Category Archives: Uncategorized

Food Design

In the article “Labels Urged for Foods That Can Choke” by Laurie Tarkan, she discusses issues with foods that are a potential hazard for children.  Pediatricians are calling for labels to be placed on foods such as hot dogs to warn parents of the choking risk. Instead, Eugene D. Gagliardi Jr., the designer of Steak-umms and popcorn chicken, is attempting to redesign hot dogs to eliminate the problem.  The second article, “Genetically Altered Salmon Get Closer to the Table” discusses the likelihood that genetically altered fish will reach consumers.  These fish have been engineered to grow much faster than normal.  Consideration of these two articles reveals a major trend in food design.  Food producers are largely aware of consumer needs.  In the case of redesigning a hot dog the need is as simple as providing something that is safe for children.  The genetically altered fish is purported to address food shortage issues, since a larger fish can be grown with less resources, and possibly environmental issues if the fish proves to be less of a strain on the ecosystem.

References
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/health/25choke.html?scp=1&sq=pediatricians%20urge%20labels%20on%20food%20that%20can%20choke&st=cse

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/business/26salmon.html?scp=2&sq=salmon&st=cse

The End

This class was so different from my English classes. It was refreshing because I felt like I was doing more continuous hands on assignments, like blogging… It’s waaay better than a paper! I learned an incredible amount of information and insight. It’s helped me in questioning why I buy the things I buy and do the things I do.

I thought making this class only 6 weeks was a little bit of stretch. I think we covered a large amount of material in such a short time… Of course, this is only to be expected in a summer course, but this was exceptionally a lot of information. I would have like to do more interact projects like with the public… asking questions and actually seeing incredible architecture.

Overall, I very much enjoyed the class and was very glad to be a part of it. Thanks!

Running Man

810084982975040498-570x380.jpgA sneaker is a high or low shoe, usually of fabric such as canvas, with a rubber or synthetic sole.   Some consider it to be a piece of art, a way of life, and has many different uses. 

For that reason I will pay close attention to one sneaker company, Nike.  Nike was founded on January 25, 1964 as Blue Ribbon Sports by Bill Bowerman and Philip Knight, and officially became Nike, Inc. in 1978.  The company takes its name from Nike, the Greek goddess of victory.  The “swoosh” was actually designed by a female Portland State University student who received a lousy $35 from the founder of Nike. But after Nike became successful they decided to give her some company stock along with a gold ring. The logo represents the wing of the Greek Goddess “Nike” who was the Goddess of Victory.  When first started out they were selling sneakers at track meets and out the trunk of Bowerman’s car.  Bowerman was trying to figure out different ways to make the shoe get better grip on the track.  So he decided to pour some rubber in his wife’s waffle maker. 

nike-waffle-trainer.jpg

From that day Nike has been innovating the design world.  Nike uses various technology in the shoes; Nike Air, Nike Zoom, Nike Shox, Nike +, and Nike Flywire

         Nike Air- a unit of air under the heel used for a comfortable ride while running

 

         Nike Zoom Air-a low profile air unit for responsive cushioning and stability

 

         Nike Shox-absorb impact from heel strike while running; they also “spring back” and add more power to a runner’s stride

 

         Nike +-is a device which measures and records the distance and pace of a walk or run

 

         Nike Flywire-is a thread, composed of Vectran, used in the upper of a shoe. The goal of Flywire is to minimize weight and maximize support.

 

nike-hyperdunk.jpg

Tinker Hatfield is the renowned designer of many of Nike’s most popular and innovative athletic shoe designs, including the Air Jordan III through Air Jordan XV, the twentieth anniversary Air Jordan XX, the final numbered Air Jordan, the XXIII, the 2010 (XXV) and other athletic sneakers including the world’s first “cross training” shoes, the Nike Air Trainer. Hatfield oversees Nike’s “Innovation Kitchen”.  Academically, he studied architecture and graduated from the University Of Oregon School Of Architecture.  He joined Nike in 1981 and in 1985 started working on shoe design.  He realized that his architectural skills could also be applied to athletic shoes.

Nike is infamous for their marketing powers their commercials, iconic, bizarre, and true.  Came out with the famous is it the shoe campaign.  Or most recently using athletes as the marketing tool for something BIG.  Ever since Nike has became a leader in design they have also pushed their ways on to the consumer, for example more cushion is better….wrong.   In the most recent years sneakers have been getting lighter, for example flywire in shoes and 360� Air.  NBA players such as Gilbert Arena, Steve Nash, and more recently Kobe Bryant have worn low-top basketball sneakers because they feel high-tops are restrictive of natural movement and are heavy.

Recently there has been a trend on the rise and it is running…..barefoot.  Some say that we (humans) have been misleading big companies such as Nike that we need more cushioning to run faster and longer.  Christopher McDougall is an American author and journalist best known for his 2009 best-selling book Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen.  In Born to Run, McDougall goes down to the members of the reclusive Tarahumara Indian tribe in the Mexican Copper Canyons. After being repeatedly injured as a runner himself, McDougall marvels at the tribe’s ability to run ultra distances (over 100 miles) at incredible speeds, without getting the routine injuries of most American runners. The book has received attention in the sporting world for McDougall’s description of how he overcame injuries by modeling his running after the Tarahumara. He claims that modern cushioned running shoes are a major cause of running injury, pointing to the thin sandals worn by Tarahumara runners, and the explosion of running-related injuries since the introduction of modern running shoes in 1968.  Did a study when they went to Kenya to figure out why they always win marathons and this is what they found there .  Nike Free is technology invented by Tobie Hatfield. 

Nike Free attempts to simulate barefoot running while wearing a shoe.  This shoe allows the muscles in the foot to gain strength by providing less constriction; runners are advised to gradually break into the shoe rather than immediately running long distances as to prevent muscle cramps and other discomforts.  The Nike shoe scale goes from 10.0 to 0.0 with a ’10’ being a fully supportive shoe, and ‘0’ being completely barefoot.  Example: The 5.0 Nike Free is like running halfway barefoot, the 3.0 is even less shoe, while the 7.0 is a bit more supportive.

 

 

Class Conclusion

Prior to this class I had a business ethics course that we focused on a lot of discussion.  It was probably a class that I’ve retained the most information from my entire college career.  This class followed the same sort of path with discussions and sharing our opinions with each other and I thought it was great.  Certainly don’t take that part out of the course, dicussion and sharing goes a very long way.

I also agree that Objectified was an awesome compliment to what we learned and discussed. It was just one of those documentations that really made you think, not only about class stuff but everything in your own life that’s designed, which of course is just about everything.  Great material you’ve got there!

I think the presentations were a good idea as well.  All of them were very interesting whether they be focused on current events, or just a new tehcnology that was prior unknown to most of us.  Certainly would keep those in the class.

A suggestion I would make is possibly you (Professor Fisher) posting some of your probably more devoloped and focused ideas once a week or so and then students commenting and hopefully continuing discussion.  It seems many of the comments never went to far, and some things just never got commented on.  Of course we did have a small class so that could impact it, but it would be cool to see a pretty long back and forth between a decent sized group.

To everyone, thanks for a great first session class and enjoy the rest of the summer.  Any graduates, congrats and good luck!  Have a good one guys. 

Kinect

Kinect is the new gaming technology from Microsoft for the Xbox 360.  It’s a technology that could likely be just the beginning of a whole new age of not just gaming but entertainment.  It could be a change that sparks the start of us no longer just watching movies or playing games, but interacting with them in a way we’ve never done before.

 

Kinect.jpgKinect is a new controller/adapter for the Xbox 360 made by Microsoft.  Formally called Project Natal, Kinect was unveiled in its completed form just weeks ago out the 2010 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3).  It’s an amazing new piece of gaming technology that will take away any use of a physical controller, and instead make the user the “controller”.  It gathers user inputs through a microphone, infrared camera, and video camera and sends them to the Xbox 360.  It also doesn’t just capture movements in infrared, it can also film you in full RBG (red-green-blue) color, which enables Kinect to project a fairly lifelike image of your figure on the screen.  Other features include face recognition software for identifying the different users, thus being able to automatically sign into profiles, and Kinect can also track up to 48 points on your body for up to two players at the same time (96 points in all).  See this video for a demonstration.

 

Now that some background information is known about this new entertainment technology, let’s talk politics.  Kinect is going to be a widely available technology that wouldn’t be considered an elitist technology.  With just a bit of extra spending money and some free time, anybody can readily have access to this technology.  Also because Kinect is in a way making Xbox 360 easier to use, users don’t need much prior knowledge of or skill using such technology.  Prior to Kinect there was more of a distinct crowd that could easily navigate and use the Xbox 360, and Kinect is certainly looking to open up the gaming world to others.  Gatekeepers of the this technology would be Microsoft, whom is supplying the product and service to the users, and also the game developers who will be creating gaming software and products to make use of the Kinect controller.  Finally, the requirements for use would simply be a bit of leisure time, access of a television, electric service, and of course an Xbox 360 system.

 

Ethical issues seem to be currently at a minimum with this technology, but could also arise as the Kinect catches on and grows.  As seen many times before with video games, there can be games produced where actions and events put in the game don’t seem to be very responsible on the developers part (Grand Theft Auto games, Call of Duty, etc).  Kinect could worsen the impact on society that game developers have because users would almost be interacting fully in a negative way and without principle of any kind.  The one possible way Kinect is related to current political issues is when considering the government programs/campaigns that are currently in place to get young people to be active and healthy.  Whether or not the game developers actually care about this is unknown, but the technology seems to support these lifestyles.

 

Form follows function is another concept we discussed in class, and while presenting I analyzed Kinect in this fashion for everyone.  First we start with form, which Kinect seems to be fairly basic in.  It’s simply a wide and slender box that seems to be just large enough to house its components.  It’s a sleek modern looking design that looks to fit aesthetically well with the other technologies it’s used with and around.  The function of Kinect is to simply capture user inputs (motion, looks, sounds) through the two types of cameras and the microphone.  After the analysis of these two characteristics I can conclude that Kinect does not follow the form follows function concept, which is due yet again to the microchip like we discussed before in class.  The Kinect controller does not have to have the form it does, and if you came across this object you be unlikely to know that it’s used to control a gaming system through movements and sounds.

 

The marketing concepts of Kinect seem to point very strong to consumer led design.  After the Nintendo Wii introduced the gaming world to a motion sensing controller that got users active, in what seemed to be a success, Microsoft certainly wanted in.  The Wii was bringing in new users to gaming, more active users, younger users, and especially more female users.  Microsoft seeing the success of Wii decided to one up Nintendo and develop a control system free of any physical remotes.  As seen in the video, Kinect advertising seems to focus on family fun, interaction and physical activity.  Before this Xbox 360 was far from such a concept and attracted a very specific demographic.  Now by introducing Kinect, Microsoft will gain a portion of that active or family lifestyle gamer who was no prior a user of their systems.

 

Finally, I spoke about individuality, and more precisely, types, which we discussed in class just a few weeks ago.  Prior to Kinect there were a large variety of Xbox 360 controllers that were produced.  There were types of controllers with different size, shape, and color yet all were to accomplish the same thing.  Now with the new Kinect technology, controllers are eliminated from game play, therefore eliminating the use of the classic controller concept and its various types.  As much as it does eliminate types, Kinect does however increase the individuality of controllers, because of the fact that in essence every controller is unique, since technically the user themselves is the controller.

 

Post discussion of the Kinect presentation yielded a question/discussion on whether or not the designers (Microsoft and game developers) were actually concerned for the well being of the users and how healthy they were by creating this technology.  The other option is that they are actually just interested in tapping into a market that they didn’t previously have using their product.  So which is it?  Well, game designers usually take great pride in their work, just as most other individual in their respective fields, so I would argue that this component of the designer does actually care about making an active and healthy technology that will have a positive effect.  The big guy that’s backing the production and making all the money (Microsoft) likely does not have the same feelings.  I believe that this component of the Kinect designers are all about the consumer market and are worried very little about positive effects as much as they are about selling their design and making money of users.

 

That’s all I’ve got on Kinect.  To find out more go to Xbox.com and look for Kinect this November, it could just be the start of a whole new age of entertainment.

The Blog

In the past couple decades the internet has grown exponentially.  Nowadays one can find web pages and information on any imaginable topic.  Amongst the pages of information there can be found sanctuaries of opinion, the blog.  Blogs are written about everything from sports to politics, they cover anything from the personal to the professional.  They are increasingly becoming a popular form of self expression.  Beyond the personal aspects, blogs have a special political and social relevance especially in the U.S. due to their openness. In terms of social construction blogs allow the public to participate in all facets of information dissemination.  Since they are not commercially controlled nor are they regulated by any authority they are truly a democratic technological development.  In this case they have been developed and maintained by private persons in the public sphere.  This allows an openness in political issues and social critiques.  The content of blogs is provided entirely by those who use them.  Like much of the internet the users are also the developers and providers.  Thus the relevant social group has a unique stand point.  They in a position to evaluate and manipulate the way in which the technology is used.  In the twenty first century blogs are very much an egalitarian technology.  While not everyone may own a computer they are available in public libraries to which all have access.  Computers require a certain level of technological comprehension, but we are a generation that has grown up with technological progress.  So, there may perhaps be an age discrimination.  Older generations may not have the technical know-how to use blogs.

The democratic aspect of blogs is important in a philosophical sense beyond the social and political.  It allows blogs to become living “space” in the sense described by Alexander in “The Timeless Way of Building.”  The editors of blogs constantly post new content, which is then responded to by visitors.  These blogs generate a lot of traffic, and eventually they will find themselves with regular contributors.  The sustained dialogue fostered by the blog community is the most important pattern of this living space.  The community in these spaces is very natural because participants in the dialogue are purely voluntary; these communities are rarely artificial constructed.

This, however, is the problem with our blog for our class.  It has been imposed on its community members; it has been artificially constructed.  While the space seems to have fostered a communal dialogue, it will not be sustained and maintained beyond the class.  It is therefore essentially a dead space.  The patterns of our blog were interesting since the editors and responders were the same group.  Perhaps we would have had a better chance of creating a living space if there were a larger group of contributors.  Or, if we had opened the blog up to the rest of the internet to create a democratic space.  This loss of democracy was probably what did not allow our blog to be a living space.

Much of the internet has the same social and political aspects as blogs.  In countries where the internet is unregulated it is also democratic; users and creators/content providers are the same groups.  This in turn allows the internet to grow and live as a space.  The only inherent problem with open access blogs is the possibility of experiencing visitors who are not interested in maintaining the community and instead attack it.  The strength of the community is important here, and if the blog has truly been indoctrinated with the timeless way it will survive through this adversity.

THE END…

Well this was an interesting class, we had some good information and we had some good laughs from everyone. both presentation’s weeks were awesome and interesting, we shared some valuable info. while it was short be we enjoyed it.

have a great Summer everyone

Abdul,

Addidas Jubalani

We All heard in the world cup about the controversial ball the addidas Jabulani, how did the design of that ball angered many players and people? And what did the designers whet through to design such a ball.

The production of soccer balls is complicated, designers need to have knowledge of physics, materials, and aerodynamics.

 

In 1836 Charles Goodyear patented vulcanized rubber. Prior to this, balls were dependant on the size and shape of the pig’s bladder. The more irregular the bladder, the more unpredictable the behavior of the ball was when kicked. However; it would not be until the twentieth century until most balls were made with rubber bladders. By the 1900’s bladders were made with stronger rubber and could withstand heavier pressure.  Most balls produced by that time used rubber bladders. The balls were made from inner tubes covered with heavy brown leather.  These balls would bounce easier and yet could be kicked. But those balls were good for kicking, but were painful when heading due to the heavy stitching and the water absorption characteristics of the leather.

englishballold.jpg

 

Adidas started to make soccer balls in 1963 but made the first official FIFA World Cup ball in 1970. The first ball used in the World Cup to use the Buckminster type of design, the first ball with 32 black and white panels.

 

WCTelstarDurlast1974.JPG

Then Comes the controversial ball the JABULANI, meaning “to celebrate” is the 11th adidas World Cup ball featuring 11 different colors representing the 11 players in every team, the 11 official languages of South Africa, and the 11 South African communities. It was a moment we held our breaths simultaneously, as we watched the adidas  Jabulani skidded off Clint Dempsey’s foot and rolled quite ungracefully into the goal, followed by a even more ungraceful saving attempt by England’s goalkeeper, Robert Green. After that we saw so many reviews.

 

England couch Fabio Cappelo Said: “the worst ball that I have seen in my life”.

“I’m surprised that they have spent so much time and money developing this ball but don’t appear to have tested it thoroughly. The changes have been too drastic,” the Telegraph quoted him as saying. “There has been a reluctance to shoot from open play from any kind of distance; the players don’t seem to have the confidence to keep the ball under the bar. It’s a shame because people want to see exciting goals,”.

 

Some of the world’s biggest players had this to say. Julio Cesar Brazil goalkeeper described it as “it’s like a super market ball”. “why would thy replace the ball with a beach ball, you can’t predict it” says Iker Casilas Spain’s goalkeeper. “The trajectory is really unpredictable. Usually you get used to it but in this case every touch comes with the unknown.” Stated Buffon Italy’s goalkeeper. “The ball is very complicated for the goalkeepers and for us (players). I hope we gradually get used to it because we have no choice,” Lionel Messi the world’s best player in 2009 stated. Even the American team had this to say.

Those are the three main points that this new ball is Unique.

1.     Aero grooves create the clearly visible profile on JABULANI’s surface.

2.     JABULANI has a futuristic texture with fantastic grip, giving players full control over the ball under all weather conditions.

3.     Comprising only eight, completely new thermally bonded 3-D panels, which for the first time are spherically molded, the ball is perfectly round and even more accurate than ever before.

jabulani-construction.png

 

According to Addidas official website this means that “The ball retains its shape, and the lack of seaming means there is essentially zero water retention, which will reduce sluggishness of the ball. The weight is interesting – being towards the higher end of the allowed scale means the flight will be truer and more predictable making keepers happy, but also rewarding accuracy for strikers”.

 

Here are two videos that show the production and testing of the ball.

 

Andy Harland, a sports technologist at Loughborough University is the designer of this ball and that what he had to say “If you go back to the first World Cup where Adidas provided the official match ball, back in the ’70s, the one with the white and black geometric shapes. That was widely panned. People didn’t like it”. He is adamant that his baby is the most “accurate” football yet. He admits that extreme roundness would make for unstable flight, but says a series of grooves on Jabulani’s surface prevent this. “If the ball goes off target more often it is not because it is unpredictable, but because it travels five per cent faster”.

 

I believe that the real mistake about this problem is the time they introduced the balls to the players, only one week before the world cup. The German Team had the highest score in the first round, due to the reason that they trained with the ball 3 months ago before the world cup, and that is because Addidas is a German Company. And they thought more about this, if the players didn’t like the ball then so does the normal consumers. The players are one of the company’s main sellers, and they have to satisfy their needs.

 

Mr. Fisher asked me about the possibility that the color pattern of the ball could have an affect on the goalkeepers. After much research I did not find a concluding answer, but I see ball patterns change year after year in most leagues and the goal keepers do not mind it at all.

Patenting of the Human Genome

An organism’s genome includes its entire set of genetic data.  This information instructs their biochemical pathways in the metabolisms required for the growth and sustaining of the organisms life.  In humans the genome is stored as DNA in our cells.  With the millions of cells coalesced as our bodies come millions of copies of this DNA.  Seemingly without regard to this, many companies and universities have begun to patent portions of the genome.  According to Stephen Lovgren, “20 percent of human genes have been patented…of the patented genes about 63% are assigned to private firms and 28% are assigned to universities.”  This patenting of the genome, of genetic data that is common to all of humanity, has extensive social and political implications.

In order to patent something it must meet certain criteria.  The invention must be useful and practical, i.e. it must have utility.  It must be novel, something that has not been considered previously, something innovative.  It must be nonobvious, having required some thought to conceive.  Finally, the invention must be described sufficiently enough that one proficient in the field can use the item.  Normally, naturally produced things cannot be patented.  However, this sentiment has recently changed.  Previous to Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980 living organisms, their components, and by products were considered unable to be patented.  However, as the Supreme Court decided in favor of Chakrabarty’s right to patent a genetically altered microbe, so too did they set the course for future patenting of life.

There are currently requirements that a natural product must meet, beyond the normal criteria, in order for it to be patentable.  DNA, and thus the cells generated from it, must be isolated, purified, or modified to produce a unique form before it is deemed qualified.  If the naturally occurring form is not modified then it must be used for an innovative purpose.  In a recent case, a judge revoked patents on isolated genes because he believed what they synthesized were “only trivially different from the naturally-occurring versions” (http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/03/30/pigs-fly-federal-court-invalidates-myriads-patent-claims/).  This ruling will be instrumental in delineating the distinction between nature and man’s influence.  Today patents range from those for human growth hormone, to insulin, to those used to screen for illnesses such as cancer.

There are a few reasons to patent.  In the broad scheme of things patents divulge what sorts of things are currently being researched and developed.  In this way they can prevent researches from overlapping their work, saving them resources.  Patents also attribute credit where it is due, and allow the discoverer to receive monetary gains.  The financial benefits are ostensibly why companies bother to apply for patents.  Once they hold the patents for genetic sequences they bear the sole rights to them.  Any researcher who wishes to explore these sequences must pay the patent holder.  These companies also gain the sole rights to grow the organisms defined by any modified DNA, harvest any products of their genetic codes, and to test this DNA for indications of illnesses such as cancer.

We should consider the inception of such research and the social impetus for its beginning.  The first answer that comes to mind is that genetic research was begun due to our interest in ourselves.  Knowing more about what makes us the beings that we are is important in itself in an idealist sense.  Science as a general unit advances and benefits from our genetic tinkering as well.   Genetic science also purports to improve our quality of life.  Cancer screening, improved medicines and even the manual selection of phenotypic traits are all possibilities of genetics.  Such knowledge awards its possessor increasing power and economic capacity, and so we have a third motive.

With these social influences genetic technologies have begun to be constructed.  Each of the motives above has, in conjunction with them, a relevant social group.  As the developers and researchers the scientific community values genetic research for its advance of knowledge.  Businesses prize the financial potential of genetic technologies.  The U.S. and its government as the regulatory authority gains power globally by maintaining control over genetic technologies.  For the rest of us, for all of us, genetic research provides hope better lives.  Thus, the users of this technology are everyone.  Perhaps we are not all current users, but we are projected users.  Everyone expects an improvement of their quality of life from scientific research, especially genetic research since it is compatible with all of us.

Genetic technologies are not inherently political but are made so through their patents.  Through patents the benefits of our own genetic material become increasingly less democratic.  The workings of our genes become less and less tangible to the everyday man, and the regulation of them is through some higher authority.  However, the necessity of a central regulating authority is somewhat understandable since genetic advancements could lead to potentially devastating biological weapons; the use of patents also guarantees that the authority is aware of the sort of work being done.  Those who hold the patents become the gatekeepers of such technologies.  Due to their privilege to decide who has access to genetic technologies they cannot be considered egalitarian either.  Users are restricted either to researchers, thus requiring a certain education level, or to those with the economic means and access to trained professionals who can apply the technologies.  Patents thus render genetic science extremely elitist.

These political expressions of genetic patents are also a social nuisance.  They impede civic society in its pursuit of ideal goals; the first being the protection and care of human life.  The patenting of the human genome essentially commodifies life both directly and indirectly.  Ownership of the physical blueprint from which human life is generated is being sold at an alarming rate.  As with most medical technologies, the potentially lifesaving treatments generated by our genes are withheld from some because they cannot afford them; we are putting a price on life.  These restrictions are socioeconomic; those who do not have the economic means to use the technologies are all part of the same social groups.  This is not compatible with any working definition of social justice, another one of society’s purist pursuits.  What is available to some should be available to all.  Patents also inhibit research which both society and scientists value for the ideal of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Patents are not intrinsically ill-conceived.  However, their use in the field of genetics is problematic.  Socially and politically they are manifest in undesirable consequences.  Genetic patenting has induced society to move away from some of its more noble goals of social justice, protection and advancement of human life, and pure intellectual pursuits.  Politically genetic patents undermine the authority of the public, restricting access to the benefits of their own core biological mechanisms.  However, the most recent case is encouraging.  We will perhaps see a trend away from genetic patenting which would bode well for humanity. 

Resources

http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/03/30/pigs-fly-federal-court-invalidates-myriads-patent-claims/

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/elsi.shtml

http://law.jrank.org/pages/9088/Patents-Human-Genome-Patentable.html

http://www.genome.gov/19016590

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome#cite_note-22

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html