As scientific breakthroughs accelerate, Frankenstein returns as a timely warning about responsibility, ambition and unintended consequences. Photo credit: Dad Grass via Unsplash
Disclaimer: this article will thrill you, might shock you, and may even horrify you. So, if you do not wish to subject your nerves to such a strain, you have been warned.
As James Walsh remarked back in 1931, when directing the first sound-and-picture adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, ‘It is one of the strangest tales ever told. It deals with the two great mysteries of creation: Life and Death’. Guillermo del Toro’s bold but bloodthirsty retelling explores the responsibilities of Doctor Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) when attempting to surpass seemingly impossible scientific limits and casts light on the inner turmoil that lies on the other side of such scientific discovery.
Karloff’s Creature became one of the first two-dimensional villains of all time: unrecognisable from humankind for his strength and appearance, yet desperate for acceptance in a world that recoils from him.
The Creature, famously portrayed on the big screen by Boris Karloff, now passes the baton to Jacob Elordi, best known for his starring roles in Saltburn (2023) and the HBO series Euphoria (2019–current). Both actors offer strikingly different but equally haunting portrayals of Shelley’s infamous villain. Karloff’s Creature became one of the first two-dimensional villains of all time: unrecognisable from humankind for his strength and appearance, yet desperate for acceptance in a world that recoils from him.
In 2025, the Creature sees the world through curious, childlike eyes, untouched by the violence once suffered by the soldiers whose body parts now compose him. With ape-like movements and naive wonder, this Monster embodies humanity before “nurture” corrupts it, a mirror to what we might have been without the destructive influences of our surroundings.
Through his powerful imagery, script, and masterful direction throughout the film, del Toro successfully brings a meaningful addition to the story, which incorporates the context within which it was made. In a society where a significant number of scientific fields are advancing quicker than ever, Frankenstein remains a meaningful tale to reflect on how society reacts when faced with the consequences of scientific discovery.
…creating life in a laboratory, while ahead of its time in 1818, is now a reality for many scientists working in this area.
The ethics of modern-day biotechnology would hopefully be a stark contrast to the rules and regulations of Victor’s laboratory. Although selective breeding in agriculture dates to the 18th century in the western world, the field of genetic engineering, for example, only emerged much later: after the structure of DNA was discovered in 1953. A further landmark within biotechnology was the first cloning of a mammal from a single adult cell: Dolly the sheep was “born” in a test tube in 1996 but went on to live for nearly seven more years under the care of researchers at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh. Mary Shelley’s idea of creating life in a laboratory, while ahead of its time in 1818, is now a reality for many scientists working in this area.
The most recent development in genetic engineering has evolved from an adaptive immune response discovered inE. coli in the 1980s. The rise of so-called “CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing” technologies has become so influential that Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna won the Nobel Prize in 2020 for their work on detailing its potential for use in gene editing. This system uses a nucleic acid called RNA to deliver a DNA-cutting enzyme, Cas9, to a specific gene sequence. It was found that this RNA “guide” can be engineered by scientists to deliver the Cas9 enzyme to a gene of our choosing, as shown in the schematic below.
In theory, the potential uses for CRISPR-Cas9 excited scientists and doctors from across the globe, for both preventing causes of disease in human embryos, and the treatment of individuals suffering with genetic diseases. But, like several scientific tools that came before it, the CRISPR-Cas9 system is not infallible. Current challenges involve preventing “off target” editing of genes, which occurs when the “guide” delivers Cas9 to more than one DNA sequence in the nucleus. While there has been a large push to advance the field and prevent such “off-target” events, the expected widespread use of gene editing in biotechnology and medicine in the coming years makes it essential to handle this carefully to ensure faithful gene editing.
This opens up a very real-world question: to what extent will such a technology be used? Whilst certain CRISPR-Cas9 projects are limited to altering a singular gene already present in the genome, others have speculated that larger sequences can be inserted into your DNA using this technology, currently known as creating “transgene cassettes”. Such merging of new DNA into your own genome is very reminiscent of the “cut and paste” nature of how the Creature was made in Frankenstein: only choosing the “best” limbs of each possible specimen.
Furthermore, while certain gene editing experiments can be run on human embryos for research purposes, reproductive cells cannot be subject to genome editing. Such legislative limits on this “germline gene editing” are in place to ensure any edited genes present in adult (somatic) cells cannot be inherited, protecting future generations from the consequences of any mistakes made throughout the gene editing process. Despite this, a former NASA biochemist Josiah Zayner developed the ODIN project, a company that produces at-home CRISPR kits to allow people to “genetically modify themselves”. Clearly, if gone unchecked, the use of gene editing technologies could be used for much more than just scientific advancement.
While only developed in 2012, six months ago CRISPR-Cas9 technology was used to cure a child of a rare metabolic disease called severe carbamoyl phosphate I (CPS1) deficiency. With such a breakthrough in personalised medicine as this, the horizon for future use in other genetic diseases is seemingly endless. Unsurprisingly, research is ongoing to integrate CRISPR-Cas9 across several areas of biotechnology, with notable potential uses in cancer diagnostics, sickle cell disease, and cardiovascular disease.
…epigenetics, looks at how chemical tags attach to our DNA, turning genes on or off without changing the genetic code.
Until recently, biotechnology has mostly focused on changing our genes themselves, our “nature”. However, new research is showing that gene-editing tools can also be used to influence our “nurture”, the environmental and lifestyle factors that shape how our genes behave. This field, named epigenetics, looks at how chemical tags attach to our DNA, turning genes on or off without changing the genetic code. These chemical marks are now believed to build up throughout your lifetime, from the moment of conception to old age. This chemical process is influenced by everything from diet and stress to pollution and upbringing; and has been proposed by many scientists as a secondary form of heritable encoded information, like the DNA base sequence. Over time, harmful patterns of these chemical signals can contribute to age-related diseases such as cancer and neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. A new form of genetic engineering now uses a modified version of the CRISPR-Cas9 system to deliver enzymes that can rewrite these epigenetic marks. This approach could one day help erase the damaging effects of stress or even attempt to reverse the ageing written into our DNA.
…think deeply and critically about the use of the groundbreaking tools that we have access to today, and ensure that we make theuse of them tomorrow.
On the horizon lies a time when we cannot only rewrite the genes we inherit but also reprogram how our experiences and environment shape their expression in our cells. While a revolutionary step forward for science, it is no longer fiction for scientists to, in the eyes of some, “play God”. Therefore, I believe it is essential we draw the line between curing disease and editing our DNA for superficial pursuits. Like Victor Frankenstein, many scientists and inventors have struggled with the consequences of their life’s work, from Oppenheimer’s atomic bomb to Haber’s work on chemical warfare. This theme is integral across both the film adaptation and the original source material, imploring us yet again to think deeply and critically about the use of the groundbreaking tools that we have access to today, and ensure that we make use of them tomorrow.
