 |
|
Mary
Shelly was wedded to Percy and friend to Lord
Byron, one of the great
poets of the early 19th century.
But she was a fair writer
on her own. Note the bolts on the
monster's neck.
These were added by make-up artist Jack
P. Pierce.
He said they were electrodes, not bolts, even
though
Mary Shelly never actually wrote that
the
good doctor used electrodes on the body.
|
Who's the victim of the story? Is it Dr. Frankenstein,
who’s family is murdered or is it perhaps his monster, who was brought into
the world and abandoned? He lives his second life shunned by all, misunderstood, lonely, unable to live with dignity or even die at all.
This is a big story for a 17 year old to pen. Yep, that’s how old
Mary Shelly was when she wrote Frankenstein
(published when she was 21 in 1818). Despite her age and inexperience, she
rolled out one of the greatest novels ever. It was both romantic and a criticism of
romance. It sparked the science fiction genre and was the beginning of horror stories.
The movies and stories about Frankenstein’s monster usually
highlight the way in which the monster was created and his ugliness and hatred,
but that isn’t what the book is about. It’s a story of responsibility in
science and toward others.
The Age of Enlightenment had just ended when Frankenstein was written, and the
Romantic period was in full bloom. A switch from science to emotion meant that
the facts and discoveries about the world now needed to be examined, not just
accepted. Here was Mary found her message – a person must be responsible for
the things he/she creates – be they physical things, knowledge, or opinion.
 |
|
Electrical
impulses make muscles move. Adding salt to
freshly
skinned frog legs is a lot like hitting the with a
mild
jolt of electricity. This is like Galvani demonstrated
with
the corpse of the murderer and the image Mary
Shelly
evoked in her novella.
|
This was combined with the advances in electricity at the time.
Just before 1800, Luigi Galvani had published on the ability of electricity to
excite the muscles of dead animals – the innate electrical force of living
tissue came to be known as “galvanism.” In 1803, Galvani applied an electrical
charge to the corpse of executed murderer Thomas Forster, and the body jolted
and moved – a good visual for Mary.
So could a body be reanimated as Shelly relates in the novel?
Nope…. at least, not yet. Let’s examine why.
Dr. Frankenstein uses a corpse, with some implied
modifications through surgery. Not good. Immediately after death, cells that
are starved for oxygen stop making ATP. ATP is required to maintain lipid
membrane compartments and in general for the integrity of the cell. Once there
is no oxygen and no flow of energy, the enzymes designed to break down wastes,
toxins, and old organelles for recycling are released to the cytoplasm and
start to destroy the cell.
Consider the process of rigor mortis. Muscle contraction
requires ATP not to contract, but to release the contraction (see this post).
With no ATP, the muscles become rigid in their contraction about 3-4 hours
after death. Rigor lasts for about 12-20 hours, and is only released by the
process of cell destruction that we described above.
 |
|
Frankenstein’s
monster better have been a very fresh
corpse.
Decomposers like bacteria and fungi are already
in
and on your body; it’s your immune system that keeps
them
at bay. Once dead, we’re all just food for worms,
prokaryotes,
protists , fungi, and of course buzzards.
|
What about the electrical problem? We use electricity in our neural system and in our heart. Your brain is an electrochemical machine, using ions to
generate and electrical current down axons. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is
useful in treating some forms of depression and schizophrenia and mania, but we
don’t really know how it works yet.
Several hypotheses exist; none or all of which may be correct. ECT
may alter neurotransmitter concentrations, which would change the degree to
which impulses are transferred or suppressed from one neuron to another. It may
work to prune back some neural connections in the brain, or it may work to
stimulate hormone release that could alter the brain chemistry. A 2014 review
provides more information on the various theories of ECT mechanism.
 |
|
From
top to bottom we see a normal heart rhythm, and a
then
a ventricular fibrillation that CAN be treated with
electric
shock. Below that is a pulseless rhythm, which
looks
normal but doesn’t move the heart, and then asystole,
with
no pulse at all. The bottom two CANNOT be treated by
shocking
the heart. That’s why they called it a defibrillator,
not
a heart starter.
|
Mary’s error: electrical shock won’t start a stopped heart
(called asystole, a = not, and systole = contraction), despite what
you’ve seen on the TV shows. For asystole, the treatment is CPR with a
shockingly large dose of adrenaline every 5 minutes.
Dr. Frankenstein couldn’t have reanimated his
self-digesting, microbiological dinner plate of a corpse with an electric
shock, but if the muscles hadn’t gone into rigor yet, he might have been
able to get a short slam dance out of him. But then, this isn’t really the
point of the story.
Frankenstein’s monster was alive and wandering the world alone a mere
1/5 of the way through the story, so it’s really a story of how to deal with
the products of science. Erasmus Darwin (Charles’ grandfather) had introduced
the idea of mutations or “monstrosities” being passed on or inherited – so Mary
now had the essence of the story. Who is the monstrosity - the monster or the
scientist who creates and then abandons it?
 |
|
Erasmus
Darwin was Charles granddad. He was an
inventor,
poet, natural philosopher and I hear a great
cook.
One of his poems predicted the discovery of the
Big
Bang, he also suggested the idea of natural
selection
and mutation and sketched out a liquid
oxygen
and hydrogen rocket.
|
The issue most often compared to Frankenstein’s monster is
genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Have you heard the term, “Frankenfoods?”
This is the name that opponents of GMOs and particularly GM foods use to taint
the agricultural biotechnology industry.
The fear is that by tampering with nature and introducing
genes into organisms, we are creating monsters that might have unexpected
effects on us. It’s a good marketing campaign idea, and it has stuck in the minds of the public.
Europe and Russia have banned all GM foods out of fears
that they may contain toxins or mutagens that would harm the consumers. One
fear is that DNA from the genetically modified organisms would be transferred
to the eater and combine with their own DNA. That is a scary sounding idea.
The problem is, you take up DNA from the food you eat every
day, although not whole genes as the fear warrants. Digestion breaks down DNA,
so we take up mostly nucleotides and short stretches of nucleic acid. No
recorded evidence exists of uptake of an entire gene.
 |
|
Dr.
Frankenstein used all natural body parts, no artificial
sweeteners,
additives or preservatives, and good old-
fashioned
electricity. If he was sold in the market, the
monster
could be labeled as organic! No genetic
modification
here.
|
In 2012, a researcher named Seralini from the U. of Caen
announced that an herbicide used with GM foods (glyphosate in Roundup) causes
tumors. He didn’t just publish it, he had a press conference and concurrent
release of his book on the subject and videos in three different languages. It
turns out that he also had a company that was preparing to market a product as
a “protectant” against glyphosate. The study was subsequently retracted, but a
modified version with a conclusion that “more study is needed” was re-published
in a lesser journal (see note below).
Other studies on the dangers of GM foods have been
correlative, meaning that when you see “A”, you often see “B.” But that doesn’t
mean that A causes B, or that B causes A. Remember this: correlation does not
imply causation.
The truth is, we need more studies. There are real issues to
be dealt with, such as - does introduction of a particular gene cause plant toxins
to be increased – this could be bad for us. The idea is the same as in Mary
Shelly book – we must be responsible for those things we make. No GMO or GM
food should go to market without extensive testing.
The testing to date shows that there are no health risks
associated with GM foods. Longitudinal studies from 2014, 2013, and 2012 of
live stock feeds showed that animals fed GM crops over five generations showed
no ill health effects and their meat was exactly like that of animals fed
conventional feed. By the middle of 2013, over 600 studies showing that GM foods carried no health risks had been peer-reviewed and published. The key is always the same - responsible and thorough testing.
 |
|
Synthetic
biology has arrived. Vanilla is a very expensive
crop
to produce. But a gene has been constructed and
vanillin
is now produced in yeast. They ferment sugar and
produce
vanillin. This is more natural than artificial vanilla,
and
contains many of the metabolites that make vanilla
taste
like vanilla.
|
The next generation of people will have more issues to deal with, like
synthetic biology (not merely taking
a gene from one organism and putting it another, but constructing a gene or
genes from nucleotides and then inserting them). How to ensure good use of
science? - transparent methods and results, no hidden agendas, no jumping to
conclusions, and a very science literate population that can judge and reason
for themselves. And that’s why we learn biology.
Next week - Halloween is a time to focus on what's scary and what's dead. Can you actually be scared to death?
Next week - Halloween is a time to focus on what's scary and what's dead. Can you actually be scared to death?
The retraction of the 2012 study of Seralini in Food and Chemical Toxicology can be found here. It was republished in modified form in the journal, Environmental Sciences Europe in 2014, but with no peer-review.
Goldstein, D. (2014). Tempest in a Tea Pot: How did the Public Conversation on Genetically Modified Crops Drift so far from the Facts? Journal of Medical Toxicology, 10 (2), 194-201 DOI: 10.1007/s13181-014-0402-7
Tufarelli V, & Laudadio V (2013). Genetically Modified Feeds in Poultry Diet: Safety, Performance and Product Quality. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition PMID: 24915369
For
more information or classroom activities, see:
Genetically
modified organisms/foods –
