or great scientist?" could have been another way of using it. |
|
Is there any difference? This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
In this essay, I don’t want to write about the «God role» or the ethics of the experiments with a human being. In this essay, I don’t want to write about the "playing God" is a common expression used in this sort of "violating/controlling nature" situation. |
|
The ethic is so changeable and depends on time.
|
|
Being a bastard was awfully not so long ago. Being a "bastard" is considered an insult nowadays (which I find quite in line with what you're saying, haha) |
|
Today, people are frightened by genetically modified organisms. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Tomorrow, maybe it will be as normal as having illegitimate children. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Frankenstein, who dreamt about giving life, gets success in it. Frankenstein, who dreamt about giving life, |
|
It was an incredible event, but Victor fined his creature terrifying. It was an incredible event, but Victor f "found" is the past tense of "find" |
|
So it was both a success and a failure. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
What was the success? This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
He creates life in his laboratory. He create |
|
The failure: he had dreamt about creating a man, but he created a «monster», who could not adapt to the human world, because he was too strong, too ugly and too frightening. The failure: he had dreamt about creating a man, but he created a Well-written sentence! |
|
What were the reasons for the failure? This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
One Finnish scientist told me about the «Russian» style of carrying the experiments. One Finnish scientist told me about the |
|
«You (Russian scientists), always start to do smth without careful thought, but always think why it won’t work».
I'm not sure whether the usage of "always" here was a mistake. |
|
First, he didn’t have a proper experimental design. Firstly, he didn’t have any proper experimental design. |
|
He didn’t carry out enough previous experiments. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
He should first experiment with mousses, then dogs, then chimpanzees. He should have first experimented with m "mice" is the plural of "mouse" |
|
He worked alone. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
It would be better for him to discuss his methods and technics with other specialists. It would be better for him to discuss his methods and techni |
|
He should do the main procedure by himself, and not delegate them to the apprentice. He should "should have done", since we're talking about a story which has already been written down, and happened in the (fictional) past. (I know it's a bit confusing) |
|
If Igor hadn’t stolen the abnormal brain of a criminal from the laboratory of a professor, who knows what it would turn out to be? If Igor hadn’t stolen the abnormal brain of a criminal from the laboratory of a professor, who knows Your sentence isn't wrong, but "it" is a bit vague. Saying "who knows what the experiment would've turned out to be" would be more clear. |
|
And if we return to the ethical side, I really think that forbiddance on experiments with embryos older than 2 weeks will not stop scientists who want to work in this area. And if we return to the ethical side, I really think that "forbiddance" isnt really a word, but good try at using derivations. |
|
There is already He Jiankui, who has edited twins genomes. There is already He Jiankui, who has edited twins' genomes. "twins' genomes" (here "twins" is a plural noun) or "twin genomes" (here "twin" is an adjective) can both work |
|
However, if these experiments will be open and there will be a normal law base controlling such experiments, we will be able to avoid the consequences of the creation of Frankenstein. However, if these experiments will be 1. "transparent" here means 'honest, not hiding anything about the process'. 2. Added "another" near the end for flow, it fit better (may just be my opinion though). |
|
Frankenstein: success or failure? This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Frankenstein: success or failure? This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Viewed from the 21st-century biologist.
"of *a* 21st-century biologist" also works. Using "the" implies that most 21st-century biologists in general would be in agreement with you. |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium