↓ Skip to main content

Victor Frankenstein’s Institutional Review Board Proposal, 1790

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 957)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
46 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Victor Frankenstein’s Institutional Review Board Proposal, 1790
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9588-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gary Harrison, William L. Gannon

Abstract

To show how the case of Mary Shelley's Victor Frankenstein brings light to the ethical and moral issues raised in Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols, we nest an imaginary IRB proposal dated August 1790 by Victor Frankenstein within a discussion of the importance and function of the IRB. Considering the world of science as would have appeared in 1790 when Victor was a student at Ingolstadt, we offer a schematic overview of a fecund moment when advances in comparative anatomy, medical experimentation and theories of life involving animalcules and animal electricity sparked intensive debates about the basic principles of life and the relationship between body and soul. Constructing an IRB application based upon myriad speculations circulating up to 1790, we imagine how Victor would have drawn upon his contemporaries' scientific work to justify the feasibility of his project, as well as how he might have outlined the ethical implications of his plan to animate life from "dead" tissues. In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Victor failed to consider his creature's autonomy, vulnerability, and welfare. In this IRB proposal, we show Victor facing those issues of justice and emphasize how the novel can be an important component in courses or workshops on research ethics. Had Victor Frankenstein had to submit an IRB proposal tragedy may have been averted, for he would have been compelled to consider the consequences of his experiment and acknowledge, if not fulfill, his concomitant responsibilities to the creature that he abandoned and left to fend for itself.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 26%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 19%
Psychology 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Design 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#793,960
of 25,157,832 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#43
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,051
of 252,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,157,832 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.