cohannn
English 1t and 242b
Courtney O'Hanneson
12 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
Text
Genocide of the Worthless
As most people grow up, they learn that they could lose their life at any moment, as tragedies occur all the time—natural disasters, car crashes, illnesses, or murders. However, natural disasters cannot be controlled by anyone other than Mother Nature; therefore she is like big corporations and government officials who have the power to wipe away a community with the power one else has any control over. Marcus Wohlsen’s book, Biopunk: Solving Biotech’s Biggest Problems in Kitchens and Garages, reflects on the issues brought upon DIY biohackers (also known as biopunks) who use the human genetic code just as computer hackers use software: taking it apart, discovering new information, and making something different out of it. Corporational control in the biological field essentially halts the biohacking movement, as big businesses do not make tools or knowledge accessible to anyone with the desire to tinker. The future of biotechnology is envisioned as the continuation of strong, large corporations that monopolize the field by withholding information for the people’s survival. Ultimately, the long-term outcomes for bioengineering will have more negative results because (rather than making medical advancements that will cure infamous diseases and by making these accessible to anyone) corporations and government officials will force the poor to die off and the rich to expand.
Initially, the future’s forecast predicts terrorist attacks uprising from the intended creation of vicious diseases to hurt one’s own populace because the use of bioengineering has already lead to deliberate poisonings of people. Hence, there is no stopping the controlling agencies from making this tactic more common in order to force their followers to remain under their reign. In Scott Keyes’ article “A Strange but True Tale of Voter Fraud and Bioterrorism,” a guru named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh wanted to build more houses to accommodate his growing number of followers so he sought the easiest way to dominate the area. According to Keyes, Rajneesh won a place in the council to gain control of the city’s decisions in Oregon, then the Rajneeshees—his followers—would try to depress turnout among regular voters by poisoning thousands of residents with Salmonella, thus incapacitating them on Election Day [and then] round up thousands of homeless people from nearby cities, entice them with promises of food and shelter, and register them to vote” (Keyes). Rajneesh gained power in a community and got support form the poor by reeling them in with what they lacked: food, shelter, and the opportunity to vote. In order to gain control, he used the poor people to get their votes because he knew they would guide him into office as he gave them the resources they struggled to get on their own. They were then poisoned with the Salmonella virus, as this was used to kill off the people who were not surviving well in the society nor are a benefit to them since they do not contribute to the source of wealth. Therefore, we are destined to undergo another Holocaust—though maybe not to that extreme—because leaders want their landsmen to have worth. By purposefully killing off the poor, the economy will better itself and be more appealing to the outside world.
Furthermore, withholding information from the public that is crucial to a life or death situation is the mindset governmental agencies will still have in the future. In 2009, the swine flu was believed to be deadly, concluding in the shutting down of several activities (school, church, parades) so that it would not cause an extreme plague. However, Wohlsen notes that the strain of flu discovered was not deadly to that extent but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still declined to “answer questions about H1N1 genome sequence identity” (Wohlsen 04). Though the victims of the swine flu plague saw it as a threat to their lives, the CDC avoided giving the proper information of the disease. In result of restriction to the public, the poor Mexican communities that were known to be the first of the infections were set up to think that they were sick and fated with near-death. This was due to the motive that if others get a hold of the sequence then they might be able to create a cure or anti-virus to the flu. Nonetheless, future generations will see this happen in their society because not only does it slowly rid of poor populations without seeming like it, but it also allows big corporations and businesses to solve the problems on their own so that the credit will be theirs. All in all, these groups of such power will dominate the biotechnological field to get rid of the sick instead of help them, and are funded through their lone discoveries shared with no one else.
Moreover, money and power are most important to corporations in the United States; hence, they will find cures to solve worldly diseases but not give them to the public in fear of their ideas being stolen. According to Yonhap in a Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning press release, “this research offers a new paradigm of overcoming previously limited ways to diagnose and treat cancer with a nanorobot that can actively move and even deliver anticancer drugs specifically to cancer cells.” These small robots are called Bacteriobots, which are genetically modified non-toxic salmonella bacterium naturally attracted to chemicals released by cancer cells—a new development from the nanorobot invention. South Korean scientists have found use for the nanobots to solely help the treatment of cancer, and are being tested on animals as of now, but the United States holds a patent on these. In effect, people wishing to biohack and solve the problems more quickly to save the people’s lives is not an option. Overall, having success in the biotechnological field solely by the companies and no one else is more important than saving lives. The result is corporations are in control of all medical industrialization and risk the lives of countless numbers of citizens. According to Nathan Rosenberg of the Economic Journal, “expectations regarding the future course of technological innovation are a significant and neglected component…in as much as they are an important determinant of entrepreneurial decisions” (Rosenberg 1976, 523). The machines are self-functioning, in that they should progress to be useful tools in industrial processes. On the other hand, there is the scare that the machines will become off-leash and escape from those who have controllers; ultimately, a terrorist attack of biohackers is feared. Disregarding these positives and negatives, the main concern is not that of what could happen to society with the invasion of self-functioning robots but rather how the companies will succeed through the manufacturing of them.
Altogether, those with the most power—specifically the ones with the most money through connection to the government—will continue to control the country without concern for the people. Though these groups, such as corporations and governmental associations, have been known to intentionally poison their citizens or avoid solving an epidemic without any remorse, these acts in the future will be happening more often, and therefore become less of a secret. Charles Darwin was the scientist who discovered “natural selection” which is nature’s way of killing off species who cannot survive in their niche. In this case, those with power are intentionally but silently and methodically eliminate these people who bring down the economy so that the country can strive again. We have no control of what the government does so we have no say in what information we are given or no choice in what is done to us common people. As of now, we only truly have hope for a bright future (if we are not poor, sick, or a burden on society) unless biohackers take more initiative to become a higher power themselves. Some think experimenting with biology in one’s own home is dangerous to the biohackers and could possibly spread through drains and contaminate everyone else through waterways. However, their intentions are solely to find cheap ways to quickly find solutions to diseases and other common problems. In putting more effort into trying to get biohacking to be accepted, the world will understand that they are not a problem but rather the solution to destroying hegemonies like corporations and the government. They are the hidden superheroes trying to abolish a future of genocides of the poor communities that have no defense against dictators.
Word Count: 1,399
0 notes
Text
Hacking Through the Codes of Business
Hearing the word “biotechnology” could cause a range of common symptoms: no response when completely unfamiliar with the term, disgust in absolute despite of the whole idea of science, or excitement when there is an interest in learning about the study of all forms of life and how it is executed in relation to technology. It is no secret that the scientific field of biology is complex in content and difficult to understand without having prior knowledge. So, what if even the most disgusted observers of biology could be a part of something exciting and impactful, like helping design a 3D image pancake maker or volunteering to find ways to insource water to the most impoverished countries? Marcus Wohlsen (author of the book Biopunk) discusses the biohacking movement, which allows tools and knowledge to be accessible to anyone with the desire to tinker to make anything they can imagine—for simple enjoyment or to find the cure for cancer. Biohackers, also known as biopunks, use the human genetic code just as computer hackers use software: taking it apart, discovering new information, and making something different out of it. They want to make biotech user-friendly (accessible and affordable), giving equal opportunity for people to be involved in making advancements of everyday life. The DIY biopunk movement addresses that using the business model in biology creates the most important issues within modern medicine, drug-development, and agricultural advancement. Control of corporations monopolizes the biotech industry and solely focuses on profit, lacking equal opportunity for patients and competitors to have access to tools and knowledge involved in making advancements that will solve worldly problems.
The issue that has the most effect on the world today is that modern medicine is not available to everyone. Using the business model in medicine goes against the biopunk manifesto of having affordable products in reach for those in need, as profit-driven corporations disregard underprivileged patients and do not make medicine accessible based on financial limitations. According to Wohlsen, “drug developers make money by developing products that alleviate suffering. Yet some health problems lack a financial incentive to solve them, such as the millions in Africa who go without immunizations because they cannot afford vaccines” (Wohlsen 58). Manufacturers often do not provide drugs for pharmacies and medical centers that will solve or relieve symptoms of epidemics and diseases found over wide ranges of people. Instead, corporations strive to create drugs that are going to be popular within the industry. Those who discover remedies for solutions of some of the most vicious diseases, like cancer, are bound to generate big money and fame among competitors. The purpose of a company is to earn money from their services or products; however, using the business model within the biological field does not make medicine affordable. For instance, Genentech (leading biotech company) produced Avastin, an anticancer drug that could cost up to $100,000 for a year’s supply (Wohlsen 57). They make antibiotics because it does not actually cure diseases like AIDS or cancer. Patients have to keep buying them and most usually consume them daily, receiving an endless cycle of needing higher doses to get rid of symptoms. A motive of biohackers is to help suffering patients have affordable medicine in their reach when primarily faced with financial limitations. Instead of having capitalist attitudes run through the production of medicine, biohackers—in their own investment-run and non-profit organizations—want products to be available for anyone to take a hack at solving worldwide problems that corporations cannot do on their own.
Another problem noted by biopunks is that inventors—in this case, drug developers—are often hesitant to reveal the details of their inventions and discoveries in fear that someone else might copy them. This leads to keeping inventions secret, which impedes innovation. Wohlsen stated, “The search for the next big score comes back to the protection of intellectual property, which critics say has become a core function of the biotech industry. Because patents are prized, companies hide their discoveries until their patents are approved” (Wohlsen 83). The ownership of products and research, which is provided by governments through patents, allows companies to keep data and analyses from being open-sourced (publicly shared). The vital information that large corporations do not share is not available for anyone other than the original company, denying anyone else from having access to knowledge of scientific advances and discoveries. The patents are a source of prevention from allowing others to take credit from a corporation’s discovery so that only they will prosper; therefore, biohackers could not use it in their tinkering, and problems in medicine are prolonged. This is an issue because diseases spread so rapidly; the longer corporations wait, the more a small flu virus could become an entire epidemic. When a biohacker conducts an experiment in their garage (or even kitchen), they use all of the information they can gather from various sources and attempt to find solutions. Rather than having one company work endlessly to solve issues found in DNA’s code, biohacking allows billions of people all around the world from varying backgrounds (college degree or not) to use their mind and skills to tinker. Hence, they can constantly contribute to biotech findings—big or small—that may one-day piece together a cure for a disease.
Intellectual patents are also being used in the innovation of genetically modified crops, which helps big businesses and harms small farmers. This monopolization discourages collaboration to help the whole agricultural community to prosper. Monsanto seeds (whose DNA is modified to grow a resistance to pests and herbicide) have intellectual patents that require farmers in India to pay licensing fees to obtain them. According to Wohlsen, “Anticorporate activists claimed that turning seeds into intellectual property rather than holding them in common in keeping with millennia of tradition allowed a few companies—especially agribusiness giant Monsanto—to monopolize agriculture” (Wohlsen 70). Monsanto patents the seeds they develop because this ensures that the company is reimbursed for the investments that they put into the products they make. The seeds can only be planted once; therefore, private businesses owners (such as farmers in India) must continuously re-invest in the business by purchasing the seeds again each season to keep up with this agriculturally advanced farming style, rather than collecting seeds from the current crop at the end of the season. Businesses similar to Monsanto make the purchase of the seeds necessary for famers because a business must be paid for its product. If the farmers continued planting their open-pollinated crops, they could fall behind in the agricultural industry. Traditional crops do not carry a natural resistance to pesticides; extra money must be spent to purchase a man-made chemical that will perform the same action of this genetically inborn advantage. The companies get their profit through this technique because they are not spending extra to buy a separate pesticide, which additionally ruins the organic properties of the plant. Following this, desperate peasant farmers get pushed into more debt because they have to buy seeds every year rather than collecting seeds from their own harvest to be used the following year. Biohackers insist on those of the same field to work together to create tools and information that will be beneficial to society.
Since businesses are in existence to make a profit, it makes sense to expect revenue from their products and services. However, when used in the medicinal field, the business model does not offer inexpensive medicine for patients need fast and cheap solutions to issues that could end in fatalities. Moreover, there are no alliances in the biotech industry that allow all companies to make advances together that help society, but rather big businesses do it for themselves. In order to bypass this paradigm, biopunks log onto their eBay account, find low-price materials, and try to configure different variations of the human genome. With the plethora of biopunks doing their own research, there is the real possibility that one of those individuals could find the secret key to unlocking a cure for a disease, or even just find information that will contribute to a new discovery in medicine. On a larger scale, they act as their own non-profit organizations, which would be a more reasonable approach to use in medicine. SNYP (Spay/Neuter Your Pet) is a non-profit program for pet-owners with low income that allows them to get their pets altered for little to no money. This is possible because the volunteers find veterinarians willing to perform surgeries at discounted prices and the supporters donate money to pay for the remainder. If this were to be applied to the biotech companies, investors—who can afford it—would put money into the research and generate products for clients. Allowing anyone to volunteer to contribute to these associations makes everyone’s job easier.
Word Count: 1,466
Works Cited
Wohlsen, Marcus. Biopunk: Solving Biotech’s Biggest Problems in Kitchens and Garages. New York: Penguin Group, 2011.
0 notes
Text
Results
The final product should consist of a list of questions you used for gathering information from the students, a short write up, and the biggest and most important part, the diagram of some sort. The main point of this assignment is to just learn about how you are helping students in reading, writing, and critical thinking and how you got to that point.
0 notes
Text
Assignment Rationale Explanation
The purpose behind creating this assignment is to get feedback on your teaching styles from different types of students, those who have and have not taken the class. By doing so, this process will help you learn what is working and what isn't working for students, as well as how they could compare you to other teachers they have had. You will practice communication skills by interviewing people, use critical thinking skills when coming up with questions to ask, and then you will use analyzation to interpret your results to find out about yourself as a teacher, and what factors in your past or what factors from previous years of teaching has guided you to become who you are as a teacher.
0 notes
Text
Create an Assignment, Response #4
Objective: This assignment is designed to help you learn about your students’ reading, writing, and critical thinking experience throughout the pathway so far, how it sounds from an outside perspective, and the reasoning or background behind your teaching methodology.
Assignment:
1. Have a finalized list of questions that will be asked to each individual that will generate responses to help you to create a self-reflection based on what is positive and negative about your unique teaching methods and how students perceive the methods.
Survey will include:
- A former student
- A current student in English 1S and 242A
- A current student taking a different pathway (i.e. English 1A)
- A student who has not yet taken a college English course
Questions may include:
- How students experienced reading, writing, and thinking before the class, how they experience during the class, how they experience after the class, how they think it will have them experience these aspects (if not in the class or in a different English class).
- How the class has changed their reading, writing, and thinking within literature, plus in any other setting or area (the “real” world).
- What risks have been taken or desire to be taken to improve their learning, or even what risks they want you to take as a teacher / person in general.
- Why they think we need to think about our reading, writing, and thinking.
- Any other or more detailed questions to help you complete the assignment!
2. After gathering your survey information in a rough draft of responses (in any form, i.e., voice recording, write-up, etc.), compare and contrast their responses in separate sections (paragraphs or short answers) that will each include the answers to one of the major questions you asked (you don’t need to spend a huge amount of time on this, just make sure your summaries and connections are good).
3. In a short personal reflection to determine your understanding and completion of the objective, evaluate your teaching styles by combining the short answers above with a diagram that connects the main topics from your questions to your teaching styles and why you started teaching like that in the first place. This could be a summarized visual of the results of your findings (diagram, flowchart, drawing, etc.), so be creative in the expression of your results!!!
0 notes
Video
youtube
January 30, 2014
Video NUMBER 2, not 3: The Writing Process
0 notes
Video
youtube
January 17, 2014
How do you see yourself as a thinker / writer?
0 notes