********************

This blog was completed as part of a semester-long project by the students of "English 26.02: Weird Science: Experiments of Fact and Fiction" at Duke University in Spring 2007.

Course Description:
AMERICA, as a self-governing democracy of and for the people, was originally idealized and indeed marketed to “the people” themselves as a kind of grand political experiment. In this course, we will trace the idea of the “American experiment” through multiple trajectories--political, religious, social, and otherwise--but mostly focusing on how regimes and practices of scientific experimentation have informed and shaped U.S. literature and culture. From hair-raising tales of fatal birthmark-removal procedures to machines that turn African Americans white, from old-school Frankensteinian transformations to more recent genetic accidents in the lab, we will explore bizarre, unethical—and sometimes downright perverse—fictions of scientific experimentation in eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century literature and visual culture. Readings will help us think more generally about the status of “experiment,” science’s relationship to the state, and literary investments in imagining/(re)writing weird science. Assignments for the course will ask you to begin to do some of the work of grounding often fantastical-sounding narratives in their various historical contexts; in so doing, we will attempt to outline a factual history of American experimentation that will, at times, seem stranger than fiction.

A complete syllabus can be found on the course website.

Questions or comments may be addressed to the course instructor at bmr6@duke.edu

Can Science Ever be Secular?

After considering my presentation I gave in class and hearing that several other classmates have taken on the same topic of religion's role in The Island of Dr. Moreau I was wondering why we all gravitated towards that subject. For me I find the relationship between science and religion fascinating because though some may claim that the two entities are inherently different, I find a lot of overlap between the two in some areas. Such as the travel of man, in the Bible it does mention the origin of man being somewhere in the northeastern part of Africa and then we watched the Spencer Well's documentary saying the very same thing yet legitimated with genes. The genetic story of the travel of man seems to fit perfectly into the framework of the Bible, a very old historical document. So it seems that they may not be as separate in that respect as it may seem. A hot topic that fuels the religion vs. science debate concerns evolution namely, Darwin's theory that man evolved from a primates. As I said in the tail end of my presentation the interesting intersection the novel brings up surrounds the fact that Dr. Moreau's first success was turning a gorilla into a man. And the question arises, can science ever really be secular? Will it always have to placate towards the religious background of the people for fear of resentment and disapproval like H.G. Well's presumed? To, me it seems that Darwin's theory will always contest that of the creation story in the Bible and that contest in and of itself prevents science from being unaffiliated with religion.

When does science become art?

After watching the numerous presentations about genomic art it seemed that for many of them there was a blurred line between what was science and what was art. I presented Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray crystallography photo of DNA. This picture was the first photo of DNA and it lead to the discovery of its double helix structure. When this picture was taken it was purely for scientific reasons. Genomic art didn’t even exist, especially since up until that point no one knew what DNA even looked like, most people didn’t know what it was. Without that picture, most of the art that we saw in class would not exist. This picture portrays that backbone of life, and even thought it was not intentionally created as art in its own way it is beautiful.

In Ami’s presentation on the music composed using DNA, the composers are intentionally creating art, however I don’t believe that it is actually art. They are simply translating something that already exists using scientific formulas and algorithms. There is no creativity involved, the “artist” isn’t creating anything original.

It’s a difficult question to answer, but when does science become art? I don’t think there actually is an answer. Each person has to make that distinction on his or her own about each piece.

Ethics of Bioart

I think that many people have ethical issues with bioart because; people do not see the same amount of value in art as they would in an invention that saves people’s lives. I think that when considering whether or not an experiment is ethical the main criteria are: how the subject is affected and the usefulness or benefit gained from the experiment. “Does the subject suffer or become hindered by the experiment?” is the main question that arises. If the subject suffers, feels pain, discomfort, or becomes maimed or negatively affected by the experiment, then the experiment is usually considered to be unethical, and gets questioned. The next issue is, “How do we benefit from the experiment, is it worth the subject’s loss?”

In scientific experiments there is information to be learned, new knowledge gained, maybe even a cure for a disease or a revolutionary break through that saves millions of lives and benefits all of humanity. The latter is idealistic, however, there is usually some benefit gained from scientific experimentation. In bioart, however, the benefit is not as grand, there is no utility or usefulness to it. It’s art, it just sits there and you look at it. People are much more outraged at experiments such as the glowing rabbit or manipulated butterfly wings because there is no gain from such achievements. Therefore, people are much less tolerable of negative consequences of such mutations.

De Menezes was ridiculed during a presentation she gave in a conference. The speaker before her described his work that involved the manipulation of a cockroach nervous system in ways that allowed it to be used as a living surveillance robot under the control of a human agent. According to De Menezes the audience reacted strongly against her work but seemed to accept the other speaker’s work with no objection. This story illustrates a major point. The cockroach experiment is justified because of its utilitarian ends, while those on the butterfly are not because its ends were purely aesthetic. The other speaker was a scientist working for a military research laboratory.

Hypocrisy in the Journey of Man

I realized today while watching the documentary, Journey of Man that the host neglects a giant factor. He mentions how man left Africa and and traveled towards modern Australia. He makes an assumption that the people left Africa due to some harsh and unsurvivable conditions. He claims the people that made it out of Africa were the strongest and fittest for survival and that is how they made the long and seemingly impossible trek. However, he fails to mention where modern day Africans come from. Surely they are closer in genetic relation to the original African man because they are closer geographically and biologically (skin color, body build) than to the Indian man in whom he found a connection gene proving descent from Africans. So if not all the people that were originally in Africa left, wouldn't that mean that the ones that stayed and populated Africa are actually the strongest genetically speaking because they stayed and survived whatever harsh conditions are presumed to have run the others out of the region.

On another note, the host at some points says the original man and his direct descendants, the Bush people, are the oldest and strongest lineage of the universal family tree. But at other times he mentions how his branch of the tree is "wayyy up there" seemingly putting his heritage on superior footing to that of the bush people. He also claims that "although is American, his family originates in northern Europe." This directly contradicts the basis of his whole argument that man originated in Africa. By saying the Bush people are the trunk of man's family tree, it seems as though he is basically saying that they are merely the closest form or apes in human form more so than giving them the prestige of genetic superiority as proven by their continued existence. How do we know that his statements are actually based on science or his pursuit to show that the European race is superior because those people are "nearer to his heart." He haughtily claims that the "European evidence is based on science" while evidence of others is through oral tradition. This seems to debase the evidence of non-Europeans for being mere folklore. Is the Journey of man merely the newest legitimation of white supremacy?

The 'Savage Slot' in Journey of Man

In Journey of Man, Spencer Wells proposes the somewhat startling theory that we're all descended from the human tribe originating in Africa, and through further research, finds that early humans traveled along the coast lines, eventually hitting Australia. Though I agree with his ideas and admire his dedication to his research, I can't help but film that Journey of Man was produced, well, a bit Euro centric. Nothing against Wells here, for I'm sure his lines were scripted, but the overall tone of this made-for-TV documentary is rather condescending to the indigenous people Wells visits. When visiting the San (whom Wells actually calls Bushmen, a slightly derogatory term that's a throwback to old colonialism), he constantly reminds us that these people are much like early humans and how their religion, tools, and daily life "might give us a clue as to how our ancestors lived". In short, Wells does a very good job of avoiding the word 'primitive' while always implying it. Close ups of Sans men with commentary like "By looking into their faces, we can see the face of early man" subtlety lowers them to a sub-level of humanity, an early (primitive) stage of humanity. Its almost embarrassing to watch the scientist fumble in his explanation of familial ties to the Sans people, who look understandably bored. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's been this idea of the 'noble savage' starting around the Enlightenment and continuing still, as seen in Journey of Man. No interest is shown in if the indigenous people Wells interviews will benefit from the interaction. The relationship is established so that Westerner and his his science can gain more knowledge ("we have no song history anymore, we use science to figure it out"), and go on his way, with no positive impact left upon the people he visits. Shouldn't they too somehow gain something from this? I remember waiting to see a shot of Wells telling the Indian man his DNA was the answer needed, but no such shot ever came.---------------------------------------------------------------------

On a different note, I was going to do Bodies...The Exhibit that's showing at Southpoint as my presentation but a test held me over on Wednesday. I wonder if anyone else read the Chronicle article on the possibility that the bodies being used were actually political prisoners of the Chinese government? When I visited the exhibit, I couldn't keep it out of mind the possibility that these cadavers on display were being shown against their owner's (?) will. Also on display were infants in different stages of fetal development. One of the only things I found truly discomforting ended up not being one of the corpses, but a living young woman who upon seeing a 6 month-old fetus, most likely aborted, proceeded to ooh and aah over how 'cute' it and all the other fetuses were. It seems that a being that's had its life given up should be owed respect and solemnity, not the indifferent affection one might give to a puppy in a window.

(Sorry for the dashes used, enter isn't working for some reason.)

Why Not Grow a Super Athlete?

Since the butterfly experiment has been discussed plenty already, I though I'd respond to Amit's recent post. I do not find it surprising that academies for young children exist to hone certain skills. In China gymnasts leave there parents as young as three to attend rigorous state sponsored training. In America, our elite athletes are often the product of unnatural practice regimens. Both the Williams sisters and Tiger Woods have dominated their respective sport for an impressive amount of time. And all of them were subject to intense pressure at a very young age. Tiger was on daytime TV shows to demonstrate his golf talent before he turned three years old. The Williams sisters were coached by a father whose short temper and high expectations are well documented. Even if you turn outside the world of sports the trend remains. The Jackson family faced extreme pressure to perform at the highest level at a young age, and nearly all of them became very successful musicians. What results is certainly an interesting pattern of success through practice at a young age. However, for each success story there are hundreds if not thousands of failures.

The result is a simple realization that life is not fair. Some people are born rich, others poor. Some people are born talented or smart, others are not. While most people are not in favor of large inequalities between individuals, Gattaca portrayed an era when everyone could be the best possible combination of their parents in a strictly negative light. LeBron James is just as lucky as Bill Gates' children. Each inherited certain advantages at birth that will set them ahead in life. However, just as Gattaca portrayed, it is what you choose to do with the tools you are given that determines success.

The idea of forcing your children to train at an intense level should not be a decision made only by the parent. Without input from the child failure, burnout, and even mental and stress disorders can certainly form. However, with the child's consent and the parents encouragement I see nothing wrong with centers of advanced training for intelligence or for athletics. The responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents and no one else for determining what is best for their child. If the decision is properly made such institutions can only help bring out the natural abilities that each child has.

Thoughts on The Journey of Man

Normally, while watching a documentary, I find myself thinking of other things I could be doing or setting my gaze on the ticking clock on the wall. However, The Journey of Man completely grabbed my attention. While I knew some of the basic facts of the history of man (such as the fact that we all came from Africa), a lot of the information given was completely foreign to me. I had no idea Australia was our next stop in that significant journey, and I find it fascinating that the "journey of man" can be traced to one man in an isolated tribe of people in the middle of India. The fact that the makers of this documentary made this journey to get this piece of information makes the story all the more interesting.

It is through documentaries like this that we see science in its finest forms. While many people dwell on the negative effects science has on society and nature, it is important for them to remember what science has done for us as well. The idea that a single drop of DNA can tell a story that is so significant to our history all stems from science. Without science and its advancements, we would know very little about our ancestors, their origins and their journeys abroad.


In addition, it takes special individuals with a lot of motivation to go out and seek to discover what actually happened to our ancestors so long ago. Spencer Wells, while a bit corny at times, does an incredible job explaining his purpose in exploration and then seeking it out as we look on. It is a combination of intellectual, highly motivated individuals along with scientific advancement that bring us the knowledge of our ancestry that we have today.

science and bioart

Looking at all the different bioart for our little presentations was a very interesting experience,and a few observations stood out in particular. The first was that art has just as much to do with the state of mind with which you view something as the actual subject matter itself. The boundary between art and science seems to be less in the procedure by which you create something than in the view you take of the final product.

Another interesting aspect of the bioart was that it always seemed to have some sort of embedded message, as opposed to just being something pretty to look at. I know that my piece, Move 36 by Kac, though fairly simple to look at, had at least four different levels of meaning, all achieved by the fairly simple arrangement of a plant on a chess board. I particularly like the comparison between organic and artificial intelligence, which asked the question of whether there is a definite boundary between the two, or even if there is actually any boundary at all. Are our brains just complex computers running some sort of life skills software, or is that metaphor just a superficial comparison which misses some sort of deep irreconcilable differences between the two.

A final interesting aspect of the bioart was the mutability of nature that many of the pieces highlighted and exploited. Instead of viewing the environment around us as an inevitability, it paints life as a plastic process which can be purposefully molded, a medium for artistic expression as well as survival.

Veggie Tales

Note to Hayley and Amit: I hope you guys don’t mind me using your pictures. You guys are the only ones who posted them in your profiles. :) thanks!

Earlier in class this week, I presented Laura Stein’s genomic art piece titled Smile Tomato. What she did to come up with this smiley imprint was to put a mold on a baby vegetable to limit and manipulate its growth. But what I found interesting about this piece of art, other than the fact that it was done on a very different medium, was that it carried a message, a message about nature vs. culture. In class, I tried to make a connection between this Smile Tomato and GATTACA, but I’m not sure if I got the point across clearly for lack of time.

What I wanted to say was that sometimes culture can have a more influential effect on us than nature alone. Yes, Vincent as a faith baby was genetically predisposed to heart failure and an early death while Gerome was engineered to be the ‘perfect’ man, but throughout the movie, we see that culture changes their natural destinies. Gerome was expected to be number one; getting silver was not an option. However, because everyone put so much pressure on him to be everything that nature said he was supposed to be, Gerome cracked and became a victim to society’s pressures. Vincent on the other hand had had every excuse to fail. Nature told him his many limits, but his willpower to prove people wrong conquered this societal suffocation. In his case, I think there was a strong combination of both natural and societal pressures. Vincent was the tomato that outgrew its mold while Gerome was the plant stifled by our world. (note 2: not trying to say anything by putting your pictures up there.)

The Human Race Machine

To think that there’s actually a machine to “change” your race …. The idea is really quite fascinating, but also somewhat disturbing as well. Although Burson claims that “there is no gene for the human race,” the very concept of a race machine indicates otherwise. It shows that we as a society are undoubtedly still preoccupied with race and how it differentiates us from one another. When I first saw the panel of racialized faces, I automatically assumed that they were the faces of different people; when I looked a bit closer, I was shocked to find that they were so similar. I guess what I’m trying to say is that because of the U.S’s history of racism and persisting aversion to difference, many people are blinded by what they see on the outside and expect certain people to act in certain ways. It’s an undeniable fact that race is still one of the most common and natural identifying characteristics.

The same applies to Burson, who took it upon herself to choose the “most representative” faces of the races her machine offers. This process in itself is very subjective, allowing too much room for racial stereotypes and personal preconceptions to play a role. There’s simply too much individual variation in every race for anyone to try to pick out the one “model, authentic” Hispanic or Asian. I don’t deny, however, that The Human Race Machine is really a great way to put things into perspective, forcing you to wonder if your skin color alone makes you a different person. It puts race on a more personal level, allowing you to “experience” another race that is ultimately no different from your own.

How to Grow a Super Athlete

I found this NY Times Article very interesting and applicable to our eugenics discussions in class.

First though, if you remember back to the movie Gattaca, recall the scene with the geneticist and how the parents at first desire only basic improvements in their child, such as precluding heart disease, etc. However, with the persuasion of the geneticist, they agree to many other measures, including preventing any aggressive predilections, etc. -- they no longer want to leave anything to "chance." Instead, they wish to provide their child with the best and most favorable innate conditions.

I now want to compare this scene with the topic of this article. According to recent research, all of the actions we produce arise from the myelination of our neuronal axons. This myelin serves to insulate the neurons, but more importantly speeds up the signals proceeding down this pathway. As certain neuronal pathways are used more often, oligodendrocyte cells produce more myelin around these axons, making the communication more efficient and faster. The best time to grow such myelin though is at any early age, as there is a critical window at which our bodies will be most efficient and productive in adding myelin onto the pathways (birth - 12 years of age approx). If we were to learn a new task and practice it obsessively at an older age, we could never grow the same amount of myelin that we could have if were to have taken up this task at an earlier age.

The article analyzes the lives of elite athletes and finds that many comes from concentrated areas of the world. Specifically, the article considers the Russian tennis stars, many of whom attended the Spartak Tennis Club in Russia. This club accepts kids at a very early age and hones their technique and skill. Many of these kids become amazing by the age of 10 and really start to shine on national and international levels by ages 16-18.

The point that I am trying to illuminate here is that such a system where children are expected to devote extraordinary amounts of time on practicing certain sports is just one more step closer to changing one's genetics as to start superior. Us "normal" kids never went to these types of clubs/programs, and thus by age 10 we had already missed the critical window and for all practical reasons are deemed inferior, since no matter how much time we devoted to the sport we probably would never catch up the other kids.

Is it ethical to start kids at such an early age, before they may even really know what they wish to devote their lives to? Aren't parents achieving similar effects to that in Gattaca--whether they alter the child's genetics or they alter the amount of myelin in early childhood--although in a much less extreme manner.

In a world growing more competitive every year, parents will naturally be pushed towards making sure their child has the best possible start. Although at the current time many might say that there is no way that we would start altering the genes of those born to make sure they have no innate heart conditions, etc. I feel that such an idea is not as far as some may think. As manifested through this article, already there currently exists a present day method analogous (again in a less extreme fashion) to altering genes.

Art?

I found it really interesting that Kac used a rabbit and a jelly fish as his medium to produce art and similarly with Caleb's presentation, the artist used butterfly's as her medium. This begs the question when does creating living art go too far? This is a topic that we have addressed throughout the semester in numerous forms. The idea that someone tinkering with life may be going too far is reflected with art in a slightly different form, but is still the using science to perhaps do something that is not moral. The difference of course being that the reasoning behind such an action is different. Instead of pushing science to perhaps inappropriate limits for the sake of research and development, these artists are doing it to better mankind by creating thought provoking pieces of culture. But when is such manipulation and interpretation pushed too far? When does art cross the line into immoral science? Is it when a person creates a creature that is not natural in this world (Kac's rabbit)? Is it the concept of creating life (as in Frankenstein)? Or is it even simply the very manipulation of something that is already living (like the butterflies), even if it causes absolutely no harm?

The answers to these questions are exceedingly difficult to decide, as we attempt to draw borders between living and non-living, plants and animals, and animals and humans. An interesting film that addresses this very issue is a Neil Labute play and film called "The Shape of Things". This is the story of an art graduate student who drops in on a man's life and begins to seemingly without really meaning to change his life for the better, however, what she is really doing is manipulating him for her art thesis project. She has chosen him as her medium and is creating art by changing him. This provocative film gives a perspective on what the living being would feel as it is manipulated unknowingly. Such a film adds a new viewpoint onto such a discussion and I strongly suggest examining it when answering such questions.

Gene Music

Since I presented this topic in class, the more I think about it the harder it is for me to classify it as art or science. The reason that it is art is because it is abstract. Two different people could make music from the same sequence, but the two pieces would probably sound very different based on the method. This gives the music an artistic frame work as the same sequence can be used to produce different representations. But then on the other hand, the development and applications of the music is very scientific. DNA sequencing is involved and it can be used to predict complex folding patterns of proteins. So what is gene music... science or art?

Since I didn't get to play all my music samples in class on Monday, I have posted a link to a really good webpage bellow. I would really recommend visiting this site as it gives a pretty good overview of the different work and applications of making music from DNA. It also gives links to different scientist and artist webpages so that you can listen to the music. Enjoy!

http://whozoo.org/mac/Music/Sources.htm

The Journey of Man

When Spencer Wells' began his narration of "The Journey of Man", my first instinct was to laugh; however, after he began his initial voyage into Africa, I began to understand that he was making an important scientific discovery.

It was somewhat hard for me to believe that the Bush People were the descendants of humankind, but surprisingly, when the camera focused on all the different faces of the people, you could see the physical characteristics of ethnic and racial groups across the globe-- from skin tones to cheek bones.

One interesting point about the film thus far is Wells' diction. At certain points, he is clear to say that all humans are part of one family, stemming from relatives of these Bush People in Africa. Then at other points, he tells the Bush People that they are the thick base of the family tree of humankind, while his own family is a branch wayyyy at the top. By asserting this second idea, Wells is basically saying that the Bush People are the closest descendants to apes (if we follow evolution), while his family is a much more evolved form of humans. Never mind the actual intentions behind Wells' statement (since we don't know them), can we conclude that this is a safe assertion to make? Are the descendants of the Bush People the first real human beings?

The idea of blood as a time machine is also another interesting idea that we find out in the beginning of the film. Taking blood samples from humans all across the globe, Luca was able to create a somewhat hazy version of the family tree that connects all human beings to one another. Wells' fascination with Luca's work was the impetus for his journey, which has been quite humorous thus far-- I look forward to seeing more of "The Journey of Man" in class on Friday....

Vandalizing Butterflies

Caleb’s presentation today on butterflies and the artist that alters the appearance of their wings based on her personal aesthetic appeal got me thinking about the ethics of such experiments. In fact, I should not even be referring to this work as an experiment, as the artist does not set the altered butterfly into the wild and see how the changes in the wings affect the butterfly’s life. The work of this artist is actually vandalism, or even pollution.

From a quick online search on butterfly wings, there are several articles on the biological purpose of butterflies’ wings and how they have evolved to better suit their environment. Clearly, any scientist, or ‘artist’ who manipulates the cells of butterflies, should know about the importance of the patterns on butterfly wings. One important use depends on the environment, where butterflies that emerge earlier in the season have darker colors to absorb as much sunlight as possible and stay warm. Butterflies also use their wings to avoid predators by blending in with the environment or scaring predators away with large, conspicuous marks. Some species of butterflies have been found to use ultraviolet scales on their wings to communicate with others across long distances.

So this “artist” who manipulates the wings says that she the butterflies she alters live normal lives as if they had not been altered. Marta de Menezes, the artist, specially says, “They have the same life span and behavior, including mating behavior.” How would you all feel if some woman poked you while you were a fetus in your mother’s womb, and then when you were born, your body had random, asymmetrical spots and markings on it? I would imagine that such alterations would affect my life a great deal. Looking at the altered butterfly below, it seems like the large spots would look like eyes so the butterfly could seem like a large, frightening organism to scare away predators. However, now that there is a third random spot, the whole effect is entirely ruined and I would imagine the butterfly could not scare away predators as well.

Is this art? Personally, I think this is animal cruelty. De Menezes is vandalizing animals based on what she thinks is attractive to her human eye, not what best suits the butterfly’s life or what attracts other butterflies. In theory, the only thing that should change the appearance of a butterfly’s wings is evolution, due to natural selection. This “art” is “unnatural selection.” De Menezes is not an experimenter, a scientist, or even an artist.

Libertarianism in Gattaca

It seems there's three main stances on using technology to enhance human abilities (transhumanism): bioconservatism, libertarian transhumanism, and-the most recently conceived- democratic transhumanism. Bioconservatism is for those who feel hesitance about transhumanism, especially about the possibility of social class disruption. Gattaca manifests, libertarian, and it seems economic libertarian, transhumanism. As the name implies, libertarian transhumanists believe in an individual's rights to choose whether or not to gain extra genetic or cyborg-ish (or would genetic alteration be condsidered cyborg by Klyne's definition?) material. The economic libertarian then take a stance against government implemented human enhancement technologies, which brings to mind our earlier discussion of public versus private, Bill Clinton versus Tony Blair, but on the Bill Clinton side, leaning far more to privatization and exchange of capital and so on.

We've talked about how in Gattaca the nation seems entirely corporate, with the cash flow dividing the haves from the haves-nots. Marx could be applied here, with the rise of the new proletariat, blue-collar and with no means of gaining capital except selling their labor. Those with perfect genes control the means of production and where capital-in this case technology, mone and genes- flows and so are the new bourgeoisie. But, no revolution of the masses occurs. Vincent doesn't seem to care for the betterment of fellow dengenerates, only his own climb to the top of the 'gene ladder', thus propagating the libertarian mindsight of to each his own. So in the world of Gattaca, both genes and money are capital and since privatization seems to dominate, disruption of social order (as bioconservatives fear) has occurred. The direct contrast to this economic libertarian set is democratic transhumanism, as defined in the 2004 book Citizen Cyborg by James Hughes, where Hughes proposes making altering technology available to everyone, essesntially goverment funded and controlled, so there's equal distribution of enhancement. Democratic transhumanists still believe individuals should have control over their own bodies but instead root their beliefs in the "principles of democracy: the liberty, equality, and solidarity of persons" (quoted from the Wiki article on the book). I find the use of solidarity interesting here. It suggests all persons (note the ambiguity, not human necessarily) are in the same ship, our shared status as conscious beings, and our need to remain compassionate to one another.

What would Gattaca have been like if democratic transhumanism dominated? Any thoughts on if bioconservatism, democratic, or libertarian transhumanism should be implemented into actual policy?

Names vs. Genes?

Today in class when we were talking about the opening credits of GATTACA and how the letters of base pairs were highlighted in each name, I thought of something and forgot to mention it in class. Someone said that the genes stood out in the name and the rest of the letters in the casts' names faded out because names for the sake of identification are unnecessary when you can identify people by there genes via a finger prick of blood. That makes sense and all but even in that advanced state of genetics I argue that names are essential to a person's identity. I once heard somewhere that the most soothing sound to an individual person is hearing someone say their name. I highly doubt reciting a few pairs of their DNA to them would produce the same effect. A name is so much more than just something you call someone to get their attention. A name is a personalized set of words that each person has possession over. And sense technically we are not born with a name assigned to us, (our name wasn't tattooed on our foreheads)it is something that comes from outside of our being (usually from our parents) and is incorporated into ourselves entwining our internal selves to the external world in a very intimate way.

In the movie, when Vincent officially became Jerome and Jerome became Eugene, their identities were lost. For all intensive purposes Eugene still had his superior genes even though he was lending out his body's bi products and Jerome was still just a guy with "natural" genes. But as soon as Vincent took possession of Jerome's name he became a legitimate member of society because within the walls of GATTACA, Vincent Anton was just a janitor regardless of if he had borrowed Jerome Morrow's blood to get in. And as soon as the real Jerome became Eugene, still possessing his superior genes, he just became a hired help that was incapable of taking care of himself because he could no longer claim his name and superiority in public. In essence, Vincent and Jerome never permanently switched genes, only names, and that is what had the greatest effect because "it was no surprise that Jerome Morrow would achieve success."

I know that is a really provocative interpretation, but I just don't think genes and names serve the same purpose. Thoughts??

The Not So Distant Future

It seems that the ability to discriminate against people due to their DNA is in the very not to distant future. In today’s Chronicle, there was an article stating that several Duke professors aided in the drafting of the Genomic and Personalized Medical Act of 2007. This bill would, “play a major role in future efforts to deploy genomic-based and personalized medicine-health care based on individuals’ genetics and social backgrounds.” They claim that this would allow “technologies relevant to personalized medicine to be incorporated into health care expeditiously, effectively and safely.” However, this would allow people to see our genetic weaknesses. What if employers got access to these records? Would they hire someone whose heart might give out in a year or two, or someone who was predispositioned to rage and violence? Probably not.

In the movie GATTACA, those who were considered genetically inferior were not even given a chance to prove themselves capable of doing certain jobs. Vincent proved that genetics was not all it was cracked up to be. He showed that it is possible to over come genetics, and that will power is far more important than potential. He was able to do his job just as good as anyone else; he could even out swim in genetically engineered brother.

Yes, being able to alter drugs to treat each individual person would be a wonderful scientific advancement, however, precautions must be taken. This data must be used only for that purpose or it could lead to horrific social disasters.

You can read this article at: http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/04/06/News/Duke-Profs.Aid.In.Creation.Of.Genomic.Medicine.Bill-2827972.shtml

You Chicken?

“It was the one moment in our lives that my brother was not as strong as he believed and I was not as weak. It was the moment that made everything else possible.”

The day Vincent out swam Anton was the day that their relationship was put on hold. It was a day that brought hope to Vincent, a day that made him realize that genes do not define one's fate.

Looking at the brotherly relationships in GATTACA, I wanted to point out some differences in the relationships between Vincent and Anton and between Vincent and Gerome/Eugene. While watching the movie, I think it is easy to forget who the older brother is. Although Vincent is two years older than Anton, we don’t really see many flashbacks that distinguish this difference in age. Even at the age of 10, Vincent’s 8-year old brother is at least 2 inches taller. Because Anton was genetically engineered with the “better” genes, Vincent grew up with the idea that Anton was stronger because “he had no excuse to fail.” He, on the other hand, had every excuse to fail. But that day in the ocean, when Vincent kept swimming, he was no longer the chicken but was someone different. That was the day he finally broke free from his parents’ hold, his parents’ belief that he was incapable of living a life better than he was genetically predisposed. When asked by Anton, “How are you doing this, Vincent?” He simply replied, “Do you want to know how I did it? I never saved anything for the swim back.” All he knew was where he wanted to go and what he wanted to do and that was enough. As long as he kept dreaming and pushing himself, he knew he would be able to achieve the “impossible.”

The relationship that Vincent had with Gerome/Eugene was an intimate one. In class, we talked about the significance of Gerome as a homemaker and Vincent as a working man who financially supports his household, but another way to look at their relationship would be to see it as a brotherly one. It's interesting how their relationship develops throughout the movie; it starts out as bickering and jokes (vodka in the pee) to one that is supportive and caring. This relationship seems more like one between brothers than did Vincent’s with Anton. Although Vincent and Anton were biologically “brothers” they never had what was between Vincent and Gerome. The latter pair would celebrate together (getting drunk at the bar) and always took care of each other. In the end when Vincent is about to leave for Titan, Gerome tells him something that no one in his family has ever told him: “I’m proud of you, Vincent.” Here, Gerome calls him by his real name showing that he knew who he really was and that he was proud of the real him. They shared a mutual relationship where one supported the other; Gerome sums it up saying, “I lent you my body. You lent me your dream.”

Science and Faith

After reading the Collins article, I just wanted to bring up the other side of the coin-- a prominent scientist who does not believe in religion. Richard Dawkins is a well known writer in the scientific and public community and holds a chair at Oxford University. Dawkins argues in a recent book, The God Delusion, that in fact god is a delusion-- "a persistent false belief held in the face of contradictory evidence."

I find it interesting how much Collins and Dawkins have diverged. Collins seems to believe that faith allows one to obtain answers that science cannot reveal. He also seeks a slightly different interpretation of the story of creation than is generally believed in order to fit his perspective.

On the other hand, Dawkins largely argues that natural selection shows us that we need not to rely on the God Hypothesis. Furthermore, he argues that if one seeks to believe in the God Hypothesis, he or she should treat it as a scientific inquiry--placing the burden on those who believe in God to prove God's existence. Ultimately, Dawkins seems to espouse an intelligent yet atheist viewpoint.

I would seek a balance between the views of these scientists--agnosticism. Foremost, I find that atheism is just as much a religion as believing strictly in God. I feel trying to disprove God's existence outright based on our current knowledge is futile and thus becomes a religion itself. In contrast, I also find that proving God's existence is not possible given the current state of knowledge, and thus agnosticism serves as meeting point between these two diverging roads. It allows science to continue seeking answers, but also allows those who wish to hold faith to continue to receive inspiration in seeking such answers. Thus, my general viewpoint going into the future is that many will adopt a more agnostic perspective as science continues to provide us with more answers, but not all of them.

where's the passion

I think an interesting aspect of Gattaca that we talked about in class is the seeming sterility of the relationship between Vincent and Irene. There is barely any physical contact between the two (before they have sex) and their conversations are always dry and emotionless. In addition, the rigid and severe way in which they always dress helps to strip them of their gender, helping to reduce their interaction from an emotional connection to more of a business relationship.

This seems to be an aspect of the whole world in which Gattaca is set, as is evidenced by the scene where Irene has Vincent's hair analyzed. The place where Irene goes to do this appears to offer some sort of off the street gene analysis service. Right before Irene goes a woman has a lip swab analyzed, ostensibly to find the genetic makeup of some man she has just kissed. Rather than being excited about meeting someone she like, or starting a new relationship, her most urgent impulse is to find out how good his genes are, so much so that his saliva is still fresh on her lips.

Whether or not this reflects the corporatization of the world in general or specifically advances in genetic technology is unclear. It is probably true that the advent of the latter is unavoidable with the evolution of the former anyways.

The Limits of Genes

In Gattaca, the filmmakers raise an interesting idea about the concept of potential. Maxine discussed this a bit in her post but I wanted to address it further. Obviously everyone has limits in everything they do, whether it is physical or mental. Gattaca shows a society that it believes that it is a person's genes and makeup that determines such a result. Then it takes the character of Vincent and shows that perhaps we consist of something more than just genes; that there is something else that drives us, motivates us, and allows us to pursue our dreams.

This theory reminds of another film called Without Limits. Though not about genes or genetics in any way, this movie coincides with Gattaca in some interesting ways. Without Limits (for those who haven't seen it) is the story of the real life runner Steve Prefontaine and his quest to be the best runner in the world. Throughout the film, we see and hear Prefontaine talk about why he is so good at running and how he wins despite all odds. In real life, Prefontaine said "How does a kid from Coos Bay, with one leg longer than the other win races? All my life people have been telling me, 'You're too small Pre', 'You're not fast enough Pre', 'Give up your foolish dream Steve'. But they forgot something, I have to win." Similarly, Prefontaine believed that the reason that he won races in the end was because he had more guts and could handle take more pain than anyone else. In the movie he is quotes as saying, "I can endure more pain than anyone you've ever met. That's why I can beat anyone I've ever met."

In this way, I see Prefontaine and Vincent as being very similar. It would seem that there is no reason why these individuals should be able to excel at what they are attempting based on their build and design, but instead they go above and beyond their potential. This speaks directly to the idea that genes don't make the person, that instead there is something intangible, something that we cannot grasp, and something that neither movie even attempts to address, that makes us who we are.

After saying all that, I think it is interesting to reflect on what Gattaca is trying to say with this message. Is it in support of genetic manipulation because the filmmakers believe that in reality people will still be individuals with human flaws and with the potential to do great things? That is if it is not the genes that make the person. This is difficult to consider because the movie seems to be critiquing human beings' drive to get ahead no matter what it takes, specifically in the business only setting that it clearly portrays our future as being.

What makes us individual?

In the movie GATTACA, it is suggested that the only important difference between people are their genetic differences. But science tells us that genes can only tell part of the story. A lot of ongoing research is currently being conducted to find the impact of genetic vs environmental factors on intelligence and other characteristics. This is why I find it interested that in the movie the contemporary use of IQ (intelligence quotient) gets replace with the “Genetic Quotient.” While the GQ, genetic quotient, may provide some valuable predictive information, science tells says that this is not the only factor. I think that IQ may be correlated with GQ but that these measures are not one in the same. I believe that IQ has the ability to change with time as certain skills are developed over time. Therefore, I think that it provides a measure of an individual’s current intellectual abilities. GQ, on the other hand is something that you are born with. There is no opportunity for it to change with time and therefore doesn’t tell anything about the current intellectual abilities, but instead is merely a predictive measure. Based on this reasoning and the scientific development of these measures (GQ and IQ that is), I like to think that the future of genetic research will not result in the type of genetic discrimination portrayed in the movie. It doesn’t make scientific sense that a GQ test would ever become the sole measure of ability when the environment also plays an important role in development. I would be interested to hear what others think about this thought process. Does it make sense? Do you agree that the future portrayed in GATTACA is as unrealistic representation?

"No One Exceeds their Potential"

When the director of GATTACA is being questioned by the police about the genetic quotients of his employees, he makes this statement: "No one exceeds their potential--it just means that we made an incorrect assessment of their actual potential." In the film, there seems to be no room made for people who defy what their genes say, specifically Vincent. His parents, his brother Anton, and basically everyone around him make it vehemently clear that his heart condition and the fact that he will die at an early age will make it incredibly difficult (basically impossible) for him to pursue his dream job at GATTACA.

The idea that genes define who you are is taken to a whole other level. While it is clear that de-gene-rates know that they will not be able to live "beyond their genes" in a world like this, the director also presents this idea that those who are genetically superior will hit some type of invisible ceiling. No matter how wonderful you are, you can exceed the potential that your genes have given you. As disheartening as this may be for those who are lower on the genetic scale, I think that it might be even worse to know that even though you are equipped with all of the genetic tools to succeed, someone is telling you that you cannot cross this invisible line into greater potential because your genes have spoken.

Using a genetic broker, as well as the real Jerome Morrow, Vincent goes above and beyond to prove that he is able to "live beyond his genes" and obtain his coveted position at GATTACA. He shows not only that a de-gene-rate can be transformed into one of the genetically superior, but also that there is no ceiling to the human potential.

Borrowing Ladders...

When Jerome (Vincent) is first called a “borrowed ladder” for stealing Eugene’s (Jerome’s) identity, I had to rewind the movie a couple times to see what exactly the term was. Borrowed ladder, while at first seemed completely random, is actually a perfect term to describe Jerome. He is borrowing someone else’s ladder (in this case, genetics) to escalate his social status. With this metaphor, we are essentially identifying genes with a method to rise or fall socially and economically. Even more perfect, the fact that Eugene is injured means that he could not use a ladder (literally and figuratively), and thus benefited most from selling it to someone who could. Continuing with this metaphor, it is interesting to note that Eugene only lives on the bottom floor of his huge house because of his handicap. The only time we see Eugene on the top floor is the scene where Vincent’s brother, the police/FBI officer, comes to the house. In this scene, Eugene struggles with all of his strength to climb up the stairs to make it to the top floor to protect Jerome. Ironically, if you look carefully, the staircase is actually shaped like a DNA helix, thus adding the symbolic meaning of DNA being a method by which one can go up or down the social hierarchy.

Eugene is in fact a very important and interesting character in the novel, despite the fact that he initially seems to only be a donator of genes. We can definitely learn as much from Eugene in the movie as we can from Jerome. Just looking at the name, Eugene, we see the root for the term “eugenics” or “good genes.” Eugene is just that, a good set of genetic coding. However, despite his genetic superiority, Eugene still suffers a crippling injury. In the same manner that Jerome overcomes his genetic inferiority to reach his dream, Eugene’s genetics do not automatically provide him with a magnificent life. Genes do not determining everything. As we saw from Jerome’s success to space and Eugene’s suicide, in the long run, a strong heart overcomes weak genes.

Any other thoughts on major symbols/representations in the movie?

Fate in Gattaca

"After all, there is no gene for fate." This line delivers what many believe to be the over-arching message of the film Gattaca. However, I feel that the movie is less about fate and beating the odds, than the triumph of the human spirit. Certainly the idea of genetic predisposition is invoked time and again to show how difficult life has become for the "de-gene-erates". Vincent has myopia, a 99% chance of early heart failure, a predicted life expectancy of 30 years. Even in todays world it would be difficult for him to get many jobs, and certainly impossible for him to be an astronaut. No employer could afford the medical insurance tab that accompanies a worker who could drop dead at any moment. Furthermore, Jerome was given every advantage in the world. He is brilliant and perfectly athletic and healthy, all of which are genetically inherited. Thus, many see the movie as a question of Jerome's destiny to succeed and Vincent's fate of a premature demise.

To the contrary, every conflict in the movie is not one of destiny, but one of willpower. Vincent survives the heart condition because he is lucky. He gets into Gattaca because he will not give up. When he races his brother, or spends hours each day keeping his genetic code a secret, or undergoes painful leg extension surgery, or even just the constant physical and mental training, it is that human desire never to be denied that keeps him going and leads him to success. Even Jerome displays this spirit when he drags himself up the staircase to keep the detective from discovering the secret.

Furthermore, Vincent is not successful at disguising his true identity. His brother discovers him, and the doctors knows who he is. Neither of these characters reveal his secret because they respect his desire and admire what it shows about mankind. The doctor has a son who has some genetic defect, but from observing Vincent he has gained hope and understands that it is always possible to achieve your dreams.