![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
my structured thoughts on Next
I thought that after my rant last night that I would post my actual essay that I wrote for the class. I am just about halfway through the book itself and the story is getting better but I am still full of rage. lol
In the writing of this novel, Michael Crichton clearly has an agenda and a message that he is trying to convey to his audience. It is a message that personally upsets me as a member of the scientific community as I feel it paints a very poor image of the scientific process that is instrumental for progress. The book opens with a thrilling scene of chases and ends in the death, creating a backdrop of suspense for the entire story. This is both a hook for the reader, as well as the foundation for a very misleading view of science. Each successive story seems aimed to vilify the scientists who find themselves in a variety of situations that bring up ethical and moral questions.
In some cases, the initial problem is innocent enough. In the case of the mortuary, Marty isn't even aware of the initial deviations from normal procedure. And in fact, it seems like there shouldn't have been a problem at all since the people working there would have no way of knowing that Lisa was not the daughter of the deceased. However, once the initial lawsuits begin, Marty embarks on a series of bad decisions that delve deeply into the unethical and immoral, including tampering with collected samples and lying about it. This is not even the most chilling example of dangerous science.
The situation of Josh Winkler is one that resonates me particularly. He is shown conducting experiments on lab rats, a practice that is well used within the scientific community, and especially for biomedical applications. However Crichton feels the need to depict actual animal conditions and handling. Having worked with mice for several years, I know that the quickest way to alienate people and make them think you're cruel is by telling them about these practices. Very often there is the “but the poor animals” reaction. While I admire Crichton's attempts to remain authentic to science, in what is essentially a fiction book with a basis in reality, I feel that these sorts of descriptions can only be included as an attempt to vilify the science that the facts are based upon. Josh's story them goes on to include accidental human testing, followed by a continuation of that testing in an attempt to help save the biotech company. This is a move motivated purely by the desire to capitalize on the discovery as quickly as possible, and not by a desire to actually help anyone. In addition, it brings up the question of the morality and ethics of actually using genetics to alter personality traits and actions of someone.
Ultimately what we see, is not the motivations of scientist using their discoveries for the good of humanity, but rather it is a grim picture of science motivated by greed, politics and money. While this may influence the workings and landscape of scientific discovery, I don't think that it is painting a complete picture. This is clearly the angle Crichton is going for in this novel and honestly as a scientist reading this, I am almost offended by the implications. I feel that the average person, someone who may have read something like Jurassic Park and been fascinated by that sort of “science” would potentially pick up this novel and walk away feeling very uncharitable towards the sort of progressive research that the biomedical industry is currently exploring. There is a large public viewpoint of genetic engineering and testing that is very negative, and this book is only perpetuating that stereotype of the evil scientist working away in their labs with lab animals and only caring about the product that they can sell and get rich off of.
This is a pity mostly because Crichton does bring up some good points in his author's note at the very end of the book; things like better regulation of human patient tissue. However I feel that he ends up ultimately undermining his own points in the back by painting such a grim picture beforehand. I personally feel that anyone writing this sort of book, whether it be fiction or non-fiction, has a responsibility to treat the material fairly by presenting everything and letting the reader come up with their own interpretation. Especially in the case of a topic like genetic engineering that is so controversial, I definitely feel that this presentation of “facts” in the guise of a fiction novel full of intrigue is not the right vector to share this important information with the general public. I can only hope that this novel has prompted at least some people to seek out their own truth beyond the agenda that Crichton is trying to push on the reader.
Comments?
In the writing of this novel, Michael Crichton clearly has an agenda and a message that he is trying to convey to his audience. It is a message that personally upsets me as a member of the scientific community as I feel it paints a very poor image of the scientific process that is instrumental for progress. The book opens with a thrilling scene of chases and ends in the death, creating a backdrop of suspense for the entire story. This is both a hook for the reader, as well as the foundation for a very misleading view of science. Each successive story seems aimed to vilify the scientists who find themselves in a variety of situations that bring up ethical and moral questions.
In some cases, the initial problem is innocent enough. In the case of the mortuary, Marty isn't even aware of the initial deviations from normal procedure. And in fact, it seems like there shouldn't have been a problem at all since the people working there would have no way of knowing that Lisa was not the daughter of the deceased. However, once the initial lawsuits begin, Marty embarks on a series of bad decisions that delve deeply into the unethical and immoral, including tampering with collected samples and lying about it. This is not even the most chilling example of dangerous science.
The situation of Josh Winkler is one that resonates me particularly. He is shown conducting experiments on lab rats, a practice that is well used within the scientific community, and especially for biomedical applications. However Crichton feels the need to depict actual animal conditions and handling. Having worked with mice for several years, I know that the quickest way to alienate people and make them think you're cruel is by telling them about these practices. Very often there is the “but the poor animals” reaction. While I admire Crichton's attempts to remain authentic to science, in what is essentially a fiction book with a basis in reality, I feel that these sorts of descriptions can only be included as an attempt to vilify the science that the facts are based upon. Josh's story them goes on to include accidental human testing, followed by a continuation of that testing in an attempt to help save the biotech company. This is a move motivated purely by the desire to capitalize on the discovery as quickly as possible, and not by a desire to actually help anyone. In addition, it brings up the question of the morality and ethics of actually using genetics to alter personality traits and actions of someone.
Ultimately what we see, is not the motivations of scientist using their discoveries for the good of humanity, but rather it is a grim picture of science motivated by greed, politics and money. While this may influence the workings and landscape of scientific discovery, I don't think that it is painting a complete picture. This is clearly the angle Crichton is going for in this novel and honestly as a scientist reading this, I am almost offended by the implications. I feel that the average person, someone who may have read something like Jurassic Park and been fascinated by that sort of “science” would potentially pick up this novel and walk away feeling very uncharitable towards the sort of progressive research that the biomedical industry is currently exploring. There is a large public viewpoint of genetic engineering and testing that is very negative, and this book is only perpetuating that stereotype of the evil scientist working away in their labs with lab animals and only caring about the product that they can sell and get rich off of.
This is a pity mostly because Crichton does bring up some good points in his author's note at the very end of the book; things like better regulation of human patient tissue. However I feel that he ends up ultimately undermining his own points in the back by painting such a grim picture beforehand. I personally feel that anyone writing this sort of book, whether it be fiction or non-fiction, has a responsibility to treat the material fairly by presenting everything and letting the reader come up with their own interpretation. Especially in the case of a topic like genetic engineering that is so controversial, I definitely feel that this presentation of “facts” in the guise of a fiction novel full of intrigue is not the right vector to share this important information with the general public. I can only hope that this novel has prompted at least some people to seek out their own truth beyond the agenda that Crichton is trying to push on the reader.
Comments?
no subject
The ethical debates are definitely fascinating to read and discuss, however the science leaves me with an awful feeling.
no subject
I think perhaps that because I am not a scientist, I was able to read it from a more detached viewpoint; after reading your argument, I can see how his unbalanced cast (and I can admit it is unbalanced in favor of bad guys) could be seen as needling. Maybe? I don't know. I'm not saying your reading is wrong, because I can see the things you point out pretty glaringly; I just didn't read it that way.
OOH are you going to watch the Women's Figure Skating tomorrow? I will bet anyone in the world a million dollars that Sasha delivers an inspirational short program and then blows it all to hell in the long.