In The Adoration of Jenna Fox, science has extreme destructive capabilities—but forswearing science is not the answer. Instead, the novel suggests that people should responsibly consider how to use scientific advancements on a case-by-case basis. The science-fiction novel takes place in a near-future U.S. where overuse of antibiotics has led to the development of many antibiotic-resistant infections. One such infection, the Aureus epidemic, ended up killing about 25 percent of the world’s population in protagonist Jenna Fox’s childhood. In response to the epidemic, a new federal organization, the Federal Science Ethics Board (FSEB), begins zealously regulating biotechnological research and medical treatment. Though science has made massive strides in developing prostheses and biotech organs built from a neurochip-loaded goo called Bio Gel, the FSEB won’t allow prostheses or transplants beyond a certain point: it dictates that people’s brains must remain 51 percent original human tissue by law, so if a patient needs more than that level of care, they are consigned to death. Through of Jenna’s example—her biotech-pioneer father has illegally rebuilt her after only 10 percent of her brain tissue survived a traumatic car accident and subsequent infection—the novel suggests that assigning a necessary minimum percentage to “humanity” is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on life-saving technologies. By comparing Jenna to Allys, a classmate who is ultimately consigned to death because her body already contains the maximum allowed percentage of engineered technologies, the novel shows the human costs of placing arbitrary constraints on helpful technologies: people will die unnecessarily. Instead of assigning such random percentages, the novel suggests that people should carefully think through which scientific interventions are harmful and which are helpful. Doing this—rather than implementing arbitrary rules—is how the novel suggests medicine can be used ethically to do the most good.
Biotechnology and Ethics ThemeTracker
Biotechnology and Ethics Quotes in The Adoration of Jenna Fox
“Sometimes we just don’t know when we’ve gone too far.”
“You of all people should understand! If it weren’t for in vitro, I wouldn’t be here. You always called me your miracle. Why can’t I have one, too? Why do you get to decide when the miracles will end?”
“It was a private journey as much as a public one. He was searching for his personal essence as much as he was making a political statement.”
To heaven? Is that where she thinks she’s going? Is she really sure of going to a place that isn’t even on a map? And how can she be sure she’d like it once she got there? But that’s Lily. One big question mark.
She has accepted the loss of her limbs but blames an out-of-control medical system for the outcome. She thinks if someone had regulated antibiotics long ago, when they first knew about the dangers of overuse, she and millions like her would have had a different fate, and now she seems determined that no new medical injustices will be unleashed on the world.
“You have to draw the line somewhere, don’t you? Medical costs are a terrible economic drain on society, not to mention the ethics involved. And by restricting how much can be replaced or enhanced, the FSEB knows you are more human than lab creation. We don’t want a lot of half-human lab pets crawling all around the world, do we?”
“So it’s not human skin.”
“It is human. Completely human. We’ve been genetically altering plants and animals for years. It’s nothing new. Tomatoes, for instance. We engineer them to withstand certain pests or to give them a longer shelf life, but it is still one hundred percent a tomato.”
“I am not a tomato.”
Without knowing it, she called me a lab pet. Why am I so drawn to someone who could destroy me? Why do I need her to be my friend?
The dictionary says my identity should be all about being separate or distinct, and yet it feels like it is so wrapped up in others.