>This is a story about how science cannot change the underlying "natural" state of a person.

I don't think that's necessarily true. In the setting of the story, current the state of the art prohibits this. But It doesn't really comment on whether that's a fundamental limitation. The purpose of having the protagonist descend back into retardation is to force the reader to empathize more - and perhaps reconcile with their own age-related descent in intelligence in their own life.

> I also don't like the linking of one's job to one's intelligence. The two are rarely directly related.

Really. So for example, in this story there was the retarded boy working as a dishwasher at the diner. Do you think that portrayal is completely unrealistic because in the real world retarded people usually become astronauts, surgeons, or lawyers? I think in the real world you'll find the mentally disabled working menial jobs for little respect or pay.

>The opposite to Flowers for Algernon is Captain America. A weak man is improved by science and goes on to be the champion of his nation: Science overcomes nature and God-given limitations can be overcome by government-backed scientific wonders.

I agree they are quite opposite in the sense that Flowers for Algernon is an endearing short story with commentary on the nature of intelligence, respect and social mobility, while Captain America is a marketable franchise designed to sell comics and merchandise to children. Of course Captain America is simpler and more optimistic than a short story: Like most comic books, I can only assume it doesn't convey any actual message besides "good guys always win".

Often because people here, on this site, think any policy that would put them on a different path is akin to communism.

(Read up on places like "Good"will, where folks from Brooklyn or whatever come to pick up things given under coercion less you get fined for improper trash disposal, at stores where the disabled are paid less than minimum wage under similar sorts of logic that lead to the holocaust.)

I suspect Forrest Gump does not actually exist.

They're not opposites, they're orthogonal. Flowers for Algernon is a science fiction story. Science fiction stories are usually (always?) about how the human experience is affected by some hypothetical new technology. The new technology often has a fatal flaw or unexpected consequences. The stories are often tragic.

Captain America, on the other hand, is not science fiction. Captain America is a comic superhero and his stories are usually (always?) heroic adventures. Heroic adventures follow a predictable pattern beginning with a call to adventure and ending with the hero returning home having slain the dragon.

His change could have easily been caused by something else besides science like a head injury that magically and temporarily reversed his handicap. And the story would have still been beautiful.

It’s more like a literary device; deus ex machina followed later by diabolus ex machina.

And we can draw parallels to conditions like dementia. Charlie experienced a full life of learning and decline in a matter of a few months.

I do think of this as a science fiction story. Not "hard" sci-fi, but still sci-fi. To me it's the examination of what a scientific achievement could do, but for a fatal flaw. I think it is interesting and important to the story that Charlie's experience was caused deliberately, and not through an accident or other means.

I think it's easier to look at it as a cautionary take. Many scientists (and engineers, and other types of creators) spend far too little time thinking about the implications of what they create. Certainly that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve people's lives, but we should be extremely careful. "First: do no harm" is a guiding principle that medical doctors are expected to follow, but many scientists perhaps don't think about enough.

Was it even ethical to perform this experiment on Charlie, someone who likely did not have the cognitive ability to understand well enough to consent? I wonder about that.

> The illiterate man is lifted above his situation by science.

He wasn't merely illiterate (and he wasn't illiterate; he could read and write, just not well). He was developmentally disabled. He didn't have the mental capacity to learn to read and comprehend better, or to write and spell better.

> I also don't like the linking of one's job to one's intelligence. The two are rarely directly related.

I don't think that's true. Certainly not for the example at hand. I think it's pretty common for developmentally disabled people to hold fairly simple, menial service jobs, assuming they can work at all.

I have a feeling -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that you're railing against the kind of "not very smart" person who fails upwards into high levels of management at a company. Sure, in that case a person's intelligence was not well-linked to that person's job. But this story is examining intelligence on a different level: not just the ability to learn, but the ability to understand the world around you. This failing-upwards executive may lack the ability to learn sufficient competence to earn these sorts of promotions based on merit, but most likely can understand the world well enough in order to exploit it to gain these unearned promotions.

> It is a lesson for scientists about not messing with god-given realities

Maybe by comics standards, but not really. I mean, it is not like they had decades of research and experiments, and that sort of thing doesn't seem the kind of breakthrough you can make quickly. While fiction, I think it is a tad bit more like real science than comic books science