Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Data Mining Ramifications
Just an interesting thought-provoking video, doesn't relate to our current class discussion, but does relate to my research topic for this course, and though it would be interesting to share, based on the topic of data mining/govt. surveillance. This should probably stir up some debate...?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Race and Medicine
Found this article pretty relevant to our class discussions and reading on how race can play a factor in medicine. This seems to be a very current example of that, of how race influences asthma treatment. Like many of our class discussions the question is is the difference in rates of asthma among different races something that can be explained scientifically, or is it influenced by social factors or a combination of both? And again questions are raised what role should race play in it's treatment/diagnosis? Link Here
Monday, February 19, 2007
Recent Story Analogous to Sara Baartman
In response to the 4th question in the previous post:
4) Are there any parallels in this 19th century case with today’s world?
I came across a news story today which struck me as quite similar to it and the discussion in class today: Aboriginals sue U.K. museum over bones . Basically, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Center of Australia wants Britain's Museum of Natural History to return the remains of 17 individuals believed to be from the original Aboriginal population there.
But what is in contention here isn't whether the remains will be returned; the museum has agreed to return the bones to Australia. However, the museum wishes to take samples of the bones and conduct tests on them prior to returning them. These tests are deemed important for anthropological and genetic studies, since the last of the full-blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal population was wiped out over a century ago. However, the present-day Australian Aboriginal population would see any such tests as a desecration of these remains, and forbid the tests to take place.
Personally, I'm inclined to side with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Center. They have been deemed the rightful owner of the remains, and so the museum has no right to conduct their own tests on the bones. Even though the museum says the tests will at most be removing microscopic samples of the material, I think that's not the point at all. It seems extremely arrogant of the museum to try to act with complete disregard for the Aboriginal population's traditions and beliefs, and particularly since it seems the scientific value of these tests is uncertain at best. If a genetic study of the Tasmanian Aboriginal population were needed to help unlock the secrets of a genetic disorder or a disease, then maybe it would be justifiable. But I see no strongly compelling reason for the museum to do so.
4) Are there any parallels in this 19th century case with today’s world?
I came across a news story today which struck me as quite similar to it and the discussion in class today: Aboriginals sue U.K. museum over bones . Basically, the Tasmanian Aboriginal Center of Australia wants Britain's Museum of Natural History to return the remains of 17 individuals believed to be from the original Aboriginal population there.
But what is in contention here isn't whether the remains will be returned; the museum has agreed to return the bones to Australia. However, the museum wishes to take samples of the bones and conduct tests on them prior to returning them. These tests are deemed important for anthropological and genetic studies, since the last of the full-blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal population was wiped out over a century ago. However, the present-day Australian Aboriginal population would see any such tests as a desecration of these remains, and forbid the tests to take place.
Personally, I'm inclined to side with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Center. They have been deemed the rightful owner of the remains, and so the museum has no right to conduct their own tests on the bones. Even though the museum says the tests will at most be removing microscopic samples of the material, I think that's not the point at all. It seems extremely arrogant of the museum to try to act with complete disregard for the Aboriginal population's traditions and beliefs, and particularly since it seems the scientific value of these tests is uncertain at best. If a genetic study of the Tasmanian Aboriginal population were needed to help unlock the secrets of a genetic disorder or a disease, then maybe it would be justifiable. But I see no strongly compelling reason for the museum to do so.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Epilogue to the Sara Baartman Story
The last five minutes of the film we watched in class today, The Life and Times of Sara Baartman, were devoted to the issue of whether her remains would be returned to South Africa, which was unresolved when the film was released in 1998. Ultimately, the French government did agree to return her body to South Africa, where she was buried on August 9, 2002. As you can find out from reading some of the news accounts and editorial opinion surrouning the campaign for the repatriation of her remains gathered on the website RaceSci, the film did leave out some important details of her life - a brief marriage to a West Indian Man and two children (evidently while during the time she was in London), and her descent into prostitution in Paris. Interestingly, South Africa chose to bury her on it's National Women's Day public holiday, and the account of her return in burial in the African National Congress's official publication Sephardi indicates the degree to which her story has become connected to the fight against sexism withing South Africa. I have not been able to determine if the national monument for her has been established.
For the French government and museum authorities, part of the issue was the fate of the many thousands of other specimens of human remains from indigenous peoples taken during the colonial era that remain in Museums. Again from the RaceSci site, here is an argument from British scientists that these remains have to much scientific value to be returned without some guarantee that they could continue to be used for research. In the United States, the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act gave native Americans the right to reclaim remains if they could establish cultural affilication, though as this ethics website devoted to the issue indicates, it has hardly settled conflicts and controversies.
Obviously, our conversation about this film and the issues it raises could go in many directions. But here are some questions I think it raises:
1) Although scant historical information is available about what Sara Baartman felt about her experience, this film does tries to tell her story as much as possible from her perspective. Does considering her perspective change the way you feel about the racial science that was described in the article by Nancy Leys Stepan that you read last week?
2) Do you think the examination of Sara Baartman depicted in this film qualifies as science? Few if any people today would defend the scientific examination of Baartman that is depicted in this film. What was wrong with it? Do you find anything defensible about it?
3) Do you think it is important to remember what happened to Sara Baartman? Why? What is the most appropriate way to memorialize it? As the film indicates, the men who examined Sara were among the very elite of the scientific world. A google search of Cuvier will pull up dozens of biographical hits for him -- only one of which even mentions his racist views, but does not explain what they were. The closest to mentioning the Baartman episode is Wikipedia's entry, which has a link to an article about "Sarji Baartman, the Hottentot Venus which [sic] Cuvier Examined" that describes the episode you saw in the film. Why do Cuvier's many biographies omit reference to this episode? Is it right to ignore this? What are the implications of this for the stories we tell about science?
4) Are there any parallels in this 19th century case with today’s world?
For the French government and museum authorities, part of the issue was the fate of the many thousands of other specimens of human remains from indigenous peoples taken during the colonial era that remain in Museums. Again from the RaceSci site, here is an argument from British scientists that these remains have to much scientific value to be returned without some guarantee that they could continue to be used for research. In the United States, the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act gave native Americans the right to reclaim remains if they could establish cultural affilication, though as this ethics website devoted to the issue indicates, it has hardly settled conflicts and controversies.
Obviously, our conversation about this film and the issues it raises could go in many directions. But here are some questions I think it raises:
1) Although scant historical information is available about what Sara Baartman felt about her experience, this film does tries to tell her story as much as possible from her perspective. Does considering her perspective change the way you feel about the racial science that was described in the article by Nancy Leys Stepan that you read last week?
2) Do you think the examination of Sara Baartman depicted in this film qualifies as science? Few if any people today would defend the scientific examination of Baartman that is depicted in this film. What was wrong with it? Do you find anything defensible about it?
3) Do you think it is important to remember what happened to Sara Baartman? Why? What is the most appropriate way to memorialize it? As the film indicates, the men who examined Sara were among the very elite of the scientific world. A google search of Cuvier will pull up dozens of biographical hits for him -- only one of which even mentions his racist views, but does not explain what they were. The closest to mentioning the Baartman episode is Wikipedia's entry, which has a link to an article about "Sarji Baartman, the Hottentot Venus which [sic] Cuvier Examined" that describes the episode you saw in the film. Why do Cuvier's many biographies omit reference to this episode? Is it right to ignore this? What are the implications of this for the stories we tell about science?
4) Are there any parallels in this 19th century case with today’s world?
(Much, Much) More Global Warming Politics
As we mentioned in class discussion last week, the interesting and vitally important question regarding the politics of global warming is whether the just-released 4th assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will "close" scientific debate on the matter. The IPCC report is a massive, multivolume document. But you can read the relatively brief, jargon free summary for policymakers that is generating all the attention.
If global warming becomes widely accepted as a scientifically established fact, this line of query goes, policymakers will be compelled to act. Certainly this was recognized by Repbulican strategists in the Luntz memo which I mentioned in class. Accuweather's blog had an interesting post referencing a Boston Globe article suggesting that the IPCC report has significantly constrained skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, though the blog's author Laura Hannon thinks the Globe article overstates the case.
As should be obvious by now, the "orthodox" STS position (an oxymoronic phrase given STS's penchance for unorthodox positions) is that no amount of evidence is sufficient to close a scientific debate. While evidence is important, it ultimately becomes persuasive only when political and social conflicts are worked out. (So, for instance, maybe Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize would represent the kind of settlement of social/political issues that would make the IPCC report convincing.) This is the point of the right-sided utterances from Latour's double-faced account of science. Issues like global warming (and concern that the Luntz memo amounts to applied STS) has led to some anxiety in the STS community about whether this kind of critique is undercutting any ability to reach compelling ethical and moral positions. Bruno Latour himself expressed such anxiety in a really interesting article that some have seen as repentance for his entire previous scholarly output. I wouldn't say that, but he is clearly struggling to find grounds to turn STS toward ethics. In any case, you should look at this article if for no other reason than to thank your lucky stars that I did not assign it to you. Don't say I never showed you a kindness....
If global warming becomes widely accepted as a scientifically established fact, this line of query goes, policymakers will be compelled to act. Certainly this was recognized by Repbulican strategists in the Luntz memo which I mentioned in class. Accuweather's blog had an interesting post referencing a Boston Globe article suggesting that the IPCC report has significantly constrained skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, though the blog's author Laura Hannon thinks the Globe article overstates the case.
As should be obvious by now, the "orthodox" STS position (an oxymoronic phrase given STS's penchance for unorthodox positions) is that no amount of evidence is sufficient to close a scientific debate. While evidence is important, it ultimately becomes persuasive only when political and social conflicts are worked out. (So, for instance, maybe Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize would represent the kind of settlement of social/political issues that would make the IPCC report convincing.) This is the point of the right-sided utterances from Latour's double-faced account of science. Issues like global warming (and concern that the Luntz memo amounts to applied STS) has led to some anxiety in the STS community about whether this kind of critique is undercutting any ability to reach compelling ethical and moral positions. Bruno Latour himself expressed such anxiety in a really interesting article that some have seen as repentance for his entire previous scholarly output. I wouldn't say that, but he is clearly struggling to find grounds to turn STS toward ethics. In any case, you should look at this article if for no other reason than to thank your lucky stars that I did not assign it to you. Don't say I never showed you a kindness....
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Global Warming Politics
Just saw this post online, which seems really relevant to our class discussion yesterday on the role of scientists with differing political views and agenda, and the question of being fired or removed from posts for having differing views from political or scientific consensus, interesting read. In Summary from the post :
"Oregon state climatologist George Taylor, who may be fired by Gov. Ted Kulongoski for having views not in line with state policy on greenhouse gas reduction."
"Oregon state climatologist George Taylor, who may be fired by Gov. Ted Kulongoski for having views not in line with state policy on greenhouse gas reduction."
Monday, February 5, 2007
For Further Reading: Critics of Technology
As you've no doubt gathered, Langdon Winner is well-known as one of the staunchest critics of the mystique of new technology. You can find more of his writings and other interesting resources at his website and blog.
Another important critic of technology was Neil Postman, from whom I have taken what I have called the the 5 theorems regarding the political nature of technology that we have been discussing in class. If you are interested, you can read the article from which I took them. You and also find more by and about Postman here and here -- two of many websites that are devoted to keeping his ideas alive.
Another important critic of technology was Neil Postman, from whom I have taken what I have called the the 5 theorems regarding the political nature of technology that we have been discussing in class. If you are interested, you can read the article from which I took them. You and also find more by and about Postman here and here -- two of many websites that are devoted to keeping his ideas alive.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Tedious, yeah, but it's not a very funny subject
Winner makes an interesting choice by doing a satire: he seems to be attempting to present his views through a charicature of modern business CEO's. While not very funny, he does address a serious problem in American society today, how do we distinguish between that which is best run by the market and that which isn't? Winner's APM is the pinnicle of modern market capitalism, it is the triumph of neo-liberalism, it is the iTunes of education (and some people would argue is the end goal of NCLB). Thus, just as iTunes was the creative destructor of record stores, the APM would be the creative destructor of professors.
Really what Winner is arguing against isn't technology in education (although he seems to not be so fond of that), it's the system of beliefs that is being pushed with technology that he is mostly making fun of and that is the neo-liberal notion of specialization and championing of market forces (Neo-liberals believe that the economic clock has stopped at the current status quo, for better or worse. In order to suceed in this neo-liberal world, one must specialize and find their nieche in the flattened world economy. Winner's will be those who can specialize the fastest, and exploit market forces to their fullest. Loser's are left to charity and re-education to try and find their neiche. If you want to read the pre-eminant cheerleader for this, read Thomas Freidman The World is Flat, but take what he says with a grain of salt and think about whose story isn't told). Basically, he's saying the same thing he did in this weeks reading -- technology (and science) is political. LC Winner CEO, is one the technocrats who plays like technology is pure and carry's no baggage. While Winner, in writing this, is showing that you aren't just buying the APM, or a college degree, you are buying into a socio-economic belief system (dare I go so far as to say a lifestyle, even government?)
To conclude, I find it interesting that we are watching this movie off ANGEL, then communicating with each other on a blog... Can I get a certificate in ANGEL?
Really what Winner is arguing against isn't technology in education (although he seems to not be so fond of that), it's the system of beliefs that is being pushed with technology that he is mostly making fun of and that is the neo-liberal notion of specialization and championing of market forces (Neo-liberals believe that the economic clock has stopped at the current status quo, for better or worse. In order to suceed in this neo-liberal world, one must specialize and find their nieche in the flattened world economy. Winner's will be those who can specialize the fastest, and exploit market forces to their fullest. Loser's are left to charity and re-education to try and find their neiche. If you want to read the pre-eminant cheerleader for this, read Thomas Freidman The World is Flat, but take what he says with a grain of salt and think about whose story isn't told). Basically, he's saying the same thing he did in this weeks reading -- technology (and science) is political. LC Winner CEO, is one the technocrats who plays like technology is pure and carry's no baggage. While Winner, in writing this, is showing that you aren't just buying the APM, or a college degree, you are buying into a socio-economic belief system (dare I go so far as to say a lifestyle, even government?)
To conclude, I find it interesting that we are watching this movie off ANGEL, then communicating with each other on a blog... Can I get a certificate in ANGEL?
Tedious, Short-Sighted, Not as Funny as Colbert
Winner’s satire regarding the movement towards online education is packed with amusing one-liners, but lacking the overall vision of the bigger picture. Winner implies that online education will bring rampant commercialization to the field, resulting in a hyped and inflated sense of superficial understanding.
This is not necessarily the case. A great deal of education in
Simply providing educational materials to students in a digital form does nothing to diminish their quality. On the contrary, online resources provide a means for wider availability, data cross-referencing, and information indexing. Furthermore, emerging information technologies (holography, immersive audio and visual content, etc.) promise a depth of education that far exceeds what is available from outmoded film strips and vinyl records.
The argument that online education diminishes educator/student interactions is quickly losing ground. High-bandwidth communication technologies are beginning to approach the fidelity of face-to-face meetings (the highest bandwidth communication). New technologies capture and convey the nuances of these interactions to each party. Online professors can see brows furrowed in confusion as easily virtually as they can in person.
Technology is not a diffuser of educational worth or a taker of education-jobs. Properly integrated, it can be an excellent asset. To use Winner’s elevator example: Yes, the child today who would have been an elevator operator for his entire life will not be able to be an elevator operator. Instead, he will have to be an electrical engineer or information technology specialist. It doesn’t sound to me like he is losing on that deal.
There were some “winning” (“and yes that is a pun on his name”) moments in the video. “Gemeinschaft education for gesellschaft prices” was clever. The T-Shirt as the alma mater elicited a chuckle, and the “Texas School Book Suppository” even got a laugh.
Winner’s faux presentation was accurate in one regard. His slogan “Lighten Up… Or Perish” touches on a very important point. Societies that do not change stagnate. We can not turn our backs on every new prospect because it is frightening or still under development. We must constantly search for and embrace technologies and ways of thinking that better humanity and our planet. Quite simply, cultures that do not change will die.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Ramifications of APM
While Winner clearly sees many benefits in the Automatic Professor Machine, I for one am not totally sold on this idea. To me this takes a significant aspect out of education, and would enhance some problems already found in the education system. For one, a significant part of education is experience in your field, and oftentimes that experience, which frequently includes interactions with others in your field, can only be found in a campus environment. Especially for fields like IST and computer science that emphasize teamwork, the APM would take a significant component out of education. Addi tonally it would further specialize people so that they would only have to know facts for their field, and would have less interaction with other fields or general education. Finally, education would become even more based on factual memorization, as the significant part of education that comes from classroom discussions and exposure to alternate views and opinions would be lost with the APS. I do not think you can take the personal component out of education and automate it, at least successfully.
L.C. Winner's Automated Professor Machine
Reminder: we will not no class on Friday. Instead, you can view this online lecture by Langdon Winner. (Note: I had trouble getting the streaming video to work. I also have the video files available for direct download on ANGEL under the lessons tab. You can also get the gist of his idea by looking at the other documents on the link above.) In any case, you might think about the following questions as you consider Winner's ideas:
1) What are the political implications of the development of distance learning that Winner is lampooning?
2) Satire works by exagerrating some characteristics of its target. How well does Winner's satire work -- does it exagerate some features of distance learning too much? Not enough?
3) L.C. Winner, CEO of Edu-Sham describes education as a commodity, like any other. Do you view it that way? Why or why not? What are the strengths and weaknesses of viewing education as a commodity.
If you are so moved, post your thoughts on Winner's satire to the blog. (Remember, if you are setting up a new google account, you may need to follow the invitation link back to the blog AFTER you set up the account. In any case, you should be able to respond via comments to this post whether you are registered to author posts or not)
Also, just FYI, Winner's homepage and blog are chock full of interesting things.
1) What are the political implications of the development of distance learning that Winner is lampooning?
2) Satire works by exagerrating some characteristics of its target. How well does Winner's satire work -- does it exagerate some features of distance learning too much? Not enough?
3) L.C. Winner, CEO of Edu-Sham describes education as a commodity, like any other. Do you view it that way? Why or why not? What are the strengths and weaknesses of viewing education as a commodity.
If you are so moved, post your thoughts on Winner's satire to the blog. (Remember, if you are setting up a new google account, you may need to follow the invitation link back to the blog AFTER you set up the account. In any case, you should be able to respond via comments to this post whether you are registered to author posts or not)
Also, just FYI, Winner's homepage and blog are chock full of interesting things.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
