Rhetoric 174 Paper Response

Guelda,

Pharmacogenomics is indeed a serious area of study in the future. Many scientific and ethical implications are innate in this matter. One big area is the idea of accessibility and who will have the access. Have you thought about presenting a thought experiment through science fiction to illustrate where pharmacogenomics might lead in the future? It is always good to inform readers of the status quo, but at the same time predicting the direction of pharmacogenomics might another area you might want to tackle.

(In regards to CDC, they never replied back to my email.)

Hi Guelda,

On 12-4-02, I posted the same topic regarding pharmacogenomics and have already discussed the topics you intend to write about in my own paper.

If you intend to discuss pharmacogenomics, we could get together with Professor Doyle and ensure that our papers will not overlap topics.

:(

My post can be found on this page:

http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/BTsZ4Gcn8Nb/p102.95

I am investigfating the implications of pharmacogenomics- the use of genome information in prescribing medications, and of course, medications tailored to one's particular genome. I feel that this brings up all sorts of issues such as the simple query- What is health? Won't everyone have something 'wrong' with them, in this model? What sorts of things will come to be classified as problewms when this comes into practice? I will also investigate some of the stuff we have been talking about in class such as who owns the genomic information and what sorts of practices could even begin to prevent the spreading of such info. I am looking mostly at websites (which are really scary and non-sequitorial for anyone interested) like HireHealth.com, but any sites or journals that anyone could suggest would be totally welcomed. Thanks a lot.

To the person who is investigating the use of ritalin and prozac for curing 'deficiencies' such as ADD and depression-very interesting and cool topic choice. At least with ADD I think looking at the ways in which presons with ADD in some cases and in some arenas of life function better than so-called normal individuals would be interesting. You know there are some studies out there about ADD being directly correlated with creativity and intelligence, and these maintain that it is just that socially these individuals do not fit in well and so their accomplishments are often marginalized as they are. Also I am sure you will talk about the manner of diagnosis and when something becomes a pathology instead of an idiosyncrecy. A book that might be helpful for you in this area is 'Shadow Syndromes.' I don't remember the author but it is a very interesting book about the predilections of people whom the author believes have very slight ADD, anxiety disorder, etc. and their predilections and how they make their lives work. It even has a chapter on 'shadow' autism, that is extremely cool but may not be relevant to your topic. But some of these studies about improved abilities of the 'disabled' in certain areas are cited in there. But anyway- Good luck with this topic, maybe I can read your paper!

 The sex act, in human society, has a plethora of meanings and implications, and, directly or indirectly, generate social structures and norms.

Grace,
I think that this is an intresting problem in itself, actually. Does our ingaging in sex-acts generate (however directly or indirectly) structural norms, or is it the other way around? -I know thats kind of circular, but it makes me think about how Lilith was trying to make sense of things in DAWN. I think that the way the humans eventually began to define themselves atound this mystical act of sex, which they also didnt understand, but sought to understand as something that defined them as human. My first thought right after the attempted rape scene in the book, where one of the guys was like "we HAVE to pair up" was "Wow, what if you were gay? Then what?" and this made me think about how the guys targeted Lilith's guy as a "faggot" and eventually killed him. So given these scenes in the book, was the social structure designed by the act of sex or vice versa? As I read further into your comment I came up with the answer: " The dilemma is so much more than what it means to be a human, its about how we shape our own views without knowing it. if we learned anything from Dawn, its that sexuality changes, it is a dynamic experience."

So I think youre totally set, and do have a focus in your project.

The problem with my research topic is that it can easily be a broad topic. It already seems so overwhleming for me. The sex act, in human society, has a plethora of meanings and implications, and, directly or indirectly, generate social structures and norms.

Which is why Andrea's topic struck me - the issue of transgender sexuality, or other forms of sexuality, creates such a dilemma in our society. The rhetoric used in describing non-heterosexualities shapes they way we ultimately think about what is "right" and "wrong". The dilemma is so much more than what it means to be a human, its about how we shape our own views without knowing it.
if we learned anything from Dawn, its that sexuality changes, it is a dynamic experience.

In reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I became fascinated with Dick’s use of pronouns to speak of androids, I also became quite interested in the concept of identity tied in with the body, all of which goes back to Lamarck – but this is more than just a question of being alive, or being human, it’s a question of what discursive practices construct us as humans. Gender/sex/sexuality all form parts of our experience as humans and can be found in something as simple as a pronoun. By analyzing the coverage of the murder of Eddie “Gwen” Araujo in Newark and how the press uses pronouns, I hope to show that despite the Olympic Sex Test becoming obsolete; there isn’t much of a difference when we socially police the sex of people ourselves within the boundaries of our very speech. People have changed sex even without the aid of technology thus tests for checking sex have made themselves necessary because the object of the “transgender” or rather “transsexual” folk is to become inconspicuous – to pass as members of the other side of the perceived biological binary. This was the case with Eddie Arajuo, who began passing as a female until that critical moment of detection when the self-licensed bounty hunting begins. This happened without a PCR buccal smear or ever knowledge of the Barr body, and lead to the murder of this person. The criteria of the sex test lies within our very language.

Andrea,
This paper topic is definitely refined and ready to be written! I like the way you have complicated the issue of identity through gender/sex/sexuality. If you find you need more pages to write, here are some suggestions (and of course, they are only suggestions). How about defining or utilizing gender, sex, and sexuality when analyzing your texts? Perhaps you can identify the issue of sex within Dawn? (For instance, Lillith seems to have a strange way of describing the sex of the Oankali, as she attempts to separate them as female and male, while grappling with their asexual capabilities.) Overall, I think you have done a great job incorporating the details of the topic, and I am interested to know what conclusions you have come up with.

Sex in Dawn is primitive, primal, necessary, and yet unnecessary. It has become apparent to me the issue of the sex act plays a big role in defining the human experience. Of course then, the issue of replication vs. reproduction comes into play - i havent yet formulated a concrete thesis, but i think i'm on my way. Some theorists i want to use: Mackinnon, Foucault, and Freud.

Grace,

This is a fabulous idea to pursue! When I see Foucault, I think of "power" in its plethora of meanings, and cant help but wonder if "sex" (I assume you mean the act of sex) takes on a role of defining power in the world of DAWN... Then I see Freud who speaks of sex as primal, thus inherently necessary but never actually arguing that its for reproduction only... So whats up with the kind/s of "sex" going on in DAWN? I mean you have people pairing up, its almost mandatory... Lilith isnt into rape, but I wonder if the sex going on in the ship is consensual... I SO wish I was writing this paper now!

       In reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I became fascinated with Dick’s use of pronouns to speak of androids, I also became quite interested in the concept of identity tied in with the body, all of which goes back to Lamarck – but this is more than just a question of being alive, or being human, it’s a question of what discursive practices construct us as humans. Gender/sex/sexuality all form parts of our experience as humans and can be found in something as simple as a pronoun. By analyzing the coverage of the murder of Eddie “Gwen” Araujo in Newark and how the press uses pronouns, I hope to show that despite the Olympic Sex Test becoming obsolete; there isn’t much of a difference when we socially police the sex of people ourselves within the boundaries of our very speech. People have changed sex even without the aid of technology thus tests for checking sex have made themselves necessary because the object of the “transgender” or rather “transsexual” folk is to become inconspicuous – to pass as members of the other side of the perceived biological binary. This was the case with Eddie Arajuo, who began passing as a female until that critical moment of detection when the self licensed bounty hunting begins. This happened without a PCR buccal smear or ever knowledge of the Barr body, and lead to the murder of this person. The criteria of the sex test lies within our very language

My focus will be the relationship between the idea of a human nature, and the acceptance of biotechnology's (mostly neuro-pharmologicals such as ritalin and prozac, but also more familar imrpovment drugs such as steroids) use for curing what we see as deficiencies (ADHD, depression, etc) but not for imrpoving "normal" human beings beyond their born capabilities. I will be using Fukuyama's Our post human future as my text for analysis, with help from Dawn, Canguilhen's Normal and the Pathological, and maybe some other theory texts to get a grasp on what we think human nature is, and where it comes from. My analysis will mostly be on the use of the rhetoric of human nature as an argument against improving humans beyond their "natural" capabilities. Dawn and Canguilhen will function as criticisms of this rhtetoric.

I’m dealing with the rhetoric of using the HIV virus as a vector in gene therapy, with special considerations of using HIV to combat HIV.

I am going to give a history of gene therapy, problems facing gene therapy and how it is proceeding today. Then I’m going to introduce the idea of using HIV as a vector, and I’m going to give a historical account of using HIV – both to treat HIV and other conditions. Then I’m going to talk about the problems of using HIV as a vector, and how this is referenced through some texts, and I’m going to give some analysis using the idea of a pharmacon (both poison and remedy). I’m also going to discuss the ‘discipline-ing’ of HIV and how you overcome the problems rhetorically. I am thinking of giving a more theoretical approach also – of encounter vs. containment, and perhaps offer a different model of thinking about disease.

This is a link for a company that deals in using HIV as a vector for treating HIV.
http://www.oxfordbiomedica.co.uk/index.html

My research paper is going to tackle the issue of cloning and in particular the way that Professor Doyle framed the idea of regulation. I want to examine the attempts and rhetoric around the implications of cloning technology and how attempts at regulating it. Also, I would like to examine the basic arguments for and against it and especially the motives behind each side.

   A particular type of reversal occurs in a zone so crucial to reality. Although the hospital is the sole source of cure and support in various manners, only recently the hospitals have confronted the problem of hospital-acquired infections. Now, the hospital increasingly becomes a site for breeding, mutating, and transmitting new and resitant microbes rather than a refuge for humans to eliminate them. This switch has not only created a problem, but opens the doors for novel biotechnological endeavors to create a solution. In order to remedy this problem, biotechnology companies seek to fix the antibiotic method from the inside. This attempt is not only a reminder of the power of natural selection and survivial of the fittest, but it is also a reflection of man's continuing attempts to delineate and maintain a crucial boundary between the external from the internal, which occur in nature.

Sources Include:
Hospital Acquired-Infections; Foucault's The Birth of the Clinic, as well as various websites of medical development, research, and current issue.

My research paper is going to be focusing on SOME of the arguments surrounding Stem Cell research. The more I look into the matter, the more arguments I find against it, while interestingly enough, I only really find one argument for it. Thats of course is to better man kind and take away disease and suffering. Some of the arguments that Im going to pay close attention to are whether or not the egg cell in the dish is actually worthy of the same protection as a human being. Why are a large amount of people that are pro-life pro-stem cells? Is it fair to be destroying embryos when there are people out there trying to "adopt" embryos for the sake of reproduction? Is it unfair of Bush to fund the stem cell research, being avidly pro-life, or is it the smart thing to do so the research doesnt fall into the private sector and the government will be unable to regulate it at all? Is it unreasonable to think that adult stem cells will some day soon be able to do everything the more contriversial embryotic stem cells can? Should cloning technology be studied further so that researchers can grow stem cells with the right membrane markers? Should people be allowed to be compensated for their donation of eggs for the sole purpose of research?

Again, these are some of the issues that Im going to attempt to tackle. Im not really sure right now where I stand or what Im going to prove over all. We'll have to see where it leads me.

Edited by author 12-04-2002 12:11 PM
Rhetoric 174
Final Paper

My research is on the Grey Goo Scenario. The grey goo scenario is an apocalyptic vision that self-replicating nanobots will proliferate and take over earth, eventually making humanity obsolete. Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystem wrote an article titled, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Using this article as a center piece, I examine the rhetoric and responses of this article to assess the validity and the seriousness of this futuristic/apocalyptic scenario.

I will argue that nanotechnology is still in its primitive stage of R&D and Joy's assessment of the future is still in the realm of science-ficiton. The advancement of nanotechnology is still centuries away, although many are proponent of Moore's Law and expontential growth of technology. Joy makes a valid argument that nanotech could be a threat, but invalid in making superficial claims that have an unforseeable technological future. The danger of nanotech is hinted and could be a reality, but not a threat as of now.

Edited by author 12-04-2002 05:57 AM
I have chosen as my research paper to investigate the relationship between rhetoric and science specifically focusing on the different rhetorical strategies employed by both Newton and Descartes with regards to their studies in optics. The three texts I will be using are "Landmark essays on Rhetoric of Science" edited by Randy Allen Harris, "The Rhetoric of Science" by Alan G. Gross, and "Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric edited by Marcello Pera and William R. Shea. Mostly my paper will examine the work of Newton and Descartes in terms of the relatinoship betweeen rhetoric and scientific discourse and explain, compare and contrast the different rhetorical operations taking place within the texts. I chose this topic in order to learn more about the rhetorical nature of scientific discourse and how it operates in order to function in a persuasive manner. Initially what brought about this idea was the discussion in class about the different rhetorical strategies taking place within Darwin's text (" The Origin of Species").

I am doing a research paper on how effective the Center of Disease Control and Prevention was in providing the necessary information regarding anthrax after September 11, 2002 to the public (focusing especially, but not exclusively, on the rhetoric used in their webpage) in reducing panic and anxiety. My research paper will look closely at the URL efforts of the CDC by analyzing the information on their webpage and evaluating how effective the CDC’s rhetoric is in keeping the general public calm and safe in a period of crisis. There is little to no information on how successful the CDC was in there efforts to reduce the panic of the general public so I have resorted to e-mailing journalists who wrote about the CDC during this time period for information on the topic. I have also asked certain individuals for their input by sitting with them in front of the CDC’s webpage and asking them questions about the CDC’s rhetoric. Finally, I plan to provide alternative suggestions to improve the quality of the rhetoric in the CDC’s URL efforts.

Comments, suggestions, information? Please e-mail: zdresben@uclink.berkeley.edu

From Watson to Butler, scientific advances in genetics have a profound influence on the way society views science and themselves. The application of genetics to medical practice has interesting implications towards healthcare and the doctor-patient relationship. Known as pharmacogenomics, medicine is being developed to tailor one’s unique genetic structure in order to facilitate a more efficient use of drugs. More importantly, the importance of testing one’s genes to determine potential diseases changes the grounds on which the patient is defined. Healthcare appears to place an emphasis on the future of one’s health, while ignoring the patient as the reporter of signs and symptoms. Through popular press and scientific journals, I will be investigating the rhetorical way pharmacogenomics is described. I will also compare the rhetoric presented in the biotech companies “selling” pharmacogenomics, such as GeneLink and LifeSensors, inc. How these biotech companies utilize the same discourse will suggest society’s reaction towards pharmacogenomics (because the biotech companies will be playing with the overall sentiment towards pharmacogenomics in order to sell their product.)
My specific sources include JAMA, the GeneLetter, Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacogenomics Journal, and Nature. Popular press articles include Time and Newsweek. Information from the biotech companies can be found online, where they advertise their products.

After reading Darwin, Watson, and Preston, I became interested in the relationship between science and beauty. However, with only their texts to rely on, it is difficult to discern whether science produces beauty or if the pursuit of beauty the motivation for scientific discovery. I have thus chosen to explore this question in more detail. In order to do so, I hope to explore the relationship between art (aesthetics) and science. It has been argued that the process of scientific discovery is exactly the same as the production of a work of art, and that science is often misrepresented in our society just because it is difficult for most members of society to appreciate the aesthetic value of science. I plan to draw on Kant's distinction between the sublime and the beautiful, various lectures in The Elusive Synthesis: Aesthetics and Science, various lectures by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, and Richard Dawkin's Unweaving the Rainbow.

OOPS! sorry guys, just read #92.

Initially, i was interested in writing about the man/machine distinction, where there is often a blending of the two entities. i wanted to explore what it meant to be human and why being human seems essentially distinct from machine, yet at times so alike. Some theorists i wanted to focus on were Marx, Dick, and Haraway.

But this was before i read Butler's Dawn. Sex in Dawn is primitive, primal, necessary, and yet unnecessary. It has become apparent to me the issue of the sex act plays a big role in defining the human experience. Of course then, the issue of replication vs. reproduction comes into play - i havent yet formulated a concrete thesis, but i think i'm on my way. Some theorists i want to use: Mackinnon, Foucault, and Freud.

Initially, i was interested in writing about the man/machine distinction, where there is often a blending of the two entities. i wanted to explore what it meant to be human and why being human seems essentially distinct from machine, yet at times so alike. Some theorists i wanted to focus on were Marx, Dick, and Haraway.

But this was before i read Butler's Dawn. Sex in Dawn is primitive, primal, necessary, and yet unnecessary. It has become apparent to me the issue of the sex act plays a big role in defining the human experience. Of course then, the issue of replication vs. reproduction comes into play - i havent yet formulated a clear thesis, but i think i'm on my way. Some theorists i thought of includes Mackinnon, Foucault, and Freud,

For those who caught my Stuart Little reference during last Wedneday night's rant on The Fly, check out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/science/27CELL.html


It's all about creating mouse/human hybrid organisms.

Wow! That Raelian stuff is a trip! Here is another open ended question with Platonic under/over tones:
Can a clone be a human being? And how could human beings originally be clones? What would the point be? I'm not that much into immortality - not because my life is hellish, but, why would I want to be around for so long? -Would each stage of cloning be different? I mean would I be the same person if I were cloned? And say I was cloned, would that eventually just get like a really bad xerox (y'know, like a xerox of something thats a xerox of some distant original xerox of a document? But then again is a printed document ever the original?)
On a some what unrelated note: Did anyone see the Simpson's new Halloween special? It totally had a cool segment on cloning that might relate to the topic at hand - and yes, I do haave it on tape :)

Edited by author 11-17-2002 03:40 PM
Rhetoric 174
Response and Cloning

There is some truth that machine-like behaviors rose with capitalism. Repetitive industrial works were repetitively conducted by humans in the beginning and gradually more efficient machines took over these roles. However, this discussion is an open-ended one. First, we have to define what a machine is. Of course, we could develop machine-like behaviors but we will never truly be machines. I believe that some humanity in us will never die away. One could even argue that ancient repetitive agricultural works were display of machine-like behaviors. The only difference was that the ancient humans had nothing (no machines) to compare their machine-like behaviors to - only hint at what was to come in the near future.

Cloning: Andrea asks the question: Is God dead? I strongly believe that the idea of God will never die away because it is too deeply rooted in our human history. I was reading through the Clonaid website and found it pretty fucking disgusting. (I had to write something on this.) All I could think of was that it's another scientology wannabe. Clonaid is a company that combines modern science with religion (Christianity). How the hell do you do that and get away with it? The Raelian movement is this twisted belief that humans were created through genetic engineering. (Don't understand the logic.) These modern religions or cults have no basis for their claims and all they do is twist and deviate from ancient human text. It's fine to conduct research for the sake of research, but when research is driven by radical religious beliefs there is a lot of room for misuse of the technology. Thus, I'm against this Clonaid shit. The sad thing is that desperate people who wants cloning for their personal use will invest their money to further these types of causes. And I'm predicting that our world will get weirder and weirder as time progresses. What do you think?

"It is the sense of detachment from nature and reality that will eventually create humans who are more dependent on machines than humans. The ability to communicate on a social/human level is being pushed out and made obsolete, while our minds are changed and rewired to think more and more like machines. The engines of creation is indeed running towards the age of spiritual machines. It is a scary thought, and the internet is only facilitating the process."

I'm inclined to concur with you Do, but I also think that this started to happen once we became a capitalistic society, and that this isnt the result of our tango with machines, but the result of alienation. I mean, we have LONG been relating to eachother through commodities, and while in some instances that eliminates human interaction, some times it also facilitates it. (Please do think I'm being harsh, you wrote this really fabulous piece that I cant resist engaging/problematizing) Take a look at your rhetoric, we already speak of ourselves as machines "our minds are changed and rewired", and just five minutes ago I was telling my sweetie that I had to change my settings back to English after talking to my mom for an hour in spanish. This era/phenomena brings up a whole slew of intresting questions - like does this technology threaten our very notion of what reality is? If so why is this a bad thing? Is god dead and have we killed him? Is this becomming the world of the irrational man in Nietzsche's famous piece on Lying?

Rhetoric 174
VLife (Virtual Life)

I was looking throught the virtual pet links and found an interesting site. I clicked on the bio-insects link and found interesting virtual bugs and other animated images. Question: What is the point of these sites? What is the point in having a virtual pet? This discussion seems to be interconnected with the discussion of ALife.

All I could think of as I was looking at these animated pets was that we are in the preparation stage for bigger things in the future. We talked about synthetic chemistry that will eventually create artificial life. In a sense, virtual life is preparing our mentality to accept artificial life when becomes a reality. In other words, it is the sense of detachment from nature and reality that will eventually create humans who are more dependent on machines than humans. The ability to communicate on a social/human level is being pushed out and made obsolete, while our minds are changed and rewired to think more and more like machines. The engines of creation is indeed running towards the age of spiritual machines. It is a scary thought, and the internet is only facilitating the process.

Edited by author 11-15-2002 11:15 AM
Being the philosophy oriented dog person that I am, I investigated “Virtual Dog” and “Self,” in order to see if I would be empathetic to either in any way remotely close to the way I feel about “Wolfy” (the family pet I miss terribly since I moved out of my mom's house).

“Virtual Dog” definitely emphasizes just how much work having a dog is, I had no trouble putting “Italics” in a kennel for a day after 15 minutes. This made me consider the word “caring”, it could mean that you actively pursue the well being of your pet, but it can also mean that you pursue your pet’s well being because you love it. I REALLY enjoy looking after Wolfy, but I cant the say the same for Italics – with Italics its actually work. I know she’d never steal pizza from my table, but I think that’s actually the problem. Italics doesn’t shed, steal food, tug on your pant leg when it wants to go out or howl when it’s lonely at 3 am and a siren zooms by - she's not the type of dog I have to be careful with my languae and spell out "walk" and "bath" around - its just not anything like the real thing.
     Then I went to this "SELF" site, which luered me by the quote:
"SELF" is your self. Let's go to the edge of your mind with your "SELF".
I immediately thought, wow, this is a great vehicl for empathy! But how wrong I was. This self thing is a kind of ghost pet, which only eats, sleeps and dies after 3 minutes. I had NO idea as to what was going on with it - which may be due to my lack of tech skills but its inability to communicate with me killed any chance for me to empathize with it. But maybe thats what the problem is. Virtual pets asfar as I can tell cant communicate with you. The only way that I knew Italicas was happy was because of her "happy meter" as well - and how do I know a score of 57 means? I know most of the communication my dog and I have is my interpretation, but in some autopoetic way it works out.

Well, I tried both the vitual cat and virtual dog, there didnt seem to be much of a difference between the two. I kinda got bored really, maybe my inability to pay attention enough to feed/play with these simple creatures is just proof that I should not ever own a 'real' pet. I suppose these things must be good for people who aren't able to handle living pets, who just want the empathatic response when they want to feel like they are responsible without having to deal with the responsibility. Oh, dont download bonzi buddy, he's kinda hard to get out of your system.
   I certainly hope this is not what those alife folk are talking about with their idea of life on other media. Its hard to say that a-life is not possible, its a negative that I cannot see how to prove. The attempt by alife to compare synthetic biology with synthetic chemisty is a complete failure on logical grounds; its a comparison of apples to oranges. Synthetic chemistry takes things that are already chemicals and arranges them in different ways. Its chemicals being made into chemicals, and never does it step beyond the bounds of chemisty. Synthetic bilogy is nothing like this. Its analogy with chemistry would be to make chemicals out of things not thought of as chemicals, out of photons perhaps. As a persuasive move, this is more interesting. Its more of an appeal to the more techie part of humanity, those who are familiar with synchemistry. I take this page to in general aimed at such techie folk, these being the people most likely to find/read this stuff. If we are willing to accept the synthetic in one discipline, why not another? It presents us with the idea that we are somehow descriminting againt the same thing in biology that we accept in chemisty, and therefore we're not being consistant.

I can't even believe something like this exists. What kind of loser would draw any significance from owning a virtual pet? I was reading the directions for owning a virtual cat and I was surprised that these cats can actually die if they are not taken care of properly. They must be managed, fed, loved and played with often, else their happiness meter will drop. Who the hell cares about a virtual happiness meter? The cat is not alive but is an effect of digital code. Not only that, the simulation of a cat is quite poor. Who wants a cat without a physical body and presence? Who wants a cat that lives on the internet? That's it, I give up.

I give up. I tried downloading about six different digital animals. I selected virtual pets that i normally would not pick, to see if these out-of-the-ordinary animals would exude and elicit empathy in a different way than a real dog or cat. first, the happy hamster. then, the rock. Eventually, after the dragon, I settled for the dog. either i dont have some plug-in or i'm clicking the wrong buttons. the only responses i received from these sites were that of the pop-up advertisements.

I agree with Stephanie, that the whole odea of virtual pets defeats the purpose of what it means to care for an animal. The fact that each animal you may come across in life has a perosnality of its own, that these animals earn your trust and come to depend on you, seems to me the priceless quality of caring for it.

As noted in class last week or so, it is clear that Dick put a great deal of thought into the notion of androids on the verge of humanity. What sticks to my mind the most is the quote by Deckard introspectively shaming himself for putting on such a ploy with his mechanical sheep because it degraded his morality and that bothered him. Why want a real animal so badly? Because, for Deckard/Dick the empathy towards an animal (could animals represent humans before dependence of the empathy box?) is the last semblance of what it means to be human and this feeling of humanity just simply cannot be faked.

From the digital pets, I selected the virtual puppy. I expected some kind of animation with the dog, but was left staring at the same, poor quality picture. In fact the unrealistic, "child drawn" picture was disappointing. The animal's representation made it less appealing, as I was immediately bored with the tedious task of taking care of it. Taking care of the pet was very mechanical: Click the buttons and you can feed, pet, clean, play, etc. with the dog. If I was devoted to the digipet game, I would probably feel more of an obligation than empathy towards the dog. Also, the fact that some people would consider the virtual puppy as a game would negate any emphathetic feelings towards the pet. A person would take care of this virtual pet because they want to see how long it could last, and not because they have feelings for it.

I went to the virutal dog pound site. Here you have the opportunity to adopt a virtual dog. There are a variety of breeds to choose from, I chose the German Shepard and named it mateo. Once you choose your dog you basically enter a competition where you compete against other players on the basis of your money and your dogs health. The better you take care of your dog and the more it will assist you to score higher. On the other hand if you decide to neglect your dog your score will drop. The game starts out with each player recieving 100 dollars in cash and a weekly income of 45 dollars. There is even a section in the game that allows you to chat with other players for advice, if for example, you can't manage to get your dog to go to the park with you. Once you enter the game it has a chart with a list of variables that are considered in your score as an owner, such as the dogs: age, happiness, health, loyalty, training, friendliness, etc. After I went into the kitchen of my apartment and the same picture of my dog accompanied me in there I began to get a little annoyed, at least they could place another picture of the dog in there (like from a different angle or something). Anyway, after I bought my dog his (yeah I made sure I didn't adopt a bitch...He acts like a little bitch though) leash and dog food I quit the dumb game, stupid dog wouldn't eat his food, he just stood there like he always does. So I am sad to say that my dog is now starving somewhere on the web and you know what? I could care less.

I chose to look at the virtual kitty and it was virtually boring. It is pretty much the same thing as the virtual puppy, only the cat wont sell out, it makes you earn it's love. I name the cat Richie Rich and it is so far very difficult to please. You get these different "toys" the cat can play with you have to manage its "happienss level." This seemed strange to me because in "real life" when do pet owners care about managing their pets happiness. Isnt the point of a pet to make yourself happy? Also, on the website is a button that you can program to take you to another website just incase your boss walks in and you need to look busy. Its called the emergency button and you can choose which website to go to when you log in to take care of the kitten. Honestly, I have no idea why anyone would spend time doing this. But it is a very simple system and its interesting that someone would put in the time to make a website like this. I still cant figure out what the point is. So far my cant is only 1 virtual month old. I wonder if it dies.

The digital spawn’s name is BonziBUDDY. Large, constantly blinking oval eyes, tufts of fur, a tiny bellybutton and a sweet perpetual smile all aligned in the seduction of my girlfriend into clicking the download button. Ordinarily I would strongly preach against downloading this beast, as PRODUCTS like this tend to change every setting imaginable on your computer system, but I then remembered that I was in need of a specimen for study.
The beauty of this monster lies in the fact that his cuteness is engineered to allow his company to get a foothold on an end user’s computer. Once downloaded and installed, BonziBUDDY becomes ubiquitous. You start up the computer and he greets you with his digital voice, “Good morning! I’ve missed you <your name>.”
Naturally, you launch your Internet browser and find that your homepage is now www.bonzi.com, and in the upper right corner there is now something called the bonzi.com web compass. Oh but wait, there’s more!
He also sings songs! If you’re a huge fan of Stephen Hawking’s voice synthesizer and always wanted to hear him sing, then download B.B. and let the fun begin! But it gets better: after he’s done singing, he says “Did you know you can send me to school to learn 19 new songs, <your name>?” After clicking yes, your BonziBuddy-modified browser takes you to the “school” where you find out that tuition is a dirt cheap $9.95. Bonzi then informs you of all the other great features he can learn: 250 jokes, 250 facts, he can even learn to read your email messages to you while you’re playing him in a game of Bonzi’ Beach Checkers ($19.95). Oh but wait! For only $49 per year, you can become a Gold Member and have all of Bonzi’s add-ons, plus you will receive Premium Gold Customer Support on any questions you may have, (like how you successfully remove his invasive digital tendrils from your computer).
Now, if instead of clicking ‘yes’ to learn the new songs you click ‘no’, BonziBuddy makes a truly sad face! His head droops, his arms go limp at his sides, he frowns and then makes a little whimpering noise. Who am I to deny him the opportunity to learn?? I must admit that I initially clicked ‘no’ and after seeing his face I was compelled to at least go check it out.
Seriously, this guy is an empathy machine. The large eyes are quite compelling and you continue to revisit them often because of the regular blinking. The little tufts of fur and vague human form truly allow one to identify with his “emotional responses.” He also breathes. That’s right! While he’s hanging out, his chest rises and falls in simulated respiration. Further, just like the Microsoft word paperclip, Bonzi is always using a prop: A cute little butterfly will land on his head, he juggles coconuts, puts on sunglasses, swings on a vine and even eats a banana. Eating, and breathing? Well what about sleeping? Of course: I turned on the computer one evening around 11:30 PM and there was Bonzi, yawning, and saying in a winy ‘you just woke me up voice’ “I’m not used to being awake this late, <your name>.” He then quickly perks up, but you do find yourself wondering just how late it is and what exactly you’re doing on the computer at this god awful hour.
So, today, my girlfriend told me I could remove him. “Won’t you feel badly?” I asked. “Well, yes, while I’m looking at him. But, if he’s not here when I turn on the computer I won’t mind.” He really is a remarkable piece of work, but I’m looking forward to retiring/de-installing him.
Wow. I actually felt some guilt before, during and after the removal process. Now that’s some effective marketing!

Happy Hamster
This site and the pet itself are not as exciting as the others posted here. The hamster itself is quite adorable. It's quite plump and the animation is incredibly cutesy. In contrast with the other virtual pets, Happy Hamster tries to recreate the reality of owning a hamster through its simplicity. In the words of the creator of Happy Hamster, the hamster "will walk around, stuff its cheeks with food, unload the food, eat, sleep, groom itself and sleep"-- and this is pretty much all it will do. In the beginning, the program is incredibly boring. The center screen is that of a rotund light-brown hamster with a small pillow as a bed and a feeding tray; the hamster doesn't even have an exercise wheel. However, as time goes on, its small walks and puzzled looks as it responds to your cursor makes Happy Hamster endearing. But what really elicits empathy is not the pet itself but the motivation behind Happy Hamster's creation. The creator, Ms. Arai developed Happy House out of personal tragedy-- her own hamster passed away and she wanted to have a companion while spending long hours on her computer. I personally do not feel that Happy Hamster is a perfect or close to perfect rendition of a hamster. However, this particular hamster may be a perfect representation of Ms. Arai's hamster. Maybe Happy Hamster's sole focus on feeding (to the elimination of the stereotypical exercise wheel) is what reminds Ms. Arai of her deceased pet. Ms. Arai embodies the distraught owners of the cat that Isidore picks up in the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Unable to accept the loss of a real pet, they order an electric copy to defy the mortality of their pet. Although to the rest of us, Happy Hamster is not even remotely close to a real hamster, it elicits empathy for all real living things. It doesn't matter that the animation is choppy, or that Happy Hamster doesn't excrete waste, Happy Hamster, as the webiste describes,"gives meaning to why we keep warm beasts about us". And I'm sure this is exactly what Mercerism is based on.

Neopets
I clicked on the link to Neopets. I was already familiar with the site since one of my previous roommates was absolutely obsessed with this website. (She would spend literally 6-8 hours a day playing with her Neopet...) So, I created a "bruce"- a very cute little character that is a Penguin. I took "Lil_Penguin" around the Neopets town, bought him books to read (he gains "intelligence" points this way, and will make comments like "wow, the history of neopets- how interesting! after you have him read them) and also bought him various toys and things to eat. Apparently he likes vegetables the best, becuase he will not eat things like donuts and pizza... When you have him play with toys, he will say things like "thank you!" and "that was fun! let's play some more!" but since it is just randomly generated script, he is not actually all that interactive. It appears that you have to feed him every so often or else his "hunger" status will become very low and he might starve to death. You also have to groom him or else he could get sick. However, I feel absolutely no empathy for this animal. While it is cute, it does not move (it is always just the same picture on the screen). Apparently there is a battledome arena where your neopet can fight other pets (although I was not sure exactly how this works, I could not seem to fight anything). There are also a bunch of games and "gambling-type activities" that you play to win money so that you can buy things for your pet. I think that this aspect of the website is probably where people get hooked. There is a "wheel of excitement" game in which you spin a wheel to win various prizes, but since you can only spin it once every two hours, I think this is where people say "okay, then I will just go play some other games on teh site and come back later" (I've seen this reasoning in action with my old roommate). Surprisingly, however, there was an utter lack of pop-up ads, which is odd since it seems that a site with addicting games to play would take every opportunity to advertise to the users. While the website is very elaborate and there is much to explore, I don't really see the appeal of the site, nor do I see how one could really care about an inanimate picture on the screen. I think they could definetly improve on the level of interaction that you have with the neopets. It does not even make sounds or even tell you to feed it, you just have to check the status screen for yourself and while it does, "talk," I think it is all randomly chosen from a list of ways that the pet can respond (it will even repeat itself) so it does not seem like the pet is unique in any way. Overall, it seems next to impossible to have empathy for your neopet, but easy to get hooked on the games and the idea of just being able to "purchase" more items for your pet.

A Visit to the Virtual Dog Pound
      Initially, I thought I might be empathetic towards the mastiff that I picked out at the virtual dog pound. The fact that it came from the pound was indicative of its helplessness. I began to think of dogs in real pounds being euthanized if never adopted. The fact that I got to pick my breed warmed my heart because i could associate my virtual dog with real life dogs that I have known and loved. But, the empathy stopped there. The virtual dog lacks an ablitity to reciprocate. Real dogs provoke empathy because they're spontaneous, and virtual dog is not. A real dog has personality and virtual dog does not. Real dogs are cuddly and virtual dog is not. About the only thing empathetic about virtual dog is its being a reminder of what is real (and it failed miserably in most cases considering it wasn't even animated and it's bark was that of a chihuahua and not a mastiff). Empathy is understanding and entering into another's feelings, and virtual dog shows no sign of feeling. Ergo, no feelings of empathy here.

Julianne Moore is starring in a new Todd Haynes movie called "Far from Heaven" as a 50's housewife living a "perfect" and model life with her husband, but then starts to spiral downwards when issues of homosexuality, racism, etc start to surface.

I believe that empathy has a great deal to do with the ability of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Having empathy involves the presence of another person's fate in your decision-maiking and thought processes. Empathy is the force that causes one to feel remourse, guilt, regret, etc as well as bring about good changes (i.e. social justice, public health, etc.). I suppose empathy can also be a force in bringing about malicious actions, but then that would be when empathy fails. Empathy is generally associated with altruism and this seems to be what separates the androids from the humans - the choice to choose to help yourself or to help others is available in humans, but androids do not have that ability although they may try to fake it. Then, would I be able to claim that empathy is part of the inner feeling of being alive?

Edited by author 11-10-2002 03:13 PM
When I was younger and the concept was still fairly new, my uncle gave our family a program which installs a virtual pet onto your computer desktop. Ours was a cat. You get to custom design the color, shape, and size of your cat, and the best part was that each family member can choose their own cat. This was fun for about one week. Every time you log onto your desktop, the cat pops up and runs around the screen and meows. You can play with it using virtual toys on your desktop which make it happy. You can also pet it using a big virtual hand and it will purr. I clearly remember the different ways in which it tried to make you love it. It emulated many of the movements and sounds of real cats when looking for attention... meows, purrs, rubbing up against things, even trying to distract you from whatever work you were trying to accomplish on the computer. In the end, it was not very convincing. The cat's head and body were poorly animated blobs of whatever color you had chosen for their fur. It did not look real. Sometimes it acted real, but not enough to create a real empathic response. Often, the cat was more annoying than fun. I don't know if these pets died or not, because we all started ignoring ours at about the same time, and never opened the program again. In fact, I think we deleted it because it was taking up valuable space on the hard drive. I think I should also mention that at the time we already had a real cat, so perhaps the comparison was part of the disappointment. The imitation cat just didn't succeed in gaining the same kind of empathy as the real cat... it looked wrong and besides, why play with an imitation when you have "the real thing"?

I've been looking over the Tamagotchi Book of Remembrance and it's really amazing and funny how much the people who left messages anthropomorphize and adore their "dead" Tamagotchis. Here are a couple quick examples to illustrate my point:

"Bladdy Bunder A poor Tamagotchi that gave his life in the reckless persuit of Human Happiness. I will miss him dearly."

"I'm so sorry I left you at home. Trust me though, I'll take good care of your baby. See ya' when I get there!!!!!!!!!"

I like how the Tamagotchi was prusuing "Human Happiness" and the hint that the second person would see their Tamagotchi in heaven, like a deceased relative. Another strong comment I found in the middle of a message was "I GUESS THIS MAKES ME A BAD PARENT!!" The whole board was full of feelings of guilt and abandonment. But the funniest ones contained a mixed feelings, such as:

"Oh lucky, my tamagotchi, I put in the changeroom so I could go swimming. When I got back, someone had kipnapped you and I never saw you again. I hope something REALLY bad happens to your kidnapper. A month later, I gotanother tamagotchi like you but I will always remember you."

"My Charlie, my poor poor Charlie. I made a mistake of killing you. I wanted a new character, but I still loved you."

"He was a cute little alien in some ways but a pain in another. He will be dearly missed by all."

I like how the first one signals as to the expendability and consumerism of the Tamagotchi. The second also reasserts the electronic nature of the Tamagotchi, while mourning its projected life. The final is just funny as the author doesn't sound that sorry. This last group are the least empathetic entries:

"You ungrateful little wretch."

"A simple giga-pet who died of complacations"

The first Tamagotchi referred to here died after a week, but I've found terribly mournful entries for Tamagotchis that only lived 4 days. Here the owner is still having an emotional reaction to the death of his Tamagotchi, only in this case it's anger. In psychological terms this anger could still be an appropriate expression of the grieving process. However, the last entry deprives the Tamagotchi of its personhood by coldly calling it "a simple giga-pet." But I also wonder how old the person who wrote that is, considering the awkward spacing of the words and the misspelling of "complacations." I suppose I associate strong empathetic and anthropormorphic reactions to a machine a sign of youth or naivete, which is what makes the last entry so odd.

DARWIN POND: NO EMPATHY

After perusing the virtual pet website, I chose the Darwin Pond link. Although there were other 'cute' options such as the virtual hamster the name of Darwin Pond won my attention, on account of its uniqueness from the rest of the titles. The software download itself was free and expedient. The general object of the game is to raise or manipulate a pond of "swimmers" by choosing such options as: add, erase, kill, clone, or modify the genes of a swimmer among others. Although I found it extremely entertaining to exert an almost divine control over these organisms, the game did not create an empathic response within me in relation to these creatures. The swimmers all looked the same, they were merely two limbs in a V-shape wriggling or swimming in the same locomotive movement. Not only were they physically identical but they also had no distinct characters or qualities. Above all, they had no eyes, which have the curiously powerful effect of creating empathy. No, there was no empathy but rather simply a sinister relishing of being able to have these creatures at my utter and total control.

However, this sadistic enjoyment seems to only have been possible with an acquiescence to the idea that these creatures were, in fact, alive. This effect must have been caused by the option choices (i.e. mutate swimmer, clone swimmer, swimmer information). So, on this level the game may have succeeded in establishing an illusion occurring on an almost unconscious level of the player. However, empathy did not occur because it was just as easy to kill these creatures as it was to add them into the game and see what they did to one another.

Darwin Pond is an extremely creative game and I would recommend it to anyone to try it because there are no emotional strings attached.

Rhetoric 174
CDC Inquiry

Early Sunday morning I posted my comments on the CDC website. I posted my suggestions on improving the quality and the presentation of the site. I pretty much said that the site should not be a reference source, but more of a primary source for information. I also added some other suggestions and left my contact info. I will keep everyone posted if they ever respond to my comments. I'm guessing that the response rate will illustrate how effective our taxes are being spent.

Better late than never: [SAFE]

The brackets around the title "Safe" are very meaningful in this context. They give the title the feeling that it is closed off: you are safe within its boundaries. The character played by Jullianne Moore is constantly searching for a place where she can be "safe", that is, a place tucked away from chemicals. The problem the movie presents is that she is never very safe anywhere. Moving from her home, into a safe room in her home, to a camp somewhere in the Midwest, to a closed off safe room within the camp, she does not find alleviation from her ills anywhere. In fact, the more she searches for a safe area, the worse off she becomes and the more difficult it becomes for her to return to normal life. Part of the reason behind her becoming accustomed to life at the safe-camp is that she will never return to her previous life, and both she and the movie-watcher know this. In a kind of continously progressing psychosomatic response to her environment, she is experiencing a slow death caused by the continuous closing off of safe areas to her.

"I think part of the point is that there is no state of nature for her (or any of us) to return to"

Actually, this is kind of what I meant - there is no nature for her to return to, but that she believes that there is some pure form of Nature (that has no toxins etc) to return to. My impression was that she believes that Nature is toxin free and that this leads her to purge what little nature is left in her, hence her not being able to get in touch with her own toxicity. I know thats kind of unclear, but I'll post again when I've thought it out some more :)

Google zeitgeist

http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

Edited by author 10-23-2002 02:37 AM
Rhetoric 174: SAFE

The comments of my colleagues are very intricate and complex. I feel that the movie is much simpler than it looks. Simply, the movie is about modernity and its affects on people. In short, the movie "Safe" illustrates that societal progress will bring about new modern problems.

I know a person who developed asthma in college. This person was never allergic or asthmatic, but once in college this person developed allergic and asthmatic symptoms. This could be do to the fact that new particles that exist in specific regions are now in one's system and the body is reacting to them. I have to agree with Grace that this is a modern event.

At first, I thought Carol's symptoms were caused by idleness, low self-esteem, and depression. However, I realized that Carol was indeed allergic to chemicals when she began to bleed and convulse after entering the dry cleaner shop. However, her chemical reactions seem to be more than just her chemical environment. The movie does not find the origin of the illness. It explores different areas or potential causes of her illness. The director implies that lifestyle, chemicals, and mentality could be causes to Carol's physical reactions. I thought that this illness paralleled that of the Gulf War Syndrome. No one knows what causes the sickness among the veterans. Scientists have only implied that it might be due to chemical exposures. All I know is that the world we live in is getting dirtier, smaller, and more congested. It is bound to affect the existing population in someway. Maybe these case studies are early warning signs for something bigger. Only time will tell.

In regards to Andrea's posting on 'Safe', I think I have a Iittle trouble with some of the issues you raised in your characterization of Carol White's struggle. You say she tries to get back to the 'nature she removed herself from' and that 'that nature is no longer there.' But I am afraid I don't understand the fundamental nature of the 'nature' you refer to, if you will, or how she removed herself from it. Was she successful in eradicating 'nature' from her body or surroundings? Was there ever a stable 'nature' to which she belonged or that belonged to her? Would she be more in touch with nature if she did her own cleaning or got her own milk? I don't mean to defend her, and I agree that she is not exactly a sympathetic character, but I think there is more to it. She definately leads a life mediated by affluence and modern convenience but I think part of the point is that there is no state of nature for her (or any of us) to return to, and that the constructed line between psychosomatic illness (understood as something you give yourself, at least in western medicine) and genuine 'biological' illness is in actuality quite blurry. But I really liked your idea that her illness is caused by her inability to 'get in touch with her own toxicity.'
I also just want to add to our discussion in class about how Carol White allegedly brought her reactions on herself. I feel as though psychosomatic illness is not really any less biological or real than say the flu. There is a very real bodily response in the case of 'psychosomatic' illness, it is just that the cause is not always understood, easily predicted, or easily fixed by modern science. Western medicine posits a mind body split that assumes that the health of the body need be completely separate from the health of the mind. But all illness can be understood as connected to the ill person's conception of their own body. And this does not make any given illness less real. I am not saying the two are completely enmeshed, but scientific paradigms definately don't account for our lack of understanding about the relation between body and mind. Because a condition is not determined to be caused by bacteria or virus does not make it less real, or painful. And the body and mind interact in ways we do not understand, evidenced by the alarming recovery rate of individuals with a positive disposition, and the ability of women who desperately want to become pregnant to distend their bellies and stop menstrating without ever carrying a child. But we like to explain what we can't understand as absurd, pointless, or self inflicted. But Carol White's suffering is no less real because of where it comes from.

I like Scott’s idea that Carol White is expelling herself from her self, but I’m thinking about it as Carol just continuing to separate herself from nature/her environment ironically enough; perhaps this is why the film isn’t working for me…
     Its kind of the reverse of the HOT ZONE in which people are trying to separate themselves from Nature (with toxic everyday things like bleach) but cannot because Nature is in the suits with them as their own beings.
In this film, Carol White has become separated from fundamental humanity as she delegates all sorts of interactions to others, until she is completely alone, and then she tries to get back to the nature she that she removed herself from, but she can never really go back because that nature is no longer there for her to return to. Wrenwood doesn’t really work for her because they encourage her to find her “humanity” and the “nature” within herself so that she can get over her illness (which the center treats as a psychological illness) by re-establishing a path to what she has lost touch with, but its not like “Nature” is on the other side waiting for her – I mean, she lives in LA.
     I don’t know if this is making any sense but another way to think about is her name: “Carol White”. White is considered to be the most sanitary/clean/pure color; scientifically it’s the presence of all colors, but its relation to ‘clean’ is that no other colors contaminate it. Her skin is really white, and she ends up in this white enclosed space (porcelain) – its almost like she becomes so clean that she disappears. She’s empty of germs/toxins (she doesn’t sweat), and thus she cannot get in touch with her own toxicity in order to reconcile her relation to her “natural” environment. In my lack of sympathy I think that its more than the fact that our bodies aren’t designed for the environment that we have created for ourselves (both as a society and as individuals) but that our mind-set has altered to eradicating the little nature that is left within us – and this thought may or may not be related to my reading of this film, but its definitely related to how much this film reminded me of people obsessed with anti-bacterial soap.

I didn't feel much sympathy towards Julianne Moore's character when she had violent allergic reactions, like when she was driving or at the doctor's office. I did however begin to feel sympathetic at the very end when her husband and stepson are leaving Wrenwood because this seemed to be the first instance in which I could tell the stepson really didn't like her. I watched the whole movie puzzled about their relationship; it's not until midway through that you learn he's her stepson, not her own son. There's no mention made to his birth mother, whether she died, or his father divorced her. Considering the shallow set up of his marriage to Julianne Moore and their lives in general, I guessed that he divorced his first wife to marry Julianne Moore. And so I started thinking, considering what often happens in these situations, her character's seeming flakiness or weakness, and even his father's lack of understanding and interest in her, that the stepson must not like her. And yet she constantly talked as though he was her own son, convinced that they were as close as mother and child, so I started to believe maybe they were. Then just at the very end when he's annoyed because he wants to leave Wrenwood I realized, even before she isolated herself by going to Wrenwood and living in an igloo, how much she had enclosed herself in a world of comforting lies, and that nothing could convince her against. That even if she ever left Wrenwood she'd still be living in a bubble of how things should be ideally as opposed to how they actually were. Suddenly how clueless she was about her relationship with her stepson and even her husband made me feel sorry for her. Because unlike her physical ailments these perceptual ones probably won't go away.

Safe:

what struck me most about the movie was that it was very sterile. In the first half hour there wasn't a scene that lacked some shiny surface. When the movers came in to deliver the couch all I could think about was the contrast they made with everything else in the room. THe other thing that stood out to me was the submissive quality almost all of the characters had. Especially at Wrenwood. It seems like they are all jsut grasping for something to hold on to, something solid. In a way, Wrenwood blames the victims, and the tone of the treatment seems condescending. At times it was funny to see the evangelical nature of the center, but I couldn't get away from the fact that everyone there looked sad, so that the film does suggest that part of the illness is psychological. The psychological part of the illness becomes more apparent as the movie progresses. I think Haynes took care to display the phisical part first, and when conventional medicine failed moved on to alternate medicines and inevitably psychology.

The film “Safe” seems to be overflowing with ambiguities that displace the viewer. The entire film kept me questioning whether I was supposed to take it seriously or satirically. At many points I could not tell whether to take it as a serious commentary on modern life or as satirical commentary. The “environmental illness” that Carol White seems to be suffering from is on the one hand both physical and psychological and on the other hand merely psychosomatic. It could be that Carol is just a hypochondriac but also that she is really suffering from being “allergic the 20th century.” The story surrounds “yuppies” which it seems to satirize. The “disease” from which Carol suffers seems like a disease only a yuppie could have: like a BMW, she has it because someone else had it first and the only “cure” from it is to basically talk about it. At the same time, it takes seriously the question of the effects of modern technology on the human immune system and the implications of the inescapable conditions of the environment. Carol’s ultimate move to Wrenwood is also filled with such ambiguities. At first, you think of it as the cure that could possibly lead Carol to some resolution but instead she just seems to gets worse.

      It can understandably be interpreted that Haines' 'Safe' speaks about a real illness that the public unjustly ignores in the 20th century. However, a deeper meaning must be considered. As exhibited by particular elements of the film plot, characterization, and general affect of the scenes, Haines' portrays such unique, almost a hypochondria like illness, as an individual's means of escape from an unwanted situation.
      The film clearly begins with an extensive illustration of Carol's (Julianne Moore) lifestyle. Her routine's are mundane, unstimulating, and utterly insignificant but rather a supplement to a comfortable lifestyle. Carol spends her 'homemaking occupation', as she labels it, merely ordering construction, amending furniture orders, and socializing with other housewives. Her life and lifestyle as one that proves explicitly lacking in excitement serves as a crucial foundation for the following elements of the film.
       Even more, Haines' pays particular attention to characterizing Carol. She is quite, plain, and passive. However, she appears to revolt against this when she attempts particular changes in aspects of her 'same ole, same ole' lifestyle when she perms her hair and goes on a fruit diet. Carol has a reached a point in her life where she realizes her boredom with her lifestyle.
       Haines purposely established this background and this must not be overlooked. He only develops the possibility of a valid illness after he constructs not only the utter meaningless condition of Carol's life, but her realization and irritation with this. A medical label for her condition, then, is a means of escape, refuge, and comfort. This would explain why she accepts this fact with a sense of relief as she begins a new life in Wrenwood.
       Although the possibility that Haynes speaks against blaming mental dispositions for actual illnesses validly exists, notable elements stand considerable. The plot foundation, characterization, and comedic contents legitimize a look into a more profound underlying meaning. Haynes exhibits a woman's utilization of a remote illness for escape to convey man's exploitation and, even more, considerable power, of such medical phenomena.

Safe investigates the relationship between the psychological and physical components to sickness. Although the cause of Carol’s illness is ambiguous to the viewer, director Todd Haynes suggests the connection between her symptoms and her psychological state. Carol is a character of low-self esteem, as her constant emphasis for perfection is realized in the beginning of the film. Her exercise and diet regime in conjunction with keeping an upper-class image suggests the impossibility for Carol to become ill, especially due to environmental toxins. Unable to accept her doctor’s diagnosis of perfect health, Carol seeks tangible reasons for her sickness. When Carol learns of a possible connection between chemical toxins and her symptoms, her illness appears to worsen. She isolates her environment from pollutants, and reacts violently upon contact. Again, doctors cannot find anything wrong with Carol’s physical health. Even Wrenwood, the treatment center for the environmentally sick, promotes more self-love and individual therapy than a chemically free area. When Carol attempts to talk about the importance of reading labels and knowing what types of chemicals are around, the silent response of the Wrenwood group suggests their message that environmental illness is linked to one’s own perception of themselves. With Carol forcing herself into self-love, Haynes suggests a psychological link to illness.

Safe seems to illustrate a dark portrait of humanity within modernity. Haynes puts a great deal of effort into exposing both sides of the issue of environmental illness, one demonstrating the obvious indulgent versus meager lifestyle, but also more subtelty the inescapability and ubiquity of technology. In the end, I feel pity for Carol as it becomes clear she will not escape from her progressing illness and her world shatters with greater force at the end of the film. In this way, I feel that Carol is special because her depravity comes from a self-induced origin, however indirectly induced it may have been. It was not her fault that technology saturated her lifestyle as it was all around her, yet in the end, she suffers unlike anyone else as she falls deeper and deeper into a cave (yup, like Kitum Cave) and cannot find her way out unless she brings a little bit of that cave with her and when she tries, others around are not able to live with her.
Haynes makes a point to maintain Carol's separation from both worlds (i.e. the baby shower scene and then the scene in her cabin at Wrenwood), which is also seen in her relationship with her stepson, who is distant as well as adversarial, and her husband, who seems to be humoring her with her illness as well as stringing her along in saying he loves her. Carol doesn't seem to belong in LA or Wrenwood (remember her birthday speech?) and instead finds herself drifting into her own world, away from people and technology, as best she can.

The beginning of Safe is filled with images of possible causes for Carol White's sickness. In setting up her sickness, there seems to be a myriad of things that could have made her sick; everything about her environment was potentially harmful. When I was watching the movie, I knew that Carol was going to become sick, so I was constantly aware that Haynes was using these images to illustrate the potential causes of her illness. First there was the nearby housing construction, then the new couch, the "mystery" chemicals being sprayed on her dishes by the maid, the paint on the cabinets, her husband's deodorant and cologne, the chemicals used to perm her hair, then the coloring marker, the gym, the dry cleaners, smog, and the list goes on and on. It reminded me of Monet's trip to Kitum Cave in the Hot Zone when Preston described the many potential ways in which Monet could have contracted the Ebola virus. It is this mystery as to where Ebola comes from that makes the virus even more frightening and causes the reader to panic. Similarly, Carol White's illness could have been brought about by anything, and it induces a sense of panic and paranoia in the viewer; it seems as if Haynes wants us to question the safety of our technologically-advanced and "pristine" environments.

"Safe" conveys physical beauty as a series of chemical coats: nail polish, makeup, hair treatment chemicals, hair spray, deodorant, and cologne. One of the questions this film asks is what happens when one becomes allergic to what makes them physically beautiful. Carol White’s vomit is itself white, which implies that she is expelling herself from herself. The film further develops this theme by focusing on the superficiality of upper class wealth and appearance and how these two materialistic elements do not remotely lead to self-love, but, in Carol’s case, lead directly to illness and exodus. Specifically, Carol’s illness is likely with herself, but in order to rework her identity she must leave a series of homes: her friendships, then her city house, then her cabin, until ultimately she encases herself in a porcelain vault. It is here, in her safe, that she begins trying to love herself again, for just like the chemicals she stripped away, she now begins the long process of tearing away layers of her identity in order to rebuild herself as something she can love. However, are we to truly believe that she will succeed in this task by using her narcissistic cult leader as a template? No, but perhaps if Carol pays enough money, she will eventually convince herself that she is both loveable and well.

If anyone did not get a chance to see Safe at the media center, you can rent it from the Blockbuster on University. It should be available, since I returned it at 11 am today.

1:00 sounds great

Hey Andrew, how about 1:00?

Edited by author 10-16-2002 09:17 PM
I'm planning to go to the media center at 12 noon tomorrow to see Safe. If anyone wants to accompany me, or has other suggestions (earlier or later), please Post. I have a DeCal at 5 so I'm going to have to watch it before then.

I actually got a copy of SAFE today, but its due tomorrow at 12pm. I tried pretty much all the blockbusters in the vicinty of the campus (about 4 of them) - it might be easier to see it at the media center for those who weren't going to.

Grace can see "Safe" Thursday after 5 and before 9.
Matt can Friday anytime
Rommel can Thursday after 5.
Zack can Thursday after 5
Andrew can thursday before 5.

Post your preferences here, and above all SEE SAFE!

RD

Open Source Pioneer Richard Stallman will speak soon. Here is the link: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu:80/Colloquium....1022.Stallman.html

Hey Guelda,
I thought your comments were really interesting on the subject of Rosy and her lack of femininity. Watson is definitely confused and annoyed by his inability to comprehend her: she is female, but not feminine enough to be a "normal" woman and the fact that she's a scientist and tries to take control in the lab (obviously a man's role) frustrates him even more. I thought you might find this quote interesting, I got it out of an article called "Between Men" by Eve Sedgewick, but it's actually something she quoted from Catherine MacKinnon: "Socially, female-ness means femininity, which means attractiveness to men, which means sexual attractiveness, which means sexual availability on male terms." Since Rosy chooses not to make herself attractive, she is challenging their male-dominated world of science, invading their lab with unfeminine female-ness, and not making herself available on their terms sexually or otherwise. Watson says while she is giving a speech on her X-ray pictures: "Momentarily I wondered how she would look if she took off her glasses and did something novel with her hair." (p. 51) In the middle of her presentation on crystallography, he's thinking of how she might look sexy! I think your observations are totally correct, and don't apologize for getting all feminist :) I was thinking the same thing.

I just want to add my comments on Watson's conception of science (better late than never, right?)
I agree with others that Watson moves away from a traditional paradigm of science in that he characterizes it as a practice of luck, improvisation, and calculated moves, rather than as a revelatory activity taking place in a void. That Watson portrays science as a contingent, messy line of work, with the desire for personal recognition as one of a scientists' primary goals, is refreshing and revealing. In one respect however, he fails entirely to be critical or self- aware.
  The manner in which the practice of science by Watson, Crick, Wilkins, and the others is decidedly gendered male, is not discussed, questioned, or so much as briefly considered. From her first introduction, (pg. 20) Wilkin's assistant Rosy does not fit into the scientific world according to Watson's description. Aside from mentioning the fact that she was 'a trained crystallographer', his first sentence of description of Rosy says that 'by choice she did not emphasize her feminine qualities.' Obviously for a female there is first a responsibility to embody some essentialized femininity, before other aspects of that person can be considered, at least according to Watson. In a book about the discovery of the structure of DNA one might not expect such comments in the second chapter, because what bearing could this, and the following description and beratement of her clothing, really have on anything? This diatribe is obviously a rationalization for Watson's inability to include a woman in his paradigm of scientific pracrtice. A woman is an abberation and her presence must be explained. His first characterization of her seems to imply that she is not really a woman. Her 'feminine qualities' indicates an something innate, and that she does not emphasize them, (as a normal woman would)-the subtext reads, makes her a false or somehow damaged woman. Rather than elucidating the limits of western science further as he has an opportunity to do in this book, and decrying the lack of women and minorities in his discipline he simply overlooks his obtuse double standards.
  Watson goes on to question directly why she was interested in science at all. This is not an investigation he performed in the description of any of his male co-workers. He insinuates that there is no reason why a woman from a well to do family would study science, unless she was 'the product of an unsatisfied mother who unduly stressed the desirability of professional careers.' The extent to which Watson investigates the psychological past of this scientist seems completely unwarranted. He has already said that Crick is loud and obnoxious, but no analysis is given of Crick's upbringing and what could possibly have led to his overactive and forced involvement in everything.
  But with Rosy it is different. This is the case throughout the book, even as his disrespect for Rosy and her discipline of crystallography effectively fuel the propogation of the double helical model of DNA. So sorry to get all feminist on you, but I thought it was worthy of discussion.

Hey Grace, my understanding is that we can pretty much write about anything in the works we're read (Prof Doyle said that he wanted to leave it somewhat open-ended). So, perhaps simply trace the evolution [manufacture?] and propagation of fear or panic through Blood Music, the Hot Zone, and Darwin [does the fear produced by the viruses reproduce like a virus? Are the books themselves viral? How does each require a host to reproduce? How is this supported by the text]. Look at how each work independently assembles these atmospheres, compare and contrast, etc.

Maybe try examining how the various authors convey viral reality in their prose. How to they bring the readers into an understanding of the molecular domain? How does that clash, compliment or ... with the macroscopic domain? Are there any points of no return where once the author conveys viral reality the reader's understanding of the macroscopic level is irreversibly changed [Discovery of DNA]? Why/not? How are the molecuar and macroscopic levels bridged? Which reality seems to be controlling the other? How does each influence the evolution of the other?

Just a few ideas,
Good Luck!

I have a question about the paper due on the 15th...what are we supposed to write about?

Any help would be appreciated!

A spoof on Biopure's operation (pasted from internet):

Biopure gives new meaning to blood work. The company makes an artificial blood product based on bovine red blood cells to deliver oxygen to patients with acute blood loss, anemia, or who have had a stroke or a heart attack. Its Hemopure, for humans, and Oxyglobin, for dogs (already approved for veterinary use), are made of purified and processed cow blood, have a two-year shelf life, do not require blood typing, and release more oxygen than a blood transfusion. The blood products also are less viscous than red blood cells, allowing them to flow more easily through partially blocked or constricted blood vessels.

--Biopure "gives new meaning to blood work." Why is this? Biopure has no intention of giving you a transfusion of human blood. After all, human blood has a short shelf life and is deficient in all the areas that Hemopure is not. While human blood is "natural", Biopure has come up with something better than what is "natural". Hemopure is, in fact, the new and improved source for blood transfusions. It can even be given to animals. Hemopure uses oxygen-rich blood taken from slaughtered cows. Once chemically altered and treated for transfusion into a human or your pet dog, Biopure really claims that Hemopure is better for us and more effective. How can something that is artificially contrived be better for us than our own "natural" blood? This is the rhetorical trick. What is natural is no longer the most beneficial. In this sense, biotechnology is not just fixing what is broken, but is improving on what was originally there.

Genentech is the self proclaimed “founder of the biotechnology industry”. It been around for 25 years which is ancient in biotech terms. They have 10 protein-based products on the market for serious or life-threatening medical conditions and 20 more projects in the pipeline. They seem to a an all around kind of company with “strength in all areas of the drug development process -- from research and development to manufacturing and commercialization -- Genentech continues to transform the possibilities of biotechnology into improved realities for patients.” Improved realities?

The most interesting stuff is there 25 year anniversary celebration. On this part of the their website, they pat themselves on the back about being the first biotech company and being almost like the fulfiller of the biotechnology prophecy.

"Biotech's first quarter century has been truly remarkable. As a science and an industry, biotechnology has delivered on its promise of improving patients' lives."
--Herb Boyer, Ph.D., Genentech co-founder

The overall rhetoric of the company is pretty much the same. They sound like a savior who has come to fulfill an age-old promise.

My Biotech Company: PrimeGen Biotech.

My biotech company uses genetic engineering to develop new technologies for the purposes of trying to extend human life by rejuvenating tissues and replacing aged cells throughout the body.
They do use stem cells and stem cell research, for a process called Cellular Replacement Therapy (CRT). They claim that they have already accomplished this process (CRT)in a preliminary animal experiment that serves as a model to show the feasibility in mammals/humans. The technology would be used to try and bring the human body back to a state of "prime" youth (not infancy), and could especially be useful for those affected by diseases etc. like parkinson's.
PrimeGen Biotech is a Delaware limited liability company (yet interestingly they seem to work out of Irvine, CA). They are to date a private company - i.e. no stock price to quote.
The reason why I want to follow a firm that deals with aging, because I honestly believe that we should be able to reverse if not control the aging process within the next 20-30 years - which would hopefully mean that I will one day be able to celebrate my 200th birthday.

My biotech company is Genetic Savings & Clone and they specialize in animal cloning. They hope to clone horses, livestock, wildlife and endangered species, and disability animals like Seeing Eye dogs, but what they’ve been working on most recently is cloning pets, that is to say, cats and dogs. They aided Texas A&M University in producing the first cloned cat, CopyCat, and are currently working on cloning a Collie-Husky mixed dog, Missy, for Missy’s former owners. Missy’s website begins, “Welcome to the home page for the Missyplicity Project, which aims to clone a dog for the first time in history - a specific dog named Missy. Missy was a beloved pet who died on July 6, 2002, and whose owners wish to reproduce her - or at least create a genetic duplicate (which we all know is not the same thing).” It’s interesting the distinction they make here, that there is something in Missy that can not be duplicated in her DNA. Missy was the original of a design that can be duplicated but not replaced.

In their FAQ someone asked, “What Will Be Done With the Clones if They Are Different From Missy?” and the company responded, “All animals born as a result of this project - whether clones or not - will be placed in loving homes at our expense. Missy's owners are prepared to love a Missy clone even if it shares none of Missy's behavioral traits (though it is certain to resemble her physically). This project is in part an exploration of one of the deepest questions of all - nature versus nurture - and both Missy's owners and the scientific team are looking forward to studying the ways the clone may differ from Missy.”

It appears to be true for other research I’ve done that the animals can be behaviorally different because it doesn’t have the same physiological experience of being inside the womb. However, other sources claim that the clone may even be physically different looking from its model. For example, CopyCat was cloned from a calico cat and the pattern of calico was different from the original cat. Again, this has been traced back to not having the environmental experience of being in the womb where a lot of the cat’s features are shaped. This only restates one of Genetic Savings & Clone’s comments that “reproduction is not resurrection”.

Edited by author 10-07-2002 05:08 AM
Rhetoric 174
The Way of the Future is Now!
Introducing Sugen, Inc. (www.sugen.com)

The only reason I know about this company is because my good friend is currently a junior associate scientist at Sugen - a SF based company. Not many people have heard of this company and it might be because it is one of the smaller bio-firms owned by a mutlinational pharmaceutical company, Pharmacia Corporation. However, Pfizer bought the company for $60 billion this year.

A brief bio of the company:
Sugen is a "biopharmaceutical company developing drugs to target the regulation of signal transduction pathways inside the body's cells." In other words, they use chemical signals, like the noocytes, to cause change in the molecular behavior of ill or deficient cells. It also focuses "on critical cellular processes; SUGEN is employing an integrated array of drug discovery and development technologies to create a broad pipeline of novel pharmaceuticals to fight cancer and other illnesses."

Sugen, like other companies, engage in R&D to find cures for diseases and most of their research and development is targeted for profit. They conduct clinical trials, if patients qualify, and if a drug is successful at this stage most likely it will be approved by the FDA. A drug that just been approved by the FDA is Pharmacia's INSPRA - An Aldosterone Blocker for the Treatment of Hypertension. These types of drugs are constantly developed and researched at Sugen. In a sense, this type of research parallels the research in the novel titled "Blood Music."

As an intended molecular and cell biology major in my earlier days in college, I saw the dramatic impact of science on society. When we talk about cell transductions and inhibitions, we are talking about what the noocytes were doing in Vergil's body (almost) - sending chemical signals through cells and altering them or telling them to behave in a specific way. One could argue that modern science have created primitive versions of noocytes. INSPRA, for example, are similar to noocytes. The only difference is that INSPRA is specific and once injected into a body it will follow a specific chemical pathway at a cellular level and stop. However, noocytes have intelligence and ability to learn and multiple.

If noocytes were ever developed in the future, I would guess that it would happen at a place like Sugen. However, Sugen is one out of many biotech firms trying to profit by producing drugs that work at a molucular and cellular level. In comparison to "Blood Music", the goal of Sugen is similar to Genetron. They both want to somehow prolong the life of the sick and cure them, eventually. My friend tells me that he's beginning to doubt the direction of molecular biology. He argues that the research he does is only to make people live longer. He sees no point in prolonging lives when everyone will eventually die. So we have to ask the question: what is the true purpose of science?

A simple answer could be Sugen - to establish a scientific facility to engage in R&D to cure the sick. But we know that science is becoming highly perfected and sophisticated. How far are we from developing functional biochips that could potentially think and fix the human body? Is the ultimate goal of science to produce mechanisms such as the noocytes to reach a higher level of existence? Technically, science is undoubtable, but philosophically and morally I question its direction and ask for what purpose? I can't answer that question, but I know for a fact chemical mechanisms will be much more advanced in the future and if my friend is correct we will eventually evolve because of human intervention and not because of nature. In other words, literally, evolution is on our finger tips! Science will dictate evolution and not nature.

   At this present time Cytovax Biotechnologies Incorporated makes headlines in the Biotech field with the development of novel and more effective weapons against infectious diseases. Presently this firm is being hailed for its Anti-Adhesion technology, which unlike antibiotics, prevents initial adhesion of pathogens onto human mucosal cells to prevent the infection process from its roots. This eliminates the problematic existence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Amomg the company's many targets are Bordetella parapertussis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Among its allies are Altachem Pharma Ltd, a pharmeceutical entity. Cytovax's assests estimate to approximately over $11 million. Even more, this efficient, influential, and prestigious company continues to advance in its output by seeking further clinical clearance for additional medication.

Imgenex Corporation
Imgenex Corporation is a San Diego-based biotech company interested in cancer, apoptosis, molecular signaling pathways, cellular aging, and metabolic and infectious diseases. On their website, they claim that they develop and commercialize “novel reagents for the scientific study of human biology and disease and for the production of new diagnostic assays and potential therapies of such diseases.” Their products include antibodies, tissue array slides, various “kits,” (such as Gene Suppressor RNA kits, ProVectin protein transfection kits, etc) their “INSTA-blot” product line, Expression Systems, and Custom Services such as Custom Gene Cloning and Protein Purification. Each of these products has separate links that lead to pages with explanations of the products and the prices (Custom Gene Cloning costs a mere $9,600!!). I was especially intrigued by the “Custom Services” because the services that they provide seem very complex (not to mention confusing and beyond my understanding) and although intended for researchers, the products are presented on the website as if they are commonplace and meant for anyone to order. (There is even an advertisement at the bottom of the page saying, “Receive a free T-shirt or Coffee mug with any antibody or kit order.”) You can even order the products online (does this mean any person could just order these things?), and there is also a “tell a friend” button at the bottom of the page so that you can recommend the site to others. It seems so funny to see things like genes, ready-to-use membranes, and tumor tissues traded in such a casual manner, but Imgenex seems to have everything: newsletters, special promotions, and user manuals for their products.
http://www.imgenex.com/index.html

I'm shadowing Chiron, mainly because I used to ride my bike past it everyday either on my way home or to work. Its located in Emeryville on Hollis street (I belive) and a good number of its employees take the Emery-GO (free shuttle) to work.

I checked out the Yahoo finance message boards, and it was totally eerie. Some people were asking about viruses "Fila" viruses, and upon further reading it sounded like something straight out of the HOT ZONE. So I looked through their web pages and it turns out that they produce/specialize in: biopharmasudicals, vaccines and blood testing equipment. And the rheotirc of the whole page creates a "protector" ethos for the company: " Chiron Blood Testing is a leading provider of products used worldwide by the blood banking industry to help ensure the safety of the world’s blood supply".
I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but its funny when its intermingled with language about the high commercibility of their products and their financial success. And then there is the issue that this is mostly all I could understand on this page - as it also discussed things in science-language that is WAY above my comprehension.

GeneLink, inc.

GeneLink is a South Jersey genetic bioscience company that develops nutritional supplements geared towards a person's individual DNA. Reflecting the new science of "pharmacogenomics", GeneLink, in conjunction with Nugenix, develops these nutritional supplement regimens based on combinations of 64 different nutritional supplements and 128 separate skin-care products. The uses for their products range from combating oxidative stress, to promoting optimal circulatory, neurological and bone health. GeneLink's genetic profiling technology searches for the existence of single nucleotide polymorphisms, known as SNPs, which are naturally occurring variations in genes in the human population. The benefit of using nutragenetic products, according to GeneLink, is for people to combat conditions before their symptoms surface. GeneLink licenses distribution companies to market the products, and will receive undisclosed royalties for each sale. The company, which has raised about $2 million from private investors since its inception, is publicly traded on the Nasdaq OTC Bulletin Boards. GeneLink's stock is now trading at about 35 cents per share, a significant drop from its August value of 75 cents per share.

Intron, inc.

Intronn is a Maryland based biomedical company that introduces Spliceosome Mediated RNA Trans-splicing Gene Therapy or SMaRT™ Gene Therapy. This technology seeks to differentiate between normal and mutated/diseased genes and re-program those 'bad' genes into producing 'good' genes.

There is some interesting stuff on their website that goes into detail of what they hope to do with their technology in treating such medical catastrophes as AIDS and cancer. They are all about gene splicing and mixing up your DNA like a cocktail drink.

Their website is http://www.intronn.com/home.htm

Behold: Montreal-based Nexia Biotechnologies, Inc.

Though they have many interests, Nexia is best known for its spider silk research. Specifically, this company is in the process of growing spider silk fibers in order to produce a multitude of commercially viable products. Being that spider dragline silk has greater tensile strength (won't tear apart when stretched) than steel, is more stretchable than nylon and is biodegradable, the market for this material would be immense: fishing line, medical sutures, very light body armor, protective outdoor clothing, fishing nets, ligament prosthetic devices, etc.

So then, why hasn’t spider silk previously been “farmed” like regular silk? Well, unlike silk worms, spiders are highly territorial and tend to kill and eat rivals. Additionally, since spiders produce many different kinds of silk -- dragline being the strongest, framing, non-sticky fibers -- even if they were to be farmed, only a small portion of any given web is worth harvesting. Consequently, large-scale manufacture of spider silk has not been an industrial option, until now.

The gist of Nexia’s procedure involves taking the spider gene that allows for the construction of the dragline spider silk and inserting it into the mammary glands of a goat. Once done, there’s now a transgenic goat capable of excreting dragline spider silk in its milk. From there, the silk is filtered out of the milk as BioSteel®

Sample Rhetoric from this company’s web site:

“The large scale production of recombinant proteins is via transgenic BELE® goats. Our BELE® (Breed Early Lactate Early) transgenic goat system features short generation times, a multiplicity of births, lack of seasonality and good milk production. The BELE® goat system permits rapid "access to the goat genome" on a cost/time effective basis.”

 “transgenetic goat system!”

That kills me.

To learn more:
http://www.nexiabiotech.com/HTML/technology/biosteel.shtml
http://micro.newswire.ca/releases/January2.../c3392.html/35334-0

If you're still having trouble finding a bio-tech company, this website lists like all of the biotech companies out there alphabetically
http://www.hum-molgen.de/companies/

The layman image of scientific ideology: a cerebral loner pours over calculations as the unnoticed sun rises and falls; a slight twitch begins to develop in the scientist's right eyelid as his moth-like mind tumbles toward yet another flaming epiphany.

Indeed, in a stark contrast we have Nobel laureate James Watson, whose most brilliant contribution to his amazing discovery was being smart enough not to ruffle any political feathers while skillfully nurturing his most important tool, Francis Crick. "I could not understand what Francis was up to and reverted to The Times for amusement" (p 55). What a beautiful image: Watson with his Ph.D. in-hand being unable to understand Crick, an individual incapable of mustering the wherewithal to complete his Ph.D. And these two won a Nobel?

Watson himself seems to be staring in a mirror as he declares, “One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid” (p 18-19).

The most troubling question vectored by this work: what has happened to the science’s presumed nobility? Specifically, seeing the inner workings of a successful scientific community goes a long way toward diminishing the mystique of the revered white smock prophets (biotech now calls them ‘the white smock profits’). Though we are all aware that science is designed to eliminate the erroneous human factor, seeing the critical roles that pride, politics and ambition played in this revolutionary unveiling is truly unsettling. I suppose this is because we have been conditioned to think that science is a reassuring, sterile, objective endeavor when in fact, it’s just another typical page out of Machiavelli’s Greatest Hits: Human Instinct on Display.

So then, we see that science is a pleasant job for Watson, and so why should we condemn him for exploiting science for his own personal betterment just because he does not fit the traditional ideal of what it is to be a scientist?

Edited by author 09-23-2002 08:45 PM
Rhetoric 174
Watson's Science

Some of my colleagues have argued that Watson engages in guessing games and don't fit the generic mold of a scientist. I must voice my protest. Yes, Watson is playing guessing games. However, the guessing takes place within the realm and the complexity of science. Watson is utilizing scientific research and facts that are available to him to engage in scientific discovery. As Professor Doyle stated in lecture, scientists are like artists and at times science isn't purely research oriented but it involves the interjection of human creativity. Watson is being innovative and at the same time creative by gathering the unsolved scientific pieces in order to create a single and understandable picture. This is science to Watson.

"I soon was taught that Pauling's accomplishment was a product of common sense, not the result of complicated mathematical reasoning." (38) Watson follows this line of reasoning. In Watson's view, even the best will depend solely on the laws of chemistry and intuitions to produce scientific innovations and theories. In this sense, Watson is a gatherer of information. As the story goes on, the readers realize that Watson isn't too competent when it comes to chemistry and mathematics. However, what he is good at is gathering information and trying to interpret other peoples' scientific results. This is science to Watson. In class we discussed that a question leads to experiments and eventually leading to results. But acquiring results/data don't mean that you've gotten the answer to the question. Many scientists, like Chargaff, have acquired intriguing data, but haven't found the meaning behind the results. On the other hand, Watson is good at finding the meaning of things. "Chargaff's rules then suddenly stood out as a consequence of a double-helical structure of DNA." (125) This is science for Watson.

Secondly, science to Watson is winning the Nobel Prize - the ultimate glory in science. "When Francis was amazed equally by Pauling's unorthodox chemistry, I began to breathe slower. By then I knew we were still in the game." (103) He calls science a game. For Watson science is glory and it is the reward at the end of the rainbow that drives him.

Thus, two important elements influence Watson's direction in science: (1) the Nobel Prize and (2) the glory of gathering information and putting them together. In a sense, the former drives the latter. However, the latter can't drive the former because the end goal is the Nobel Prize. One could argue that Watson is a greedy capitalist -who steals others' results to achieve his own individualistic motive and not for the greater betterment of humanity. And I say there is nothing wrong with that!

James Watson provides an interesting account of science in the Double Helix. Science is normally configured as being objective fact derived from the scientific method. What Watson shows us is that science is as much a guessing game as anything else. The scientific theories derived by Watson and Crick are as often disproved as approved by the surrounding community. In response to the criticism they consider noteworthy, they adjust their models hoping to derive an antecedent theory that satisfies the condition of not-being-able-to-be disproved. While Crick seems to be furiously chasing any mathematical theory that pops into his head at the moment, Watson is continuously learning and relearning his basic scientific theory in order to be able to keep up and contribute. These two struggling scientists, along with the meticulous mind of Rosy, happen to stumble across the double helix using luck and creativity more so than their pre-approved scientific skills. In conclusion, science has more to do with crazy ideas than facts because crazy ideas that cannot be disproved are often so because of the fact that they are true…that is until some later scientists improves upon the latter’s theories.

Rhetoric 174

What is Science for Watson? It is interesting in that “Science” for Watson is not only something that he is attempting to redefine but is in itself a process of redefinition. Science is a process of redefinition in that it redefines the world and the limits of its own endeavors. Watson wants to show, first of all that science is not an individual selfless act of discovery motivated merely by a desire for knowledge, but it is an extremely adversarial practice. He places the traditional role of scientific objectivity into scrutiny and shows that science like other fields of knowledge requires conflict between participants. He ridicules other members of the scientific community and the community itself. For Watson, this judgmental rhetoric of other scientists demonstrates conflict inherent in this process of redefinition, where science mediates this conflict between individuals and it is through this conflict that science seems to be redefined.

What is science for Watson?

Science for Watson is gossip and competition. This incorporates not only his confessional style but also how he eventually comes to his scientific discovery of the double helix. The alliances between scientists in his world are rather shaky. They depend on each other for their previous discoveries, yet they are also in competition with each other for the ultimate prize. There has to be a kind of selective sharing amongst them. Then there is also the tremendous egotism of each scientists’ personalities (I guess I mean mostly Watson and Crick). There is the part in chapter 13 when Watson and Crick called up the rest of the gang and told them they had found the correct structure of DNA, and they all rush to see Watson and Crick, only to receive a long general lecture from Crick on the virtues of the helical structure. The arrogance of Watson and Crick for making their colleagues travel all that way only to hear what they already knew. Their strategy for science is gossip, making it appear as though they know more than they do.

In contrast to the many interpretations of Crick’s science as a competitive event, I would like to propose that one way of understanding Crick’s vision of science is science as the search for beauty. This interpretation is supported by two factors, the way Crick does his work, and the criterion that he applies to science as a test for its correctness. On page 61 Crick writes “Perhaps the whole problem would fall out just by our concentrating on the prettiest way for a polynucleotide chain to fold up.” Crick often uses the term pretty to describe a scientific model that is correct. His entire way of understanding the material he is dealing with is set within a visual scheme. From using images to try and “see” a double helix to making models by tinkering with them until they look good, Crick’s method of doing science is to search for a visual intuitive correctness that he calls “pretty”.

Science as Tabloid

I would not go as far as to suggest that Watson was disgusted with his colleagues and loathed to work with them. When he states, “one could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also stupid. He is merely trying to deflate a popular conception of scientists as selfless individuals motivated only by an almost overzealous desire for the Truth. His numerous anecdotes also serve his egomaniacal desire for glory by underlining the additional lengths he had to go through to win the Nobel prize—he not only had to overcome the rigors of scientific research but he had to go up against the petty grievances of all those around him. However, Watson does not seem to care too much about other scientists getting in his way; his cynical observation that “many [scientists] were cantankerous fools who unfailingly backed the wrong horses” clearly served him in his quest to understand DNA. As a social butterfly with clear goal he is amused with the wide array of idiosyncrasies that many of his peers displayed on a daily basis and enjoys using their foibles to his advantage. Watson is not trying to write a sordid expose on the rapacity of his colleagues and neither are his writings reflections of a bitter jaded old man. Rather, Watson is trying to impart to the audience his amusement with the scientific profession in general.

Science For Watson:

It’s interesting that Watson’s story starts out with him avoiding to learn any chemistry. The fact is a sign that Watson takes a very practical approach to science. The first few chapters give us a good view of the ordeal it is to deal with the people and the administration. At the time there, and even now, people have a view that science works under greater civility than the rest of the world, but it is done by people so it is subject to people’s moods. Linus Pauling was the only person in the world that could give a talk and show the excitement of a ten year old, something his colleagues appreciated with varying degree because it denied the objectivity a scientist was supposed to show. Francis is much like that, a playful scientist, as compared to Maurice. Watson sees no need to do more or less than the job requires. He spent the later part of the book going to social events in part because he knew that even if he had spent time on the project he would not have gotten very far, if anywhere. It’s hard to tell exactly what role he played in the discovery of DNA sometimes because things just seem to happen to him. In a way, his experience was a lucky event after another intermixed with some paperwork. The whole time Watson knows what he wants to do and he takes appropriate action to get what he wants, and, as in the case of his work on DNA, he doesn’t see the need to do any more or less than is necessary to get the job done right.

Edited by author 09-23-2002 11:26 AM
Science for Watson is...

Watson's account of the extraordinary discovery of meaning of DNA blackens the meaning and objectivity of science. It becomes apparent that science to Watson is like net profit gain to an entrepeneur. Watson goes to lengths to achieve prime understanding and uncovery of the srtucture of DNA while forgoing important steps that would humbly get him there, much like a business man will aim for the most monetary gain in exchange for the least costing products.

What's more, Watson's account further illustrates how the scientific community is much more at odds with one another and judgemental than an outsider of science would think. When he notes how obnoxious Crick's voice would be (pp.10) or how some scientists are narrow-minded and stupid (pp.13) or why Rosy became a problem because she was a feminist (pp.15) or how Luris "positively abhorred" chemists (pp. 17)we are able to see that scientists are very adversarial with each other (the list of these instance go on and on). Rather than speaking about the importance of the scientist to the whole work of science, much of Watson's critique is based on personality faults and character traits. From this, we gain some insight on how Watson sees science as a competition of gaining noteriety than any quantitative or qualitative gain for humankind.

At the same time, there is a division between rules of ethics/etiquette and the notion of every man for himself that is often blurred for Watson and his scientific community. Science, then, for Watson also is a social construct for him, a way of life.

What is science for Watson? I am not convinced that Watson could give a clear definition himself – as the partial hints he gives towards what he believes is science, differs greatly than the actual participation methods in regards to science or scientific methods. In chapter 10 he talks briefly about ‘clear science,’ probably meaning mathematics, physics, quantum mechanics, and perhaps solid chemistry (probably excluding organic chemistry). These sciences probably appeared as fool proof, with repeatable data and results, and solid enough that they could be used as foundations to build more ‘science’ upon. This contrasted with the science that Watson dealt with in practice. He stayed away from ‘clean science’ as much as he could – doing everything possible to stay away from learning chemistry etc. until when absolutely necessary. The reader can clearly see that his ‘scientific method’ is little more than trial and error, and gathering snip-its and tidbits of information to be compiled together and see if any pattern could be found.

Rhetoric 174
Elementary my dear Watson

For Watson, science is a race, and he naturally wants to be the one to cross the finish line first. Watson seems to have not performed any experiments himself; he just looked to others to do it for him. He used Pauling’s idea of a helix, Rosalind’s idea of the phosphate backbone on the outside, Donahue’s idea of the keto purines, and Chargaff’s idea that G corresponds with C, and A and T likewise. He took the pieces of the puzzle and put them into their logical placement, the only real decision being that it was a double helix. Don’t get me wrong, Watson is my kind of man: “It was my hope that the gene might be solved without my learning any chemistry” (17). Watson seems to be the type of scientist only willing to do the least work needed and no more. He delights at Pauling’s method of finding the structure of DNA by using simple models (34) because it doesn't involve as much math and process. Watson constantly finds himself not knowing enough. He doesn’t understand journals or seminars or basic crystallography; he does pick up a few things here and there, but for the most part he’s in the dark. In this race, Watson uses everyone else as a bridge for his victory.

Watson's Science- Rhetoric 174
I believe that Watson’s idea of what science is becomes clear at the beginning of the book when he states: “One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid” (18-19). With this quote, it becomes clear that he is disgusted with the scientific world and also wants to show how the world’s view of science and scientists is fallacious. He claims that many of the scientists are not even intelligent and suggests that in many cases, it is all about playing politics and acting “proper.” Watson is clearly disgusted at all of the politics that he has to play in order to remain in Cambridge, and even resorts to sneaky tactics and lies to trick people into thinking he is working on certain projects when in fact the only thing he is concerned about is DNA. However, he is not concerned about DNA because he sincerely wants to learn about it or hopes it will greatly benefit the scientific world; instead, he longs to become famous and win the Nobel Prize so that he can become a member of the scientific social circles. It is clear that Watson and Crick are two outsiders of these circles. Watson does not fit in because of his status as an American, and Crick because he has an eccentric way of thinking and speaking. They are seen as “two scientific clowns” (137) and are often criticized for their strange approach to the DNA problem. They finally triumph when everyone realizes that “…[their] past hooting about model building represented a serious approach to science, not the easy resort of slackers who wanted to avoid the hard work necessitated by an honest scientific career” (136). Thus, for Watson science is not just about sitting around socializing while discussing scientific problems or about playing fair. Rather, it is about being the most ambitious and resourceful; and of course, winning the “ultimate prize.”
~Samantha H. Eldredge
September 23, 2002

What is Science for Watson?
(in ~150 words)
Science, for Watson, is the process of discovering new information that focuses on decoding the biological aspects to “life” (18). “Personalities and cultural traditions play major roles” (ix) in science, as seen in Watson’s “story” (14) relating the people and situations that shaped his discovery of the double helix. Watson’s autobiographical account of his “scientific” discovery presents the process of utilizing ideas from other scientists to build an award-winning hypothesis and theory. The competitive nature of science is also presented in Watson's text. The politics of obtaining money for research and associating with the “right” people suggests a struggle for each scientist to make a contribution in the field. According to Watson, successful science is measured in the publication of scientific articles and obtaining accolades within the scientific community. His efforts to prove the double helical theory of DNA are, in part, attributed to his desire to win the Nobel Prize. In addition, Watson describes science as a presentation in convincing others to accept new data. The rhetoric necessary for effective science is suggested by Watson's description of the science from Linus Pauling. For instance, he describes the influential arguments of Linus Pauling articles through his statement “the language was dazzling and full of rhetorical tricks” (31). Within Watson’s motivation as a scientist, his definition of science relates to the process of obtaining new information on the genetic features of life and presenting the award-winning discoveries into influential articles for the scientific community.

                                       Hanesther Kim
                                       Per. 5(Rhet.)
                                       09/23/2002

James Watson Redefines

 
 The tone of James Watson’s The Double Helix render the work as a notable piece of scientific explanation. These elements, however, engender a crucial idea of how Watson perceives and handles science. James Watson openly reveals his naiveté of numerous fields, deviates from the formal and rigid preconceived notions surroundings scientific concepts to ultimately redefine the field of science. Watson demonstrates that science not only requires the conventional methods but a humanistic genuine curiosity, which also dispels the restriction of science to an esoteric domain. James Watson’s expounding of this discovery but an implicit comment to the conventional notions of scientific areas.
 The tone and content that Watson chooses to employ evokes a sense of casualness and frankness. Watson even openly admits his lack of knowledge on such perceivably crucial areas of science including chemistry and mathematics. He explicitly states why “from laziness since, as an undergraduate at the University of Chicago, I was principally interested in birds and managed toward taking only chemistry or physics courses which looked of even medium difficulty” (Watson 17). In effect, Watson evokes this lack of such knowledge, which one would expect Watson to exclude from a story of his work. He even reveals an almost selective attitude with DNA discovery as he simply hoped it didn’t involve chemistry. Even after their groups pivotal discovery of the double helix structure, and despite Francis Crick’s objection, Watson traveled to Paris for a vacation believing, “A call for seriousness, however, was not to my liking” (127). Therefore, Watson evokes, voluntarily, an impression of relatively relaxed mentality. He does not portray himself as the conventional ideal scientist who ascetically and obsessively labors over his work, which Rosalind Franklin and Francis Crick seem to be characterized as. Watson, in effect, intentionally and overtly illustrates his character as relatively naive, casual, and optimistic.
 However, Watson does not undermine the integrity of science as a field needless of knowledge, dedication, and perseverance, such virtues that traditionally define the character of a scientist. Nor does he portray himself as one who lacks serious values. Instead, Watson redefines the image and notion of the scientist, as well as science as a whole. Although there were moments where Francis questioned the seriousness of Watson, Watson’s rather open attitude allowed him to contribute to the project. Watson states in his realization that, “I soon was taught that Pauling’s accomplishment was a product of common sense, not the result of complicated mathematical reasoning,” as he considers Linus Pauling’s advancement (33-34). In this moment Watson makes a critical argument on the conventional notions of science. He explicitly states that science is not resurrected to the aspect of such strict resources as math and chemistry, but that the projects require an additional element, in this case commonsense. Watson, fueled by competition against Paling in “stealing the prize” learns that victory requires ingenuity and thinking beyond the empirical domain (92). He contemplates “thinking that much of our success was due to uneventful periods when we walked among the colleges or unobtrusively read the new books that came into Heffer’s Bookstore,” in the midst of the completion of their winning model of the double helix (117). Ultimately, then, Watson’s deviation from the common characteristic of a scientist does not undermine the seriousness of his field but redefines the idea of the necessities involved. His familiarization with the readers and the public does more than establish a pleasant casual atmosphere. Watson’s character and means of addressing his project demonstrate that science requires ingenious resorting in a realm powered by competition.
 Watson, then, by being informal and quite unconventional establishes true science as that utilizing ingenious, humanistic, common elements together with the formal modes of science. By redefining science in this way, Watson conveys a sense of individualism. His earlier remarks preceding his building of the model he frequently expressed that “not once did I have the faintest trace of a respectable idea” (22). Watson was a mere American, who had hardly enjoyed the English Aristocratic life, nor had he knowledge of chemistry, mathematics, or crystallography. He includes these humble beginnings, in which he hadn’t conceived of the possibility of his accomplishment, in contrast with eventual of this fantasy. In such a perspective, Watson portrays his story as a true American rise to historical stature and importance. Therefore, through this, Watson opens up the field as one accessible to even those deviating from the common expectations of scientists and characters.
 The intentions of James Watson extend farther than to retell a story of his project and race for the Nobel Prize. His portrayal of himself as a casual and frank deviant from the image of scientist enables him to express his belief in the meaning of science as a field requiring both the conventional qualities as well as an individualistic, ingenious, and humanistic element in a competitively motivated zone. Ultimately, James Watson’s American status allows him to familiarize, enhance, as well as broaden the meaning of science and its relation to individuals of the society.

In his concluding paragraph, Darwin utilizes several of the rhetorical devices he has depended on throughout the text, but seems unusually eloquent with the punchline. He begins with a sentence in the passive voice, “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank…” and then includes a list of the oldest surviving organisms known to science: plants, birds, insects and worms. These make up an interdependent ecosystem, each of which “have all been produced by laws acting around us.” The audience must take up his position, or at least entertain it. The structure of the sentence leaves the reader little choice. To deny that “it is interesting” or to refute that this ecosystem was “produced by laws acting around us” would require a very strong and well supported opinion to the contrary.

Supposing we have at least some objection to this statement, Darwin proceeds to list laws by name, complete with capitalization of the names of each law. The effect of capitalizing “Nature” throughout his text reminds us that he keeps the Creator in mind even while he is trying to distance us from clinging to Creationism. He then capitalizes his own key term, “Natural Selection,” adding credibility to the term. Here in the last paragraph, he likewise capitalizes other laws that lay out his observations and theses – “Growth and Reproduction,” “Variabliity”, “Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life,” etc. And these laws describe the grounds for the “war of nature,” because Darwin remains interested throughout in the role of death and extinction in carving out “the higher animals.” His language funnels down his ideas so nicely here, up until the concluding sentence that sounds more poetic than scientific – “grandeur” and “beauty” and “power” and “wonder” all wind up inadvertently (perhaps) describing the key word of the treatise: “evolved,” which describes how the mind of his reader should have behaved by the time they finish Darwin’s text.

Darwin's Perspective

We cannot ignore the fact that Darwin's conclusions were derived from his observations of nature. The scientific derivatives and theories were simply extracted from his observational studies. Therefore, Darwin tried to explain nature from his observations of patterns and trends in nature; however, I have to believe that his theories were prone to his own personal opinions, biases, and the conventional thoughts of his time. However, I must agree with Rommel Cortez, for Darwin is carefully introducing his ideas to the public. Moreover, I must disagree with Kerra Daniels, who believes "Darwin kills God."

I'm not degrading Darwin's position as a scientist or as a naturalist. However, Darwin was taking up a task that was bigger than life - by trying to extract the meaning of the "Origin of Species". Darwin admits that "The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown." (32) He further goes on to state, "When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species." (33) Darwin implicitly admits that he, himself, doesn't know the truth of nature. But he is trying to come up with some form of derivatives to support his theories. For example, Darwin stresses variation. The argument that this world varies greatly can't be denied and could stand as an inevitable axiom. Within his theory of variability he precludes the idea of natural selection. Within his doubts he introduces the process of natural selection as a scientific law. He argues, "Natural selection will modify the structure of the young in relation to the parent, and of the parent in relation to the young. In social animals it will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the community." (50-51) In this statement, there is no doubt in his voice. This is what he believes in, which stands as a backbone to his theories. He is arguing that living things have the ability to adapt and it is natural selection that drives adaptability. In a sense adaptability is contingent to natural selection.

However, Darwin does not blindly pursue his position. He clearly realizes that scientific data of the 19th century is imperfect. "For my part, following out Lyell's metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept." (93) Human record of nature is imperfect in comparison to the existence of nature itself. I can't deny the fact that Darwin is conducting ground breaking work in the midst of religious, social, and/or scientific criticism. In my sincere opinion, Darwin is being a true scientist by introducing his ideas in a logical fashion. There is much rationality and logic involved in his analysis. Although he introduces theories and ideas that might contain room for error, his theories are backed by samples and extensive examination of various species. A lot of thought went into his research. In the end, Charles Darwin is not trying kill God, religion, or even restrict the value of nature to the human perspective. He is logically analyzing his surroundings and making in-depth observation of nature. His theories don't jump around, but contain a logical flow. Although his theories are prone to errors, the rationale behind his theories and research make one ponder and question the hierarchy of our world. A wild jungle might look chaotic for mere observers, but to Darwin he sees order - order of nature. And he tries to explain this observation without trying to destroy or diminish the values of his time period.

Nature and Darwin’s Images of Warfare

 Charles Darwin describes nature as “the entangled bank”. When the popular science of the time looked at nature and perceived sets of species and fixity within their development over time, Darwin saw interconnectedness and change. This primary understanding of the complexity of nature and the laws that governed these multifaceted interactions lead Darwin to coin the term “natural selection”. He attributed to nature the ability and agency to modify and select species over time and to discard others, thus introducing the element of extinction and death into his studies. In The Origin of Species, Darwin employs various rhetorical techniques to describe nature in these terms.
 Darwin describes natural selection as the “preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variations…” (pg. 69) As species vary slightly over time, nature selects those whose variations are the most favorable to the state of nature. At the same time, those variations that produce weakness (in terms of the immediate environment) are selected against. Nature then is a kind of perpetual warfare between a multiplicity of species and variations for a fixed set of resources. Those who succeed in obtaining the most resources survive the longest. On the same page, Darwin employs images of warfare when he uses the phrase “the great and complex battle of life…” (pg. 69) to describe these circumstances.
 Darwin shifts to talking about the effects of changes in climate on a location. Darwin takes the example of nations and boundaries to describe what would then occur on a macro- level. He writes, “If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would seriously disturb the relations of some of the former inhabitants.” (pg. 69) If the borders were closed to immigration, the immigration would occur anyways and warfare would follow. The inhabitants worst prepared for fighting would naturally be annihilated. On a micro- level, these same reactions occur with a change in climate or even the introduction of a new tree into an environment. Darwin uses images of warfare on various levels to describe how these interactions take place both in the human world and also within the state of nature.

It is good thus to try in imagination to give any one species an advantage over another. Probably in no single instance should we know what to do. This ought to convince us of our ignorance on the mutual relations of all organic beings; a conviction as necessary, as it is difficult to acquire. All that we can do is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio; that each, at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation, or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply. (end ch.3)
Darwin concludes his third chapter, in which he introduces his controversial notion of extinction, with a reader involving request to consider the interaction between species. Darwin’s text is littered with such requests for reader interaction. These requests serve to keep the reader attached to the text, to keep their mind engaged with what Darwin is arguing. I see two possible reasons why Darwin would do such. First, for those who are not inherently hostile to his theory, the amount of information Darwin is delivering to his reader, he needs to consider the possibility of the reader’s mind simply wandering. Repeated directions for what form this wandering should take help to maintain the reader’s attention. Second, for those who are hostile to Darwin’s theory, directing the reader’s thought prevents them from spending time thinking of flaws with Darwin’s theory. It also allows Darwin some chance of inspiring such readers to come to the same conclusions he does, a more effective tactic for convincing hostile readers.

This particular reader request is unfair. Darwin is speaking as an expert in life’s diversity beyond compare, while most of his readers will only be familiar with local plants and animals. Following the extended building of Darwin’s ethos (constantly talking about such a diversity of life establishes Darwin as an expert on such material) Darwin stands alone as a person with the knowledge necessary to answer the questions he puts to his reader.

The ignorance that Darwin argues for concerning our knowledge of the interaction and relation of life stands as a direct attack on the preceding notion of unity of plan. Unity of plan requires that we understand all life as having relations of analogy. Darwin claims that we have “ignorance on the mutual relations of all organic beings”. If even the man who knows such minutia of detail about life from all corners of the globe doesn’t understand the nature of the relations between any two organisms, it doesn’t seem as plausible that men who have done nothing but armchair biology arguing for the unity of plan can be right. Of course, unity of plan is a strongly held doctrine; hence Darwin’s saying that our relinquishing it is both difficult and necessary. Darwin wants to replace the rigid set of relations of the unity of plan with a single general notion of how living things interact. Funnily enough, for a chapter detailing the harshness of the competition of life, Darwin ends on an upbeat note saying that the happy multiply.

Darwin on N/nature:

    Darwin kills God and replaces it with Nature as life force. Then, perhaps to avoid religious and political persecution, obscures the concept of nature by applying the word into different constructs. For instance, he refers to the state, the scale, the economy, the war, the law, and the polity of nature. Extremity of these constituents reveals Nature’s omnipresence, much like that of God. The first instance Darwin speaks of Nature with a capital N is as follows: “We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.” (53) In addition to passage in Acts 2:33 and Ezekiel 1:3, the Bible is brimming with the phrase “hand of God.” The replacement of the word Nature for God is the first clue that Darwin is subtly betraying the concept of creation. He sets man in opposition to Nature while asserting Nature’s preeminence in the following passage: “…but Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art.” (53) Darwin brings Nature into the mix of Aristotle’s Great Chain of Being, a widely accepted social structure at this time, and situates it amongst the Angels and of God himself. Darwin writes, “Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from structure to structure,” (162) perhaps suggesting the irrationality of organisms making a sudden leap from nothingness to something ness. Do not be dissuaded when Darwin writes, “…but I mean by nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us,” for it is clear in other instances in the text (active/passivity of “I was much struck,” dissimilarity/likeness of humans to animals) that Darwin will adopt opposing standpoints in order to avoid offending his deeply Christian readership. To Darwin, Nature is God.

Rhetoric 174
Discourse on Darwin’s Deistic Design

“Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances…” (70).
“Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends. Every selected character is fully exercised by her; and the being is placed under well-suited conditions for life” (71).
“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers…”(71).


Instead of completely breaking with the past, as most people think, Darwin instead reached back and embraced it. For Charlie, Nature is the Incan Pacha Mama, the Gaia, what many primitive cultures name Mother Earth. The obvious parallels are when he refers to Nature as a she and bestows motherly characteristics. Charlie opposes nature to man; nature, of course, doing the correct thing, man performing imperfectly. I guess he figured, “Hey, they’ll hate me for proving Fixism wrong, I might as well insult them in the process.” Man is Nature’s bad child: ruining her artwork, trying to emulate it but grotesquely failing.

Charlie’s nature is much colder, though, than one would expect a mother to be. She weeds out the weak children, ill suited for their environment. Maybe Charlie had some issues with his mother while growing up, maybe she was too demanding. Anyway, Nature is constantly striving to perfect her multitudes of organisms. Charlie’s Nature scares me, it’s as if she’s looking over my shoulder, waiting to find some imperfection, waiting to horribly disfigure me so that I cannot reproduce, or a K9, sniffing through my luggage searching for drugs.

But Charles Darwin was no fool. He must have had Galileo at the forefront of his mind when writing Origin of Species. He had to carefully present his arguments, convince the reader, and not get shunned in the process. He is constantly incorporating the reader into his discussion by using “we” and using analogies close to home. If there’s any discrepancy he can claim “We’re in this mess together.” Strangely, he treats Man as if it’s some mad scientist out there, like Dr. Frankenstein, creating these horrible monstrosities, but somehow disassociates all humans with this “Man.” And of course, he hides his beliefs with phrases like, “I was much struck” and “It may be said.” This creates the illusion that Darwin has been divinely inspired, possibly to gain more credence, but also in case he gets in trouble.

Darwin's View of Nature

Darwin is very careful in stating his views. He does not want to alienate his readers, so much so that his references to the Creator are passive, small passages at the end of sections. But even these get progressively aggressive as time goes by. There are times, as in his discussion of the eye (p.155) where he shows signs of despair, exasperation at the monumental task he has undertaken. But there are also times when he shows signs of frustration. "A few naturalists, endowed with the flexibility of mind, and who have already begun to doubt in the immutability of species, may be influenced with much flexibility . . .(p.393)" He does not expect to change the minds of experienced naturalists, but believes that following generations will be more open to his ideas. His idea is that nature is something that we can experiment with and ultimately understand. The biggest part of his argument is data, just asking other naturalists to be a little more rigorous with their piles of observations. And others at his time seem to make observations without planning to use them. He looks upon nature like a mountain climber looks upon Everest. He is fascinated by nature, but realizes while life may have come from the Creator, it did not come out in the way we see it. The gaps in the geological record just make it clear to him that we are ignorant of so many things. He's just going to enjoy finding out everything he can about it, "when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! (p.397)" He suffered through an ordeal, his view on life revolves around death, and we don't know many things of great importance about the world around but he remains optimistic, as in the end of chapter three where he writes: "When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply. (p.67)"

Darwin and the Rhetoric of Capitalization

Darwin’s conception of nature is not as simple as the dog-eat-dog, eat-or-be-eaten variety that currently pervades pop culture’s perceptions of his works. This sort of view would have welcomed fierce criticism and rebuke from his prim and proper colleagues in the Victorian Era. However, Darwin also seeks to modify his contemporaries’ view that species were created in one large fit of creation several thousand years ago and has stayed the same since. His own idea of nature is situated somewhere in between these two vastly different views. If one searches for specific instances where Darwin evokes the romantic notion of nature—where the word is capitalized—one can palpably feel the awe that led the early naturalist to become “much struck” (Darwin, 3). When Darwin introduces his notion of natural selection by describing domestication, Darwin utilizes religious vocabulary to say that domestication is a gift “given to him by the hand of Nature”—few would not have seen the allusion to the “Hand of God” (Darwin 53). Furthermore, his idea of nature would not have been characterized by chaos and disorder. As a product of both scientific and Victorian backgrounds, his conception of nature is—though seemingly random to the untrained eye—harmonious and aesthetically beautiful. Darwin writes that nature’s process of “Natural Selection […] is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man’s feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are those to Art” (Darwin 53). Although Darwin’s idea of Nature introduces a less benign form different from Creationist theories, Nature is nonetheless lifted from the chaos that his detractors claim he supports.

Rhetoric 174 "Darwin's Rhetoric of Nature"

“The noble science of Geology loses glory from the extreme imperfection of the record. The crust of the earth with its embedded remains must not be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a poor collection made at hazard and at rare intervals... The whole history of the world, as at present known, although of a length quite incomprehensible by us, will hereafter be recognized as a mere fragment of time, compared with the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created” (398-399).

Initially it appears to me as though nature is being represented by Geology, that is to say the natural world around us. The second sentence could mean that nature itself is “a poor collection made at hazard and rare intervals” scattered in what it offers us, separating its development into epochs that seem to come and go nonsensically with large gaps in between. However, when I look more closely he seems to be saying that Geology is inaccurate because it is merely what man has measured and observed of nature, not nature itself. He goes on to describe nature as eternal, whereas the knowledge of man is fragmentary and superficial. However, the essence of nature is its mutability. The only constant in the world is change, so it is one of science’s impediments that it tries to fix what is necessarily variable. He seems to suggest that nature existed before history because history is a man-made mechanism. I guess I agree with that. If history is ultimately a subjective retelling of events, a form of storytelling, in the same way that science is a form of storytelling, it needs men to tell it. Nature itself does not speak in words we understand, but the theory of evolution promises a kind of storytelling of the natural world. Still, this is Darwin with his incomplete human understanding of nature, so the theory of evolution is still just storytelling. But is storytelling something restricted to humans? Can there be a storytelling that nature itself can manifest? Is nature itself its own story? Possibly, but not one that people can understand.

                         
Charles Darwin’s Strategies
 

 Acknowledging the injustice of generalizing the integrity or CharlesDarwin’s Origin of the Species from the quality of a mere portion of the work as a whole, particular moments do serve to illuminate this naturalist’s argumentative strategies. As he constructs an image of genuine objectivity, utilizes scapegoats, and portrays his theory as the closest fact to truth, Charles Darwin establishes the invincibility of his theory by uprooting the foundations of any possible objections against it. Ultimately, Darwin relieves himself of the obligation to explain possible incoherencies while maintaining an image of integrity and the solidity of his theory.
 The power of Darwin’s theory relies considerably in the manner in which he recapitulates the ideas presented. The strategies utilized to ensure this, therefore, becomes evident in the moments of closure, specifically when Darwin states,

 “such is the sum of the several chief objectives and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory; and I have now briefly recapitulated the answers and explanations which can be given to them. I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight...We do not know all the possible transitional gradations between the simplest and the most perfect organs; it cannot be pretended that we know all the varied means of Distribution during the long lapse of years, or that we know how imperfect the Geological Record is. Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modification” (Darwin 456-466).

As he refers to the possible ‘difficulties’ of his theory, ultimately translating to the possible arguments against it, Darwin reveals more than a mere anticipation of possible criticism. In the moments preceding this selection, Darwin assumed the role of the reader as he started asking, “Why do we not see these linking forms all around us?” (462). He specifically places himself among the readers as if he had the same curiosity and concerns as the audience, rather than a private interest bias to defend his idea. Darwin goes on to state, “I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight,” to convey that he, himself, has seriously considered the flaws of his idea. In effect, these statements strengthen the credibility of his theory of evolution by dissolving the possibility of his own bias and prejudice, which ultimately portrays the objectivity of the work as well as the author. By doing this Darwin establishes the crucial foundation for his next attempt, to dismiss the significance of possible additional objections against his theory beforehand.
 By securing the objective integrity of his position, Darwin enables himself to do more than answer potential points against his theory. Charles Darwin extends the strength of his position by accounting for eve the questions he cannot provide answers for. At one point, Darwin attempts to explain the apparent incoherence of natural selection and geological data as the fault of the imperfection of the Geological record itself, as he states,”I can only answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe” (464). In effect, Darwin conveys that any incoherence between his theory and of disputing facts result from the unreliability of the questionability of the latter discipline. Darwin does not halt at this uprooting suggestion. By stating that, “the more important questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are,” Darwin ultimately attributes the reason for possible incoherencies as a result not of his inability, or the uncertainty of his theory, but of the fundamental and inherently ignorant condition of the human mind. This, then, protects the theory from being attacked as an insufficient, inadequately supported one because Darwin, here, establishes it as a truth but merely one that, because of the limitations of the human mind, cannot find the means to explain this truth. Ultimately, Charles Darwin justifiably utilizes human ignorance and geological data as scapegoats for the possible incoherencies, difficulties, and ineffabilities of his evolution theory. Charles Darwin,then, establishes his proposal as the closest of such theories to scientific truth.
 Along with maintaining the objective integrity of the theory, accounting for even those unanswerable objections, Darwin establishes the level of his theory as the closest to scientific fact. Although the very tactics of convincing the audience of his own impartiality, and the disavowal of possible flaws in his idea contributes to the believability of his theory, Darwin makes a direct expression of its absolute verity. He declares, “Grave as these several difficulties are, in my judgment they do not overthrow the theory of descent with modification” (466). Choosing the terms “judgment” and “overthrow” describes his theory, as well as himself, as if he refers to superior entities occupying a high position as if they are ruling truths. In effect, Darwin’s statement edifies his theory to the level of authority, which renders it an incontestable truth. Charles Darwin’s portrayal of his theory as a universal mystery revealing itself to the public ultimately prevents additional skepticism and antagonism against his idea.
 The theory of Charles Darwin relies significantly in the manner that the author conveys his idea to a possibly skeptical audience. In his recapitulating moments, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species exhibits the portrayal of objectivity as a means of dispelling suspicions of bias, a dismissal of the possibility of incoherence on the part of Darwin, as well as the establishment of his theory as a superior element existing as truth. Through these tactics in communication, Charles Darwin engenders a message incontestable, influential, and compelling to the audience of his idea.

Rhetoric 174 - Darwin's Nature
Darwin’s concept of Nature mostly appears to revolve around the process in which variation among species takes place. In Chapter 4 of Origin of Species, Darwin portrays Nature as a detrimental force against certain individuals within a species, but also as the advantageous means for a species to thrive. For instance, Darwin heavily relies upon his concept of “Natural Selection”, which “favors variations and rejects injurious (ones).” Such selection is different from variation that occurs under man, in that man alters the “exteriority and visible characters” (Chapter 1 – “Variation under Domestication”). To compliment his ideas, Darwin differentiates the selective power of Nature from man. Several Rhetorical tactics used to makes this differentiate include the visual presentation of the word Nature, description of domestic vs. natural selection, and the continual attempts of man to understand nature. First, the capitalization of the word Nature, in comparison to the un-capitalization of man, insinuates the superiority and dominance of Nature. Second, in his description of domestic vs. natural selection, Darwin exposes the limitation to selection made by man and the omnipotence of Nature, who can change “the whole machinery of life.” Finally, Darwin’s description of naturalists indicates man’s limited understanding of a higher force that controls the variation within the species. However, Darwin’s tactics to describe a hierarchy between Nature and man are also necessary to create an environment of humility for his radical ideas to take place. Therefore, Nature for Darwin appears to be an embodiment of power that is present in all facets of life.

Darwin's Rhetoric on Nature

In analyzing Darwin’s rhetoric of nature, I found myself drawn to his allusions of the simple and obvious variables of organizations, such as the “woodpecker and misseltoe” (pp. 53) that he uses to describe and unfold the origin of species. To Darwin, even the plainest of individual variables of animals and plants are unavoidable, ubiquitous, and countless. The explanations common to his time do not satisfy all ends of the questions why and how these varieties came about in nature. His examples of how “the humblest parasite … clings to the hairs of a quadruped or feathers of a bird” so that it may feed and travel more easily, how the design of a beetle makes it safe in water, and how seeds use “the gentlest breeze” to ensure distribution on the earth (pp. 53) all illustrate what everyone may know about nature and its non-human inhabitants, but have no real explanation to understand why such instances occur. In this way, Darwin causes his audience to realize that the a priori judgments no longer satisfy their understanding of nature. Darwin’s uses the breakdown of these a priori judgments to lead into his theories on nature, which are so different from the church’s dogma on how all living species were created.
Nature to Darwin is very much like outer space for us. Nature is an uncharted territory in which there are many unsubstantiated explanations on how and why such a space exists, but no true and legitimate definitions of its being. At the same time, Darwin has branched out of the scientific methods of his era and peeled away at the layers of organic organization, recontextualizing nature at its simplest levels.

“Darwin’s Rhetoric of Nature”

One of the most commonly used rhetorical strategies in Darwin’s The Origin of Species is to directly address the reader and ask them to imagine or envision examples. For example, when Darwin enumerates to the reader several examples of how natural selection acts (in Chapter 4 on “Natural Selection”), he begs “permission” from the reader to “give one or two imaginary illustrations” (76). He says, “let us take the case of the wolf…” (76) which implies to the reader that they, too, can discover the principle of Natural Selection through observation of animals in nature. The purpose of this is to prevent the reader from coming up with any objections and subsequently buy into these principles; it’s as if the example and conclusions that are made from it are in fact creations of the readers themselves. In this section, Darwin goes on to give the example of wolves in nature, and then compares the wolves to domesticated greyhounds and dogs. He does this so as to make sure that the reader can follow along, first giving examples from nature and then comparing them directly to the more widely familiar principles of domestication. Additionally, he closes this paragraph by saying “I can see no more reason to doubt…that man can improve the fleetness of his greyhounds by careful and methodical selection, or that unconscious selection which results from each man trying to keep the best dogs without and thought of modifying the breed” (77). Here Darwin is simply adding strength to his claim at the beginning of the book that he was “much struck by certain facts.” In the above quote, Darwin implies that the principles of natural selection have been ever-present in nature, and that man, in domesticating animals, has been unconsciously contributing to and enacting a form of “natural” selection when picking which animals are best for breeding. In doing this, Darwin makes it harder for objections to arise; he aligns principles that breeders and members of scientific circles alike have long known apply to domesticated animals and brought them into the realm of nature.

Samantha H. Eldredge
September 15, 2002
Rhetoric 174

Rhetoric 174
September 16, 2002

The way Darwin begins the first chapter of the book, where the real substance lies, is quite interesting. He doesn’t simply begin with any hypotheses or with an outline of scientific principles he plans to examine like one would expect a “scientific” journal or book to do. Instead he begins by presenting the everyday context that his theories rely on. In the first paragraph of chapter 1, Darwin seems to use “common” understanding to undermine what is thought in science to be “common” understanding. This is ironic considering his goal is to change our common sense understanding of science and the world. He begins by saying that “When we look…” we can clearly see the vast range of differences that inhabit our world and seems to imply that differences are in fact vast differences. So, it seems that common sense is usurped by common experience or common sense itself. The notion of vast difference that Darwin begins to present here is a very simple but key component in executing of this overall argument. The differences that overwhelm our everyday experience and which do not fit into neat compartments of understanding is the context. In the next paragraph he moves from the evidence or everyday experience to the scientific research of Geoffroy St. Hilaire. This is a methodical and systematic approach to constructing and presenting the necessary evidence for his argument. His move from common sense evidence to scientific experimentation, which does not help necessarily to prove what Darwin is positing, but shows that there is room for dispute and possibilities not yet considered.

Q: What is nature for Darwin?

A: I was much struck with a formulation of an opinion regarding this matter.

Examine the following given sentences:
1)"Who can believe that animals closely resembling the Italian greyhound, the bloodhound, the bull-dog, or the Blenheim spaniel, &c.-so unlike all wild Canidae - ever existed in a state of *nature*?" (p.18)
2)"I cannot doubt that if other animals and plants, equal in number to our domesticated productions, and belonging to equally diverse classes and countries, were taken from a *state of nature*, and could be made to breed for an equal number of generations under domestication..." (p.16-17)
3)"...domestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as, only in most cases in a lesser degree than, do closely-allied species of the same genus in a state of nature." (p.15)

From the aforementioned sentences, we may safely conclude that domestication is perhaps the antithesis of 'a state of nature.' Moreover, we can add that 'domestic' species are not considered to be in a state of nature either. The terms 'domestic' and 'domestication,' we can naturally conclude, must mean to say under human control (under the control of Man). Darwin, therefore, seems to take Man/humans out of the equation of a state of nature. Interestingly, as Darwin is popularly credited with the 'man comes from monkeys' ideology, he seems to be playing both sides of the fence - by excluding Man from a state of nature or rather unnatural - perhaps even divinely unnatural - for he has the power to change nature. Whether or not he does this to gain more legitimecy with the readers of the time, I cannot safely form an opinion one way or another. For a reader to read nature in that context may make them more open to Darwins ideas, perhaps as a comforting rhetorical tool - excluding them from the beasts/animals in nature, while giving them a sense of greater importance - in being able to domesticate (do something to nature, which is outside of the realm of 'a state of nature').

Rhetoric 174
Darwin and Nature
Joseph Enayati

Hello Vital and Post Vital Rhetors!

This is our free web space for posting short writing assignments etc. Everything should be self explanatory here, but if you have problems please write me at mobius@psu.edu. Please remember to put "rhetoric 174" or some such indicator in the subject heading. Have fun, and feel free to use this space for questions as well as assignments. As always, please act with courtesy and respect toward each other and our topic.