This essay supports the two phrases; by Thomas Hentry Huxley and by H.G. Wells relating science to literature.
In the 19th century, there was a fruitful research that clearly offers insightful knowledge on the relationship between science and literature showing that this relationship was fundamentally close. This is based on the fact that this time fictional imagination was discovered to work in a scientific way while scientists employed imagination as an important tool in developing scientific knowledge. In addition to this, the society during this time was unified with significant fragmentation being witnessed later during the final years of this century (Bendena 156).
The examination of the relationship between science and literature is based on three important aspects according to Amigoni (86). The first is the understanding of literary texts in the light of scientific knowledge. Secondly is the examining the traditional understanding of scientific texts and analyzing their literary elements and lastly is the understanding of the entire culture and understanding the movement of both scientific and literary materials within the culture.
Science and literature are related in a big way only that the literary critics working in this interdisciplinary approach cannot use scientific tools in the realm of science making the interdisciplinary approach limited in the current society. Despite all this, literature still, like science, receives an important part in the society. In trying to show the strong relationship between science and literature, Shuttleworth argues in his search for the Darwinian gestalt that this perspective has one danger in the ‘anything goes’ approach. He states that he can argue for the presence of Darwin at least metaphorically (94). This shows the close relationship between science and literature. The practices of literature and science are not different only that science uses nature while literature uses texts. Since the establishment of the two distinct academic disciplines-science and literature-however, the interdisciplinary approach has decreased but still the first societies devoted to it are still in existence.
Generations of scientists, adolescents and admirers associated with science fiction have had the notion that humanity’s first confrontation with foreign life from other planets will occur in a reddish sand dune on planet Mars or in a radio signal that is enigmatic in nature from an unseen star. However, biologists and chemists employing tools related to modern genetics to create the Frankenstein flash that will link the abyss separating the animate and inanimate argue that it could soon happen right here on Earth. The scientists argue that a day will come when chemicals that they experiment in test tubes will produce living creatures (Amigoni 59).
Dividing of science and literature by Gerald F. Joyce
Professor of research in Scripps Institute known as Gerald F. Joyce has already tried himself in separating these two distinctions areas. In spite of this, he believes that he would be the first one to deny this fact. Biologists have not agreed on the exact definition of what life is and whether it is even necessary to have one. Most of them believe the argument supporting evolution and adaption as fundamentals to life. Moreover, they agree on a very big extent that by taking a second model, life could offer new information on how life began, in addition, to the extent to whether life is special or not in the universe. It could also provide a clue on what basis life should be recognized (Bendena 134).
The deep intellectual and philosophical test tube life scientific information is enormous and complex as ever. The way to achieve this might probably result from scientific drama. Scientists being generally scrupulous regarding such matters, assert that such a hypothesis is not matching their pay rate. There is neither chance for a microbe to jump out of the Petri dish and call home nor in any way turn and convert students into disembodied spirits. Taking into consideration the pattern of the human controversy and scientists’ tendency of underestimation, it might take a while probably years before there is a solid agreement that it has been achieved.
Conception of DNA
All life that is present on earth is based on a carbon based molecule referred to as DNA, containing vital instructions crucial in producing and operating living cells through bases that are four alphabets along its double-helix spine. The potentialities bound on the discovery of another model of life are merely out of thought. It could be founded upon DNA employing a different genetic code with maybe different amount of bases. There is also a possibility that it could be founded on a different chemical other than the chemical present in the DNA. It may be more complex in terms of more amino acids probably more than the current 20 amino acids that make up proteins molecules. It might also be some other type of chemistry that is not composed of carbon or the other common elements like iron or phosphorous (Fiorato 79).
There are a lot of fears on the misuse of technology as laid out by various researchers. For example, the in vitro fertilization that has become widespread which is a method that is against the traditional child bearing modalities which involve a marital, sexual union (Fiorato 67). This use of technology is threatening to give a different perception regarding children. They will be viewed as operational objects that can be conceived in ones own terms and ways (Shuttleworth 94).
The debate on test- tube babies has had a long literature with fictions writers claiming that this technology is not about infertility rather eugenics (Shuttleworth 126). It is about making super or better babies and not about infertile couples. It is about the authority and governments of the day and they will force you to do if you need a child. This has to do with imagery that is around.