So this is progress: human hybrids in the lab
As reported in the Washington Post, scientists have recently
produced an ethically dubious work of art. What would these
creatures have been if allowed to come to term?
Scientists Produce Human Embryos of Mixed Gender
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 3, 2003; Page A10
Scientists in Chicago have for the first time made human embryos
that are part male and part female, raising ethics questions and
prompting calls for more oversight of the rapidly evolving field of
human embryo manipulation.
The experiments, described at a meeting of the European Society
of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Madrid, proposed to
answer basic questions about human embryo development and
to foster therapies for congenital diseases.
The hybrid embryos were destroyed after six days, when they
had grown to a few hundred cells organized into a microscopic,
mixed-gender ball, according to a written synopsis of the work
submitted by the research leader, Norbert Gleicher of the Center
for Human Reproduction.
Such work is legal in the United States if federal funds are not
used and if the male and female embryos that Gleicher merged
were freely donated for research, as Gleicher reported they were.
Nonetheless, his presentation yesterday drew criticism from some
fellow scientists at the meeting, according to a report from Madrid.
Reuters news service quoted one official of the society as saying,
"There are very good reasons why this type of research is generally
rejected by the international research community."
The experiments also angered U.S. opponents of human embryo
research and prompted some ethicists to refresh their long-standing
call for a national debate about the pros and cons of human embryo
studies -- and perhaps creation of a national ethics board to review
proposed experiments.
"I don't know if this work is 'right' or 'wrong,' but it should be reviewed
and discussed long and hard before it's done," said George Annas, a
professor of health law and bioethics at Boston University. "It's one
thing if the right-to-life community has problems with your work. But
if scientists hear you talk about your work for the first time and say
it's outrageous, that says something."
****
Thursday, July 10, 2003
New logic for Bush leaguers
As quoted in the Boston Globe, Ari Fleischer recently issued the following
challenge on the missing weapons of mass destruction:
Fleischer said that not only would the United States find chemical and
biological weapons in Iraq, but that ''I think the burden is on those
people who think he [Saddam Hussein] didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell
the world where they are.''
By the same token, try out the logic of the following proposition:
"I think the burden is on those people who think gnomes and fairies do not exist
to tell the world where they are.”
One can hear Limbaugh and O’Reilly yelling: “Yeah, come on, you liberal pinkos,
show us where they’ve gone or shut up!”
As quoted in the Boston Globe, Ari Fleischer recently issued the following
challenge on the missing weapons of mass destruction:
Fleischer said that not only would the United States find chemical and
biological weapons in Iraq, but that ''I think the burden is on those
people who think he [Saddam Hussein] didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell
the world where they are.''
By the same token, try out the logic of the following proposition:
"I think the burden is on those people who think gnomes and fairies do not exist
to tell the world where they are.”
One can hear Limbaugh and O’Reilly yelling: “Yeah, come on, you liberal pinkos,
show us where they’ve gone or shut up!”
Friday, June 27, 2003
Yet more on the conquest of nature: destruction of Amazon rainforest intensifies
Perhaps only on the BBC -- not Fox, CNN, much less Tweedledum and Tweedledummer --
does one find headline news that "New satellite information from Brazil has
revealed a sharp increase in the rate of destruction of the Amazonian rainforest."
"The information shows the speed of deforestation increased by 40% between
2001 and 2002 to reach its highest rate since 1995. Figures from the National
Institute for Space Research (INPE) show more than 25,000 square kilometres
of forest were cleared in a year - mainly for farming.
Environmentalists have expressed alarm at the development which represents
a sharp reversal of a trend in which destruction had been slowing.
'The rate of deforestation should be falling, instead the opposite is happening,'
said Mario Monzoni, a project co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth in Brazil."
Perhaps only on the BBC -- not Fox, CNN, much less Tweedledum and Tweedledummer --
does one find headline news that "New satellite information from Brazil has
revealed a sharp increase in the rate of destruction of the Amazonian rainforest."
"The information shows the speed of deforestation increased by 40% between
2001 and 2002 to reach its highest rate since 1995. Figures from the National
Institute for Space Research (INPE) show more than 25,000 square kilometres
of forest were cleared in a year - mainly for farming.
Environmentalists have expressed alarm at the development which represents
a sharp reversal of a trend in which destruction had been slowing.
'The rate of deforestation should be falling, instead the opposite is happening,'
said Mario Monzoni, a project co-ordinator for Friends of the Earth in Brazil."
Thursday, June 26, 2003
The conquest of nature (again): Superweeds foil GM crop plans
One widely heralded feature of genetically modified crops is that they
can be designed to be herbicide resistant. Farmers can spray poisons
with impunity, killing the "weeds," while the desired crops survive.
Thus, Monsanto's "Roundup ready" GM plants survive a good spraying of
Roundup, the company's pungent weed killer. Alas, recent research
indicates that the weeds are still on job, evolving in ways that make them
"Roundup ready" too!
A story from The Independent reports the findings of a researcher in the U.S.
"The paper, by Professor Bob Hartzler of the Department of Agronomy at
Iowa State University, reveals that in the past seven years, up to five weed
species have been found with resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, best
known by the Monsanto trade name Roundup. The resistance has come
about not through gene transfer from GM herbicide-tolerant crops, as some
have feared, but through natural evolution.
Glyphosate is a "broad spectrum" herbicide, meaning that, originally, it killed
everything, including crops. GM crops were developed to be tolerant of the
herbicide, so it could be applied throughout the growing season.
Two GM crops proposed for commercial growth in Britain, fodder beet and sugar
beet, are glyphosate-tolerant. But weeds have been found in Australia, Chile,
Malaysia and California and other areas of the US, that glyphosate cannot kill.
.... Pete Riley, Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner, said: "Companies like Monsanto
have spun GM crops and their weedkillers as having less impact on the
environment, but the fact of resistant weeds undoubtedly means more weedkillers,
and means the impact on the environment will be greater.
'These discoveries remove a central plank from the whole argument for GM crops.'"
One widely heralded feature of genetically modified crops is that they
can be designed to be herbicide resistant. Farmers can spray poisons
with impunity, killing the "weeds," while the desired crops survive.
Thus, Monsanto's "Roundup ready" GM plants survive a good spraying of
Roundup, the company's pungent weed killer. Alas, recent research
indicates that the weeds are still on job, evolving in ways that make them
"Roundup ready" too!
A story from The Independent reports the findings of a researcher in the U.S.
"The paper, by Professor Bob Hartzler of the Department of Agronomy at
Iowa State University, reveals that in the past seven years, up to five weed
species have been found with resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, best
known by the Monsanto trade name Roundup. The resistance has come
about not through gene transfer from GM herbicide-tolerant crops, as some
have feared, but through natural evolution.
Glyphosate is a "broad spectrum" herbicide, meaning that, originally, it killed
everything, including crops. GM crops were developed to be tolerant of the
herbicide, so it could be applied throughout the growing season.
Two GM crops proposed for commercial growth in Britain, fodder beet and sugar
beet, are glyphosate-tolerant. But weeds have been found in Australia, Chile,
Malaysia and California and other areas of the US, that glyphosate cannot kill.
.... Pete Riley, Friends of the Earth's GM campaigner, said: "Companies like Monsanto
have spun GM crops and their weedkillers as having less impact on the
environment, but the fact of resistant weeds undoubtedly means more weedkillers,
and means the impact on the environment will be greater.
'These discoveries remove a central plank from the whole argument for GM crops.'"
Saturday, June 21, 2003
Orwellian Newspeak on climate change
A report on the state of the environment that the Environmental Protection Agency
will release soon shows evidence of the Orwellian Newspeak that characterizes so
many Bush administration pronouncements. According to the New York Times, the
original E.P.A. draft of the report's section on global climate began with the words,
"Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment
change."
That seems admirably clear and sensible.
After Bush's people did their linguistic massage, however, the section now reads,
"The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components
make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop
useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global
environment in the future."
If one of my students gave me a paper with such babble, I'd recommend an emergency
visit to the campus Writing Center.
Evidently, the EPA report deletes any mention of the likelihood that pollution from
automobiles and industrial production contributes to climate change. Perhaps its
time to demand an immediate ceasefire in the Bushies undeclared war
on the English language.
A report on the state of the environment that the Environmental Protection Agency
will release soon shows evidence of the Orwellian Newspeak that characterizes so
many Bush administration pronouncements. According to the New York Times, the
original E.P.A. draft of the report's section on global climate began with the words,
"Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment
change."
That seems admirably clear and sensible.
After Bush's people did their linguistic massage, however, the section now reads,
"The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components
make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop
useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global
environment in the future."
If one of my students gave me a paper with such babble, I'd recommend an emergency
visit to the campus Writing Center.
Evidently, the EPA report deletes any mention of the likelihood that pollution from
automobiles and industrial production contributes to climate change. Perhaps its
time to demand an immediate ceasefire in the Bushies undeclared war
on the English language.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
San Francisco affirms the precautionary principle
Here is some very good news. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently
adopted "the precautionary principle" as the basis for all of its environmental
management policies. While the principle exists in many forms, the basic idea
is that society takes precautionary action on matters involving risky technology before
there is scientific certainty of cause and effect.
The principle has been affirmed in the Rio Declaration (1992) and the World Charter
for Nature (1982). The step taken by the S.F. supervisors is important because it
seeks to realize the idea within the practical, every day policies employed by a major U.S.
city.
The current issue of Rachel's Environment and Health News has the
full story.
"The long political road to the June 17 vote began when San Francisco mayor
Willie Brown hired Jared Blumenfeld to head the city's Department of the Environment.[1]
Under Blumenfeld's guidance, San Francisco government spent more than 2 years
studying and debating how to integrate the precautionary principle into city- and county-wide policy.
It was Blumenfeld who corraled the political resources to put precaution on the agenda in San Francisco.
But the dream of a city guided by the precautionary principle originated with a breast cancer
activist -- Joan Reinhardt Reiss of the Breast Cancer Fund (San Francisco). At least three years
ago, she phoned Carolyn Raffensperger of the Science and Environmental Health
Network (Ames, Iowa), the leading proponent of precautionary thinking in the U.S. Reiss also
contacted attorney Sanford Lewis (Waverly, Mass.), who drafted preliminary language for an
ordinance. Seeds were planted."
Here is part of the Board of Supervisors declaration.
"Sec. 101. THE SAN FRANCISCO PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
The following shall constitute the City and County of San Francisco's Precautionary Principle policy.
All officers, boards, commissions, and departments of the City and County shall implement the
Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County's affairs:
The Precautionary Principle requires a thorough exploration and a careful analysis of a wide range
of alternatives. Using the best available science, the Precautionary Principle requires the selection
of the alternative that presents the least potential threat to human health and the City's natural
systems. Public participation and an open and transparent decision making process are critical
to finding and selecting alternatives.
Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific
certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone
measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Any
gaps in scientific data uncovered by the examination of alternatives will provide a guidepost for
future research, but will not prevent protective action being taken by the City. As new scientific
data become available, the City will review its decisions and make adjustments when warranted."
Here is some very good news. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently
adopted "the precautionary principle" as the basis for all of its environmental
management policies. While the principle exists in many forms, the basic idea
is that society takes precautionary action on matters involving risky technology before
there is scientific certainty of cause and effect.
The principle has been affirmed in the Rio Declaration (1992) and the World Charter
for Nature (1982). The step taken by the S.F. supervisors is important because it
seeks to realize the idea within the practical, every day policies employed by a major U.S.
city.
The current issue of Rachel's Environment and Health News has the
full story.
"The long political road to the June 17 vote began when San Francisco mayor
Willie Brown hired Jared Blumenfeld to head the city's Department of the Environment.[1]
Under Blumenfeld's guidance, San Francisco government spent more than 2 years
studying and debating how to integrate the precautionary principle into city- and county-wide policy.
It was Blumenfeld who corraled the political resources to put precaution on the agenda in San Francisco.
But the dream of a city guided by the precautionary principle originated with a breast cancer
activist -- Joan Reinhardt Reiss of the Breast Cancer Fund (San Francisco). At least three years
ago, she phoned Carolyn Raffensperger of the Science and Environmental Health
Network (Ames, Iowa), the leading proponent of precautionary thinking in the U.S. Reiss also
contacted attorney Sanford Lewis (Waverly, Mass.), who drafted preliminary language for an
ordinance. Seeds were planted."
Here is part of the Board of Supervisors declaration.
"Sec. 101. THE SAN FRANCISCO PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
The following shall constitute the City and County of San Francisco's Precautionary Principle policy.
All officers, boards, commissions, and departments of the City and County shall implement the
Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County's affairs:
The Precautionary Principle requires a thorough exploration and a careful analysis of a wide range
of alternatives. Using the best available science, the Precautionary Principle requires the selection
of the alternative that presents the least potential threat to human health and the City's natural
systems. Public participation and an open and transparent decision making process are critical
to finding and selecting alternatives.
Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific
certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone
measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Any
gaps in scientific data uncovered by the examination of alternatives will provide a guidepost for
future research, but will not prevent protective action being taken by the City. As new scientific
data become available, the City will review its decisions and make adjustments when warranted."
Saturday, June 14, 2003
Bush's delusions of empire
Eric Hobsbawm writes of the Bush administration's vision of empire
in light of earlier episodes of imperialism.
"The British empire had a British, not a universal, purpose, although
naturally its propagandists also found more altruistic motives. So the
abolition of the slave trade was used to justify British naval power,
as human rights today are often used to justify US military power. On
the other hand the US, like revolutionary France and revolutionary
Russia, is a great power based on a universalist revolution - and therefore
on the belief that the rest of the world should follow its example, or
even that it should help liberate the rest of the world. Few things are
more dangerous than empires pursuing their own interest in the belief
that they are doing humanity a favour.
The cold war turned the US into the hegemon of the western world.
However, this was as the head of an alliance. In a way, Europe then
recognised the logic of a US world empire, whereas today the US government
is reacting to the fact that the US empire and its goals are no longer
genuinely accepted. In fact the present US policy is more unpopular than
the policy of any other US government has ever been, and probably than
that of any other great power has ever been."
Hobsbawm's piece, orginally published in Le Monde, can be found in
The Guardian version here.
Eric Hobsbawm writes of the Bush administration's vision of empire
in light of earlier episodes of imperialism.
"The British empire had a British, not a universal, purpose, although
naturally its propagandists also found more altruistic motives. So the
abolition of the slave trade was used to justify British naval power,
as human rights today are often used to justify US military power. On
the other hand the US, like revolutionary France and revolutionary
Russia, is a great power based on a universalist revolution - and therefore
on the belief that the rest of the world should follow its example, or
even that it should help liberate the rest of the world. Few things are
more dangerous than empires pursuing their own interest in the belief
that they are doing humanity a favour.
The cold war turned the US into the hegemon of the western world.
However, this was as the head of an alliance. In a way, Europe then
recognised the logic of a US world empire, whereas today the US government
is reacting to the fact that the US empire and its goals are no longer
genuinely accepted. In fact the present US policy is more unpopular than
the policy of any other US government has ever been, and probably than
that of any other great power has ever been."
Hobsbawm's piece, orginally published in Le Monde, can be found in
The Guardian version here.
Monday, June 09, 2003
The Open Society and its new enemies
George Soros, financial wizard and philanthropist, has written a fierce
but thoughtful critique of Bush administration policies and those who
fashion them.
“A dominant faction within the Bush administration believes that
international relations are relations of power. Because we are unquestionably
the most powerful, they claim, we have earned the right to impose our will
on the rest of the world.
This position is enshrined in the Bush doctrine that was first enunciated
in the president's speech at West Point in June 2002 and then incorporated
in the National Security Strategy last September.
The Bush doctrine is built on two pillars: First, the United States will do everything
in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy, and second, the
United States arrogates the right to preemptive action. Taken together, these two
pillars support two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States,
which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations, and the sovereignty
of all other states, which is subject to the Bush doctrine. This is reminiscent of
George Orwell's "Animal Farm": All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
Soros follows the thinking of philosopher Karl R. Popper in advocating the ideals of
an “open society.” Now he sees the open society threatened by the nation that was
once its best hope.
Soros' essay originally appeared in The American Prospect.
George Soros, financial wizard and philanthropist, has written a fierce
but thoughtful critique of Bush administration policies and those who
fashion them.
“A dominant faction within the Bush administration believes that
international relations are relations of power. Because we are unquestionably
the most powerful, they claim, we have earned the right to impose our will
on the rest of the world.
This position is enshrined in the Bush doctrine that was first enunciated
in the president's speech at West Point in June 2002 and then incorporated
in the National Security Strategy last September.
The Bush doctrine is built on two pillars: First, the United States will do everything
in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy, and second, the
United States arrogates the right to preemptive action. Taken together, these two
pillars support two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States,
which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations, and the sovereignty
of all other states, which is subject to the Bush doctrine. This is reminiscent of
George Orwell's "Animal Farm": All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
Soros follows the thinking of philosopher Karl R. Popper in advocating the ideals of
an “open society.” Now he sees the open society threatened by the nation that was
once its best hope.
Soros' essay originally appeared in The American Prospect.
Saturday, June 07, 2003
Big Brother -- candid photo
Close-up from hearings of the House Judiciary Committee
on the Patriot Act and other measures enacted after the 9/11 attacks.
Homeland security: Are we there yet?
Close-up from hearings of the House Judiciary Committee
on the Patriot Act and other measures enacted after the 9/11 attacks.
Homeland security: Are we there yet?
Sunday, June 01, 2003
Tax "cuts" and the redistribution of wealth
Over the past half century the trend has been to transfer wealth from
lower and middle socio-economic layer to those in the upper strata.
Here are a couple of stories about the redistributive effects of the Bush
tax "cuts," one from Newsday on property tax hikes in New York,
another from The Seattle Times on the child tax credit that excludes
poor families.
"Tax Hikes All Over Map"
"Republicans forced to defend tax cut that skips some poor families"
For general information on how the U.S. increasingly resembles
a banana republic with vast disparities of wealth, the data is here
at www.inequality.org
The interesting question, of course, is how the great mass of people
who are hurt by such policies remain passive as their standard of
living declines and the quality of life in their communities hits the skids.
Is the corporate/state propaganda machine that strong? Yes, for now.
Is the drug of war and flag waving patriotism enough to deflect people
from consulting their self-interest? Evidently.
Will any political leaders step forward who are brave enough to call
attention to this vast, ongoing swindle? We’ll see.
Over the past half century the trend has been to transfer wealth from
lower and middle socio-economic layer to those in the upper strata.
Here are a couple of stories about the redistributive effects of the Bush
tax "cuts," one from Newsday on property tax hikes in New York,
another from The Seattle Times on the child tax credit that excludes
poor families.
"Tax Hikes All Over Map"
"Republicans forced to defend tax cut that skips some poor families"
For general information on how the U.S. increasingly resembles
a banana republic with vast disparities of wealth, the data is here
at www.inequality.org
The interesting question, of course, is how the great mass of people
who are hurt by such policies remain passive as their standard of
living declines and the quality of life in their communities hits the skids.
Is the corporate/state propaganda machine that strong? Yes, for now.
Is the drug of war and flag waving patriotism enough to deflect people
from consulting their self-interest? Evidently.
Will any political leaders step forward who are brave enough to call
attention to this vast, ongoing swindle? We’ll see.
Sunday, May 25, 2003
Vocabulary for the day: synonyms for "puppet"
Chalabi, Ahmed: “The Americans are even split over whom to back:
the Pentagon is still committed to its pet politician, the formerly exiled
businessman Ahmed Chalabi, who has no particular constituency in Iraq.
The State Department, which has always distrusted Chalabi, backs a
moderate Sunni Muslim leader, Adnan Pachachi.”
(from the Independent, May 25, 2003)
Quisling, Vidkun (1887-1945), Norwegian politician, whose collaboration with
the Nazis...during World War II (1939-1945) made his name synonymous
with traitor. In the 1930s he found the National Union, a Fascist party
that received subsidies from Germany. After the Nazi invasion of Norway
in 1940 the National Union was declared the only legal party. The Germans
installed Quisling as prime minister in 1942 and throughout the war he
collaborated with the Nazis. Quisling was tried and executed after the war.
(from Encarta)
Chalabi, Ahmed: “The Americans are even split over whom to back:
the Pentagon is still committed to its pet politician, the formerly exiled
businessman Ahmed Chalabi, who has no particular constituency in Iraq.
The State Department, which has always distrusted Chalabi, backs a
moderate Sunni Muslim leader, Adnan Pachachi.”
(from the Independent, May 25, 2003)
Quisling, Vidkun (1887-1945), Norwegian politician, whose collaboration with
the Nazis...during World War II (1939-1945) made his name synonymous
with traitor. In the 1930s he found the National Union, a Fascist party
that received subsidies from Germany. After the Nazi invasion of Norway
in 1940 the National Union was declared the only legal party. The Germans
installed Quisling as prime minister in 1942 and throughout the war he
collaborated with the Nazis. Quisling was tried and executed after the war.
(from Encarta)
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
The shame of Rockford College
At the commencement exercises at Rockford College recently,
journalist Chris Hedges was booed off the stage for speaking frankly
about war and empire in our time. Rockford, a small liberal arts college
eighty miles northwest of Chicago, evidently has not taught its students the
liberal art of listening to opposing points of view. Ironically, the belligerent
“patriotism” exhibited by a large minority in the audience served to
illustrate the lament and warning that formed the basis of Hedges’ address.
“We have forfeited the good will, the empathy the world felt for us after 9-11.
We have folded in on ourselves, we have severely weakened the delicate
international coalitions and alliances that are vital in maintaining and promoting
peace and we are part now of a dubious troika in the war against terror with
Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon, two leaders who do not shrink in Palestine or
Chechnya from carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless acts of violence.
We have become the company we keep.
The censure and perhaps the rage of much of the world, certainly one-fifth of the
world's population which is Muslim, most of whom I'll remind you are not Arab,
is upon us. Look today at the 14 people killed last night in several explosions in
Casablanca. And this rage in a world where almost 50 percent of the planet
struggles on less than two dollars a day will see us targeted. Terrorism will become
a way of life, and when we are attacked we will, like our allies Putin and Sharon, l
lash out with greater fury. The circle of violence is a death spiral; no one escapes.
We are spinning at a speed that we may not be able to hold. As we revel in our military
prowess -- the sophistication of our military hardware and technology, for this is what
most of the press coverage consisted of in Iraq -- we lose sight of the fact that just
because we have the capacity to wage war it does not give us the right to wage war.
This capacity has doomed empires in the past.
‘Modern western civilization may perish,’ the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr warned,
‘because it falsely worshiped technology as a final good.’”
Here is the complete text of Hedges' speech, including evidence of audience disruption.
Perhaps the Rockford mob would have been happier with the display at last weekend’s
graduation ceremony at my university, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – a flyover by
a B-2 Stealth Bomber!
At the commencement exercises at Rockford College recently,
journalist Chris Hedges was booed off the stage for speaking frankly
about war and empire in our time. Rockford, a small liberal arts college
eighty miles northwest of Chicago, evidently has not taught its students the
liberal art of listening to opposing points of view. Ironically, the belligerent
“patriotism” exhibited by a large minority in the audience served to
illustrate the lament and warning that formed the basis of Hedges’ address.
“We have forfeited the good will, the empathy the world felt for us after 9-11.
We have folded in on ourselves, we have severely weakened the delicate
international coalitions and alliances that are vital in maintaining and promoting
peace and we are part now of a dubious troika in the war against terror with
Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon, two leaders who do not shrink in Palestine or
Chechnya from carrying out acts of gratuitous and senseless acts of violence.
We have become the company we keep.
The censure and perhaps the rage of much of the world, certainly one-fifth of the
world's population which is Muslim, most of whom I'll remind you are not Arab,
is upon us. Look today at the 14 people killed last night in several explosions in
Casablanca. And this rage in a world where almost 50 percent of the planet
struggles on less than two dollars a day will see us targeted. Terrorism will become
a way of life, and when we are attacked we will, like our allies Putin and Sharon, l
lash out with greater fury. The circle of violence is a death spiral; no one escapes.
We are spinning at a speed that we may not be able to hold. As we revel in our military
prowess -- the sophistication of our military hardware and technology, for this is what
most of the press coverage consisted of in Iraq -- we lose sight of the fact that just
because we have the capacity to wage war it does not give us the right to wage war.
This capacity has doomed empires in the past.
‘Modern western civilization may perish,’ the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr warned,
‘because it falsely worshiped technology as a final good.’”
Here is the complete text of Hedges' speech, including evidence of audience disruption.
Perhaps the Rockford mob would have been happier with the display at last weekend’s
graduation ceremony at my university, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – a flyover by
a B-2 Stealth Bomber!
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Another victory in the invasion and "conquest of nature"
As I was growing up in California, textbooks and audio visual materials were
full of references to a wonderful development unfolding -- "man's conquest of
nature." Signs of progress in this regard included "draining the swamps,"
"clearing the forests," "damming the rivers," and "forcing plants and animals
to serve human needs." Here's an excerpt from a news story about a recent
victory in this grand tradition, the rapid destruction of the world's most valued
fish species.
Ocean species depleted by fishing
Worldwide numbers down 90 percent since the 1950s
Rick Weiss, Washington Post
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Industrial fishing has decimated every one of the world's biggest and most
economically important species of fish, according to a detailed global analysis
that challenges current fisheries protection policies.
Fully 90 percent of each of the world's large ocean species, including cod,
halibut, tuna, swordfish and marlin, have disappeared from the world's oceans
in recent decades, according to the Canadian analysis -- the first to use data
going back to the beginnings of large-scale fishing in the 1950s.
The new research found that fishing has become so efficient that it typically
takes just 15 years to remove 80 percent or more of any species unlucky
enough to become the focus of a fleet's attention. Some populations have
disappeared within just a few years.
"You'd think the ocean is so large, these things would have someplace to
hide," said Ransom Myers, who with fellow marine ecologist Boris Worm
of Dalhousie University in Halifax conducted the new study. "But it doesn't
matter where you look, the story is the same. We are really too good at
killing these things."
As I was growing up in California, textbooks and audio visual materials were
full of references to a wonderful development unfolding -- "man's conquest of
nature." Signs of progress in this regard included "draining the swamps,"
"clearing the forests," "damming the rivers," and "forcing plants and animals
to serve human needs." Here's an excerpt from a news story about a recent
victory in this grand tradition, the rapid destruction of the world's most valued
fish species.
Ocean species depleted by fishing
Worldwide numbers down 90 percent since the 1950s
Rick Weiss, Washington Post
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Industrial fishing has decimated every one of the world's biggest and most
economically important species of fish, according to a detailed global analysis
that challenges current fisheries protection policies.
Fully 90 percent of each of the world's large ocean species, including cod,
halibut, tuna, swordfish and marlin, have disappeared from the world's oceans
in recent decades, according to the Canadian analysis -- the first to use data
going back to the beginnings of large-scale fishing in the 1950s.
The new research found that fishing has become so efficient that it typically
takes just 15 years to remove 80 percent or more of any species unlucky
enough to become the focus of a fleet's attention. Some populations have
disappeared within just a few years.
"You'd think the ocean is so large, these things would have someplace to
hide," said Ransom Myers, who with fellow marine ecologist Boris Worm
of Dalhousie University in Halifax conducted the new study. "But it doesn't
matter where you look, the story is the same. We are really too good at
killing these things."
Friday, May 09, 2003
Citizens panels and the nanotechnology bill in Congress
As part of my testimony to Congress on April 9, I suggested that among the activities
employed to assess the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechology, the nation
should now include citizens panels. Evidently, the idea was well received. A couple
of versions of a proposal of this kind were debated on the floor of the House of Representatives
on Wednesday May 7 and one of them, the Republican version, was adopted in the
language of H.R. 766, the bill that passed. The Senate takes up similar legislation soon.
A press release on the nanotechnology bill can be found on the Committee on Science
web page.
Here is the relevant section of the legislation as it now stands.
[Section 3 (b)] (5) ensure that societal and ethical concerns, including environmental concerns and the potential implications of human performance
enhancement and the possible development of nonhuman intelligence, will be addressed as the technology is developed by--
(A) establishing a research program to identify societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology, and ensuring that the results of such research
are widely disseminated;
(B) insofar as possible, integrating research on societal and ethical concerns with nanotechnology research and development, and ensuring that
advances in nanotechnology bring about improvements in quality of life for all Americans;
(C) requiring that interdisciplinary research centers under paragraph (1)(C) include activities that address societal and ethical concerns; and
*******(D) ensure through the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office established under section 6 and through the agencies and departments that
participate in the Program, that public input and outreach to the public are both integrated into nanotechnology research and development and
research on societal and ethical concerns by the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens panels,
consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate; . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My specific suggestions to the committe can be found in the testimony
on my web page.
As part of my testimony to Congress on April 9, I suggested that among the activities
employed to assess the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechology, the nation
should now include citizens panels. Evidently, the idea was well received. A couple
of versions of a proposal of this kind were debated on the floor of the House of Representatives
on Wednesday May 7 and one of them, the Republican version, was adopted in the
language of H.R. 766, the bill that passed. The Senate takes up similar legislation soon.
A press release on the nanotechnology bill can be found on the Committee on Science
web page.
Here is the relevant section of the legislation as it now stands.
[Section 3 (b)] (5) ensure that societal and ethical concerns, including environmental concerns and the potential implications of human performance
enhancement and the possible development of nonhuman intelligence, will be addressed as the technology is developed by--
(A) establishing a research program to identify societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology, and ensuring that the results of such research
are widely disseminated;
(B) insofar as possible, integrating research on societal and ethical concerns with nanotechnology research and development, and ensuring that
advances in nanotechnology bring about improvements in quality of life for all Americans;
(C) requiring that interdisciplinary research centers under paragraph (1)(C) include activities that address societal and ethical concerns; and
*******(D) ensure through the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office established under section 6 and through the agencies and departments that
participate in the Program, that public input and outreach to the public are both integrated into nanotechnology research and development and
research on societal and ethical concerns by the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens panels,
consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate; . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My specific suggestions to the committe can be found in the testimony
on my web page.
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
Inverted totalitarianism -- Sheldon Wolin's argument
Sheldon Wolin, political theorist who is now emeritus professor of politics
at Princeton, writes about the phenomenon of "Invertered Totalitarianism"
in the May 19 issue of The Nation.
"No doubt these remarks will be dismissed by some as alarmist,
but I want to go further and name the emergent political system
"inverted totalitarianism." By inverted I mean that while the current
system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward
unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods
and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany,
before the Nazis took power, the "streets" were dominated by
totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of
democracy was confined to the government. In the United States,
however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive--while the
real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government."
Sheldon Wolin, political theorist who is now emeritus professor of politics
at Princeton, writes about the phenomenon of "Invertered Totalitarianism"
in the May 19 issue of The Nation.
"No doubt these remarks will be dismissed by some as alarmist,
but I want to go further and name the emergent political system
"inverted totalitarianism." By inverted I mean that while the current
system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward
unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods
and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany,
before the Nazis took power, the "streets" were dominated by
totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of
democracy was confined to the government. In the United States,
however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive--while the
real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government."
None dare call it fascism
It’s interesting that the topic of fascism and totalitarianism should arise in
discussions about politics in the U.S.A. at present. But what is "fascism"? It's
helpful to notice that one-dimensional definitions are of little help in characterizing
political systems. There are numerous relevant features, each of which can be
arrayed along a spectrum from low to high.
What are some of the social and political elements of states commonly called
“fascist”? Below are some familiar features. Try rating the condition of
contemporary America on a scale from 0 (low) to 10 (high) for each of the
following.
intense nationalism and myth of the great nation
militarism and push for military build-up
blind support for a "great leader"
government by one political party
concentration of power behind an inflexible political ideology
suppression of civil liberties
suppression of labor
rigged elections
close links between corporate and state power
propaganda using the "big lie" techniques
uniform political messages in all mass media
thorough surveillance of citizens and dossier keeping
expansion of police power
hatred of peoples and religions declared "alien" or threatening
detention camps for suspect populations
imperialistic foreign policy
****************************************************************************
Now add your score on these items and divide by 16. What's your
average score?
How's America doing?
It’s interesting that the topic of fascism and totalitarianism should arise in
discussions about politics in the U.S.A. at present. But what is "fascism"? It's
helpful to notice that one-dimensional definitions are of little help in characterizing
political systems. There are numerous relevant features, each of which can be
arrayed along a spectrum from low to high.
What are some of the social and political elements of states commonly called
“fascist”? Below are some familiar features. Try rating the condition of
contemporary America on a scale from 0 (low) to 10 (high) for each of the
following.
intense nationalism and myth of the great nation
militarism and push for military build-up
blind support for a "great leader"
government by one political party
concentration of power behind an inflexible political ideology
suppression of civil liberties
suppression of labor
rigged elections
close links between corporate and state power
propaganda using the "big lie" techniques
uniform political messages in all mass media
thorough surveillance of citizens and dossier keeping
expansion of police power
hatred of peoples and religions declared "alien" or threatening
detention camps for suspect populations
imperialistic foreign policy
****************************************************************************
Now add your score on these items and divide by 16. What's your
average score?
How's America doing?
Friday, May 02, 2003
Use the difficulty
This wonderful story and piece of advice came to me from writer, thinker and
dear friend, Tim Stroshane.
"There's a motto I got from a producer in repertory theater. I was in
rehearsals, waiting behind a door to come out while a couple on-stage were
having a row. They started throwing furniture and a chair lodged in front of
the door. My cue came and I could only get halfway in. I stopped and said,
"I can't get in. The chair's in my way." And the producer said, "Use the
difficulty." I said, "what do you mean?" And he said, "Well, if it's a
drama, pick up the chair and smash it. If it's a comedy, fall over it." This
idea stuck in my mind, and I taught it to my children -- that any situation
in life that's a negative, there is something positive you can do with it.
"Use the difficulty" -- it's like a motto in our family."
--actor Michael Caine
This wonderful story and piece of advice came to me from writer, thinker and
dear friend, Tim Stroshane.
"There's a motto I got from a producer in repertory theater. I was in
rehearsals, waiting behind a door to come out while a couple on-stage were
having a row. They started throwing furniture and a chair lodged in front of
the door. My cue came and I could only get halfway in. I stopped and said,
"I can't get in. The chair's in my way." And the producer said, "Use the
difficulty." I said, "what do you mean?" And he said, "Well, if it's a
drama, pick up the chair and smash it. If it's a comedy, fall over it." This
idea stuck in my mind, and I taught it to my children -- that any situation
in life that's a negative, there is something positive you can do with it.
"Use the difficulty" -- it's like a motto in our family."
--actor Michael Caine
Saturday, April 26, 2003
The boys and their toys -- gender and war in Iraq
Although there has been much comment about the jingoistic nationalism, triumphalism and lack of balance in American news coverage in the war in Iraq, little notice has been given to a feature that oozed from just about every story -- the heavily macho undercurrent in much of the journalism. The following excerpt from the Daily Telegraph offers an interesting commentary on this dimension of the shabby reporting characteristic of today's brain dead news troops.
Kate Adie attacks 'macho' Gulf war coverage
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 19/04/2003)
Kate Adie, the former BBC chief news correspondent,
has criticised the "macho" coverage of the Gulf war,
which she said ignored rape, rarely sought out a
woman's viewpoint and patronised female soldiers.
Miss Adie, who made her reputation as a war
correspondent in the last Gulf war, said the conflict
was a determinedly "Boy's Own area", with tabloid
newspapers in particular retaining an 18th-century
view of women.
"Time and again I have been conscious of a
wholesale concentration on the technical, tactical
aspects of warfare, the anorak syndrome, small
boys' fascination with toys," she told a Royal Society
of Arts debate in Manchester.
"It means that those things which conventionally
interest the male audience are concentrated on, and
women disappear from a landscape in which tanks
are rolling and missiles shooting."
Miss Adie said women who were not soldiers were
frequently depicted as miserable, helpless victims. A
typical camera shot was of elderly women in
shadows sitting forlorn next to ruined houses.
"Women fade into the background of the actual
action but they might have opinions that they wish
to add. But there is noticeable embarrassment if
women intrude into what is conventionally a male
playing field still."
Although there has been much comment about the jingoistic nationalism, triumphalism and lack of balance in American news coverage in the war in Iraq, little notice has been given to a feature that oozed from just about every story -- the heavily macho undercurrent in much of the journalism. The following excerpt from the Daily Telegraph offers an interesting commentary on this dimension of the shabby reporting characteristic of today's brain dead news troops.
Kate Adie attacks 'macho' Gulf war coverage
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
(Filed: 19/04/2003)
Kate Adie, the former BBC chief news correspondent,
has criticised the "macho" coverage of the Gulf war,
which she said ignored rape, rarely sought out a
woman's viewpoint and patronised female soldiers.
Miss Adie, who made her reputation as a war
correspondent in the last Gulf war, said the conflict
was a determinedly "Boy's Own area", with tabloid
newspapers in particular retaining an 18th-century
view of women.
"Time and again I have been conscious of a
wholesale concentration on the technical, tactical
aspects of warfare, the anorak syndrome, small
boys' fascination with toys," she told a Royal Society
of Arts debate in Manchester.
"It means that those things which conventionally
interest the male audience are concentrated on, and
women disappear from a landscape in which tanks
are rolling and missiles shooting."
Miss Adie said women who were not soldiers were
frequently depicted as miserable, helpless victims. A
typical camera shot was of elderly women in
shadows sitting forlorn next to ruined houses.
"Women fade into the background of the actual
action but they might have opinions that they wish
to add. But there is noticeable embarrassment if
women intrude into what is conventionally a male
playing field still."
Friday, April 25, 2003
Questions on the origins of the SARS virus
The excerpt below comes from an essay published recently by the Institute of Science in Society.
SARS and Genetic Engineering?
The complete sequence of the SARS virus is now available, confirming it is a new coronavirus unrelated to any previously
known. Has genetic engineering contributed to creating it? Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins call for an investigation.
The World Health Organisation, which played the key role in coordinating the research, formally announced on 16 April that a
new pathogen, a member of the coronavirus family never before seen in humans, is the cause of Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS).
"The pace of SARS research has been astounding," said Dr. David Heymann, Executive Director, WHO Communicable Diseases
programmes. "Because of an extraordinary collaboration among laboratories from countries around the world, we now know with
certainty what causes SARS."
But there is no sign that the epidemic has run its course. By 21 April, at least 3 800 have been infected in 25 countries with
more than 200 dead. The worst hit are China, with 1 814 infected and 79 dead, Hong Kong, 1 380 infected and 94 dead, and
Toronto, 306 infected, 14 dead.
A cluster of SARS patients in Hong Kong with unusual symptoms has raised fears that the virus may be mutating, making the
disease more severe. According to microbiologist Yuen Kwok-yung, at the University of Hong Kong, the 300 patients from a
SARS hot spot, the Amoy Gardens apartment complex, were more seriously ill than other patients: three times as likely to suffer
early diarrhoea, twice as likely to need intensive care and less likely to respond to a cocktail of anti-viral drugs and steroids.
Even the medical staff infected by the Amoy Gardens patients were more seriously ill.
John Tam, a microbiologist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong studying the gene sequences from these and other patients
suspects a mutation leading to an altered tissue preference of the virus, so it can attack the gut as well as the lungs.
The molecular phylogenies published 10 April in the New England Journal of Medicine were based on small fragments from the
polymerase gene (ORF 1b) (see Box), and have placed the SARS virus in a separate group somewhere between groups 2 and 3.
However, antibodies to the SARS virus cross react with FIPV, HuCV229E and TGEV, all in Group 1. Furthermore, the SARS virus
can grow in Vero green monkey kidney cells, which no other coronavirus can, with the exception of porcine epidemic diarrhea
virus, also in Group 1.
Coronaviruses
Coronaviruses are spherical, enveloped viruses infecting numerous species of mammals and birds. They contain a set of
four essential structural proteins: the membrane (M) protein, the small envelope (E) protein, the spike (S) glycoprotein,
and the nucleocapside (N) protein. The N protein wraps the RNA genome into a ‘nucleocapsid’ that’s surrounded by a
lipid membrane containing the S, M, and E proteins. The M and E proteins are essential and sufficient for viral envelope
formation. The M protein also interacts with the N protein, presumably to assemble the nucleocapsid into the virus.
Trimers (3 subunits) of the S protein form the characteristic spikes that protrude from the virus membrane. The spikes
are responsible for attaching to specific host cell receptors and for causing infected cells to fuse together.
The coronavirus genome is a an infectious, positive-stranded RNA (a strand that’s directly translated into protein) of
about 30 kilobases, and is the largest of all known RNA viral genomes. The beginning two-thirds of the genome contain
two open reading frames ORFs, 1a and 1b, coding for two polyproteins that are cleaved into proteins that enable the
virus to replicate and to transcribe. Downstream of ORF 1b are a number of genes that encode the structural and
several non-structural proteins.
Known coronaviruses are placed in three groups based on similarities in their genomes. Group 1 contains the porcine
epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), canine coronavirus (CCV), feline
infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) and human coronovirus 229E (HuCV229E); Group 2 contains the avian infectious
bronchitis virus (AIBV) and turkey coronavirus; while Group 3 contains the murine hepatitis virus (MHV) bovine
coronavirus (BCV), human coronavirus OC43, rat sialodacryoadenitis virus, and porcine hemagglutinating
encephomyelitis virus.
Where does the SARS virus come from? The obvious answer is recombination, which can readily occur when two strains of
viruses infect a cell at the same time. But neither of the two progenitor strains is known, says Luis Enjuanes from the
Universidad Autonoma in Madrid, Spain, one of the world leaders in the genetic manipulation of coronaviruses.
Although parts of the sequence appeared most similar to the bovine coronavirus (BCV) and the avian infectious bronchitis virus
(AIBV) (see "Bio-Terrorism & SARS", this series), the rest of the genome appear quite different.
Could genetic engineering have contributed inadvertently to creating the SARS virus? This point was not even considered by
the expert coronavirologists called in to help handle the crisis, now being feted and woed by pharmaceutical companies eager to
develop vaccines.
A research team in Genomics Sciences Centre in Vancouver, Canada, has sequenced the entire virus and posted it online 12
April. The sequence information should now be used to investigate the possibility that genetic engineering may have contributed
to creating the SARS virus.
If the SARS virus has arisen through recombined from a number of different viruses, then different parts of it would show
divergent phylogenetic relationships. These relationships could be obscured somewhat by the random errors that an extensively
manipulated sequence would accumulate, as the enzymes used in genetic manipulation, such as reverse transcriptase and other
polymerases are well-known to introduce random errors, but the telltale signs would still be a mosaic of conflicting phylogenetic
relationships, from which its history of recombination may be reconstructed. This could then be compared with the kinds of
genetic manipulations that have been carried out in the different laboratories around the world, preferably with the
recombinants held in the laboratories.
The excerpt below comes from an essay published recently by the Institute of Science in Society.
SARS and Genetic Engineering?
The complete sequence of the SARS virus is now available, confirming it is a new coronavirus unrelated to any previously
known. Has genetic engineering contributed to creating it? Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins call for an investigation.
The World Health Organisation, which played the key role in coordinating the research, formally announced on 16 April that a
new pathogen, a member of the coronavirus family never before seen in humans, is the cause of Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome (SARS).
"The pace of SARS research has been astounding," said Dr. David Heymann, Executive Director, WHO Communicable Diseases
programmes. "Because of an extraordinary collaboration among laboratories from countries around the world, we now know with
certainty what causes SARS."
But there is no sign that the epidemic has run its course. By 21 April, at least 3 800 have been infected in 25 countries with
more than 200 dead. The worst hit are China, with 1 814 infected and 79 dead, Hong Kong, 1 380 infected and 94 dead, and
Toronto, 306 infected, 14 dead.
A cluster of SARS patients in Hong Kong with unusual symptoms has raised fears that the virus may be mutating, making the
disease more severe. According to microbiologist Yuen Kwok-yung, at the University of Hong Kong, the 300 patients from a
SARS hot spot, the Amoy Gardens apartment complex, were more seriously ill than other patients: three times as likely to suffer
early diarrhoea, twice as likely to need intensive care and less likely to respond to a cocktail of anti-viral drugs and steroids.
Even the medical staff infected by the Amoy Gardens patients were more seriously ill.
John Tam, a microbiologist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong studying the gene sequences from these and other patients
suspects a mutation leading to an altered tissue preference of the virus, so it can attack the gut as well as the lungs.
The molecular phylogenies published 10 April in the New England Journal of Medicine were based on small fragments from the
polymerase gene (ORF 1b) (see Box), and have placed the SARS virus in a separate group somewhere between groups 2 and 3.
However, antibodies to the SARS virus cross react with FIPV, HuCV229E and TGEV, all in Group 1. Furthermore, the SARS virus
can grow in Vero green monkey kidney cells, which no other coronavirus can, with the exception of porcine epidemic diarrhea
virus, also in Group 1.
Coronaviruses
Coronaviruses are spherical, enveloped viruses infecting numerous species of mammals and birds. They contain a set of
four essential structural proteins: the membrane (M) protein, the small envelope (E) protein, the spike (S) glycoprotein,
and the nucleocapside (N) protein. The N protein wraps the RNA genome into a ‘nucleocapsid’ that’s surrounded by a
lipid membrane containing the S, M, and E proteins. The M and E proteins are essential and sufficient for viral envelope
formation. The M protein also interacts with the N protein, presumably to assemble the nucleocapsid into the virus.
Trimers (3 subunits) of the S protein form the characteristic spikes that protrude from the virus membrane. The spikes
are responsible for attaching to specific host cell receptors and for causing infected cells to fuse together.
The coronavirus genome is a an infectious, positive-stranded RNA (a strand that’s directly translated into protein) of
about 30 kilobases, and is the largest of all known RNA viral genomes. The beginning two-thirds of the genome contain
two open reading frames ORFs, 1a and 1b, coding for two polyproteins that are cleaved into proteins that enable the
virus to replicate and to transcribe. Downstream of ORF 1b are a number of genes that encode the structural and
several non-structural proteins.
Known coronaviruses are placed in three groups based on similarities in their genomes. Group 1 contains the porcine
epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV), porcine transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV), canine coronavirus (CCV), feline
infectious peritonitis virus (FIPV) and human coronovirus 229E (HuCV229E); Group 2 contains the avian infectious
bronchitis virus (AIBV) and turkey coronavirus; while Group 3 contains the murine hepatitis virus (MHV) bovine
coronavirus (BCV), human coronavirus OC43, rat sialodacryoadenitis virus, and porcine hemagglutinating
encephomyelitis virus.
Where does the SARS virus come from? The obvious answer is recombination, which can readily occur when two strains of
viruses infect a cell at the same time. But neither of the two progenitor strains is known, says Luis Enjuanes from the
Universidad Autonoma in Madrid, Spain, one of the world leaders in the genetic manipulation of coronaviruses.
Although parts of the sequence appeared most similar to the bovine coronavirus (BCV) and the avian infectious bronchitis virus
(AIBV) (see "Bio-Terrorism & SARS", this series), the rest of the genome appear quite different.
Could genetic engineering have contributed inadvertently to creating the SARS virus? This point was not even considered by
the expert coronavirologists called in to help handle the crisis, now being feted and woed by pharmaceutical companies eager to
develop vaccines.
A research team in Genomics Sciences Centre in Vancouver, Canada, has sequenced the entire virus and posted it online 12
April. The sequence information should now be used to investigate the possibility that genetic engineering may have contributed
to creating the SARS virus.
If the SARS virus has arisen through recombined from a number of different viruses, then different parts of it would show
divergent phylogenetic relationships. These relationships could be obscured somewhat by the random errors that an extensively
manipulated sequence would accumulate, as the enzymes used in genetic manipulation, such as reverse transcriptase and other
polymerases are well-known to introduce random errors, but the telltale signs would still be a mosaic of conflicting phylogenetic
relationships, from which its history of recombination may be reconstructed. This could then be compared with the kinds of
genetic manipulations that have been carried out in the different laboratories around the world, preferably with the
recombinants held in the laboratories.
Thursday, April 17, 2003
A dark week in our common humanity
Here's a follow-up from Gray Brechin on cultural desecration in Iraq.
To all scholars, librarians, archivists, curators, humanists:
Deeply embedded in an article entitled "Iraqui elite pledge free nation," the San Francisco Chronicle (April 16) allotted two brief paragraphs to the burning of Baghdad's National Library and Koranic library. The article quotes Abdel Karim Answar Obeid, whom it identifies as "an administrator at the religious ministry, where thousands of Korans - many hand-written and some thousands of years old - were lost," as saying that books which survived the 1252 sacking of Baghdad did not make it through the early days of the U.S. occupation of 2003: "If you talk to any intellectual Muslims in the world," says Obeid "they are cyring right now over this." More than Muslims, of course, are crying at the scale and significance of destruction permitted within the past week by soldiers who, according to reporter Robert Fisk, stood aside while the libraries burned. But the editorial board of the Chronicle apparently considered the ruin of those undefended libraries just days following the looting of the National Museum too unimportant to merit an article or photograph of its own, and I suspect that the same is true elsewhere. If this could happen in Baghdad, then the pillaging of Mesopotamia's archaeological sites is probably proceeding as I write - just as international archaeologists warned that it would prior to the outbreak of war.
Like the social, economic, and long-term environmental costs of this war, the cultural loss is buried by prevailing triumphalism in U.S. mass media, as well as by Donald
Rumsfeld's assurance that the near total trashing of Iraq's cultural resources was an unfortunate accident and a regrettable "untidiness." And like the recent oil spill off the Spanish coast, I expect that even what has been reported will fade quickly from public consciousness as we in the U.S. move on to the next new thing. For those of us who use scholarly reseources, the loss is forever. I would like to call on museums, archives, and libraries everywhere to hang black banners or bunting of mourning for a
month from their buildings to remind the public of what has been forever and needlessly destroyed and to express the grief that we feel not only for those weeping Muslims but for our species. This is the very least that we can do to commemorate this exceptionally dark week in our common humanity.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gray Brechin
Research Associate Department of Geography
U.C. Berkeley
Here's a follow-up from Gray Brechin on cultural desecration in Iraq.
To all scholars, librarians, archivists, curators, humanists:
Deeply embedded in an article entitled "Iraqui elite pledge free nation," the San Francisco Chronicle (April 16) allotted two brief paragraphs to the burning of Baghdad's National Library and Koranic library. The article quotes Abdel Karim Answar Obeid, whom it identifies as "an administrator at the religious ministry, where thousands of Korans - many hand-written and some thousands of years old - were lost," as saying that books which survived the 1252 sacking of Baghdad did not make it through the early days of the U.S. occupation of 2003: "If you talk to any intellectual Muslims in the world," says Obeid "they are cyring right now over this." More than Muslims, of course, are crying at the scale and significance of destruction permitted within the past week by soldiers who, according to reporter Robert Fisk, stood aside while the libraries burned. But the editorial board of the Chronicle apparently considered the ruin of those undefended libraries just days following the looting of the National Museum too unimportant to merit an article or photograph of its own, and I suspect that the same is true elsewhere. If this could happen in Baghdad, then the pillaging of Mesopotamia's archaeological sites is probably proceeding as I write - just as international archaeologists warned that it would prior to the outbreak of war.
Like the social, economic, and long-term environmental costs of this war, the cultural loss is buried by prevailing triumphalism in U.S. mass media, as well as by Donald
Rumsfeld's assurance that the near total trashing of Iraq's cultural resources was an unfortunate accident and a regrettable "untidiness." And like the recent oil spill off the Spanish coast, I expect that even what has been reported will fade quickly from public consciousness as we in the U.S. move on to the next new thing. For those of us who use scholarly reseources, the loss is forever. I would like to call on museums, archives, and libraries everywhere to hang black banners or bunting of mourning for a
month from their buildings to remind the public of what has been forever and needlessly destroyed and to express the grief that we feel not only for those weeping Muslims but for our species. This is the very least that we can do to commemorate this exceptionally dark week in our common humanity.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gray Brechin
Research Associate Department of Geography
U.C. Berkeley
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
What caused the cultural desecration in Iraq?
Gray Brechin, environmental historian and author of Imperial San Francisco sent the following letter to the San Francisco Chronicle. It raises some disturbing questions about the recent sack of Bagdad.
*******************************
Editor:
Because of the unconscionable callousness or outright malice of the Bush
yahoos, what we knew about Mesopotamian civilization a few days ago is
about all that we will or can ever know. Joan Ryan asks precisely the
question that the civilized world wants answered: "Why no tank at the
doors?" Prior to the attack on Iraq, the Chronicle reported that leading
archaeologists warned the U.S. of the probability of looting of museums and
of the many world-class sites throughout the country. If the National
Museum can be looted and Baghdad's libraries and archives burned while U.S.
soldiers stand aside, then those unique sites are being pillaged right now.
In the last week, we have seen acts of cultural desecration equivalent to
the burning of the Alexandrian Library and the sack of Constantinople by
the Fourth Crusade. Like Ryan and much of the world, I find it hard to
believe that this outrage was simply an unfortunate accident. We are all
now complicit in one of history's epochal acts of barbarism.
Sincerely,
Gray Brechin
Gray Brechin, environmental historian and author of Imperial San Francisco sent the following letter to the San Francisco Chronicle. It raises some disturbing questions about the recent sack of Bagdad.
*******************************
Editor:
Because of the unconscionable callousness or outright malice of the Bush
yahoos, what we knew about Mesopotamian civilization a few days ago is
about all that we will or can ever know. Joan Ryan asks precisely the
question that the civilized world wants answered: "Why no tank at the
doors?" Prior to the attack on Iraq, the Chronicle reported that leading
archaeologists warned the U.S. of the probability of looting of museums and
of the many world-class sites throughout the country. If the National
Museum can be looted and Baghdad's libraries and archives burned while U.S.
soldiers stand aside, then those unique sites are being pillaged right now.
In the last week, we have seen acts of cultural desecration equivalent to
the burning of the Alexandrian Library and the sack of Constantinople by
the Fourth Crusade. Like Ryan and much of the world, I find it hard to
believe that this outrage was simply an unfortunate accident. We are all
now complicit in one of history's epochal acts of barbarism.
Sincerely,
Gray Brechin
Friday, April 11, 2003
Nanotech first, ethics later?
Preparing for my testimony before the House Committee on Science, I heard this story from a friend.
It certain rings true. All names have been deleted.
"I was on the phone with the guy who does business development for [a nanotech Institute]
within the....[well-known professional society],
seeking support for a study I'm trying to get funded, to probe the psyches
of young engineers and see how ethically prepared they feel for the
challenges of their working lives. I asked whether there was any kind of
professional code of ethics for the nanotech field. He said, 'Oh no, we're
still trying to develop the technologies. Ethics comes later. But we'd be
really interested in anything you figure out.' Doesn't that sound like part
of the problem?"
Best regards,
(name withheld)
Preparing for my testimony before the House Committee on Science, I heard this story from a friend.
It certain rings true. All names have been deleted.
"I was on the phone with the guy who does business development for [a nanotech Institute]
within the....[well-known professional society],
seeking support for a study I'm trying to get funded, to probe the psyches
of young engineers and see how ethically prepared they feel for the
challenges of their working lives. I asked whether there was any kind of
professional code of ethics for the nanotech field. He said, 'Oh no, we're
still trying to develop the technologies. Ethics comes later. But we'd be
really interested in anything you figure out.' Doesn't that sound like part
of the problem?"
Best regards,
(name withheld)
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Yesterday I testified before the House Committee on Science. Most members of the committee seemed genuinely interested in finding ways for the emerging field of nanotechnology to be adequately evaluated for its possible social and environmental consequences. Interactions between witnesses and committee members were usually cordial. I was the only witness to question the basic the rationale for supporting nanotechnology as compared to other national needs. The main suggestion I made for legislation was to include citizens panels as one method for technology assessment.
My web page has links to the testimony and an archived webcast of the hearing.
http://www.rpi.edu/~winner
Here's a story from USA Today on the hearings.
USA Today, April 10, 2003
Experts: Research needed on nanotechnology consequences
By Susan Roth, Gannett News Service,
WASHINGTON — Congress should require research into the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology as the new field of science develops, experts told a House panel Wednesday.
The social and physical scientists said the march of nanotechnology — the manipulation of individual atoms — cannot be stalled because their peers around the world see it as the next major scientific revolution.
But they warned of dangers that should be considered as Congress weighs a measure that would create a $2.1 billion national research initiative on nanotechnology. The bill by House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-New Hartford, and Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., would allocate the spending over three years for research and development programs.
The Bush administration has proposed spending $849 million in fiscal 2004 on a National Nanotechnology Initiative involving 10 federal agencies. The Boehlert/Honda bill would spend $645 million in fiscal 2004 but more in the next two years. A similar bill has also been introduced in the Senate.
"The one thing we can be sure of is that nanotechnology will be neither the unalloyed boon predicted by technophiles nor the unmitigated disaster portrayed by technophobes," Boehlert said at the opening of Wednesday's Science Committee hearing.
The measure, which the committee expects to approve at the end of the month, would allow some funding for research on societal and ethical consequences of the science and require that research to be integrated with the physical science research.
Langdon Winner, a political science professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., urged the panel to consider setting aside some money specifically for social
and ethical research and to ensure that the public is included early in the debate.
Winner and other speakers pointed to the current problems of the biotechnology industry with genetically modified organisms. "The European Union is now refusing to buy genetically modified foods because of a failure to have an open discussion at the start," Winner said. "Late in the process, it does very little good to tell them they're being irrational."
Ray Kurzweil, a pioneer in artificial intelligence and head of a software development firm near Boston, agreed. Kurzweil also pointed to the fact that while biotechnology still holds such promise for humanity, it can also empower bioterrorists.
Nanotechnology raises "a new type of safety concern," Kurzweil said, because the technology is so small that it can "get in our tissues, our bloodstream, our brains.... Most importantly, we need far greater resources for the defense of this technology," to protect it from those who would use it to do harm.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-04-10-nanotech_x.htm
My web page has links to the testimony and an archived webcast of the hearing.
http://www.rpi.edu/~winner
Here's a story from USA Today on the hearings.
USA Today, April 10, 2003
Experts: Research needed on nanotechnology consequences
By Susan Roth, Gannett News Service,
WASHINGTON — Congress should require research into the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology as the new field of science develops, experts told a House panel Wednesday.
The social and physical scientists said the march of nanotechnology — the manipulation of individual atoms — cannot be stalled because their peers around the world see it as the next major scientific revolution.
But they warned of dangers that should be considered as Congress weighs a measure that would create a $2.1 billion national research initiative on nanotechnology. The bill by House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-New Hartford, and Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., would allocate the spending over three years for research and development programs.
The Bush administration has proposed spending $849 million in fiscal 2004 on a National Nanotechnology Initiative involving 10 federal agencies. The Boehlert/Honda bill would spend $645 million in fiscal 2004 but more in the next two years. A similar bill has also been introduced in the Senate.
"The one thing we can be sure of is that nanotechnology will be neither the unalloyed boon predicted by technophiles nor the unmitigated disaster portrayed by technophobes," Boehlert said at the opening of Wednesday's Science Committee hearing.
The measure, which the committee expects to approve at the end of the month, would allow some funding for research on societal and ethical consequences of the science and require that research to be integrated with the physical science research.
Langdon Winner, a political science professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., urged the panel to consider setting aside some money specifically for social
and ethical research and to ensure that the public is included early in the debate.
Winner and other speakers pointed to the current problems of the biotechnology industry with genetically modified organisms. "The European Union is now refusing to buy genetically modified foods because of a failure to have an open discussion at the start," Winner said. "Late in the process, it does very little good to tell them they're being irrational."
Ray Kurzweil, a pioneer in artificial intelligence and head of a software development firm near Boston, agreed. Kurzweil also pointed to the fact that while biotechnology still holds such promise for humanity, it can also empower bioterrorists.
Nanotechnology raises "a new type of safety concern," Kurzweil said, because the technology is so small that it can "get in our tissues, our bloodstream, our brains.... Most importantly, we need far greater resources for the defense of this technology," to protect it from those who would use it to do harm.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-04-10-nanotech_x.htm
Saturday, April 05, 2003
THE VIEW FROM CANADA
A Canadian friend and colleague, a person well known in academic and political life in Ottawa, recently quit an organization to which we both belong. He said he would no longer be able come to meetings because he refused being continually hasseled at the USA/Canada border. At a gathering last fall he sighed, "I'm deeply puzzled. You Americans seem completely addicted to entertainment."
Today I read Margaret Atwood's, "What Happened To America? A Letter, A Lament," that comments on America's strange, sad slide into the abyss.
"You're gutting the Constitution. Already your home can be entered without your knowledge or permission, you can be snatched away and incarcerated without cause, your mail can be spied on, your private records searched. Why isn't this a recipe for widespread business theft, political intimidation, and fraud? I know you've been told all this is for your own safety and protection, but think about it for a minute. Anyway, when did you get so scared? You didn't used to be easily frightened."
For Atwood's entire letter see:
http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7543
A Canadian friend and colleague, a person well known in academic and political life in Ottawa, recently quit an organization to which we both belong. He said he would no longer be able come to meetings because he refused being continually hasseled at the USA/Canada border. At a gathering last fall he sighed, "I'm deeply puzzled. You Americans seem completely addicted to entertainment."
Today I read Margaret Atwood's, "What Happened To America? A Letter, A Lament," that comments on America's strange, sad slide into the abyss.
"You're gutting the Constitution. Already your home can be entered without your knowledge or permission, you can be snatched away and incarcerated without cause, your mail can be spied on, your private records searched. Why isn't this a recipe for widespread business theft, political intimidation, and fraud? I know you've been told all this is for your own safety and protection, but think about it for a minute. Anyway, when did you get so scared? You didn't used to be easily frightened."
For Atwood's entire letter see:
http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7543
FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS
As I watch news reports from the war in Iraq, I’m reminded of the computer games popular during the past decade and a half. For many U.S. troops, the house-to-house combat in which they are engaged was foreshadowed in “Half Life,” “Wolfenstein,” “Soldier of Fortune,” and countless other best selling first person shooter games from their childhood years. Kick down the door; draw one’s gun, get ready to waste whatever leaps out from the shadows; on to the next room, next house -- Boom! Boom! Boom! BOOM! (We still play these games for hours on end.)
Does this mortal combat appear to today’s soldiers as something long promised, an apotheosis, the fulfillment of the violence routinely celebrated in our culture? Or is there enough humanity in them to ponder the nature of this carnage and its meaning? Eventually, of course, many of them will be troubled by such reflections. But for now they behave like the digital robots they embraced as children.
As I watch news reports from the war in Iraq, I’m reminded of the computer games popular during the past decade and a half. For many U.S. troops, the house-to-house combat in which they are engaged was foreshadowed in “Half Life,” “Wolfenstein,” “Soldier of Fortune,” and countless other best selling first person shooter games from their childhood years. Kick down the door; draw one’s gun, get ready to waste whatever leaps out from the shadows; on to the next room, next house -- Boom! Boom! Boom! BOOM! (We still play these games for hours on end.)
Does this mortal combat appear to today’s soldiers as something long promised, an apotheosis, the fulfillment of the violence routinely celebrated in our culture? Or is there enough humanity in them to ponder the nature of this carnage and its meaning? Eventually, of course, many of them will be troubled by such reflections. But for now they behave like the digital robots they embraced as children.
Thursday, April 03, 2003
I’ve been invited to testify at a Congressional hearing on the societal implications of nanotechnology.
The Charter for the hearing can be found at:
http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/Charter.htm
Some of the details, excerpted from the hearing Charter, are given below.
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
1. PURPOSE
On Wednesday April 9, 2003, the House Science Committee will hold a hearing to examine the societal implications of nanotechnology and to consider H.R. 766, The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, in light of those implications.
2. WITNESSES
Mr. Ray Kurzweil is Founder, Chairman and CEO of Kurzweil Technologies, Inc., a software development firm. A pioneer in artificial intelligence, he is the author of The Age of Intelligent Machines (1990) and The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999). He received the 1999 National Medal of Technology and in 2002 was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, for his 1976 invention of the Kurzweil Reading Machine, the first device to transform print into computer-spoken words, enabling blind and visually impaired people to read printed materials. Since 1973, he has founded nine companies.
Dr. Vicki Colvin is the Executive Director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology and Associate Professor of Chemistry at Rice University. Research underway at the center focuses on nanomaterials’ behavior in the environment and the body and considers risk assessment and safety factors.
Dr. Langdon Winner is Professor of Political Science in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York where he serves as co-director of the newly founded Center for Cultural Design. He is a political theorist who focuses on social and political issues that surround modern technological change.
Ms. Christine Peterson is cofounder and President of Foresight Institute. She focuses on making nanotechnology understandable, and on clarifying the difference between near-term commercial advances and the “Next Industrial Revolution” arriving in the next few decades. Foresight Institute has developed guidelines that include assumptions, principles, and some specific recommendations intended to provide a basis for responsible development of molecular nanotechnology.
3. OVERARCHING QUESTIONS
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
1. What are the concerns about existing and potential applications of nanotechnology?
2. How is it possible to anticipate the consequences of technology development?
3. How can research and debate on societal and ethical concerns be integrated into the research and development process, especially into projects funded by the federal government?
BRIEF OVERVIEW
a. Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating and characterizing matter at the atomic and molecular level. It is one of the most exciting fields of science today, involving a multitude of science and engineering disciplines, with widespread applications in electronics, advanced materials, medicine, and information technology. The promise of nanotechnology to accelerate technological change has prompted some to advise caution about pursuing rapid innovation without some understanding of where it might lead us.
…….
Questions for Dr. Langdon Winner: What factors influence the successful adoption of new technologies into society? What questions should be asked during the research and development phase to help minimize the potentially disruptive impact of transformational technology developments?
• What are the current concerns about existing and potential applications of nanotechnology science and engineering?
• How can research on the societal and ethical concerns relating to nanotechnology developments be integrated into the research and development process?
The Charter for the hearing can be found at:
http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/Charter.htm
Some of the details, excerpted from the hearing Charter, are given below.
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 Noon
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
1. PURPOSE
On Wednesday April 9, 2003, the House Science Committee will hold a hearing to examine the societal implications of nanotechnology and to consider H.R. 766, The Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, in light of those implications.
2. WITNESSES
Mr. Ray Kurzweil is Founder, Chairman and CEO of Kurzweil Technologies, Inc., a software development firm. A pioneer in artificial intelligence, he is the author of The Age of Intelligent Machines (1990) and The Age of Spiritual Machines (1999). He received the 1999 National Medal of Technology and in 2002 was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, for his 1976 invention of the Kurzweil Reading Machine, the first device to transform print into computer-spoken words, enabling blind and visually impaired people to read printed materials. Since 1973, he has founded nine companies.
Dr. Vicki Colvin is the Executive Director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology and Associate Professor of Chemistry at Rice University. Research underway at the center focuses on nanomaterials’ behavior in the environment and the body and considers risk assessment and safety factors.
Dr. Langdon Winner is Professor of Political Science in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York where he serves as co-director of the newly founded Center for Cultural Design. He is a political theorist who focuses on social and political issues that surround modern technological change.
Ms. Christine Peterson is cofounder and President of Foresight Institute. She focuses on making nanotechnology understandable, and on clarifying the difference between near-term commercial advances and the “Next Industrial Revolution” arriving in the next few decades. Foresight Institute has developed guidelines that include assumptions, principles, and some specific recommendations intended to provide a basis for responsible development of molecular nanotechnology.
3. OVERARCHING QUESTIONS
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
1. What are the concerns about existing and potential applications of nanotechnology?
2. How is it possible to anticipate the consequences of technology development?
3. How can research and debate on societal and ethical concerns be integrated into the research and development process, especially into projects funded by the federal government?
BRIEF OVERVIEW
a. Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating and characterizing matter at the atomic and molecular level. It is one of the most exciting fields of science today, involving a multitude of science and engineering disciplines, with widespread applications in electronics, advanced materials, medicine, and information technology. The promise of nanotechnology to accelerate technological change has prompted some to advise caution about pursuing rapid innovation without some understanding of where it might lead us.
…….
Questions for Dr. Langdon Winner: What factors influence the successful adoption of new technologies into society? What questions should be asked during the research and development phase to help minimize the potentially disruptive impact of transformational technology developments?
• What are the current concerns about existing and potential applications of nanotechnology science and engineering?
• How can research on the societal and ethical concerns relating to nanotechnology developments be integrated into the research and development process?
********************************
THE INSIGHTFUL GOOSE
Once there was a flock of geese. They were kept in a wire cage, by a farmer. One day, one of the geese looked up and saw there was no top to the cage. Excitedly, he told the other geese:
“Look, look: There is no top. We may leave here. We may become free.”
Few listened, and none would turn his head to the sky.
So, one day, he simply spread his wings and flew away – alone.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
THE INSIGHTFUL GOOSE
Once there was a flock of geese. They were kept in a wire cage, by a farmer. One day, one of the geese looked up and saw there was no top to the cage. Excitedly, he told the other geese:
“Look, look: There is no top. We may leave here. We may become free.”
Few listened, and none would turn his head to the sky.
So, one day, he simply spread his wings and flew away – alone.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
Welcome to Technopolis.
Technopolis, a weblog by Langdon Winner, offers occasional reflections
on historical, philosophical, and contemporary questions that involve
the perplexing intersection of human ends and means. Not a
minute-to-minute news blog, it includes stories, poems, personal
observations, and scholarly references posted every now and then, but at
least every two weeks.
Technopolis, a weblog by Langdon Winner, offers occasional reflections
on historical, philosophical, and contemporary questions that involve
the perplexing intersection of human ends and means. Not a
minute-to-minute news blog, it includes stories, poems, personal
observations, and scholarly references posted every now and then, but at
least every two weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)