Both Frankenstein and Blade Runner deal with issues of science and nature, and their implications upon their respective societies. Through their contextual basis, we understand the relationship between the two, and the concerns that arise by its exploration. Their confrontation is didactic, through their warnings of things to come; the texts voice these issues as of universal concern.

Singularly, both texts confront the origin of creation. This corruption of nature, of faith is possibly the greatest crime, as stated by Shelley in her introduction to the 1831 edition of Frankenstein; “those who endeavour to mock the mechanism of the creator” will suffer grave consequences. This concept is a main idea of the novel, and the graphic consequences of Victor’s hubris are evident. The monster he creates is eloquent and rational, but corrupted by his lack of compassion is ravages his friends and family. This shirking of responsibility is most evident in the creature’s biblical allusion, “I ought to be thy Adam but I am rather thy fallen angel.” By referencing Lucifer, the creature has isolated the source of his violence, the irresponsibility of his creator. This relationship between creator and creation is mirrored in Blade Runner during the meeting between Tyrell and Roy. The awkward detachment of Roy from his masterpiece is shown through formal, scientific language and biblical allusions are also used, “nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn’t let you into heaven for.” This statement is suggestive of both Tyrell’s status as a god in this new society and of the decline of morality evident by this usurping of the creator. By examining this lack of responsibility, we can view it as a metaphor for any scientific development, its implications for both humans and nature. This reflection on the dangers and pitfalls of science on morality and humanity is evident, and serves as a warning for sciences impact on our world, particularly in terms of nature.

The contexts of the texts lead them to explore this concept of nature very differently. While both talk of its value and importance, it is approached from different perspectives. This is highlighted in Blade Runner’s opening shot. The lack of natural landscape is shocking; a panning shot reveals a dystopic world, devoid of all things living. A post industrialised context has seen the worst fears of pollution and abuse come to fruition in an unlivable world. Explosions, in combination with the unsettling score leave the audience uncomfortable, exactly the composer’s intent. By creating this didactic world, Ridley Scott has shown the perils of replacing god, of lacking responsibility. He has furthered this with neon signs advertising “off world colonies”, not only painting a shallow materialistic society, but also demonstrating the universality of the problems. Sciences developments can be damaging, disastrous and irreversible when not undertaken responsibly, and Scott has exploited this idea in Blade Runner.

While similar themes are confronted, Shelley takes a rather different tone. A product of romanticism, an obsession with the natural world and its restorative capabilities permeates the text. Throughout the novel it is a source of comfort and relief for Victor, a contrast to the unnatural fact of his creation. Descriptive language conveys these feelings “the fallen leaves disappeared... the young buds were shooting forth” marks his recovery from insanity following his creation. Viewed as a metaphor for this process, nature has effectively cured science, or its effect on the individual; anyway. This sentiment is continued when Victor meets the monster in the Alps, “the towering shining white pyramids” describing the incompatibility of his actions and the natural world. The comfort it provides him, and its importance to society is ever present is made clear, as is the relationship between science and nature. While in Frankenstein it is ever present as comfort and relief, it is its absence in Blade Runner that has left society corrupted and without morals, here lies the universal concern.

It is by their studies of humanity’s scientific development that both texts gain their didactic tone. Throughout, both comment on the importance of nature both to the individual and society, exploring sciences capacity to destroy it. A product of their contexts, it is the differing ways these themes are explored that claim the relationships universal relevance, as a cause for concern.