Disease Detection So Desirable

Maria Kozdroy

Blog #15

10-26-14

Disclaimer: this blog is to be used as a response to class discussion and readings.

Disease Detection So Desirable

            If you are feeling very strange and sick, imagine finding out your disease within one hour after a test.  And better yet, you do not even need to go to a doctor to find out.  With the Ebola hype occurring, Keith Pardee, Ph.D, and Alex Green, Ph.D, from the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, have come up with Toehold Switches: De–Novo–Designed Regulators of Gene Expression.  These switches are simple pieces of paper, with embedded effective synthetic gene networks that can determine if one has Ebola or not.  Seems very cool, right?  But is it safe?  In this post, I am going to argue that the safety and security factors of new synthetic biology advancements need to be better understood by more citizens of all social classes, before anyone should actually use the product, such as the Toehold Switch.  Patients should understand what they are about to do to themselves because if any security breaches happen there after, there is no turning back, and any information leaked will be handled unfairly by the hackers.

In the scholarly article Biology’s Brave New World by Laurie Garrett, she mentions that “while virtually all current laws in this field, both local and global, restrict and track organisms of concern (such as, say, the Ebola virus), tracking information is all but impossible.  Code can be buried anywhere—al Qaeda operatives have hidden attack instructions inside porn videos, and a seemingly innocent tweet could direct readers to an obscure Internet location containing genomic code ready to be downloaded to a 3-D printer.”

Synthetic biology has many security problems in addition to its own biological problems.  The Toehold Switches, have problems attached to them such as the ones stated above.  Government is trying to eliminate these infractions to law, but the pace of technology is leaving government struggling, with more and more problems evolving daily.  On an optimistic side disregarding legacy thinking, or the belief that society should stay at the point at which to stop more advancements from happening, these Toehold Switches need to be handled in a very precautionary way.   The consumer should understand that not all risks have been detected with the product to soon be used and should only use the product under own risk.  However, how many people in the world today really would understand the risks that this product entails? 

            Due to high costs of college, less young adults are attending universities.  The science behind the Toehold Switches exceeds the knowledge of an average person, one that graduates from high school, with or without a few years of college, and now working.  The Toehold Switches seem very catchy and will attract many people to use this product, yet not comprehend half as many of the consequences attached to it.  If one does use the Toehold Switch, and has some security information obtained by a hacker, it will be very difficult for the consumer to figure out where their information went and how they were attacked.  Hacking, too, is a difficult concept to be understood by the average person, and usually people only understand the superficial obvious causes and effects of it.

            Perhaps, if one does understand the potential risks with Toehold Switches, and wants to use it to test to see if they do have the Ebola virus, then there is nothing stopping them, as government only has a say in the decisions one makes whether right or wrong.  Not many people have used the Toehold Switches, and for that reason, upon using it one may be targeted by outside organizations, looking to steal information or not.  I believe it would be best to completely avoid this product at all costs to make sure no more secure information is passed along, than what has already been perhaps leaked to 3rd party organizations by answering surveys, etc.

            Technology is changing at a pace at which the number of people that use a product and understand how it works and the after effects of it, is decreasing rapidly.  Does this mean only erudite individuals should use the product?  Guaranteed many of which would probably opt out due to a better comprehensive knowledge of the product.  What if free classes are offered by the government to influence potential consumers of the switches to gain an understanding of the consequences of them?  Perhaps, over time counter-intuitive thinking will take precedence, providing a clearer understanding to more individuals. 

Sources:

“Synthetic biology on ordinary paper, results off the page” WYSS Institute, October 23, 2014, http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/174/

Laurie Garrett, Biology’s Brave New World, 2013

 

 

What Engineers Really Need To Do

Blog #14

10-20-14

Maria Kozdroy

Disclaimer: this is to be used as a response to class discussion and reading.

What Engineers Really Need To Do

            Is technocratic innovation moving at a pace in which overconsumption will reach its pinnacle and fall, resulting in societal economic decreases, too?  In The Future of Technological Civilization by Edward Woodhouse, he states in chapter 11, “Many or most engineers would find it difficult to keep their jobs if they actively opposed overconsumption: indeed, they might well jeopardize their livelihoods if they merely refused to accelerate consumption.”  Overconsumption is a major issue today, especially for engineers.  As a result Woodhouse believes engineering curriculums should change to accommodate the increasing economic overconsumption of materials. I would like to critique Woodhouse and his suggestions on how engineers should learn wiser ways to be standard consumers through lesser variety and quantity.  I believe that engineers should continue designing and manufacturing a wide range of products, and that over time if supplies become limited, it is up to the engineers to generate a plan on other ways and materials to create it.

            Usually engineering is taught in such a narrow-minded technical way that the right brain is sometimes forgotten about entirely!  Langdon Winner, chair of the Science Technology and Society program at RPI, believes engineers need to have, “political savvy and the capacity for political imagination.”  On a broader scale, political imagination can mean finding creative ways to satisfy peoples’ needs; therefore, testing out new materials now for products that in many years from now, engineers will have studied a variety of other materials available at that time.  Overconsumption should become less of a problem if a variety of unfamiliar materials are used.

            In addition, there has been a great increase in variety of stores now-a-days due to both variety and quantity.  Are the physical stores causing any harm to society, without regard to the products being sold under influence of engineering overconsumption?  I think not.  Having more stores selling more products generates a better economy most likely, especially if these stores are local businesses.  Also, if one variety is not selling well, then engineers should come up with the solution to either eliminate the product entirely or produce less of it.

Over time, I would love to witness changes in engineers’ designs to use a new variety of materials.  This new age shall be one of much researching and much success.  Hopefully, manufacturing engineers will stop considering their professions as “landfill suppliers,” according to a source of Woodhouse.  If engineers continue accelerating with the use of many materials, then perhaps landfills will be reduced as by then a numerous amount of different materials are studied, including their potential consequences. 


Sources: Woodhouse, Edward; "The Future of Technological Civilization"; Chapter 11.

 

 

"Engineering Ethics and Poltical Imagination"

Maria Kozdroy

10-6-14

Blog #13

“Engineering Ethics and Political Imagination” by Langdon Winner, a Summary

            I will like to learn and study the skills to become a successful civil engineer while attending Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.  In order to successfully become a civil engineer, according to Langdon Winner, is to make sure to understand why one’s role as a civil engineer is important to society.  Engineers must understand how their work will make a difference in society and why it does make a difference.  A plan must be developed and fulfilled.  The point of engineering is to make a change and be able to recognize the fact why that change is significant.  A good understanding of how the type of engineering a student is studying is a great benefit and long-lasting advantage that the student should have.  Engineering has its birth hundreds of years ago and to be able to recall why it was created and to apply that knowledge in a technological changing world is vital today.

            Two other crucial skills in becoming a successful engineer in the technical and moral sense are “political savvy and the capacity for political imagination.”  Civil engineering was designed to help civilians by providing structures for an easier life.  There is a direct correlation between civil engineering and politics.  If one realizes the behaviors of the public and observes a problem in society, such as an overload of traffic, one must be able to step in with some sort of imagination to create a plan to resolve this problem.  Understanding the forces acting on a road and the mathematics behind building a bridge, is only one part of engineering.  Engineers need to think analytically and imaginatively in order to successfully build a structure that will physically work and help the people. 

            In addition, “courses on engineering ethics tend to focus on issues of right and wrong in personal conduct—extremely important matters indeed.”  Engineers are citizens and participants of society, too, and need to understand that they too are impacted by their structures and projects.  Engineering greatly deals with all in society, no matter what financial background one has.  The question an engineer should ask when developing a plan is, “how will this affect society and me, and why is this change beneficial for me and society?”

            I hope during my studies here at Rensselaer, I will develop a good understanding of engineering ethics and political imagination as explained by Langdon Winner.  Engineering, itself, is a crucial impetus in having a society function, especially with new innovation.  

Two More Interesting Political Proposals

Blog #12

10-5-14

Maria Kozdroy

Disclaimer: this is to be used as a response to a reading and class discussion.

Two More Interesting Political Proposals

            Democracy needs representation.  How can representation be fairly practiced in today’s society?  Woodhouse in chapter 10 proposes the idea of an internet-based democracy and groups of 10 people joining other groups and selecting individuals to represent at higher levels, to have a final representation of 500 individuals.  As he states these ideas are “impossible and perhaps even crazy,” and I believe the main reason for their infeasibility is due to the lack of participation and interest of citizens.  Even though someday Woodhouse’s ideas may become into effect, they will not last very long; however if tweaked upon to accommodate the disinterested and busy individuals, his ideas may prove successful. 

            Many people have jobs to fulfill daily, families to maintain, and many more duties, which I believe will make it difficult for individuals as such to get involved in voicing their opinions.  In fact in the 2012 Presidential Election, 53.6% of eligible voters filled out a ballot (GMU.edu).  This percentage seems quite low and can be for many reasons.  It directly correlates with why I think that Woodhouse’s ingenious ideas cannot be achieved in the late 21^st or early 22^nd century way because of the lack of concern.  However, there are many middle class activists willing to do anything to have a say in politics.  Those interested can get involved with the eight levels of arithmetic representation as Woodhouse has suggested.  There will not nearly be five billion participants worldwide in this project, yet if there is at least one billion participants would be quite the achievement.  This amount should prove adequate enough representation of individuals of different backgrounds, economic situations, and more.  Besides the physical coming together of people to have group discussion, Woodhouse believes an internet-based democracy can used, too, to help individuals have a say in government decisions. 

            In a recent infographic on Internet user data from Go-Gulf Web Technologies research, 30% of the world’s population is said to use the internet; however, how many people of that percentage will be willing to participate in listening to online based discussions and providing back responses.  According to the infographic, only 20% of people use the internet to read online articles (Go-Gulf.com).  If a half billion global users can participate in online representation would be great!  Yet the problem with this is what the demographics behind the people using the internet are.  Will individuals of the lower class of society be able to partake in this?  Or will only middle and upper class citizens be the only ones involved?

            Woodhouse’s suggestions of internet representation and system of five billion adults in eight levels are very clever, yet I do not think are possible to achieve to the level of extent of 100% participation.  The lack of representation of hard-working individuals of the lower economic class may still be unheard.  If Woodhouse’s ideas are implemented, high numbers of participants should not be highly expected, rather achieving more representation than what is apparent as of today in 2014 should be achieved. 

Sources:

Chapter 10 Woodhouse STS Text

United States Election Project <http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html>

Infographic on Internet Users <http://www.go-gulf.com/blog/online-time/>

The Difficult Decision of Change

Blog #11

Maria Kozdroy

10-4-14

The Difficult Decision of Change

            “Do you believe that rapid technoscientific change can be governed adequately by the political systems now existent?” asks Woodhouse at the end of Chapter 9.  I believe some form of political change is needed to keep up with technoscientific change, yet it will be very difficult to change due to legacy thinking.   Indeed elected officials should have a clear understanding of new innovations and their effects on the citizens, yet this would create more of a hassle for the government to fulfill training them successfully.  Not only will there need to be more government funded organizations for educating purposes, yet time will continue to pass and more innovations will become apparent, making it challenging to keep up with.  Technoscientific change is happening very quickly and forcing the democracy in the U.S. to be questioned by many, including Woodhouse himself.  I strongly believe legacy thinking is very dominant today and will continue to be, unless innovation comes to a complete halt, which seems highly unlikely.  As time passes new generations of children will be brought up by parents who have learned to share and agree with the same thoughts their parents passed on to them, greatly influencing their decisions.  Although technocratic thinking will continually expand over time, legacy thinking will always be existent, making it difficult to overrule. 

            One form of democracy Woodhouse suggests the U.S. government can possibly lean into becoming is a workplace democracy, one in which the workers select their bosses.  This form of democracy sounds very interesting yet legacy thinking will prevail.  The boss or CEO of a corporation will most likely always make more money than the workers below them, yet this way has been around for years.  Sooner or later, there may just be less workers than there are now due to machines that have been designed in such a way that no problems can evolve.  Yes, problems due tend to just come out of nowhere, however, the optimistic side shall be explored here that machines can do satisfactory work of humans entirely. I am not too fond of this idea of machines taking over but it just might happen.  If it does happen it will make Woodhouse’s idea of training government officials the basics of innovation entirely unneeded, if the innovations themselves are trusted.

            Many interesting ideas bestow from the machines overruling suggestion above.  Rapid technoscientific innovation is becoming difficult to keep up to date with, while on the other hand the U.S. democracy is in a standby deciding whether to proceed with the increasing change, and if so, how change should be handled.  Woodhouse has proposed many ideas throughout the text and has suggested how they do seem impossible at the time, and how over time can hopefully be accustomed to.  However, I believe legacy thinking will always have a say over all political and economic decisions made.  

Sources: Chapter 9 of Woodhouse STS Text

The Truth in Words and Not in Numbers

Blog 10

10-3-14

Maria Kozdroy

Response to Carl Hart’s Presentation, Counterintuitive Thinking: Letting Data—not opinion—

Dictate Belief

The Truth in Words and Not in Numbers

            “This guy is telling me to do drugs because they’re not bad,” was the thought of several students once Carl Hart, PhD in neuroscience, finished his lecture.  At no point during his lecture did I feel this way, and to this day I ask myself, “Why do people take drugs in the first place?”  For clarification, the term drugs in this paper will signify those that are not prescribed to the user, nor used for medical reasons, rather than “leisure” and personal reasons.  In Carl Hart’s presentation, the main point he is trying to instill upon the students and adults there, is to examine scientific, factual data before doing any drugs, as known as counterintuitive thinking.  This claim is only somewhat believable in my eyes; therefore, I disagree with him because some scientific data presented to the public tends to be misunderstood.  Personal experiences, rather, should be explored more because they share the real impact drugs have on people and are more relatable, making it much clearer the possible harms that may belie for a potential user.

            Drugs are highly dangerous to your mind and body, which is very obvious upon hearing stories or simply exploring the life changes of a drug addict.  I know absolutely that no drugs are ever really needed, yet many times are only used to make the user “feel better and different”.  Yes, there are many scholarly articles on research of many drugs, one of which in Hart’s presentation was what would drug addict participants of the survey spend money on if they were given $5.  Many said they would purchase drugs while some said they would keep the money; upon hearing that in the presentation I was confused as to what “keep the money” entails, perhaps purchasing drugs at a later time.  The data presented in this graph seems believable but with much doubt attached to it.  As the famous proverb goes, “you can’t always believe everything you hear.” 

            Going along with that proverb, sometimes eyewitness of actual effects of drugs on abusers is the best way of evidence of why drugs are harmful to you.  There is an over bombardment of surveys and data online of factual statistics, but this tends to be only a collection of numbers.  It is much simpler for a potential user to observe drug addicts and their behaviors, and then make their own decision whether they will like to pursue in taking the drug or not.  There is no need for science and more individuals to become involved in helping the possible user decide whether to take the drug or not, rather just the one and only individual should make the decision. 

Additionally, many guest speakers reach out to share their stories with others, such as Carl Hart has.  He even expressed how he was a drug dealer at one point in his life.  Instantly I questioned his presentation, yet I realized he came to speak to us with the main goal of teaching us to think counterintuitively more often.  Thinking about that, his whole presentation is bit of a contradiction to the main theme he was trying to pass on to the listeners. 

            Anyways, I strongly believe no matter what data there is and what results come from it, listening to stories and observation are much easier and relatable to understand.  Data charts and graphs are only numbers on a page and do not adequately display the actual detrimental effects of drugs.  When exploring whether drugs are “bad” or “good” for you, counterintuitive thinking should not be the way used in determining whether to use the drug or not.  Rather, counterintuitive thinking should be used when doing laboratory experiments in chemistry or mathematical proofs, and not drug decision making.

Unfair Ideas Rule Again

Maria Kozdroy

Blog #9

10-1-14

 

Disclaimer: This blog is to be used for class discussion and as a reading based response.

 

Unfair Ideas Rule Again

            How would you feel if government raised taxes by 5%?  I know I would not be too happy.  According to Woodhouse and his “merely illustrative” ideas of how to steer democracy to a more economically-based one, he clearly states that it is infeasible, and only possible if regulations continue to be imposed upon business profitability, including business executives’ behavior, and creative innovation.  I disagree with Woodhouse’s ideas of how to transform the government that many love and adapted to a more economical one, even though he outright states that his ideas are impossible.  In this paper, I will argue how Woodhouse’s present ideas are not favorable to the public, like myself, and other measures that can be taken to make them more welcoming to the public, yet still have the same level of impossibility to them.

            First of all, Woodhouse proposes that tax money should be used to subsidize the costs of government corporations performing research on changing the environment.  Does he really think this will work without increasing taxes?  In my home state of Connecticut, in July 2011, the general sales and use tax rate rose from 6.00% to 6.35% (ct.gov).  Recently I looked at a receipt of a purchase from Walmart in Troy, New York to notice I was taxed 8.00% on my purchase.  Connecticut may soon bump the tax rate up to that of New York’s.  According to Woodhouse tax money shall be distributed differently; however, this proposal would take away from the highly, already functioning economies.  Connecticut may raise taxes to equate to those of NY in a progressively increasing manner.  Yet if this tax raise does not happen, and the percentage of the tax money is distributed on the spot to environmental research, then many outbreaks will probably take place.  Woodhouse tries very hard to propose this idea, yet it would drastically change the economy rather than help it.  Society has been trying to find a good balance between taxes and the overall economy, and to mix it up entirely is not a pleasant idea.  Therefore, the government should focus less on environmental research and more on implementation directly.

            In addition to this radical idea to increase the productivity of government funded research, he mentions yet another “unfair” proposal: auction the right to innovate.  This proposal goes right alongside his previous idea because it will allow those working for government to be funded by government, having these individuals have a better chance to earn the right to innovate.  This does not make any sense—government will fund government, to receive the government funds again.  Yet, Woodhouse mentions how representation is needed.  What representation is apparent when those with government funded jobs have the say in everything?

I outright think Woodhouse’s proposals are very absurd.  Even though he knows they are both infeasible, he should still make them sound appealing to all individuals, especially all citizens who pay taxes.  In the article, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, the two authors of the article state, “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence,” (Page and Gilens).  This quote sums up why Woodhouse’s proposals are as ridiculous as they are.  It is already known the corruption between the economy and government, and Woodhouse seems to just contribute to it more.

 

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens by Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens

Woodhouse STS text, Chapter 8

http://www.ct.gov/drs/cwp/view.asp?A=1514&Q=480936