Frankenstein and the Debate over Embryo Research
Author(s): Michael Mulkay
Source: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spring, 1996), pp. 157-176
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/689772 .
Accessed: 25/11/2013 17:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science,
Technology, &Human Values.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Frankensteinand the Debate
Over EmbryoResearch
Michael Mulkay
University of York
This study uses evidencefrom the press andfrom the parliamentaryrecordto examine
the extent to which, and the ways in which, people involvedin the public debate over
laboratoryexperimentson humanembryosin Britainduringthe 1980s drewon images
from science fiction. It is shown that negative imagesfrom science fiction were used in
the debate,but that these images could be transformedinto resourcesfor defending,as
well as attacking,this form of scientific endeavor.It is also shown that otherfictional
structureswere present in the debate and that both sides relied heavily on fictional
componentsto justifytheir competingappraisalsof embryoresearch.
In the course of the last decade or so, the idea at the heart of the
Frankensteinmyth has at last come close to realizationthrough the new
technology of assistedreproduction.The formationof humanbeings outside
the womb by meansof in vitrofertilization(IVF)is technicallyvery different
from the proceduresvaguely hinted at in Mary Shelley's book or visually
depicted in the typical Frankensteinhorrormovie. Nevertheless, Frankenstein's dreamof systematic,science-basedcontroloverthe creationof human
beings can be seen as having become a reality in the modem fertility clinic
where,by the end of the 1980s, "test-tubebabies"were being regularlyproduced on a commerciallyviable scale (Birke,Himmelweit,andVines 1990).
Therapidestablishmentof thenew reproductivetechnologyhas generated
widespread concern and considerablepublic debate. The purpose of this
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This study was carriedout as part of a research projectfunded by the
Economic and Social Research Council (R000233722). This article was written for, and
presented at, a workshop titled "Between Design and Choice: The Social Shaping of New
ReproductiveTechnologies,"which was held at Cornell University in April 1993 under the
auspices of the Departmentof Science and Technology Studies. I thank Sheila Jasanofffor
makingit possible for me to attendthatworkshop.I also thankthe editorof this journaland the
referees who read this submissionfor theirhelpful comments.
Science,Technology,
&HumanValues,Vol.21 No. 2, Spring1996 157-176
? 1996SagePublications
Inc.
157
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158
Science, Technology,& HumanValues
debate has been to decide whether furtherscientific experimentationand
furtherdevelopment of the techniques of assisted reproductionshould be
encouragedor prohibited.Because this area of scientific activity is in its
infancy,those involvedin thedebatehavebeen obliged to look into the future
(McNeil 1990). To decide how best to reactto the emergenceof researchon
human IVF embryos,people with no scientific expertisehave had to try to
imagine what would happenif embryoresearchand its technologies were
allowed to develop withoutoutsideintervention.Whenoutsidersarerequired
to engage in imaginativeworkin theirattemptsto envisage the futurecourse
of scientific andtechnologicaldevelopment,the ominousfigureof Frankenstein might be expected to play a role. Thereis an obvious parallelbetween
Frankenstein'sfictional creationof a living humanbeing and Edwardsand
Steptoe'sdramaticbestowalof lifeupon Louise Brown(EdwardsandSteptoe
1980). What could be more naturalthan to fill in the missing parts of the
test-tubebaby story alongFrankensteinianlines?
In makingthis suggestion,I am assumingthatas people engage in debate
aboutevents in therealworld,they may sometimesdrawon worksof science
fiction, such as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein,or, more probably, on the
derivative make-believe of the mass entertainmentindustry (Glut 1973;
Smith 1992; Turney 1994). This possibility is worth considering because
when speculatingaboutthedevelopmentof new, science-basedtechnologies,
participantscannotrely entirelyon whatthey taketo be the establishedfacts.
While they think and argueaboutthe shape of things to come, they have no
alternativebut to create some kind of story that goes beyond these facts.
Consequently,in the course of public appraisalof science and technology,
the conventionalboundarybetween fact andfiction may sometimesbecome
blurred.In searchingfor the overallform of a real-life storythatis at present
incomplete, those involved must eitherinvent a new, plausible story line or
fit developments into a narrativestructurethat is already available. The
historicalrecordmight,in principle,provideuseful precedents.But people's
knowledge of the historyof science or technologyis likely to be insufficient
for this purpose (Durant,Evans, and Thomas 1989). There is good reason,
therefore,to expect that some of those who participatein public debate on
such matterswill turn to certain fictional treatmentsof science that have
become partof our common culturalrepertoire.
The analyticalliteratureon Frankensteinand on other "mad scientist"
stories supportsthe suppositionthatthese fictionalproductsarerelevant,in
various ways, to happeningsin the real world. Tudor,for example, in his
culturalhistory of the horrormovie, argues that these texts map our landscapes of fearconcerningscience andprovideevidence of "changingpopular
images of what is threateningaboutscience and scientists"(1989b, 589). He
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andEmbryoResearch 159
Mulkay/ Frankenstein
describesin detailhow both the storiesemployedin such films andthe moral
lessons they convey have changed in response to alterationsin the social
location of scientists and to changes in the institutionaluses of scientific
knowledge (Tudor1989a).Films aboutmad scientists,he argues,beginning
with the archetypicalfigureof Frankenstein,areexpressionsof a longstanding culturalambivalenceaboutscience in which a generalrecognitionof the
power of science is accompaniedby a persistentfear of the terribleconsequences thatfollow when scientists'obsessive, amoralcuriosityleads them
to trespassin forbiddenareasof inquiry.
A similarconclusionis reachedin Toumey's(1992) examinationof mad
science fictions. Toumeyarguesthatmany,perhapsall, mad scientist stories
are presented and interpreted,not just as enjoyable fantasies, but also as
serious warningsaboutscience and scientists.They operate,he suggests, as
crude,yet memorableremindersof theever-presentpossibilitythatscientists,
by the very natureof theiractivities,may get things disastrouslywrong and
thatordinarypeople may suffer as a result.
Storiesof madscientists,whethertextualorcinematic,
constituteanextremely
effectiveantirationalist
critiqueof science.They thrilltheiraudiencesby
brewingtogethersuspense,horror,violence,andheroismandbyunitingthose
featuresunderthepremisethatmostscientistsaredangerous.
Untrue,perhaps;
preposterous,perhaps;low-brow,perhaps.But neverthelesseffective.
(Toumey1992,434)
This kind of analysissuggests thatthe narrativestructuresavailablein the
mad scientist genre will be used regularlyin the course of public debate
concerningnew, science-basedtechnologies. Indeed,it would be precisely
when the practicalconsequencesof some widely discussed scientific innovation are as yet unclear that the stories derived from anti-science fiction
would be most relevant.These fictions will work as effective warningsonly
if people use them for rhetoricalpurposesin cases of genuine uncertainty
aboutthe characterof scientific researchand the natureof its social impact.
We would not expect, of course, thatthe plots of specific books or films
wouldnormallybe appliedin detailto anyparticularareaof scientificinquiry.
The process of culturaltransferalwould usually operatemore flexibly than
this, and the correspondencebetween fictional text and real-worldextrapolation would often be more metaphoricalthan literal.Nevertheless, despite
the potentialcomplexity of the process, thereare stronggroundsfor investigatinghow people use the interpretativeresourcesof anti-sciencefiction in
the course of public debateover new departuresin science and technology.
Inthe sections to follow, with this line of argumentin mind,I will examine
the public debatein Britainconcerningresearchon humanembryos,which
was set in motion by the publicationin 1984 of The WarhockReport on
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160
& HumanValues
Science,Technology,
HumanFertilizationand Embryology(Warnock1985) and which ended in
1990 with the passage of the HumanEmbryologyand FertilizationAct and
withparliamentaryapprovalof arestrictedformof embryoresearch(Morgan
andLee1991;Mulkay1991,1993a,1993b,1994a,1994b,1994c,1994d,1995a,
1995b, 1995c). I will show that negative science fiction imagery was used
by non-scientistsin the press and in Parliamentto criticize and to condemn
researchon humanembryos.But I will also show thatthe same imagerywas
used by practitionersand supportersof embryoresearchto strengthenthe
case in favor of scientific experimentationon living humanorganisms.1
Frankenstein in the Press
The image of Frankenstein,or otherfictionalrepresentationsof scientific
conduct, may be present in people's real-world,practicaldiscourse in two
different ways. In the first place, Frankensteinor his equivalentsmay be
mentioned openly in relation to a serious issue such as the experimental
manipulationof human IVF embryos. Second, participantsmay note the
presenceof fictionalcomponentsin the discourseof otherpartieseven though
the lattermayhave madeno explicitreferenceto the worldof science fiction.
Both kinds of linkagebetween the realms of fiction andfact can be found in
the course of the public debatein Britainin which the legitimacy of embryo
researchwas examined.Let us begin with an instancewhereFrankensteinis
clearly evident.
InNovember1987, aftermorethanthreeyears of publicdebate,theBritish
governmentpublished a provisional frameworkfor legislation concerning
embryoresearchandthe new reproductivetechnology(Departmentof Health
and Social Security 1987). This White Paperwas to be the focus for further
discussion, in Parliamentand elsewhere, afterwhich a bill would be introduced. The White Paperleft one crucialissue unsettled,namely,whetheror
not embryoresearchwas to be allowed to continue.This was identified as a
deeply personalmatterto be decided,not by government,but by the individual membersof both Houses actingin accordancewith the demandsof their
conscience.Nevertheless,the governmentreportmadeit clearthat,if Parliament did grantpermissionfor furtherexperimentationon human embryos,
researcherswould be closely regulatedby statute and subject to criminal
sanctions(MorganandLee 1991).
The reactionto theWhitePaperin two of themass circulationnewspapers
involved explicit referenceto the image of Frankensteinandhis monstrous
creation.In The Sun (27 November, 1987), there was a still from the film
Frankensteinaccompaniedby a brief accountof the mainrecommendations
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andEmbryoResearch 161
Mulkay/ Frankenstein
containedin the governmentdocumentHumanFertilizationand Embryology: A FrameworkforLegislation(Departmentof HealthandSocial Security
1987). Todayrespondedin a similar fashion with an item thatbegan in the
following way:
Clamp on Frankenstein Scientists
Scientistsaretobe bannedbylawfromcreatingsuperbeings
in thelaboratory.
knownascloning,whichcanproduceidentical
Thetechnique
humansfrom
a singlecell, will alsobemadea criminaloffense.
The Government
admitsthatthe prospectof Frankenstein-style
experimentsis unlikely,butitwantstostopanygenetictinkering
withembryoswhich
wouldpredetermine
characteristics.
A WhitePaperpublishedyesterdayproposestheclampdown
on testtube
scientists1987)
babyexperiments.
(Clampon Frankenstein
In both newspapers,the Frankensteinimage dominatedthe text and was
used to single out andto endorsetheWhitePaper'sproposalto establishstrict
control over the activities of scientists engaged in researchon human embryos. By representingthese scientists and their experimentsin Frankensteinianterms,thenewspapersseemedto imply thatthe formerwerepotential
malefactors; that if the legislative clamp were not applied, unfortunate
consequenceswould follow-as in the fictionaltale. Therewas a tension in
the newspaperarticlesbetween the dramaticscience fiction imageryand the
official statementsthat Frankenstein-styleexperimentswere "unlikely"or
"extremelyremote."But these more modest assessmentsof the threatposed
by embryoresearchwere presented,unlike Frankenstein,withoutemphasis.
Thus the unbalanceddesign of the articles drew particularattentionto the
supposed resemblance between embryo researchersand Mary Shelley's
scientific villain. Frankenstein'sprominencesuggested strongly to readers
that, despite official disclaimers,these scientists were dangerousand must
be held on a tight rein (Nelkin 1987, 50).
We cannot know how these articles were received by the newspapers'
regularcustomers.We do know, however, that they were seen from within
the scientific community as a characteristicallyill-informed attack upon
embryoresearchand upon science more generally.Thus an editorialin the
New Scientist condemnedthe tactics adoptedby The Sun as sensationalist
and misleading (Shatteredtest tubes 1987). Similarly,on 3 December 1987
Nature,in its news section,tooktheunusualstep of reproducingthe Frankenstein headline from Todayby means of photomontageand addedthe brief,
contemptuouscomment:"Thepopularpress in Britainpromotesa less than
flatteringview of scientists. Today'sresponse to last week's white paper"
(p. 409). Fromtheperspectiveof those sympatheticto embryoresearch,these
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162
& HumanValues
Science,Technology,
articlesin the popularpress providedclear illustrationsof the open, explicit
use of the Frankensteinimage to convey a critical message about the
researchersinvestigating human embryos. The message was taken to be
"bewareof science!" (Toumey1992, 412).
One of the leadingscientistsinvolved in the debateover embryoresearch
and related mattershas arguedthat this kind of negative, science fiction
imageryhas permeatedpublic discussionof these issues andthatmuch of the
opposition to research on human embryos has been a direct result of the
malign influence of science fiction.
aboutthedonationorfreezingof humanembryos,
If therearedisagreements
fargreaterpassionsarearousedabouttheneedto carryoutresearchon them.
Everyoneknowsin principlethatmedicaladvancesarebuilton scientific
on humanembryos
research,butthenecessityor otherwisefor experiments
as fearsariseabouttailor-made
babies,or
sparksthemostintenseargument,
clones,orcyborgs,orsomeothernightmarish
fancy.
Thetroublereallystartedwaybackinthe1930s,bycourtesyof thebrilliant
someof HuxAldousHuxley.In his novelBraveNewWorld.... Admittedly
ley's notionshavecometrue.Fiftyova cannow be collectedfroma human
withhis thousands,
yethisideasstill
ovary.Thisis a modestfigurecompared
gripprophetsof doommorethananyothersciencefiction,as thenumbersof
humanembryosgrowingin vitroriseyearby year,andas his fellowwriters
direenoughto alarmeventhemostphlegmaticscience
whipupforebodings
or Faustor
watcher.Whatevertoday'sembryologists
may do, Frankenstein
loomingovereverybiologicaldebate.(Edwards
Jekyllwillhaveforeshadowed,
1989,69-70)
This passage was writtenby RobertEdwards(1989), the test-tubebaby
pioneer,in his Reflectionson the EmbryoDebate. Edwardsoffers a general
account of the underlyingprocesses of that debate,in which the opponents
of embryoresearchare depictedas responding,not to the modest, unthreatening realities of actualresearch,but to the exaggerated,misleading inventions of the fictionalrealm. We are invited to see theirrejectionof embryo
researchas arisingfrom a confusionbetweenillusion andreality.According
to this interpretation,science fiction has had a majorimpact on the public
debate in which Edwardshas been involved. Its contribution,however,has
been largely negative. For it has distortedpeople's perception of where
researchon humanembryoswill lead andhas generatedfearandantagonism
insteadof fosteringa properappreciationof the benefitsthatfurtherresearch
will bring.2
Edwards'semphasis on the role played by science fiction in the debate
operatesas a defense of embryoresearchby removingits opponents'objections from the sphere of fact to the cognitively inferiordomain of fiction.
Because, in Edwards'sview, these opponentsare attackingthe fantasies of
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andEmbryoResearch 163
Mulkay/ Frankenstein
the science fiction writersratherthanthe actualitiesof embryoresearch,their
criticismsneed notbe takenseriously.These criticisms,like the fictionaltexts
from which they are said to derive, come to be seen as a form of imaginary
discourse.In contrast,Edwards'sown assertionsarepresentedas straightforwardlyfactualin character.
In fact,of course,despiteall thehorrorstories,mostpeopleconnectembryo
researchwith the early diagnosisor treatmentof cripplingdiseasesand
thereforewill concede,if pressed,that such researchhas been, and will
continueto be, of greatbenefitto humanity.
(Edwards1989,71)
In this passage, Edwardscomes close to contradictinghis own central
thesis and to admittingthat the horrorstories of the science fiction writers
have not, after all, really misled people; that, at some basic level, almost
everybody recognizes that embryo researchis a good thing. Nevertheless
elsewhere,as we have seen, he emphasizesthatthestoriesof Huxley,Shelley,
and othershave significantly affected public understandingof researchon
humanembryosandthatthey continueto "loomover"embryologists'activities. In the first quotationabove and in much of the subsequentdiscussion,
he maintainsunequivocallythatthebulk of the oppositionto embryoresearch
has been built aroundimages of Brave New Worldlaboratories,Frankensteinianmonsters,and otherscience fiction fantasies.
If Edwards'smain line of argumentis correct,it would be reasonableto
inferthatsciencefiction imagerywouldbeparticularlyprevalentduringthose
periodsin whichthedebateoverembryoresearchwas mostintense.One such
period was the six months leading up to the final parliamentarydecision
concerningthe futureof researchon humanembryosin Britain.Thus,in order
to investigate Edwards's claim systematically,I examined a collection of
eighty-five press articles, editorials,and other special features,taken from
newspapers and popularjournals while the governmentbill dealing with
embryo researchwas passing throughParliament,that is, from December
1989 to May 1990.3Althoughmorethanthirtyof theseitemsexpressedstrong
oppositionto embryoresearch,only one made explicit use of the literature
of science fiction. This feature consisted of four paragraphstaken from
Huxley's Brave New Worldunder the title "BraveNew Embryos"(1990).
The chosen passage, whichhad also been quotedby Edwardsto illustratethe
relevance of Huxley's novel to the currentdebate, deals with the mass
productionof humanembryos.I take this item to be an ironic comment on
the long-termimplicationsof the official endorsementof embryoresearch.
However,no attemptwas madein thenewspaperto use thisfictionalfragment
as the basis for open criticism of embryoresearchor of the technology of
assistedreproduction.
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164
Science, Technology,& HumanValues
During the final phase of public debate,the mass circulationdailies such
as The Sun and Todaydid not employ the kind of negative, science fiction
imagerythathad appearedin responseto the WhitePaper.They concentrated
instead on the positive outcomes of embryo researchand repeatedlybuilt
their stories aroundfavorableimages of happy mothersholding contented,
geneticallyscreened,IVFbabies (Mulkay1993a).This emphasisthroughout
the concludingstage of debateon the benefitsof embryoresearchshows that
the earlieradoptionof Frankensteinianimagerywas not part of a campaign
of sustainedoppositionto such research.The popularpress was not imprisoned within the anti-sciencerhetoricof science fiction, but was preparedto
employ whatever resources were available to create newsworthy stories
(Nelkin 1987, 50-51). Consequently,as the pro-researchlobby became
increasinglywell organized,the press coverage of embryoresearchcame to
be dominatedby the images and storylines providedby thatlobby (Mulkay
1993a, 1995b).
Science fiction imagerywas almostentirelyabsentfrom the press during
the final phase of public debate over embryo research. Even texts that
contained strong opposition to such researchmade no use of this kind of
imagery.Nevertheless, those sympatheticto embryoresearchcontinuedto
voice the suspicionthatFrankensteinandcompanywere everywhereat work
and that their opponentswere locked into an unreal world of monsters and
mad scientists.For example, New Scientistopened its campaignin support
of embryoresearchat the startof the final sequenceof parliamentarydebate
with a mocking denial that "any embryoresearcherhas tried to produce a
monsterwithbolts in its neck,hornson its head or apointedtail"(Embryonic
journey 1989). Later, as the decisive parliamentary vote approached,
Dr. Bolton, an embryologistand"chairmanof Progress,an organizationsupportingresearch,"was quotedin the Mirroron 19 April 1990 as saying that
"[w]e wantto allaypublic fearsandprejudicesthatareperhapscompounded
by those who oppose us. We are not mad scientists. We want to alleviate
suffering."In boththese instances,of course,it was the advocatesof embryo
researchwho actuallymade explicit use of science fiction imagery.
Thereis little evidencein the materialexaminedso farto supportthe claim
advancedby Edwardsandby otheradvocatesof embryoresearchthattheir
critics' argumentswere built aroundthe "mad scientist" fantasies of the
fictional realm. We must not forget, however, that the public appraisalof
embryo research occurredover a period of years and that critical use of
science fiction imagery could have been more significant during earlier
stages of debate. It is necessary,therefore,to ascertainhow science fiction
imagery was used in the course of the initial phase of bitter confrontation
over embryoresearch.To do this, I will examine the parliamentarydebates
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andEmbryoResearch 165
Mulkay/ Frankenstein
thatfollowed thepublicationof the official reportof the WarnockCommittee
in 1984.
Frankenstein in Parliament
Between 1984 and 1988, five majordebatesfocused on embryoresearch.
During this period, those opposedto such researchwere in the majorityand
researchon humanembryoswas repeatedlydenouncedin Parliamentin the
most forceful terms. The opponents of embryo research dominatedthese
debatesuntil the tide began to turnin 1988 (Mulkay 1993b, 1994a, 1995c).
If science fiction imagery was crucial to the interpretativeprocesses of
organizedopposition to embryoresearch,we would expect it to have been
evident in the course of these debates. There were, however, only four
instances where people opposed to embryoresearchopenly used elements
takenfrom science fiction. In two of them,referencewas made to Huxley's
BraveNew Worldand,in the othertwo, to some versionof Frankenstein.The
following speaker, for instance, begins the main part of her speech with
these words:
I once watcheda sciencefictionfilm aboutamanwho was madein alaboratory.
He escaped and did all kinds of terriblethings. It makes me think:is this the
startof somethingwhich couldlead to a Hitlertheoryof only theperfecthuman
beings being brought into our society? (Baroness Masham, Parliamentary
Debates [Lords],5th ser., vol. 456 [1984], col. 576)
She goes on to comment on the decline of Christianity,on the problems
arisingfrom abortionandchildlessness, on the need to protectembryosfrom
the moment of fertilization,and on the usefulness of IVF in certaincircumstances. In the middle section of her speech, she considerswhat she regards
as the very real dangersof embryoresearchin a way that broadlyparallels
the earlier reference to the mythical laboratoryof science fiction. "The
temptationsfor experimentationon the human embryo could go far,"she
says. Scientists "mighttry to reachtheirgoal withoutregardto the embryo."
How, she asks, could we non-expertscontrol them?Her overall conclusion
is thatembryoresearchshouldnot continueandthat"thefurtherwe get away
from nature,the moreproblemswe shall have" (col. 577).
It appears that this speaker is drawing on some vague memory of a
Frankensteinhorrormovie to give formto her condemnationof this new type
of researchinvolving the laboratoryproductionof humanbeings. She uses a
crude,minimalformulationof the Frankensteinstoryto convey the idea that
the unanticipatedconsequences of this act of scientific trespass, difficult
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166
Science, Technology,& HumanValues
thoughthey areto specify at this stage, may be most unwelcome.Herspeech
resembles the Todayarticlein introducingfictional materialexplicitly into
its appraisal of embryo research and in using the negative tone of the
Frankensteinimage to hint at the dangersthatwould follow if researchin this
areawere allowed to continue.
Frankensteinis presentin this first example from parliamentarydebate,
buthis imageis by no meansdominant.Thesameis trueof thepassagebelow,
takenfrom a laterdebatein the Commonsin which a PrivateMember'sBill
outlawingembryoresearchis being discussed.The speakerasksthequestion:
Why is researchon humanembryosnecessary?Scientists'answer,he claims,
is that it is necessary because it will enable them eventuallyto control the
processes of human reproductionand to eliminate genetic defects. This
supposedreply generatesa secondrhetoricalquestion.
Wherearewe going?If we taketherectification
of geneticdefectstoitslogical
conclusion,onedaywe shalllive in a societyin whichmedicaldevelopments
will be so advancedthatfacialappearance,
appliedto in vitrofertilization
physicalstrength,skincoloring,IQ andintelligencewill allhavebecomethe
so muchso thatonewill be ableto bookan
subjectof laboratory
experiment,
dark,handsome,
short,intelligent,athletic,
embryological
configuration-tall,
shrewdor perhapseven a Frankenstein
monsterif thatis whatone wants.
Debates[Commons],6th ser., vol. 73
Parliamentary
(Campbell-Savours,
[1985],col. 659)
Frankensteinseems to be less centralto this speech thanto the articlesin
the popularpress or to the speech by BaronessMasham. The reference to
Frankensteinis not used here to establish the interpretativecontext, but
appearsto be addedalmostas an afterthoughtto the list of possible configurations.YetFrankenstein'spresencedoes contributeto ourunderstandingof
what is being said. For it is the mentionof Frankensteinthatindicatesmost
clearly in this part of the speech that the speakeris not simply offering a
neutraldescriptionof whathe thinksis likely tohappen,butis also expressing
his disapprovalandrepugnance.In otherwords,Frankenstein'sintroduction
implies a moral resemblancebetween the fictional scientist's monstrous
achievementandthe excesses to be expectedof real scientistsin the foreseeable future.4
Although this speakerrefers to Frankensteinto signal opposition to the
prospectof continuedresearchon humanembryos,the referenceto science
fiction is not essential to the speech. The speaker'saccountof the sciencebased technology of the futurederives textually,not from the Frankenstein
myth, but from his imaginativereconstructionof the discourse of actual
scientists at work today.Frankensteinplays only a peripheralrole in these
speculations.As with BaronessMasham,referenceto the fictionalcharacter
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andEmbryoResearch 167
Mulkay/ Frankenstein
seems to be little more than a convenientdevice with which to convey negative feelings anda sense of apprehensionaboutthedirectionin which certain
sectors of modernscience appearto be heading.The same is trueof participants' occasionaluse of Brave New Worldfor criticalpurposes.
The public will want some specific questionsansweredexactly.For example,
how canwe get sufficientnumbersof sufficientlyqualifiedscientificinspectors
to differentiatebetween a 14-day and a 15-day old embryo . . . ? The public
will want properanswersto those ... questions.There are widespread,andI
believe well-informed,fearslest trans-speciesfertilizationlead beyondembryonic growth to a mixed breed, converting the uniqueness of man into a
bastardizedfreak. The public, I believe, will revolt against debasement of
humangenerationto studfarmingmethods.I believe thatthe public is already
showing signs of an instinctiveresistanceto the Brave New World'sintrusion
into this most private and sacred area of human experience. (Lauderdale,
ParliamentaryDebates [Lords],5th ser., vol. 456 [1984], col. 566)
These examples show that parliamentarycritics of embryoresearchdid
sometimes refer to science fiction in their attemptsto speculate about the
futureand to demonstratethe need, eitherto ban suchresearchor to exercise
greatercontrolover scientists'activities.But we couldhardlyconclude,from
occasional,passing referencesof this kind, thatscience fiction had exerteda
major influence on the opposition party. Indeed, negative science fiction
imagerywas actuallyused morefrequentlyin thesedebatesby the supporters
of embryoresearchthanby its critics.SWe find, however, as in the material
discussedin the previoussection, thatadvocatesof embryoresearchclaimed
to be able to detect Frankenstein'sinfluence upon their opponentswhether
or not these opponentshappenedto mentionhim.
We areprovidedwith opportunitiesfor alleviatingthe miseries andproblems
thatinfertilityinflicts on individualsand society and, at the same time, letting
loose upon society the forces thatcould do moreharmthangood. I cannothelp
feeling that Mary Shelley's spectre of Dr. Frankenstein'smonster impinges
heavily on our subconscious when we addressourselves to the problem of
embryology,causing a fear of and revulsion againstthe possible productsof
the ruthlesspursuitof knowledgefor its own sake or the applicationof medical
techniquesto createmonstersor superhumans.(Dobson, ParliamentaryDebates [Commons],6th ser., vol. 68 [1984], col. 585)
The speaker continues by acknowledging that the idea of Frankenstein's
monster may have some value if it encourages ordinary people to "be on their
guard" and to ensure that the new science-based techniques are not improperly used. Nevertheless, he insists, we must not let our powerful feelings of
fear and revulsion prevent us from recognizing and accepting the benefits
that controlled embryo research will bring. We must not, he implies, make
the mistake of taking Mary Shelley's story too literally. We must instead do
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168
& HumanValues
Science,Technology,
ourbest to controltheFrankenstein-inspired
promptingsof oursubconscious
mind and to avoid adopting unreflectively the negative preconceptions
evident in so many contributionsto thepublic debate.In this speaker'sview,
althoughwe are all influencedby the Frankensteinmyth, some people have
been able to restrainthatinfluence and to deal with the issues underreview
in a more detachedandlogical manner.Such an approach,he contends,leads
to cautious supportfor the use of IVF and for the continuationof embryo
research.
A similar assessmentof Frankenstein'ssignificancein the public debate
over embryoresearchis proposedin the following pro-researchcontribution
to the same parliamentarysession.
with
Luridassociations
horror.
withfantasiesof futuristic
Itis a subjectfraught
NazimedicineorFrankenstein
"BraveNewWorld"embryology,
experimenmoralpositionsvery difficult.
tation,makedebatebetweenirreconcilable
Debates[Commons],6thser.,vol. 68 [1984],col.
(Meacher,Parliamentary
534)
In the speech from which this quotationis taken,the fantasiesof science
fiction are treatedas potent influences on the views of those people with
whom the speakerdisagrees. Belief in these horrorstories is said to make
debate difficult because it is usually associatedwith a stance of such moral
certitudethatrationaldiscussionbecomes impossible.As he puts it in a later
session, one of the majorobstacles preventingdispassionatedebate "is the
dread that scientists are somehow running amok and that unless they are
reinedin by immediatelegislation,science fictionnightmaressuch as humanhamsterhybrids,carboncopy cloning by nucleartransplantationor wanton
tortureof living fetuses in the laboratorymight see the light of day"(ParliamentaryDebates[Commons],6th ser.,vol. 73 [1985], col. 686). Once again,
Frankensteinandcompanyarerepresentedas havingpreventedotherpeople
from properly grasping the realities of embryo research. In contrast, for
those supposedrealists who, like the speaker,are able to step outside the
realm of fantasyandto avoid the moralabsolutismjustifiedby its imaginary
horrors,"thebenefits of controlledresearch,closely monitoredandregulated
by a licensing body of the sort recommendedby the Warnockcommittee,
seem to be compelling" (Parliamentary Debates [Commons], 6th ser.,
vol. 68 [1984], col. 536).
In the course of the embryo debate, in Parliamentand in the media,
negativescience fictionimagerywas used explicitlyby supportersof embryo
researchas well as by its critics.For thelatter,sciencefictionwas availableas a
convenient culturalresourcewith which to convey disapprovaland apprehension.Forthe former,it was aresourcewith whichto weakenthecredibility
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andEmbryoResearch 169
Mulkay/ Frankenstein
of their opponents'speculationsabout the futureand to explain away their
refusal to acceptthe reassurancesofferedby the representativesof scientific
research.When Frankensteinappearedwithin the context of anti-research
discourse, he reminded recipients forcefully of the dangers of scientific
development. When Frankenstein appeared within the context of proresearchdiscourse,he was made to speak,not of the dangersof science, but
of the credulity,ignorance,and dogmatismof those who were unwilling to
endorsethe advanceof scientific knowledge.6
Competing Visions of the Future
The material presented above has one puzzling feature: How was it
possible for scientists and other supportersof embryo research to insist
repeatedly that science fiction was a major influence on their opponents,
when those opponentsmadelittle explicituse of science fictionimagery?Part
of the answeris thatexplicitreferenceto science fiction was not essentialfor
its influenceto be detected.At least some of thosein favorof embryoresearch
were able to infer the influence of Frankensteinand of science fiction more
generallyfrom other,less obvious, featuresof theiropponents'argumentsin
relation to embryo research.One of these featureswas undoubtedlytheir
disapproval of such research. But it seems unlikely that this alone was
sufficientbasis for the kind of fictionalattributionexemplified above.
I suggestthatthediscourseof opponentsto embryoresearchin Parliament,
andprobablyin many othersettings,regularlydisplayedadditionalelements
thatcouldbe takento revealits essentially"fictional"nature.Let me examine
one parliamentaryspeech in which these recurrentcharacteristicscan be
observed.To illustratethe range of featuresinvolved, I will quote at length
from this speech.
I wantto considerwherethis wholematterwill lead us.... Ectogenesis
involvesmaintaining
theembryoinvitroforprogressively
longerperiods.Why
havea limitof 14 days?Whyshouldit notbe extendedto 20, 30 or40 days?
The ultimategoalmaybe to producea childentirelyin vitroor to produce
geneticallyidenticalindividuals
by cloning.In otherwords,thegoalmaybe
to mimic the naturalprocess leading to selective breedingor the creationof
humanbeingswithpredetermined
characteristics....
Onecanseethatcoming,
not in a lifetimebutin two lifetimes.All thosemattersarehypothetical,
but
theymaycomeabout.As we areaware,we slidefromone pieceof primary
legislationandso on.... I nowwantto considertrans-species
investigations.
Weareallawarethatin agriculture
theyhavecombineda sheepanda goatand
a ratherremarkable
beastwas formed.It wouldnot take a greatleap of
toimaginewhatmighthappen.EachcellhasitsDNA.Itispossible
imagination
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170
& HumanValues
Science,Technology,
throughgenetic engineeringandmanipulationof cells to remove or to splice
in a link and thatmight have catastrophicconsequences .... The White Paper . . . says that we must have a system of mandatorylicensing. The system
would, of course, createa criminaloffense. But. .. [m]ost of the activitiesin
breachof the law could be compiledclandestinely.Therefore,while one might
get the respect of those who have respect for the law, those who thirst for
knowledge, regardlessof restraint,will work unceasinglyfor what they term
their aspirations.... The dignity of man must remaininviolate. His status is
degradedas soon as the legislaturepermitsus to interfere,to man's detriment,
with any partof his being, whetherin dme of growthor synthesis .... There
have been greatachievementsthroughoutBritishmedicine andI pay tributeto
the work thathas been done. Having said all that, surelywe in the House can
see, down the labyrinthof years,the dangersto which we areexposed, andthe
dangersto which we are exposing the nation.(Skeet, ParliamentaryDebates
[Commons],6th ser., vol. 126 [1988], cols. 1225-27)
This speaker,like so many opposed to embryoresearch,formulateshis
response on the basis of what he takes to be its long-termconsequences.
Where will it lead us, he asks, not in one lifetime, but across the span of
generationsto come? He recognizes that,in attemptingto look so far ahead,
he mustrely on his imagination.But he treatsdisciplinedextrapolationfrom
what is known aboutpresent-dayscience as a necessary andlegitimatepart
of the process of appraisal.
In his imaginativevision of a futurein whichresearchon humanembryos
has been allowed to continue,the speakerattributesgreatpower to science.
He assumes,in particular,thatscientistswill sooner or latersucceed in their
attemptsto mimic, andtherebyto control,the naturalmechanismsof human
reproduction.However,this acknowledgmentof scientists'potency is combined with a profound distrust.A significant proportionof scientists, he
suggests, will pursuetheirtechnicalobjectiveswithoutrespectfor the law or
for the fundamentalvalues on which humandignity depends. He seems to
imply that the very amoralityof scientific culturemakes it so technically
successful, yet at the same time so resistantto externalcontrol(Lewenstein
1989). He concludes, therefore, that technical accomplishmentssuch as
sexual selection, cloning, genetic manipulation,trans-speciesfertilization,
and so on, which are at the moment eitherhypotheticalor in their infancy,
furnishfaintbut propheticclues to the achievementsof the futureand to the
disruptive social changes that will in due course follow if scientists are
permittedto continuetheirinquiriesin the realm of humancreation.
This type of abstractnarrativeappearedrepeatedlythroughoutthe parliamentarycampaignagainstembryoresearch.7Its characteristicelements are
the extended temporalperspective, the open dependence on imaginative
work, the suspiciousrecognitionof the power of science, the stress given to
scientists'obsessivepursuitof technicalgoals, the emphasison thedifficulty
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
andEmbryoResearch 171
Mulkay/ Frankenstein
of controlling science from outside, the significance attributedto certain
unusualtechnicaldevelopmentsin contemporaryscience, andthe expression
of repugnanceatscientists'incursioninto a sacredregion of humanexistence.
Although the original Frankensteinstory and its fictional derivatives
employ much more concrete and particularizedstory lines than does the
speaker above, there are numerous parallels between the two kinds of
narrativestructure.In the first instance, both types of narrativetake place
outside the time span of ordinaryexperience;thatis, they occur either in a
fictionalrecreationof the past or in an as yet unrealizedfuture.Second, the
typical anti-sciencefiction and the criticalspeculationconcerningthe developmentof embryoresearchareboth built arounda "generalizedfear thatthe
engine of change is out of control"(Tudor1989b, 591). Scientists'motives
tendto be depictedin boththese kinds of text as untrustworthyandas leading
them to trespassinto forbiddenareas,with disastrousresults (Toumey1992;
Mulkay 1995b). Thus, third,scientists are seen as ignoring the limitations
implied by commonly accepted values and, consequently,as threatening
irreparabledamage to the social fabric (Tudor1989a). The science fiction
horrormovie and the denunciatoryprophecyaboutembryoresearchcan be
seen to be similar in kind because they are both creative projections of
negative assumptionsaboutscience and aboutscientists. The expression of
these underlying assumptionsin an undeniably imaginative form by the
critics of embryoresearchenabledthose defendingscience to treatthis type
of supposedly real-world discourse as deriving from, and as implicitly
belonging to, the genre of anti-sciencefiction.
Accordingly,explicit referenceto the fictionalrealmwas not requiredfor
oppositiondiscourseto beread as a formof anti-sciencefiction by supporters
of embryoresearch.The negative construalof scientists'motives, the condemnationof scientific amorality,andthe temporalextensionof the narrative
line could in themselves be taken to reveal such discourse as unreal in
character,irrespective of its detailed content. I suggest that the repeated
appearanceof these featuresin oppositionrhetoricled supportersof embryo
researchto concludethatFrankensteinandcompanywere constantlyat work
behindthe scenes.
Adoptionof an extendedtemporalperspectivewas essentialto opponents
of embryo research because it created interpretativespace in which to
exercise theircriticalimagination.It was only by looking well into the future
that they were able to postulatedramatictechnicalchanges and to envisage
radicallynew forms of science-basedactivitythatwere clearlyincompatible
with present-daymorality.Advocates of researchregularly attackedtheir
opponents' use of this temporal strategy and constantly urged that the
discussion be kept "undistortedby wild speculations"about the far distant
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172
& HumanValues
Science,Technology,
future.In so doing, they reaffirmedthe apparentlymore cautious approach
employed in the WarnockReportof keeping the temporalperspectiveshort,
andreliance on imaginationto a minimum.
Thepaceof scientificdiscoveryis unpredictable.
Indeed,a numberof major
Thechanges
hastakenplaceduringthelifetimeof theInquiry.
developments
whichtakeplacein societyitself arealsodifficultto predict.Theimpactof
scientificdiscoverieson the societyof thefutureis thereforedoublyhardto
viewthatwe couldreactonlyto whatweknew,
predict.Wetookthepragmatic
foresee.(Warnock
andwhatwe couldrealistically
1985,5)
Despite theirrejectionof theiropponents'speculativeeffortsas "exaggerated andemotivepropaganda"anddespitetheircommitment,in principle,to
a policy of short-termrealism,the supportersof embryoresearch,in practice,
also made much use of imaginativeclaims about the future.This has been
documentedin detailelsewhere(Mulkay1993b).Let me, therefore,offerjust
one brief illustration taken from a speaker whom we have seen above
condemningotherpeople's futuristicfantasies.
Researchthatholdstheprospectof reducingthisblighton so manylivesmust
be welcomed.Moreover,such workcan reducethe incidenceof miscarcould
riage .... Butthepotentialforresearchgoesmuchwider.Information
emergeon howa rangeof birthdefectsarisesor on howcancercellsbecome
Itmayalsohelptoremedygeneticdisease,whichaffectsonein 50
malignant.
children....Forthefuture-it maybe a distantfuture,butit is foreseeable-it
couldbe possibleto use cells, whichdivideto formspecificorgansin the
tissuein thepancreasor
orrepairdamaged
embryo,to correctblooddisorders
even the heart,the brainor the liver of an adult.(Meacher,Parliamentary
6thser.,vol. 68 [1984],col. 536)
Debates[Commons],
Those in favorof embryoresearch,like this speaker,regularlyslippedinto
the propheticmode, although,of course, their speculationsconcentratedon
the expected benefits of such researchratherthanthe problemsto which it
might give rise (Nelkin 1987, 51). Such claims were often challenged.They
were, however,neverdepictedas blatantfantasiesderivingfromthe fictional
realm. This was, presumably,because there was no well-known fictional
genre to which such optimisticextrapolationscould be linked.Nevertheless,
both sides in the debatemaderepeateduse of fictionalnarratives;thatis, they
both creatively projected their divergent conceptions of science into the
futureas a way of justifying theirpresentcourse of action. Both sides also
employed a set of typical factualassertionsaboutthe presentand the recent
past. In both cases, these supposedfacts were given meaning,and operated
to provide justification, by being combined with a form of imaginative
discoursethatenabledspeakersto claim to revealhow the collective decision
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mulkay/ Frankensteinand EmbryoResearch
173
eitherto permitorto prohibitembryoresearchwouldlead,down thelabyrinth
of years, to quite differentfutures.
The advocates of embryo researchhad the advantageof being able to
maintainthattheirpositive vision of the futurewas supportedby the authority
of science. Those engaged in oppositionto embryoresearchlaboredunder
the disadvantagethat their bleak narrativesbore a distinct resemblanceto
certainfamiliarstoriesfromscience fiction.We cannotknow for certainhow
these differingalignmentsin relationto the domainsof science and science
fiction affectedthe eventualoutcomeof thepublic debate.However,it seems
likely from what we have seen above thatthe existence of a fictional genre
expressingwidespreadfearsaboutscience andtechnologytended,somewhat
paradoxically,to weaken the campaign against embryo research and to
strengthenthe argumentsof those who supportedits continuation.
Notes
1. This studyis based on systematicexaminationof two sets of data.The firstis a collection
of eighty-fivepress articles,editorials,andotherspecialfeatureson the topic of embryoresearch.
This materialwas collectedby LincolnHannahLtd Mediascan.The collectionwas obtainedby
means of scans of all the nationalBritishnewspapersplus a numberof leadingprovincialpapers
and popularjournalsduringthe period December 1989-May 1990. It has been made available
to me by Dr. Alan Handysideof the HammersmithHospital,to whom I offer my warmthanks
(for furtherdetails, see Mulkay 1993a). The second collection of datais made up of the major
parliamentarydebatesin which researchon humanIVF embryoswas the dominanttopic. The
details of these debates are as follows: United Kingdom, ParliamentaryDebates (Lords),5th
ser., vol. 456 (1984), cols. 524-93, Human Fertilization:WarnockReport;vol. 491 (1988),
1450-1508, HumanFertilizationand Embryology;vol. 504 (1989), 1538-80, UnbornChildren
(Protection)Bill; vol. 513 (1989), cols. 1002-14, HumanFertilizationandEmbryologyBill; vol.
515 (1990), cols. 950-90, HumanFertilizationand EmbryologyBill. United Kingdom,ParliamentaryDebates (Commons),6th ser., vol. 68 (1984), cols. 547-90, HumanFertilizationand
Embryology (WarnockReport);vol. 73 (1985), cols. 637-702, UnbornChildren(Protection)
Bill; vol. 126 (1988), cols. 1202-61, HumanFertilizationandEmbryology;vol. 170 (1990), cols.
914-90, Human Fertilizationand Embryology Bill; vol. 171 (1990), cols. 31-133, Human
Fertilizationand EmbryologyBill.
2. This view of the disturbinginfluence of the Frankensteinmyth seems to be widespread
amongscientists.See, for example,the suggestionby Lewis Wolpertthatone of the useful things
sociologists could do would be to explain why the "Frankensteinimage is so unrealistically
persuasivein relationto genetic engineering"(1994, 745). Wolpert'sproposalstandsas another
instanceof a scientistusing science fiction to deny credibilityto those who refuse to acceptthat
scientific advanceis necessarilybeneficial (for furtherdiscussion of these issues in relationto
embryoresearch,see Mulkay1995b).
3. For details of this material,see note 1.
4. Althoughit has not been my aim in this study,it would be possible to carryout a formal
discourse analysis, or a formalrhetoricalanalysis, of this material(for examples of discourse
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174
Science, Technology,& HumanValues
analysis, see Gilbertand Mulkay 1984 or Cbrt 1994; for examples of rhetoricalanalysis, see
Sullivan 1994).
5. The following speakersused science fiction imageryto criticize embryoresearchin the
early debates:The Earl of Lauderdale(United Kingdom,ParliamentaryDebates [Lords], 5th
ser., vol. 456 [1984], col. 566); Baroness Masham (col. 576); Mr. St. John-Stevas (United
Kingdom, ParliamentaryDebates [Commons], 6th ser., vol. 73 [1985], col. 648), and Mr.
Campbell-Savours(col. 659). The following speakersused science fiction imagery to defend
embryoresearchin the early debates:Mr. Meacher(UnitedKingdom,ParliamentaryDebates
[Commons],6th ser.,vol. 68 [1984], col. 534); Mr.Dobson (col. 585); Ms. Richardson(vol. 73
[1985], col. 643); Mr. Crouch (col. 655); Mr. Meacher (col. 686); and Lord Rea (United
Kingdom, ParliamentaryDebates [Lords], 5th ser., vol. 491 [1988], col. 1468). In the later
debates,therewere two passingreferencesto science fiction by criticsof embryoresearch:Mr.
Duffy (UnitedKingdom,ParliamentaryDebates[Commons],6thser.,vol. 170 [1990], col. 943);
and Mr. Benyon (col. 964). There were also two referencesto science fiction by supportersof
embryoresearchinthe debateon 23 April1990:Mr.Thurnham(UnitedKingdom,Parliamentary
Debates [Commons],6th ser., vol. 170 [1990], col. 64); andMrs. Currie(col. 77). In addition,
in the debatein the Commonson 2 April 1990, Mr.Dalyell, the politicalcorrespondentfor the
New Scientist,askedthe ministerto confirmthatMr.Duffy'sreferenceto the eugenics of a brave
new world was inappropriatein view of the fact thatthe legislationunderconsiderationforbade
any researchthatcould lead in that direction(UnitedKingdom,ParliamentaryDebates [Commons], 6th ser., vol. 170 [1990], col. 977). The ministerfor health subsequentlyanswered"in
the affirmative"(col. 982).
6. Pro-researchrhetoricemployeda twofold contrastbetween fact and fiction. On the one
hand,it involved a comparisonbetweentwo distinctgenresor textualforms. On the otherhand,
it involved a comparisonbetween true and false assertions.These two contrastsoften overlap,
but they arenot identical(for furtherdiscussion,see Mulkay 1985, 10-12).
7. See, for example,Sir G. Vaughan(UnitedKingdom,ParliamentaryDebates [Commons],
6th ser., vol. 68 [1984], cols. 551-52); Mrs. Knight(cols. 565-66); Mr.Cash (cols. 573-74); Sir
B. Braine (vol. 126 [1988], cols. 1215-16); Mr.Hind (vol. 170 [1990], col. 99); Mr.Burt (cols.
112-13); LordHanworth(UnitedKingdom,ParliamentaryDebates [Lords],5th ser., vol. 456
[1984], cols. 545-46); Lord Rawlinson(cols. 555-56); The Earlof Perth(vol. 513 [1989], col.
1085); and LordStallard(vol. 515 [1990], col. 970).
References
Birke, L., S. Himmelweit,andG. Vines. 1990. Tomorrowschild: Reproductivetechnologies in
the 90s. London:Virago.
Brave new embryos.1990. Independenton Sunday,29 April.
Clampon Frankensteinscientists. 1987. Today,27 November.
Curt,B. C. 1994. Textualityand tectonics: Troublingsocial and psychological science. Buckingham:Open UniversityPress.
Departmentof Health and Social Security. 1987. Humanfertilization and embryology:A
frameworkfor legislation.White Paper.London:Her Majesty'sStationeryOffice.
Durant,J. R., G. A. Evans,andG. P.Thomas.1989. Thepublicunderstandingof science. Nature
340:11-14.
Edwards,R. 1989. Life beforebirth:Reflectionson the embryodebate. London:Hutchinson.
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Mulkay/ Frankensteinand EmbryoResearch
175
Edwards,R., andP. Steptoe.1980.A matterof life: Thestoryof a medicalbreakthrough.London:
Hutchinson.
Embryonicjourney.1989. New Scientist,2 December,24.
Gilbert, G. N., and M. Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora's box: A sociological analysis of
scientists'discourse. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Glut, D. 1973. The Frankensteinlegend. Metuchen,NJ: Scarecrow.
Lewenstein, B. V. 1989. Frankensteinor wizard: Images of engineers in the mass media.
Engineering:CornellQuarterly27:40-48.
McNeil, M. 1990. Reproductivetechnologies:Anew terrainfor the sociology of technology.In
The new reproductivetechnologies, edited by M. McNeil, I. Varcoe,and S. Yearley,1-26.
Basingstoke:Macmillan.
Morgan,D., andR. G. Lee. 1991. The HumanFertilizationand EmbryologyAct 1990:Abortion
and embryoresearch,the new law. London:Blackstone.
Mulkay,M. 1985. The word and the world: Explorationsin theform of sociological analysis.
London:Allen andUnwin.
. 1991. Intrudersin the Fallopiantubeor a dreamof perfecthumanreproduction.Human
Reproduction6:1480-86.
. 1993a. Embryosin the news. Public Understandingof Science 3:33-51.
. 1993b.Rhetoricsof hope andfearin the GreatEmbryoDebate.Social Studiesof Science
23:721-42.
----.
1994a. Changing minds about embryo research. Public Understandingof Science
3:195-213.
. 1994b. Science andfamily in the GreatEmbryoDebate.Sociology 28:699-715.
. 1994c. The triumph of the pre-embryo:Interpretationsof the human embryo in
parliamentarydebateover embryoresearch.Social Studiesof Science 24:611-39.
. 1994d.Womenintheparliamentarydebateover embryoresearch.Science,Technology,
& HumanValues19:5-22.
. 1995a. Galileo and the embryos:Religion and science in parliamentarydebate over
researchon humanembryos.Social Studiesof Science 25:499-532.
. 1995b. Parliamentaryambivalencein relationto embryo researchlSocial Studies of
Science 25:149-63.
. 1995c. Political parties, parliamentarylobbies and embryoresearch. Public Understandingof Science 4:31-55.
Nelkin,D. 1987. Sellingscience: How thepress covers science and technology.New York:W.H.
Freeman.
Shatteredtest tubes. 1987. New Scientist,3 December,21.
Smith,J., ed. 1992. Frankenstein:Case studiesin contemporarycriticism.Boston:St. Martin's.
Sullivan, D. L. 1994. Exclusionary epideictic: NOVA's narrative excommunication of
FleischmannandPons. Science, Technology,& HumanValues19:283-306.
Tourney,C. P. 1992. Themoralcharacterof madscientists:Aculturalcritiqueof science. Science,
Technology,& HumanValues17:411-37.
Tudor,A. 1989a. Monstersand mad scientists:A culturalhistoryof the horrormovie. Oxford:
Blackwell.
. 1989b. Seeing the worst side of science. Nature340:589-92.
Turney,J. 1994. In the gripof the monstrousmyth.Public Understandingof Science 3:225-31.
Warnock,M. 1985. A question of life: The WarnockReport on Human Fertilization and
Embryology.Oxford:Blackwell.
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176
Science, Technology,& HumanValues
Wolpert,L. 1994. Responseto Steve Fuller.Social Studiesof Science 24:745-47.
MichaelMulkayholdsa personalchairin sociology atthe Universityof York,Heslington,
York,England YOI5DD. He has writtenon many topics in the sociology of science as
well as on sociological theoryand on social aspects of art, humor,and death.
This content downloaded from 192.167.209.10 on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:36:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions