The First Pig-Human Hybrid and What It Means for a Future Frankenstein by Simon Levien

Pig embryo injected with human cells

Biologists have dubbed their experiments with human cells and pig embryos to have created the first "pig-human hybrid" which in the context of biology, makes perfect sense. However, if you take the term generally, I think people would assume we've managed to crossbreed with pigs. This by no means is some crazy concoction that scientists whipped up in a lab; there is no bipedal pig that can talk and act like a human (yet). Instead it's a groundbreaking—albeit controversial—step towards growing new organs, maybe even a little closer to creating Frankenstein's monster as Mary Shelley envisioned two centuries ago.

Summarizing, the process works by using injected human pluripotent stem cells into the developing fetus. These stem cells have not been designated as heart or liver cells, e.g., instead they are assigned roles at a later date. So to the host pig, these cells are just like any other that have grown along with the rest of the body. As the fetus develops, the human stem cells will propagate, grow, and eventually make up a good portion of the pig's total cell count. In the scientists' experiment as detailed in the journal Nature, the ratio of human to pig cells was 1:100,000 which is an extremely high proportion if you factor in the sheer quantity of matter that makes up even a simple organism.

But as of right now, this does nothing. The pig would develop just like any other even if it was 0.00001% human (that we know of, and that is if scientists were allowed to observe the pig through postnatal development, since the fetuses must be destroyed per ethical requirements. We don't want human pigs running around even if they are just technically pigs.) However, it does represent a huge change in regards to organ transplantation for two reasons:

Firstly, and most notably, we learned in biology that most vertebrate animals have a unique protein which attaches to the exterior to all of their cells, that uniquely identifies that person. This is involved in the immune system, where if the body recognizes that a virus or bacteria does not have the correct protein that the rest of the body has, it will attack it to prevent infection. However, in this experiment, the human cells, which would clearly have a different protein than the pig fetus, remained unrejected by the body. One would assume that this can take place because the pig fetus is so young, that its immune system has not developed in full yet. Although this is true, scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies performed this experiment but with a rat-mouse hybrid and let it grow into an adult. Sure enough, the adult had no problems related to rejection (more on that later). And on the same note, if applied in humans, the head transplant we discussed earlier seems a tad more feasible (albeit not by much, at all--it's really not feasible still). As for sci-fi hopes, Shelley's dream comes into full swing. Had Frankenstein's monster been created as Shelley described, all of the individual parts of the monster would reject each other (that is, if the monster even had an immune system that worked properly and in unison) immunologically, and would likely have to rely on a steady supply of immunosuppressants which the thing never got. If Frankenstein could have been conceived with body parts that do not recognize those identifying proteins, the chances his body parts work together seems more probable, but he would still suffer from a deadly, AIDS-like vulnerability to common illnesses because of a lack of a functioning immune system.

Much more importantly, the experiments prove a theoretical way to grow new organs, although human tests are far off. Now back to that rat-mouse. The scientists at Salk Institute, using CRISPR technology, included the genes primarily of mouse vital organs in the mouse stem cells that were injected into the rat embryo. And since there really are little ethical protections for rats and mice, they could let this organism grow to adulthood (the lab rats deserve more credit for enduring what we put them through). What they found is peculiar, that some of the organs that grew were mouse-like and the rest specific to the rat species. So in essence, we grew mouse organs in a rat. Growing new organs for those in need has been a huge subject of debate, and this experiment has only fanned the flame; it creates another opportunity for sourcing organs but feeding off animals may not be the most desired approach. Regardless, it provides another chance to make Frankenstein a future reality. Instead of assembling a lifeform out of decaying matter, dead cells, and all that, how about growing all of the organs, fresh and having a healthier-looking (I guess if you want to call it "healthy") sewn-up being? Had all of the body parts been created in this fashion, perhaps Dr. Frankenstein may have taken a different approach to his creation, instead of the horrified and disgusted one that consumed him.

Anyway, this is becoming more and more of a possibility for organ transplantation, and can save countless lives once the technology advances. Researchers are exploring possible methods to turn pigs into organ donors for humans by basically "turning off" all of the pig proteins in the organism that could harm humans, again using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing practices. In any case, we can only hope the new technology is used justly. 

The Scientific Plausibility of Frankenstein's Monster by Sarah West

For about a month now, we have ben reading and discussing the classic gothic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelly in our english class. During one of our class discussions, the topic of the intelligence of the monster, and how he could have gained enough intelligence to talk to and interact with human beings was brought up. Since I have been learning a lot about the human body in the Human Body Systems and Biology classes I have been taking in school, my curiosity was immediately sparked. I began to wonder about this subject, and about the plausibility of Frankenstein's monster in general. As he is a character written as part of a fictional novel nearly 200 years ago, one might be quick to assume there is nothing feasible about sewing together body parts, then bringing the creature to life. However with the scientific advancement that has taken place since the time the novel was written, successful organ transplants taking place everyday, genetic engineering, and the technology available, Frankenstein's monster may be closer than he seems.

While in college, Frankenstein claims to have constructed his monster out of miscellaneous body parts after he discovered the secret to life. Disregarding the fact that there is no way to bring something that is completely lifeless to life, the existence of organ transplants seem to back up the possibility a whole new body could be constructed from many parts put together. Although it would be possible to connect major organs with blood vessels and muscle, the reconstruction of the nervous system is where things get dicey. Since, as I have learned in my biology and human body systems courses in school, nerve cells do not reproduce, there is basically no chance the brain would be able to connect to the spinal cord and have the ability to communicate with the rest of the body.  Even if, somehow, Frankenstein were to succeed in constructing the nervous system, he would then run into problems with the immune system. Since white blood cells automatically attack anything in the body that it does not recognize as self, and the monster is made up of organs and limbs from many different people, there is no telling what kind of havoc the system will cause as different organs are rejected, and maybe even a battle between multiple white blood cells and immune systems from multiple people takes place inside the monster. Frankenstein would have an easier time applying his discovery to dead human being, containing only the original body parts.

After the monster comes to life, he spends some time observing a family living in a cottage, in which time he learns to read and speak, with a decently expansive vocabulary as evidenced by his later conversation with Frankenstein. How exactly did Frankenstein learn to speak perfectly, read and come to understand human society in under 2 years? Well, theoretically, if the monster had a perfectly functioning human brain with the specific areas that are used to understand and produce language, he would have the same ability to learn language as any other human. That is still a stretch logically, since after two years most humans don't use words like "benevolent", "endeavoured" and "melancholy".  However it is doubtful that while trying the build the best, strongest and most amazing creature he could, Frankenstein would give his monster the brain of a newborn. If the monster was given the brain of an adult, his experience in learning how to speak could be closer compared to someone learning a new language rather than a baby learning to speak for the first time. This makes his ability to learn the language more believable, especially considering how dedicated he was. The idea of acquiring a brain from someone who has already lived a life of course opens up more theoretical questions about how it would function. Wouldn't he still have the personality and memories for the original owner since the brain creates personality and stores memory? Why then, would he not remember how to speak or remember how the world works?  Since humans have never actually physically transplanted someone's head, or brought someone back from the dead, there is really no way to explain or know for sure what the brain would be like in that situation.

Where language production and 

understanding take place in the brain

Is it actually possible to create a monster like that of Frankenstein's? No. Will modern day humans have to worry about monsters roaming the streets anytime soon? Doubtful. Will there ever be a way to scientifically explain how Frankenstein's monster could have been possible? Not yet, but who knows what the future will bring? While logically a monster like Frankenstein's is still purely fiction, the fact that we can taken organs from one person and put them into someone else, design children before they are born through genetics, and have the advanced technology we do today, makes humans closer than Mary Shelly could have probably ever imagined 200 years ago to having the scientific ability to do what Victor Frankenstein did in her novel.

Drop Dead Gorgeous By: Alyssa Stouch

Though it looks of beauty

A diamond cuts the skin

Though the colors seem pleasing

The dart frog's poison seeps in

Though it shines of romance

A ring will soon begin to rust

Though his eyes were charming

He craved nothing more than lust

Though it radiates a golden light

The sun burns through a child's back

Though its arms provide security

A Venus fly trap devours its snack

Though it lets off a peaceful glow

The touch of a jellyfish will sting

Though she smiles of pure sanity

The voices inside her continue to sing

Though the world displays a pure innocence

Its deadliest secrets lie below the surface

For ones appearance does not define its purpose

The forms of Horror, by Owen Welsh

In English class, we're reading the book Frankenstein which many people attribute to having defined the Gothic Horror genre. Which got me thinking, if this book defined the genre, how did it progress into what we know today as Horror? There must be a progression, I reasoned, that led the genre down it's more dramatic past to the more quiet, psychological horror we enjoy today. Some claim there are four main periods of Horror, which each led the way to the more subtle and delicate fear we experience in modern Horror tales.

Folklore Horror:

A drawing of the Green Children of Woolpit

The first period of horror isn't really organized like the others, as it is just horror elements in generic folktales. Some of the notable stories include, but are not limited to; The Pied Piper, Black Annis, The Princess of Colchester, and The Green Children of Woolpit. There is no real connecting feature between these tales, other than the use of horror to attempt to convey a lesson to the listener. Yes, listener, as these tales were orally told and were most likely accompanied by various motions and dramatic effect.


Gothic Horror:
Originating around the 18th century, this movement is much more organized and is characterized by its dark settings, castle backdrops, and menaced women. The Gothic horror revolved around the idea of a singular supernatural element that throws the world around it into chaos, in the case of Frankenstein, this would be the monster. Interestingly, this is around the time that famous female authors such as Mary Shelley and Ann Radcliffe first starting writing with critical acclaim.

The Call of Cthulhu

Horror Literature or 20th Century Horror:
It is around this time that several other branches of horror spiral out and become their own set genres with their own defined rules. Each of these genres were started when a book was so influential that a significant amount of others followed suit, for instance when H.P. Lovecraft pioneered the Cosmic Horror genre with his greatest work: The Call of Cthulhu. Generally, Horror as a whole moved further towards the Psychological, with many great thrillers such as Unknown Worlds and Weird Tales being written and progressing the genre away from it's traditional Gothic roots.

Modern/Contemporary Horror: 
No one definition exists that properly encapsulates every genre that has been born and killed in recent years, it is easier than ever to write a book and publish your own personal take on the genre. Because of this accessibility, there is an over saturation of books on the market, leading to several authors churning out books that consistently deliver on what they say they will without extending past preset boundaries. These writers such as Stephen King, churn out books that may be considered classics, but never defining new genres, leading to this time period being open to be truly defined. Although to break this mold, the book would have to be amazingly popular and the author likable enough to propel their book to fame in this ever increasingly image dependent society.

One of the key things I've noticed about Horror is that while originally it was supposed to 'scare' people straight and to teach lessons, but now it has developed into a form of entertainment. There's just something about our hair standing on end, being unable to sleep, or coat racks turning into ax wielding manics in the middle of the night. It is my belief that the reason we like this, is that we're all naturally adrenaline junkies. We all crave that rush pumping through us even if what were running from is as harmless as a sack of potatoes that's missing all of its eyes. Even if we love this feeling there is, of course, no reason to actually put yourself in harm's way, so we look for the next best thing. You could read a book or watch a movie or play a video game to get the same rush, but without any of the actual danger from the exercise. It makes sense that Horror books are used for these purposes especially as they heighten the sense of danger by adding in seemingly unbeatable adversaries, such as Frankenstein's monster or by adding in other supernatural elements that would be impossible in the real world. Above all else that people claim to want, deep down inside we're all just animals, seeking whatever makes us feel best overall, a primal urge may draw us to Horror books. However, I prefer to believe that we choose these things out of free will rather than some guy in the back of our head saying "Do it, you know you want to." but that's just me.

A Modern Frankenstein by Madison Levinson

The infamous novel Frankenstein was published by Mary Shelley in 1818. It is now 2017, but 199 years later this novel is still so relevant. Why? Mary Shelley, as an author in 1818, was able to create a stunning masterpiece that touches upon medical and technological innovations, innovations currently happening as you read this. Yet, I can't help but wonder how the story of Frankenstein would have changed dramatically if Frankenstein and his monster were alive today. In this post, I will attempt to recreate the scene of Frankenstein's monster's entrance back into the human world.

"Classic" Frankenstein 

It was a dark and stormy night (cliche, I know, but just keep reading). Thunder and lightning rattled the frame of the lab. If this were an old-time horror movie there would be trees shaking and scraping the windows and probably some really bad graphics. The lab was crisp white except for the thing that lay on the table. That horrid, wretched monster. I mean, who even likes hairless cats? Why was it even in the lab? Oh, there was also multiple corpses sewn together to make one corpse which was also pretty terrifying. Victoria Frankenstein (yes, he's a girl now) sat on her swivel chair at her mac book, which was sitting atop her minimalist glass desk. A small ping erupted and Victoria glanced at her Apple Watch. Her round, green, go button app had finally downloaded (the storm was slowing down the WiFi). She let her finger hit the button.

An electric zap sounded but it was unclear as to whether it was the lightning or the monster's reanimation process. Initially, nothing happened. But as Victoria moved closer she could see small twitches and spasms in the being's musculature. The body seemed to regain color and life before her eyes as the ligaments received oxygenated blood. It was so quiet Victoria swore she could hear the soft beat of a weak heart, whether it was her's or the monster's she was unsure. The monster's eyes popped open with such intensity, Victoria screamed and stared, one eye blue and one eye green. Horrifyingly gorgeous.

Franny Moe 

Once she had looked past the monster's unique feature she noticed the pure grotesqueness of her creation. Nothing was proportional or coherent. Terror flowed over Victoria. The giver of life questioned what she had done and debated abandoning the monster, until brilliance struck.

Her Apple Watch notified her that Kim Kardashain had just posted a photo to Instagram. Of Course! Kim Kardashian! The Queen of Contour! Victoria grabbed her makeup bag and with a couple sweeps of a brush she transformed the monster.

The monster had defined cheekbones, her eyebrows were on fleek, and her smoky eye was fire (no pun intended). Victoria named her new wing-woman Franny Moe. The pair watched The Notebook until the storm passed and then cried each other to sleep. There was no murder or resentment between Vicky and her monster, only a lot of feels and sleepovers.

Similar Studies Can Equal Captivating Classes: By Ashley Lasko

Every student tends to have one or two classes they excel in and enjoy as well as one or two classes they tend to resent. This generally follows the rule of either a math and science student or a history and english student, but there are obviously exceptions. Loving both science and math, I am not among those exceptions. My affinity towards science and math does also mean I’ve never enjoyed english or history as much. (A bit ironic to write on an english blog). Incidentally, my blog discusses how the addition of science has elevated my experience in my english class. However, I’d just like to say that before Frankenstein both my english and history classes were amazing. I’d also like to add that I know both classes will stay amazing after. I have some really experienced and dedicated teachers this year. While I may never truly enjoy english or history as much as I enjoy math and science, it’s truly the effort the teachers have put into each day that keep the subjects both interesting and intriguing.

In our english class we recently began to read Frankenstein, a book written by Mary Shelley that details the story Frankenstein, a scientist. We have not read far into the book, however it’s clear Frankenstein has components of science despite being a book studied in english. Overlapping subjects is a rarity in most classes, especially before high school. While sciences, such as chemistry and biology, tend to go hand in hand, history was usually just a history class and math was usually just a math class. Teachers often never tried to incorporate other subjects into their classes on a large scale, with a few exceptions.

This is why, especially due to my affinity towards science, reading Frankenstein sparked my interest more than that other books we read this year. Reading a book for english while being able to apply interesting parts of science made the book easy to understand and more intriguing. This is partly since we’re focusing on older, classic books in english this year, so the writing itself is hard to understand. The fact that these books were written long ago also means they reflect a culture we don’t have experience with. The component of science in Frankenstein helps the book become more relatable and therefore more understandable. By making a book understandable it is easier to apply and analyze in class.

As I mentioned in my first paragraph, not everyone is going to love the sciences, and those people will likely will not have the different experience I will when reading Frankenstein. Even so, I think this combination of both english and science make something really clear. Integrating components of other subjects into an other one is a possible way to keep students learning. Yes, this maybe a bit of a personal approach to engaging students, but it's well known every student learns a little differently. I also know, especially on certain topics, integrating other subjects could be difficult if not impossible. I don’t have any experience teaching and don’t want imply I know what’s best, I simply hope I brought attention to the walls dividing subjects and the potential lack of need for them.

Frame Story By: Caroline Kepler

A frame story, also known a frame narrative, is a story which is set within a story. Stories, movies, or novels in this format usually have the main character or supporting character telling their story within the broader story, once they are introduced to the audience. This literary technique has been used for years in classics, like Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley and Homer’s Odyssey. Frame stories allow the author to give context to the reader about the main story using the character’s side stories. The context given can then be used to guide the reader during the story. In addition, the audience is able to learn more about the characters through their tales, adding layers to them. Their stories will give the reader the character’s perspective, thoughts, motivations, along with feelings in different situations.

Some examples of frame stories in books and movies include titles like, Frankenstein, Titanic, and Henry Chaucer's “Canterbury Tales”. Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley is a prime literary example of a frame story. Shelley begins her story in letter format with the main character, Robert Walton, traveling in Russia in search of a path to the arctic and writing home to his sister, Margaret.When Walton meets Victor, Victor begins to tell his story, which will eventually lead into the monster’s story, creating a story within a story within a story. The movie Titanic, is another example of this do to the fact that the story begins with Rose as a older women telling her story of journey on the titanic. The movie flashes between the past and present, giving the audience her story on the Titanic and the other characters exploration of the Titanic in present time. Henry Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” is another case of a frame story, since it begins with pilgrim’s journey to Canterbury then branches off into the stories told by the individual characters on the journey. The character’s tales allow the reader to learn more about each of the individuals and creates a story within a story.