Pursuit for Knowledge. What is the underlying reason? Is it worth it?

Throughout the text Frankenstein, Shelley comments on the idea of the unrestrained pursuit for knowledge and its effects. Throughout the beginning of the novel, Victor does seem to have good intentions with the creation of his eventual creature. for example, he contemplated the pursuit of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter and how it might aid in renewing life where "death had apparently devoted the body to corruption" (Shelley 48). However, the question that remains is whether or not Victor truly was looking out for the benefit of society or whether it was his own human hubris and curiosity that led to his quest? Time and time again throughout our history we see that it seems to be the latter. In the story of Adam and Eve, Eve was influenced by the Satan in the form of a serpent to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Satan convinces Eve to eat the fruit by claiming, "You won't die! God knows very well that when you eat it you will become like Him - you will know good from evil!" Eve eats the fruit and convinces Adam to do the same, which causes God to banish them both from the Garden of Eden forever. It can easily be seen that it is Eve's human hubris and curiosity led her to eat the forbidden fruit. She was tempted by the superiority of of becoming God himself, a concept that seemed to entice her. 

Does the unlimited pursuit for knowledge truly outweigh the costs? While I was researching a scholarly article for the book, I came upon Robert Oppenheimer, the creator of the atomic bomb, and I actually searched up his reaction to the bomb in an interview. In response to the test detonation of one of his bombs in New Mexico, he quotes the Bhagavad Gita, "Now I am become death. The destroyer of worlds." His unrestrained pursuit for discovery eventually led to the immediate death of over 300,000 people from Hiroshimi and Nagasaki. Wouldn't the world be better off without the so called 'scientific imperative' to better society as a whole? Oppenheimer described his own creation a "sin" that he would have to live with the rest of his life. We see the detrimental effects of a  pursuit for knowledge again in the discovery of the Americas. Christopher Columbus may have discovered new land; however, his discovery led to the Middle Passage (a brutal trip in which millions of African people were transported across the Atlantic in harsh, disease infested, unhygienic, and crowded boats). Theoretically, one can infer that the discovery of the Americas led to the suffering of millions of African people.

Throughout our history, it seems as though the unrestrained pursuit for knowledge may not outweigh the costs. However, society has also shown the benefits of a pursuit for knowledge through the creation of the first antibiotics. Penicillin has helped millions of patients that have been sick with bacterial diseases, and revolutionized the medical world.  I believe that Shelley's is raising the ethical question on what is the right balance between advancing or transforming our society through the context of a pursuit for knowledge.