In Mary Shelly's novel, Frankenstein. Profound moral questions about scientific progress are raised, reflecting on the idea that science may one day go too far, reaching the realm of the gods. This is a recurring theme in the novel and reflects the time period in which the book was written, an era of new discoveries and advances such as electricity, modern chemistry, and atomic theory. Today is a time of different progress but with the same questions about science and morality. As science continues with new ideas like the human genome project, it is easy to get lost in the magnificence of technology, but we must remember to keep science anchored in a moral connection, a soul in science. As Shelly shows in Frankenstein, it is important to have a soul and a nurturing motivation when fighting for the advancement of science, lest a true monster be created in today's society in the wake of innovations such as the human genome project. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The Human Genome Project is truly one of humanity's greatest achievements. This project resulted in the definitive sequencing of the entire human genome and opens the door to numerous applications. By examining a person's DNA, it is possible to tell what diseases they are at risk for, their chance of developing mental disabilities, and even information as mundane as their preferred sleeping habits. This knowledge will enable the development of new drugs and allow diagnoses and prescriptions to be more accurate than ever. As people crave knowledge, a greater drive develops to obtain even more, and in this way science soars to new heights. With this some might argue that the entrenchment of scientific progress might simply hinder it, making all of the above-mentioned achievements impossible. This is Paul Northam's opinion in the following: “Surely no reasonable person can tolerate the idea of ​​turning their back on the vast potential of genetic research.” (Northam 4) Pesky things like morals seem to be mere obstacles to be eliminated to make room for more progress. As James Watson says: "If we [scientists] don't play God, then who will?" In one respect, scientists appear to be the vanguard of humanity's progress, and it is they who “play God” for humanity's advancement of knowledge and power. This parallels another story with disastrous consequences that seemed to be just a quest for knowledge. “I had desired it with an ardor that far surpassed moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream faded, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (Shelly 35). As science continues with disregard for morality and caring, it leaves in its wake unprecedented problems that are the opposite of the imagined beauty. Desire alone is not enough to create greatness, it is necessary to keep the soul in science, to prevent horrors like those seen in Frankenstein from arising. Because of these factors, one might call this the golden age of scientific progress, as the future of scientific study appears to be completely bright and golden, but this is only an assessment of the outer surface. Beneath the surface, there are a number of potential problems to be aware of in case science is used incorrectly. There is a risk that the information from the human genome will be abused in a gross perversion of what it was originally intended for. The knowledge provided by the disease project has the potential to be used by companies toessentially separating employees based on their genetic profile. Who would hire someone who has an 80% chance of having heart disease knowing the costs of medical benefits and the additional complications it brings? This isn't the only potential dark aspect of the human genome. Engineered children, children genetically engineered to have ideal traits, appear to be entirely positive. While they have the potential to benefit humanity, they also raise a moral conflict similar to that seen in the novel, because they can be created with complete apathy and an minimum of loving parents. At the same time, these “perfect” children may not be as perfect as they believe, as demonstrated by P. Tittle in the following: “Those who support, and fear, genetic engineering for its application in engineered children seem to forget that we are products of both nature and nurture.” (Tittle, 4) Scientists often forget that humans are a product of both nature and nurture, and in this way it is easy to see how so many scientific endeavors end up overused . In a scenario like this, one really has to ask whether this is nourishing and humane or just another strain on science. As P. Tittle also says, “having intelligence or ability is not as important as knowing what to do with it. So success is not necessarily goodness.”(Tittle, 2) This quote can be compared to similar messages from Shelly throughout Victor's story. He resolutely focused on acquiring knowledge and discovered how to create life “I succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; indeed, I myself became capable of animating inanimate matter. (Shelly, 30) This knowledge was misused and led to the creation of a hideous monster. With this, it can be deduced that Shelly wouldn't be concerned with finding out whether humans can actually create these babies or sequence the genome, she would be wondering whether or not they should. Shelly's analysis and argument still have a strong presence today, and rightly so. Shelly's monster in the novel, Frankenstein, provides a metaphor for the outcome of any scientific endeavor should it go too far without containing any soul or morality. He argues that there needs to be a soul in science with the experiences of fictional characters rather than real-world events. In doing so, his argument is immortalized and can be interpreted and applied to science well beyond his lifetime, with a prime example being the Human Genome Project. Shelley makes several key points that can be applied to the human genome project. The first is creation without morality. "You would destroy, with a satisfied conscience, your own creation." (Shelly 68) Shelly's choice of words and perspective here shows that science can be apathetic at times and discard any creation deemed a failure. “When the test fails the subject is discarded. Genetic engineering is not tested on humans because it is against the law, animals receiving the same rights is a hotly debated topic.” (Curezone, 8) The acceptability of this is questioned when dealing with living things, as Shelley said more than 200 years ago. Shelly also argues that science needs a moral foundation, otherwise one of its monsters will be created unintentionally. There are a number of potential problems with the knowledge revealed by the Human Genome Project and, as Shelley says below, some things are better left unknown: “Learn from me, if not from my precepts, then at least from my example, how dangerous it is the acquisition of knowledge and how much happier is that man who believes that the?