“A similar attribution of Frankenstein was made by the psychologist John Charles Bucknill in his Lumleian Lecture on insanity, delivered to the Royal College of Physicians in 1878. Concerned by some of his colleagues’ views on the actions of the will in mental activity, and the acceptance of their views in legal cases of insanity, Bucknill argued that judges should not “needlessly vivify this Frankenstein of a will” (1878, 560) created by his fellow psychologists. This, too, is an attack at a slant: Bucknill does not explicitly compare his own colleagues with Victor Frankenstein or his creature, but instead calls their scientific conclusions Frankenstein-like. The meaning here is clearly that they have produced a monstrous body of knowledge that should not be brought to life (or vivified) by being accepted in law. In both these examples, the metaphor of Frankenstein illuminates apparently poor scientific judgment. It is, though, not simply the case that the metaphor therefore casts the scientist as Victor Frankenstein, as might easily be done. Rather, the metaphor collapses the scientists and scientific judgment together, so that each takes on the characteristics of monstrousness.”

In this section of the article the author shows how people in the 19th century were willing to use Frankenstein as a metaphor for a warning to science amongst each other. This passage is one that I liked because it gave an example into the section but also summarized the idea as a whole. It shows how at the time scientist, and the humanities were willing to use the creature and Frankenstein as a way to show poor judgment into the developing sciences at the time. People at the time were exploring new ideas, new sciences, things that have never been studied, and when people go into the depths of the unexplored doubt and questions are bound to be raised. So when people became suspicious of the choices that others were making the only choice was to question the morality of the subject at hand. Frankenstein being a novel that delves into the morality of scientific discoveries was always bound to become a subject of discussion in the scientific community. To judge the character of a scientist through Frankenstein is not just, but at the same time it may have been one of the only ways to shine light onto experiments that should not have been studied. What would be the point in bringing things to life that never needed to be brought up. 

Other than the creature not having a true name, when people call things frankenfoods or other such things is it due to the creation of such items or the person behind it? How could someone in a scientific field know whether or not their actions are truly gross or obscene, because in different places, countries, cultures things are seen differently, something done in the US is different than China. Why is there not a standard of going to far?