Nature's Dominance Over Science: An Analysis

Though people have discussed and analyzed the relationship between science and nature for many years, there is no consensual explanation. While some perceive science as a powerful tool to uncover nature's source of power, others view it as an evil that tries to penetrate the walls guarding a pure and divine entity. One example of these varying perspectives is Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story, "The Birthmark." It is a tale of a prominent scientist, Aylmer, who fails in his attempt to remove a birthmark from his wife's face and ultimately, kills her. Another example is Barry Commoner's article, "Unraveling the DNA Myth," which explains the recent developments in DNA technology and expresses concerns about the integration of science into the "real world" (Commoner). Despite the different formats and presentations of the concepts, both pieces express a similar perspective on the interaction and relationship of science and nature. Though time separated the two men, Commoner still shares and gives evidence to Hawthorne's beliefs that there is a unique perfection in nature that cannot be discovered or understood through science and that the persistent attempts to reveal nature's secret are futile and can lead to disaster.

Both pieces suggest that nature is mysterious and holds wonders, secrets, and powers that many scientists constantly dream about and seek. Despite the similar message, the short story and the article develop the perfection of nature in different ways. Though Commoner begins his article "Unraveling the DNA Myth" mentioning how science "stands poised to assume godlike powers of creation, calling forth artificial forms and subatomic particles," he quickly shifts his tone from hailing science's apparent "godlike powers" to criticizing and casting doubt on the true power of science. Commoner believes that people only seem to focus on the few achievements, while avoiding and ignoring all of the "flaws" and "spontaneous abortions." For example, "most clones exhibit developmental failure before or soon after birth" (Commoner). By emphasizing all of the failures and shortcomings of science, he conveys the notion that nature's secret is well kept and far from being understood and controlled by man.

Commoner's emphasis on the failures and flaws of science distinctly portray a similar concern highlighted in Hawthorne's short story, "The Birthmark." He introduces Aylmer as a successful scientist who seems to be unraveling nature's deepest secrets one by one. His life seemed to parallel perfection. After all, he was considered "an eminent proficient in every branch of natural philosophy," and he "persuaded a beautiful woman to become his wife" (Hawthorne 1). Hawthorne specifically incorporates this situation to emphasize how powerful Aylmer appears to be with all of his scientific knowledge, yet this illusion of power is shattered by Georgiana's discovery that "his more splendid successes were almost invariably failures, if compared with the ideal at which he aimed"(8). Her surprising discovery symbolizes Hawthorne's belief that scientists' discoveries-apparent unlocking of Nature's secrets-are not deliberate, but mere accidents. This greatly weakens the concept that science wields a power that rivals nature. Instead, as Commoner's article suggests, nature only allows science to have limited power and success. Both men believe that the use of science is far from successful despite how wonderful and groundbreaking some scientific discoveries are. Their flaws show that nature is still in control and continues to stamp "the fatal flaw of humanity" even on humans' discoveries (Hawthorne 2).

Though people, mainly scientists, often attempt to discover the inner workings of nature, their attempts are futile and result in failure. According to both Commoner and Hawthorne, nature's universal power continues to thwart and control their discoveries. This idea of futility is evident in Hawthorne's tale of Aylmer. Despite all of his discoveries and vast understanding of science, Aylmer was unable to direct that knowledge to break free from nature's grasps. He was unable to rid his wife of her "crimson birthmark" that "rendered her countenance even hideous" (2). Instead, he only managed to take her life along with the birthmark. Georgiana, as she is dying, says, "You have rejected the bet the earth could offer" (12). She was the best the earth could offer because she was perfect in every way except the "fatal flaw" that is evident on all creations of nature (2). Yet despite his near perfect wife, he was still not satisfied and unable to overlook a small smudge of imperfection. His inability to thwart nature and wield its power also shows the uselessness of science because its power cannot be directed.

Although composed one hundred sixty years later, Commoner's article displays Hawthorne's notion that it is futile to search for Nature's secrets. He portrays the futility of science though the analysis of gene splicing and genetic modifications and focuses on the "numerous experimental failures that occur before a transgenic organism is actually produced and by unexpected genetic changes that occur even when the gene has been successfully transferred" (Commoner). Though executed successfully, the procedure can still result in failure and shortcomings. Furthermore, the government and private companies invested a billion dollars in mapping the human genome, but we still have no use for it. Such a discovery is useless, despite how intriguing it might be. In a sense, Commoner suggests that these scientific experiments and procedures that attempt to mimic nature's power have limitations set by nature itself, thus making these persistent attempts futile and pointless. Even its successes are determined by nature.

Both authors' writings evidently portray a perception of science as weak and futile, but more importantly, dangerous. Hawthorne conveys this sense of danger in "The Birthmark" by depicting how Aylmer attempted to remove the birthmark but only managed to kill his wife. Aylmer allowed himself to be too obsessed with science that he ended up losing his wife. This obsession led him and his wife to believe that any "attempt be made at whatever risk" to remove the birthmark (Hawthorne 3). In attempting to remove the birthmark staining his wife's face, Aylmer "failed to look beyond the shadowly scope of time, and, living once for all in eternity, to find the perfect future in the present" (Hawthorne 12). His attempts displays his attempt to make her a part of his scientific obsessions and fantasy, but his ultimate failure suggests that science can have disastrous results because it is incapable of mimicking nature's power.

Commoner's article gives evidence to support the suggested dangers associated with science's attempts to discover nature's power. For example, "alternative splicing of bacterial gene might give rise to multiple variants of the intended protein or even to proteins bearing little structural relationship to the original one, with predictable effects on ecosystems and human health" (Commoner). Another example is that the "abnormal DNA was large enough to produce a new protein, a potentially harmful protein" (Commoner). The persistent attempts illustrate the "inherent dangers in arbitrarily overriding patterns of inheritance that are embedded in the natural world" (Commoner). Not only do these attempts to mimic and usurp nature's power dangerous to humans and our way of life, they are disrupting a system that is established through a "long evolutionary experience" (Commoner). If the result is not directly dangerous, it can still have harmful side effects, such as generation of a variant harmful strain of a beneficial protein. The inherent danger stems from the inability of discovering and utilizing nature's power through science. Commoner's piece and research on DNA seems to only strengthen and support Hawthorne's fears and beliefs. Despite these fears, both men seem to believe, to a certain degree that nature prevails over science and it will continue to do so, often times at the expense of the discoverer, seeker, or subject.

Science might appear to penetrate and sneak a peek at nature's guarded gifts, but it falls quite short of truly grasping the treasure. Hawthorne expressed the idea that nature is pure and perfect, while also suggesting that it is completely futile even to attempt to search for nature's answers because of hidden dangers. Commoner, though more than a century later, still possesses a similar belief about nature's unique perfection and provides convincing evidence to support Hawthorne's concepts. Their shared beliefs present a peculiarly intriguing suggestion that certain ideas do stand the test of time, despite numerous innovations and breakthroughs. Perhaps this means that nature truly does control science, especially since we are still not any closer to solving the mystery of nature and life.

Works Cited

Commoner, Barry. Unraveling the DNA Myth. 30 Jan. 2003. The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering. 29 Jan. 2008. .

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. "The Birthmark." The Pioneer. 1843.