Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

November 22, 2009

I am thinking out loud here, about stuff I know little about, but freaks me out a little!

Discrimination based on genetic predispositions to disease? Genetic chauvinism was something I witnessed in Japan, particularly against the hibakusha. People avoid marrying hibakusha because a belief that radiation sickness or genetic defects will be passed through family blood lines. The Japanese are big on blood lines. Hibakusha are also discriminated against by employers, and are socially ostracised.

In the US a new federal law was passed against the discrimination on the basis of genetic background. Is castism and racism not already a form of genetic discrimination? And what of the prejudices we will witness from transhumanists who are proponents of body enhancements who will eventually economically, physically and socially differentiate or favour based on those enhancements?

I marvel at the privacy issues around heath information. I consider that most sacred of information safe guarding as an indicator of socio-health discrimination. Instead of addressing the social misconceptions around disease, we hide our personal data to avoid the social implications of dealing with the potential results of healthhism or diseaseism. Instead we hide behind the veal of health purity and physical perfection via non-disclosure. Members of the disabled community have lobbied for the cultural acceptance of their physical form, but what of the cultural acceptance of what we cannot see - genetic predispositions. Autism for instance, with manifestations that are not always physically obvious, is the poster ability/disability (I speculate because it is one that affects boys mostly and is associated with savants or genius like qualities which we all like and therefore it gains societal acceptance and even reverence), is being relabelled as a form exceptionalness and therefore desired. We have socially adjusted our acceptance of it as a condition and are beginning to build social structures to facilitate the inclusion of people labelled with autism into a variety of institutions, we help families, exceptionalities are instrumentally being economically harnessed and it is being popularized in television and movies in such a way that we are being inculturated to accept the behavioural bundles of traits of this sub-population as normal and we are adjusting accordingly. Schizophrenia however is not a desired condition along with many others. How do perceptions and labels change? I just finished reading Making Up People by Ian Hacking, who discusses how labelling a condition suddenly makes up groups of people who fit that label and demonstrates how labels and categories are not only made up, they are not static and dynamically. The label of homosexuality as a psychological disorder and a deviance for instance is now a genetic trait which makes the ‘condition’ more socially acceptable. These people cannot help themselves so lets accept them. This is a societal response, and a strong lobby toward redefinition and social acceptance. Now that it is a genetic predisposition, does that mean we could weed it out? Will people be tested for it in-vitro? Just like how ultra-sound is being used to eliminate girl babies in India and China? Is that genetic discrimination - having girl genes? And what of the discussion of gender classification that is physiologically being redefined, particularly with the testing of female athletes that are being labelled male. What of alchohol fetal syndrome that is been passed on between and among generations of entire aboriginal communities? What of the social implications intellectual deficiencies caused by under and mal nutrition of entire populations? How do we know who is who? What does predisposition mean? How do we go from population to individual and back? If we are continuously told we are predisposed to something do we suddenly believe it and become it? Margaret Lock for instance discusses bio-social differences, where culture doesn’t just interpret biology, it also shapes it. We have medical labelling making acceptance of once socially unacceptable traits. But what of medically unacceptable traits?

And what of people who consciously choose to risk passing on illnesses/diseases or the chance thereof to their offspring? Is that merely an individual choice? Are there larger bio-social implications to those choices? Is that eugenics thinking? The will to improve hereditary traits? Weed out the bad ones with genetic testing and improve the gene pool for us all? What are the criteria used to decide? Does this make us go more underground? How do we understand the probabilities, the science, the statistics that inform the odds? Probability can tell us something about the chance of something occurring in a population but cannot predict at the scale of the individual. What are good and bad odds? Societally, in North-America we are pretty much innumerate, so how do we judge probabilities? Are insurance companies the new arbiters? Are health care costs and time lost at work the real reasons behind genetic purification? Is it social ostracization? The fear of being associated with someone physically inferior? Is it the fear of eugenics thinking and the way it was used that thwarts the sharing of our health records? The fear of being judged as inferior or of having unacceptable traits?

What of progeneration? Some individuals and couples want, at all costs, a child of their own bodies. I have met people with incredible urges and consider this a must. Is that genetic chauvanism? is that not already genetic discrimination or differentiation? What of cultural propensities against adoption? Many would rather risk bearing a child with an illness rather than avoid that risk and adopt. Are the risks of adopting a child with an illness greater or lesser than bearing one where there is a high likeliness of passing on a ‘bad’ gene? Do kids on adoption rolls come with DNA certifications?

I do not really know what or how to think about any of these issues. I do know that I have many questions and do believe we are avoiding asking really hard questions and have no mechanisms to discuss them in a free and open way as a society. So we hide our health records because we are afraid of discrimination and judgement, and we create genetic anti-discrimination acts because we have not societally dealt with our inability to understand what is underneath our fears, and so we temper our behaviours with laws, and in the short term that is perhaps the best course of action, we continue to marry within our classes, casts and races, while that is changing somewhat, we remain innumerate which reduces our chance of a fair debate or of making informed personal decisions, we are rightly petrified of eugenics past while not creating a society that can rationally temper itself (just watch the health care debate in the US) and we have this strange belief in physical perfection which, in reality, if we are really lucky, is but a fleeting short period of time either in or teen or adult lives, one we pretend is for ever and we have somehow subconsciously decided it is what we have to all strive for perfection.

Damn! Listening to this womyn makes me

November 15, 2009

want to quit my phd and work at mickyDs, as quite frankly, when I compare my knowledge of the world with the few bits I heard from her today, well, I am so burger flippin’ material. Oye veigh! I will go eat some chocolate to feel better, maybe a poutine too. Frig.

I was a able to physically tire myself out enough to be able to sit and listen to a CBC Ideas series I have been slowly working through today: How to Think About Science. I was listening to Episode 2, with Lorraine Datson the director of the The Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. I was mesmerized and dazzled by how she thinks, how seamlessly she wove together the history of objectivity and the eloquence of her vocabulary. The paucity of my vocabulary became very conspicuous.

Then I visited the Institutes website and as I was about to leave, thinking that there is no way I can spend time reading her work right now, I came across one of her new research themes The Sciences of the Archive (2010-15). I was so excited, I have a thing for archives and just last week I received my first lesson on how to search archival records.

But no, that was not enough, as I kept reading, I discovered she is also looking a the cultural history of data. I almost cried and wanted to toss everything I had done so far into the garbage - not even into the recycling! I have been looking for this type of work for a few years, and there it is! Just starting up.

“Data” (literally, “the givens”) is perhaps the most taken-for-granted word in all the sciences: short and unpretentious, it expresses the simplest and apparently most straightforward elements of empirical research. Whether inscribed as jottings on notecards, traces on photographic emulsions, entries in lab notebooks, or digital information, data supply the essential raw materials for all further scientific activity, from observing to theorizing. It is a category considered too basic to merit a history, too innocent to deserve a philosophy.

The philosophy of data! I am crying!

Heidegger and nazi’sm

November 9, 2009

I did not know this about him. Some, in particular Emmanuel Faye, a French Philospher, want to wipe his work out of philosophy.

First published in France in 2005, the book, “Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism Into Philosophy,” calls on philosophy professors to treat Heidegger’s writings like hate speech.

Richard Wollin, a close reader of Heidegger and Faye says:

“I’m not by any means dismissing any of these fields because of Heidegger’s influence,” he wrote in an e-mail message referring to postmodernism’s influence across the academy. “I’m merely saying that we should know more about the ideological residues and connotations of a thinker like Heidegger before we accept his discourse ready-made or naïvely.”

I had no clue and was naively reading his work. Not knowing his roots is like reifying Robert Moses without taking into account his deep racism and how that influenced his infrastructure building in New York, or glorifying Athenian democracy by forgetting that slave ownership was rampant, only wealthy men could participate and women were non persons and treated worse in Athens than in other Greek cities at the time. To claim that technology is socially or politically neutral?

How to read? How to think about technology, infrastructure, works? Most of what I have been exposed to in academia was written by white men of power, most of our technology and infrastructure was built by the same batch, many amazing artists are creeps like Woody Allen, Michael Jackson or Roman Polanski. Do we dismiss their art, thinking, artefacts? I have refused to see a Woody Allen movies since he got away with marrying his step daughter, but I do not dismiss his skill as a cinematographer, and I always considered Michael Jackson to be a sad sick person who also happened to be a musical genius, while what’s his name is nothing but a rich perverted creep. Glenn Gould? What about Ayn Rand? Her writings reflected her very disturbed psyche, and perhaps if people knew a little more about her before reading her work, they could at least frame it as writings stemming from a very disturbed mind. Or how my respect for Edward Said grew once I knew more about him.

I have great difficulty with judgemenalism and reading because I sometimes loose or gain respect for the authors once I know about them. Should the work stand on its own? I can easily dismiss the work because of the person, is that fair? Do I falsely claim a connection? I find it hard to read the work of people who write about equality and reflexivity when they cannot seem to practice it. Do these not go hand in hand?

Bref, I think it is important to learn about the people whose work we/I read. I am not promoting essentialism yet I am really not sure if we/I can separate the person from the work, that we/I should, but maybe some of their personal history does determine what they pursue and how they do so. I certainly wonder all the time about where I have come from and the reasons why I pursue the work that I do. I have not yet figured out all the details, but I can certainly see that my past, personal experience and learning trajectory very much influences how I think and how my thinking has evolved overtime. If people know our pasts, will they judge the work from that lens? Will they dismiss what we do if they judge who we are and perhaps falsely associate what they think about the work based on what they can only partially know about the person? With Heidegger, it is not just the person, but also the ideology, and as a philospher, I presume that the ideology and the philosophy are inseparable, yet we do not dismiss the entire German nation for their technology prowess? Nor do we stop using IBM computers or driving BMWs because of their historical roots with the Nazi regime either! Do we stop using electricity because because Edison was a megalomaniac? Or dismiss Turin because he was gay, as the British establishment did at the end of the war? Or should we at least know so that we can position these technologies in a historical context and then consider these when we build new ones? In the case of Turin, does it matter? Should Glenn Gould’s should his music be dismissed because he was autistic and somewhat OCD? When does it matter?

Inspired by: An Ethical Question: Does a Nazi Deserve a Place Among Philosophers?

Marilyn Waring - Ottawa April 27

April 16, 2009

I am really excited that this woman is coming to town! I try to watch the NFB film about her work Who’s Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics just before every census. It is because of her that unpaid work gets tracked and women all over the world stopped calling themselves homemakers and started calling themselves nurses, nutritionists, childcare providers, nursing home care attendants, handywomen etc. on the Census.

She was also instrumental at tracking the unpaid work of women in subsistence economies. She revealed how their work, instrumental at the survival of the household, never made it into national accounting systems! She developed time maps to assess how a woman’s day was structured versus a mans. That technique has made its way into many development practices to truly assess the work of women in overseas development projects but also to assess the affects of the decisions made by male leaders on women’s behalf, and that affected women’s lives in a real way. Also, she was instrumental at making New Zealand a nuclear free zone!

Her book If women Counted is what got me to really think about the politics of the census, the politics behind the ‘objective’ and seemingly benign questions that were being asked and how those influence how we envision our societies and what deserved to be tracked across time. That book also got me excited when the long form of the Census would show up at my door or the short form for that matter!


Octopus Books and Oxfam are thrilled to welcome Marilyn Waring and launch her new book 1 Way 2 C the World: Writings 1984-2006 on Monday, April 27th at 7:00 p.m. at the Main Branch of the Ottawa Public Library (120 Metcalfe).

Marilyn Waring is a truly absorbing figure known as a distinguished public intellectual, a leading feminist thinker, environmentalist, social justice activist, and for her early political career after election to New Zealand’s parliament at age twenty-three. Assembling some of her most thought-provoking writings, 1 Way 2 C the World is a compelling collection of essays and reflections on many important issues of our time. Written in lively, crisp, and often humourous prose, Waring provides illuminating commentary on topics such as gay marriage, human rights, globalization, the environment, and international relations and development.

Including accounts of being in India at the time of Indira Gandhi’s assassination, and in Ethiopia’s during the 1984 famine, Waring’s vivid writing remains contemporarily relevant, while this collection includes recent writings on the post-9/11 world. Brimming with pieces that are essential reading for anyone concerned with the state of the world, 1 Way 2 C the World is bound to fascinate and inspire.

Computer Waste - Where Gadgets go to Die

April 2, 2009

Here is a pretty good review of what happens to our dead electronics! Yikes! Where Gadgets Go to Die: Facility Strips, Rips and Recycles and a list of what to do with them - mostly US though :(

Interactive News Reporting

January 26, 2009

I am looking at Many Eyes and some of the NYTimes multimedia interactive reporting visualizations, and well, they are producing truly wonderful stuff. What an awesome team (sigh no girls though!)!

Here are links to some of their work, each and everyone is beautiful and tell a story with data:

Here are a few articles:

Online political campaigning

January 22, 2009

Social Tech Brewing presents: Online political campaigning Monday, Jan 26th

Obama’s election victory last November has been hailed as the coming of age for online political campaigning. In Canada we’ve seen the growing importance of online campaigning in recent elections, and in the progressive coalition movement that nearly brought down the government at the end of last year.

As we look forward to new political landscapes both in Canada and the US, what can we expect to see in the new tools and best practices in online advocacy and campaign organizing?

Join Social Tech Brewing Ottawa from 5:00 to 6:30 pm on Monday, Jan 26th (the day of Canada’s parliamentary re-boot) for a discussion about new exciting times in online politics and advocacy.

To jump-start our discussion, Pam Kapoor (Gatineau-based communications/advocacy specialist) will share some of her experiences as Press Officer and Cincinnati Regional Director with Vote Today Ohio, a key contributor to the early-voting and GOTV (get out the vote) effort that delivered a necessary win for Obama in that critical swing state.

For this event we have arranged a meeting space (with wifi and projector) at the Code Factory on 246 Queen Street, (second Floor). If you don’t already know the Code Factory, it’s Ottawa’s new co-working space/community hub for tech entrepreneurs. www.thecodefactory.ca

Ian Graham, director of the Code Factory, will be on hand to welcome Social Tech Brewing and give us some background to his vision of a collaborative new media innovation community in downtown Ottawa.

To help cover the cost of reserving the Code Factory cafe (including complimentary tea/coffee), we’re asking those who can to contribute $5 toward our use of this space. Thanks!

Questions and suggestions are always welcome: irishg@shakethepillars.com or mike@openconcept.ca.

Nobel Peace Prize 2008 - Martti Ahtisaari

December 10, 2008

Dec. 10 is the big day and this year’s award goes to Martti Ahtisaari;

He is an international peace and conflict mediator.  I really liked the Ahtisaari quote selected by the Nobel Chair Professor Ole Danbolt Mjøs:

"I have learned that you do not achieve peace just by saying nice things to the parties. You have to be sincere. You have to have the courage to tell people that they are acting counter-productively. I am sincere. I am not always amiable."

This is a character trait that I have seen in very few people.  It is one I look for, where you know, that you will be told the truth no matter how you may not like it.

Why Copyright? Canadian Voices on Copyright Law

December 3, 2008

Micheal Geist and Dan Albahary produced this documentary film about DRM and issues related to copyright law in Canada.  Yours truly appears a few times talking about DRM and data. 

 

 

 

On Tricksters

November 29, 2008

I was chatting with my pal Michel on skype in Trinidad this morning.  In between discussions about health indicators and socio-economic status determinants of health models he mentioned how he stacks up his New York Times magazines for when he travels so that he may have some reading material when dining out alone - he is a father of 4 so out alone is a luxury.  He mentioned Lewis Hyde as someone he finds interesting he is

a poet, essayist, translator, and cultural critic with a particular interest in the public life of the imagination.

So as we were chatting I looked him up and lo an behold, he wrote the following book: Trickster Makes this World. Ah! When I feel like am becoming a conformist, I like to think of transgressions and to recognize that my nature whether I like it or not or whether I intend to or not is subversive.  This subbersion articulated into how I live, do and think things very often gets me into trouble, whether I am trying to get into trouble or not.  Bref it was fun to read a few short essays about Hydes Trickster book and to know that there is a place in the world for rascals. So now back to finishing reading this WHO health determinants report, take the bus to Ikea to purchase a new frying pan, make a dish for the vegetarian potluck I am going to, think of what I am going to bring for late night movie viewing at Emre’s and to enjoying the fact that that none of these geodemographic profiles have me figured out and therefore marketers cannot figure out what to sell to me!

hmm! this Hyde fellow is also involved in the Cultural Commons:

a book offering a model and defense of our “cultural commons,” that vast store of unowned ideas, inventions and works of art that we have inherited from the past and that we continue to create.

[He is] building the book around a brief history of the commons as an idea (how it came out of medieval Europe and what happened to it when it got to America), and around a parallel history of how we have imagined the creative self.

Always in the background lies the question of the commercialization of culture, exemplified at the moment by many things–the ‘enclosure’ of the public domain, the patenting of aboriginal medicines, proprietary control of genetic materials or of the internet, and the general market triumphalism that has followed the end of the Cold War.