Hi there, my name is Avery and I'm a student of the university of Colorado majoring in physiology. Professor Hoskins asked me to do a demo video for the successful presentation MOOC. So first and foremost, I want to thank Professor Hoskins for asking me to speak to you today, but more I want to thank you for watching my video, because I'm a student too and creating this demo for you has taught me a lot about public speaking. So, let's begin. We're going to talk about a science fiction story that some may even call a horror story, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. On the surface, Frankenstein is a story of a scientist creating life, but that idea is part of a much larger story that examines the balancing act between scientific advancement and its inevitable consequences and you may be asking why some story written by 18 year old Mary Shelley 200 years ago is still relevant today. Well, Frankenstein is relevant, because it forces us to think about two separate kinds of creation. The creation of science and the creation of fiction and it teaches us that although those two acts seem different, both ask us to think about the complex moral responsibility behind them. As a physiology student, I'm fascinated by science, but we can't forget that art provides a way for us to think critically about the advances and consequences of creation. More than that Mary Shelley was and is capable of asking questions that matters still today by using her novel as a vessel. Frankenstein examines profound questions about moral responsibility and how it relates to science both then, and now. As 2016 comes to a close, the stakes of advancing science are higher than ever and Frankenstein will teach us just that. So, the story begins with a weary Victor Frankenstein. But remember, Victor Frankenstein is the scientist and not the monster stumbling upon the ship of Robert Walton. On the ship, Victor recounts his story. He had a pretty great childhood, friends, family, money. That is until his mother died before he left for university. Traumatized by her death, Victor obsessively studies natural philosophy and chemistry in hopes of discovering the secret to life. After locking himself away in his apartment, Victor finally creates the creature who is so hideous that it causes Victor to flee. He returns to Geneva only to discover that his brother is dead and their maid, and friend Justine has been falsely charged with the murder. And that the creature, made by Victor actually killed his brother. Justine is executed and Victor retreats to the mountains. The creature follows Victor and begs Victor to make him a mate. Victor reluctantly agrees and travels Northern Europe to begin his project. Eventually, Victor destroys the mate while the creature whose been following Victor since Geneva watches through a window and rage that Victors's betrayal, the creature promises Victor he will see him again. So Victor returns home and marries Elizabeth, his childhood sweetheart. But on their wedding night, the creature keeps his promise and kills Elizabeth. And unfortunately, Victor's father dies a few days later. Unable to cope with so much tragedy, Victor chases the monster northward where then he encounters Walton's ship. And once he's done telling his tale, he dies. The next morning, Walton discovers the creature crying over Victor's corpse and tells Walton that now his creator is dead, he too can die. So, the novel concludes with the creature departing farther north into the Arctic. The tragic irony in all of this is that although Victor wants to create something beautiful, so much that he creates creature out of beautiful parts from other bodies, he creates a monstrosity. His monster symbolizing both life and scientific advancement ironically comes to bring about death, and destruction to those around him. The overarching theme we can gather from Frankenstein is that while advancement is crucial, the consequence can be monumental. A dilemma that humankind has battled with for centuries. So, how does that tie in now? Well, recently, there's been talk of a super bug that is completely immune to most antibiotics. How could this happen? Well, in 1928, penicillin, the first antibiotic was discovered. And from there, the antibiotic market skyrocketed. Today, we see products such as antibacterial soap as well as over 100 different kinds of antibiotics. The development and discovery of the aforementioned products undoubtedly saved millions of lives. But now, nearly 100 years after the, but now, nearly 100 years after the discover of a penicillin, we're faced with the unintended consequences of that scientific breakthrough, antibiotic resistance. So the antibacterial soap or the antibiotics you use for an infections kills off say, 99.99% of bacteria. What about that 0.01%? Well, that 0.01% reproduces and reproduces and reproduces until you have an entire colony of bacteria that is completely immune to that antibiotic treatment. And this is precisely the dilemma that Victor faces in Frankenstein. He has a remarkable scientific advancement. But ultimately, the plan backfires. I think most people would agree that the world is better, because of antibiotics such as penicillin, but it comes at a price. And now in 2016, that price is the superbug. To conclude, Frankenstein shows us that the world of fiction and science are intertwined around moral ambiguity and asks us to think about the consequences of creation. And therefore, scientific advancement. Think about morality intertwines fiction and reality. Consider the idea of cloning. It would be a fantastic scientific advancement, but at what cost? When the first animal was cloned in 1996, a sheep named Dolly, ethical controversy immediately erupted. People assumed that sheep cloning would be an automatic segue into human cloning. While the panic of clones is something deeply examined in science fiction, our actual society has yet to pursue it. So the intention of Mary Shelley, the mother of science fiction is to caution those against their obsessive curiosities and especially in the case of cloning society seems to be heeding her advice. So I'll leave you with this, which consequences are worst? Should we remain stagnant in our comfort zone and deny innovation, and exploration or is it better to venture into the unknown, and risk outcomes we can't predict? Thank you so much for listening and good luck on your final project.
