Scholars sometimes use Frankenstein as an argument against scientific technology that creates life forms; others argue that it is not technology...

Shelley's position seems to be that it is not technology itself that is problematic, but, rather, the use to which we put it is the problem.  After all, the creature Frankenstein makes is loving and gentle and kind by nature.  His feelings are all alive to the natural world around him, and he is particularly empathetic, especially in regard to the DeLacey family.  It is not until he is treated monstrously by society that he, in fact, becomes a monster.  However, she points the finger at Frankenstein fairly early.  His desire to somehow render humanity invulnerable to disease is a noble enterprise, but his ambition for glory, to be hailed as the father of a species, soon takes over, and he only sees his creature as an experiment -- not a person.  He raids morgues and mausoleums, illegally stealing parts from the recently deceased, acting against his own human nature, which turned from his occupation with "loathing," and then he selfishly abandons his creation and subsequently wonders why it hates him.  It is Victor's lack of ethics, his unscrupulous behavior, and then his total lack of responsibility that creates the problems in the story, and this indicates that Shelley holds him responsible; in short, he is the monster.  Therefore, it is not technology or science that is to blame, but the scientist who makes poor choices.

I tend to agree with Shelley.  Scientific advancement has helped to prevent and cure disease, to extend the life of those who are ill, to lessen their pain.  We depend on technology, and it has, in many ways, increased the quality of our lives.  However, experimentation for the sake of experimentation only, or experimentation as a way to enhance one's personal glory, is unacceptable.