My point is that isn’t what she wrote, and that this reductive interpretation requires you to accept that shorthand (i.e. that the scientific process somehow requires those that follow it to do so without heed to consequences) in order to find fault with Shelley’s exploration of the ethical implications of experimentation. That’s certainly something that the quacks and the science deniers will seize on, I agree – but I don’t see why the rest of us should see Shelley’s work through the prism of the lesser writers that followed her, and accept by the terms of their argument a dichotomy between science and ethics.