We now live in a reality where the advancement of science has far exceeded our capacity for ethical reflection. We are creating things we don’t yet fully understand and asking moral questions way after the fact. This is why bioethics, a field that examines the ethical implications of the advancements in biology, health care, and technology, is more than just policies; it is a reflection of who we are and where we’re going. While Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, which offers a case study of a mad scientist’s ambition and his rejected creature, and Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, which discusses the horrific crimes of Nazi official Adolf Eichmann, seem like they address very different subjects, both authors suggest that evil does not emerge from inherent darkness but from a loss of empathy and personal responsibility. At its very core, bioethics is about how our logic and morals respond to medical dilemmas, and I will be taking ideas from these two stories to understand why we must have bioethics, how evil forms, and why the very essence of humanity is the only way to combat it. This essay will also explore ways in which technological advancements can be used to assist those most vulnerable and outline the consequences of creating medical solutions, such as mirror bacteria, without prior sociological and ethical considerations.

The question of biological advances that could radically shift our relationship to life is more than just historical or imaginative. There are presently numerous researchers working on projects that could fundamentally change our society. Just last year, Yale Immunobiology Professor Ruslan Medzhitov warned that “mirror bacteria could have devastating consequences if they were successfully created” (Backman). Mirror bacteria, in short words, are the theoretical evil twin of regular bacteria, which are part of synthetic biology. All bacteria are made of molecules that have chirality, that is, molecules that exist in either left or right-handed forms, like mirror images that can’t be perfectly aligned. Scientists have imagined creating bacteria with opposite-handed molecules, and while they could function normally, they have dangerous effects on humans and the environment. These risks include creating new life-threatening infections, causing irreversible ecological damage, and resisting practically all forms of containment (Adamala 1, 11). As Medzhitov put it, “the only safe mirror bacterium is one that doesn’t exist” (Backman). Mirror bacteria do not naturally occur because organisms and bacteria evolve and acquire advantageous traits over time, but the act of creating a mirror version is simply something that happens or doesn’t, and the chances of it happening are merely theoretical. In order for an organism to create a mirror version of itself, it would have to completely alter its genetic code, which is impossible through natural means (Adamala 22). While the goal would be to create long-acting drugs, moments like these force us to ask not just if the benefits outweigh the risks, but if we can put our own ambitions and self-interests aside before taking actions that could have grave consequences.

Much like the threat of mirror bacteria, Frankenstein shows that rejecting the laws of nature can be disastrous. The rejection of laws of nature is a large reason for failure, but also reveals an egotism plaguing the scientific world that can have detrimental consequences for ourselves and our communities. In our innovation, we often lack respect or regard for nature’s boundaries. But nature has its own internal logic. Just like how molecules do not naturally create a mirror version of themselves, Victor Frankenstein created life unnaturally, essentially trying to conquer nature. Even in our own lives, natural processes have been disrupted as people take vitamin supplements to compensate for deficiencies in their diets, use artificial lights to regulate their sleep, and rely on social media for a dopamine boost. The result is a decrease in quality of life, but it’s difficult to pinpoint blame on scientists. These issues, however, can be amplified by large corporations, such as technology firms or agricultural corporations, that can use science against the common good. It is not an ideological claim, but simply the reality of how rapid technological advancements affect our world, especially when personal interests are involved.

The purpose of knowledge is to enhance the quality of life, but it can, in the same way, become a tool of destruction. Frankenstein possessed good and helpful knowledge beyond his time, but rather than sharing it, he selfishly kept it to himself to create a being, saying, “A new species would bless me as its creator and source” (Shelley 42). This use of knowledge turned on him not just because of his twisted inner motives, but also because of a lack of a moral foundation to truly care for what he created. His ambition became an obsession as he isolated himself, sacrificed good health for sleepless nights, and had a single-minded devotion to achieving glory, but he lacked love for his creature or his humanity. He had been completely blinded from any consequences or moral duty. This is why the very second his creation became alive, he was confronted with not just the hideous form of his monster but the undeniable truth of what he had just done: he had played God but without the care or benevolence a god should have. To further reflect on not just how he affected the monster’s life, but his own life, he said that his “cup of life was poisoned forever” (Shelley 176). An obsession with forbidden knowledge turned into a responsibility that far outweighed his ambition. Similarly, in the modern world, knowledge can be used to create innovations in medicine or technology, but not to benefit humans or society, and instead be used to prioritize profits.

The creature Frankenstein created also used the acquisition of knowledge to make up for feelings of rejection. By observing the affectionate De Lacey family, he learned their language mostly to try to convince them of his good nature. In this sense, he could feel like he was one of them, too, but it also took a turn when he realized how his life was completely different and lacking that love. Knowledge here served a good purpose, which was to give him some sense of normality, but at the same time, it led to his own spiral. This shows that his pain did not come from a desire to hurt others, but from a genuine longing to belong, indicating that he was inherently malicious but shaped by rejection. Knowledge’s paradox is that even when it is obtained with good intentions, it can still change lives in unexpected consequences and painful realizations.

Just as Frankenstein’s monster is influenced by rejection rather than being evil by nature, humans can be strongly influenced by circumstances, ideology, and environment, as in Adolf Eichmann’s case. Eichmann was a top Nazi official, responsible for managing the deportation of millions of Jewish people to ghettos and eventual concentration camps. When trying to explain horrible acts of evil, there is hardly a logical reason. Yet one of the most striking aspects is not just how an individual can be “evil”, but how their tendencies can be exploited through social engineering. If we believe Eichmann’s claim that he didn’t hate Jewish people to be true and that he did not feel extremely compelled by Nazi ideology, then his motivation seems to be civic duty, noting that he “would have had a bad conscience only if he had not done what he had been ordered to do” (Arendt 25). Conviction came from everywhere except himself. In addition to that, he had a defining trait: to be excellent at what he did, as was deemed good in the German mindset. Nazi Germany excelled at taking advantage of radicalizing German values while making it completely normal to ignore moral issues and to create an environment free of reprimand.

But there is a far deeper issue than environment or circumstances, and that is human flaws like ego or moral shallowness. Eichmann’s greatest evil was working against the common good for his own gain. Had he taken a harder stance on what he believed, his story would’ve been different. At the root of Victor Frankenstein’s actions was ego, too. Ego is a more complex inner problem, as it is rooted in self-importance. Even Frankenstein’s monster had a stronger sense of duty by telling him, “Do your duty towards me, and I will do mine towards you and the rest of mankind” (Shelley 90). Nevertheless, for both scenarios, it was more important to do the right thing as an individual rather than try to rationalize senseless actions or ignore moral responsibility. With mirror bacteria, as with many new and theoretical inventions, they can easily fall into the hands of the wrong person. This could be someone like Eichmann with no moral conviction, or like Frankenstein, with no limits to ambition.

Today, nothing can stop the advancement of technology. Scientific knowledge is a tool that can aid in discovery, but must be correctly applied for good instead of evil, and human flaws must be profoundly understood. The story of Victor Frankenstein demonstrates that knowledge should be used for good and how doing the opposite can destroy you and others. Our ego is also what can ultimately prevent us from creating good for the benefit of humankind. Eichmann demonstrates how evil is not always as complicated as it seems and not always inherent, yet a person can be shaped by society in ways that undermine humanity’s innate goodness. As our world becomes more dependent on convenience and technical knowledge, our lives grow increasingly fragile and vulnerable to those who lack moral conviction. This is the new frontier where humanity’s ambition collides with unpredictable consequences. Precisely then can bioethics guide us, providing a framework to ensure we reflect on the implications of our actions and always prioritize the benefit of humanity. The only way forward is through courage to act differently and to reflect on how our individual actions shape the future.

Works Cited

Adamala, Katarzyna P., et al. Technical Report on Mirror Bacteria: Feasibility and Risks. Stanford University, Dec. 2024.

Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Penguin Classics, 2006.

Backman, Isabella. “Q&A: How ‘Mirror Bacteria’ Could Take a Devastating Toll on Humanity.” Yale School of Medicine, 19 Dec. 2024, medicine.yale.edu/news-article/qanda-how-mirror-bacteria-could-take-a-devastating-toll-on-humanity/.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein: The 1818 Text. Penguin Classics, 2018.