Tag Archives: politics

Patenting of the Human Genome

Leave a reply

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

The Open Road

2 Replies

Roads might not seem like a very political technology at first. However, there are many issues and effects of roads that make it a complex political issue. First, I will discuss the history of roads then how roads can be political. Also, I will go into some effects of the building of roads, both economical and environmental.

I won’t bore you with a definition of a road but they are used mainly for the transportation of goods, services, and people. Roads were first built in the Middle East around 4000 BC. These roads were made of paved stone, which is not too unlike the roads we see today. The U.S. has the most roads of any country in the world with 4 million miles.

So how does a road become political? Roads are almost always financed by the public sector. This means its done by our governments, both state and local, with our taxpayer dollars. Like death, taxes are certain and everyone pays them. However, the problem arises in the fact that the implementation of roadways are only decided by a select few. One of the most widely used public good is controlled by a very small percentage of its users.

You might look at road or highway being built and not think much of it, but the effect that road has on a community, an area, and a region can be far-reaching. A road can bring people and business to a community or town. However, if a town is not part of the road or highway, it can be overlooked. This can cause people to move away, businesses to close down, and generally hurt the community. Roadways can also bring new services and goods to a town that was once cut off from other areas. This can result in different kinds of food being trucked in from all over the country. Large highways and turnpikes might seem to help diversify local culture by being able to allow access for different ideas and attitudes. However, these types of roads bring out a degree of standardization. The different types of restaurants on any major highway is a good example. You will see McDonald’s, Burger King, and other fast-food corporations. This type of standardization cuts off local restaurants and diners that once would have been the place to stop before that 4 lane highway was put in. Another effect of roads can be environmental. Roads can cause water, air, and noise pollution. Roads are impervious surfaces that do not allow water to seep into the ground easily. This causes more runoff and less water in our soils. Also, automobiles create pollution by the liquids they leak (oil, anti-freeze, etc.) as well as the gases they emit (CO,CO2). Also, spraying ice to help thaw ice can have a negative effect on the local watershed if environmentally unfriendly products are used. 

Beijing Smog.png

So how do we still build more roads when the land is already owned? Eminent Domain allows for a state to seize a citizen’s private property without their consent as long as the state pays due compensation. This is often done to build widen roads as towns become more populated. I saw evidence of this first hand when my own lawn was shortened because of the local township widening a road beside my property. Eminent domain is used for more than just roads. Many public goods such as water treatment facilities, electrical power-lines, and powerplants rely on eminent domain to acquire the land to build on.

Roads can affect towns, economies, regions, and cultures. They are one if the most shared and widely used public goods. However, even though they affect everyone and anyone, they are only controlled by a select few.

References

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200707/r157257_569758.jpg

http://unix.eng.ua.edu/~rpitt/Publications/BooksandReports/Stormwater%20Effects%20Handbook%20by%20%20Burton%20and%20Pitt%20book/MainEDFS_Book.html

http://books.google.com/books?visbn=0813526914&id=flvS-nJga8QC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&ots=DvEHtwROGm&dq=%22Ways+of+the+world%22+Rutgers+University+Press,+New+Brunswick&sig=tK2dgY-CJ8S2DSeTaMJKKi82Uew#v=onepage&q=%22Ways%20of%20the%20world%22%20Rutgers%20University%20Press%2C%20New%20Brunswick&f=false

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Technology and Politics: Oil

Leave a reply

Since the production, refining, and transportation of oil was introduced to the world, oil has become an important factor in the modern industrialized world, being the number one source of energy in the planet. As a strong element in modern life, oil raised a lot of different political issues in the world, as well as economical and environmental issues that have political views about it.

    Oil was first introduced as a medicine, and cementing walls in ancient Babylon. As a fuel, oil was originally used for lighting, and furnaces. Oil wells were firsts drilled at 347 AD in China up to 800 ft using bits attached to bamboo poles. In 1848, the first modern oil well is drilled in Asia, on the Aspheron Peninsula northeast of Baku. What revolutionized the way we view oil these days was in 1985 when the technology of processing oil was introduced, processing it into more useful products as gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt base, heating oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas.

    

   The exploration of oil revolutionized many countries, one of the biggest benefiters were Saudi Arabia. Before oil Saudi was just a dry desert with no noticeable industrialized movement. In 1933, Saudi Arabia granted oil concession to California Arabian Standard Oil Company (Casoc) Oil prospecting begins on Kingdom’s east coast. In 1956, Aramco confirmed scale of Ghawar and Safaniya, world’s largest oil field and largest offshore field, respectively. In 1973, Saudi Arabia’s Government acquires a 25 percent participation interest in Aramco, and where politics began to play a role in the company. In 1980, Saudi Government acquires 100 percent participation interest in Aramco, purchasing almost all of the company’s assets. In 1992, 1,700km Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (Tapline) is completed, linking Eastern Province oil fields to Lebanon and the Mediterranean. According to the CIA Data Saudi Arabia now has an oil-based economy with strong government controls over major economic activities. Now the petroleum sector accounts for roughly 80% of budget revenues, and 90% of export earnings.

 

   Oil was used many times as a political weapon; a good example was the 1973 Oil embargo .

 

  Many other political controversies about oil technologies are the environmental pollution that this technology creates. One example is the processing technology, when processing oil, many other unnecessary materials remain unused, and it’s hard to get rid of it.  Another thing is the oil spills that occur in offshore rigs, a good example is the current oil spill in the Arabian Gulf. Even transporting ships have spills like the one that happened in the Arabian Gulf.

•http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/Background.html

•http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/D02/to1899_index.html

•http://www.jobsataramco.com/home/history.aspx

•http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/cartoon/2010/jun/01/bp-oil-spill-tony-hayward-comment

Technology and Politics: Amniocentesis

3 Replies

Amniocentesis is a medical procedure used to remove a sample of amniotic fluid, the fluid that surrounds a developing fetus. Physicians run tests on fetal cells in the fluid (genetic amniocentesis) to diagnose or rule out inherited genetic diseases or chromosome abnormalities, such as Down syndrome. The procedure is done on an outpatient basis with the use of ultrasound to find the exact location of the fetus. The doctor injects a long, thin needle through the abdomen and into the womb.

Early prenatal techniques began in the 1880’s and 1890’s but were extremely dangerous, but the mother and unborn baby’s life at risk. The orginial Amniocentesis awareness and use became widespread in1952 when British Doctor, Douglas Bevis, published “Lancet” in which he described the workings and technology of amniocentesis more in depth. His discovery was in urobilinogen, a content of amniotic fluid to determine the possibility of hemolytic (blood) disease in unborn children. In other words, doctors were testing the unborn fetus faced anemia leading to undeveloped lungs. Today, Amniocentesis looks for specific birth defects. Chorionic Villus Sampling, a test similar to amniocentesis can detect most defects but not all unlike amniocentesis. CVS also poses a higher risk for miscarriage than amniocentesis.

Some reasons for testing include the discovery of diseases and other conditions, planing and preparing for a child with disabilities, begin addressing necessary and adequate lifestyle changes, discovering useful aids and resources, and deciding whether to carry the baby to full term or terminate pregnancy.

Some reasons against testing include parents satisfaction in results of pregnancy no matter what the outcome, based on moral, person, or religious beliefs in which terminating pregnancy is not an option for some, parents do not want to pose any risk of harming the baby’s development or growth during pregnancy, the test is performed late in the third trimester.

Amniocentesis is not a regular procedure for all pregnant women because it poses a small risk of miscarriage. It may be advised based on the mother’s genetic history, age, a previous child or pregnancy with a birth defect, or other family history. The probability of a woman giving birth to a baby with chromosomal birth defects increases with age: 1 in 400 by age 35 and 1 in 400 by age 40. 1 in 400 and 1 in 200 miscarriages occur in amniocentesis procedures. And 3 out of every 4 babies have a birth defect. The test has a 99.4% to 100% accuracy rate in detecting birth defects. The most common birth defects are Down syndrome and Trisomy 21.

The politics of the technology of amniocentesis is one of extreme complication and debate. This is not an inherently elitist technology because the decision to terminate a pregnancy has really not been determined. Does the mother or should the government decide whether an unborn fetus should be aborted based on its chromosomal abnormalities? Who decides this? In addition, the birth of children with disabilities has also lead to a slough of problems in the workforce, government, and society in general. The America with Disabilities Act only became active in 1990 and refinement has continued over the past two decades.

Likewise, issues of race in abortion has become a large topic of debate. 

The following video clip posted by Kareem is a good example of this heated debate: http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh3PS38UHzuJ15XSr3

The main question is figuring out how many women choose to abort based on abnormalities found within amniocentesis. According to this New York Times article “Prenatal Test Puts Down Syndrome in Hard Focus”, about 90% of women who are given a Down Syndrome diagnosis in the unborn fetus choose abortion. True statistics on this topic are difficult to find because the abortion debate has been such a heated issue for the past couple decades, but more information will be supplied as I continue further research.

Overall, the advancing technology of Amniocentesis results in political, social, and ethical debates in almost every arena. This powerful use of technology has determined life and death of thousands of unborn fetuses every year.

http://www.teachengineering.com/collection/cub_/activities/cub_biomed/cub_biomed_lesson08_activity1_handout-amnio.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html
http://www.righthealth.com/topic/Amniocentesis

http://www.righthealth.com/topic/Amniocentesis/overview/adam20?fdid=Adamv2_003921&section=Full_Article

http://www.discoveriesinmedicine.com/A-An/Amniocentesis.html

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/prenataltesting/amniocentesis.html:

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm

Resources for further individual research and insight:

�Families and society
�General disability understanding; ignorance
�Acceptance, assistance, schooling, knowledge
�Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America http://www.amazon.com/Testing-Women-Fetus-Amniocentesis-Anthropology/dp/0415916453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275592822&sr=1-1
�Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
�We Still Don’t Know What ‘Normal’ Really Is

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article746031.ece

Technology and Politics: The Stealth Bomber

Leave a reply

    The B-2 Spirit aircraft was first used in combat in 1999 during the Kosovo War, although it was first decided to be built and designed in 1979.  Initially, the United States planned on producing 132 stealth bombers, but that number was later cut to 20 due to extremely large costs and the ending of the Cold War.  This aircraft is one of the most expensive to build along with maintaining.  For one hour of flight time, the stealth bomber needs 119 hours of maintenance in turn.  In 1997, the physical cost of one stealth aircraft was 797 million dollars.  The procurement costs which included spare parts, equipment, retrofitting, and software support was in the range of 929 million dollars per aircraft.  The total program cost which included research development, engineering and testing was around 2.1 billion dollars per aircraft.

Stealth Pic.jpg

    The stealth has a length of 69 feet, a wingspan of 172 feet, and a height of 17 feet.  It can travel at a maximum speed of 604 mph and has a cruising speed of 541 mph.  On one tank of fuel, it can fly 6,900 miles without refueling.  It’s two internal bays for ordnance are capable of carrying 50,000 pounds.  This is one of few military technologies that is completely undetectable on enemy radar. 

    This military weapon has been involved in 3 campaigns including:  The Kosovo War in 1999; The War in Afghanistan; and The War in Iraq.  It was given credit for taking out thirty-three percent of Serbian bombing targets during the first eight weeks of the United States being involved in the Kosovo War.  This aircraft has been nothing but successful since its first use in combat.

    The stealth is a very elitist technology.  Only a handful of people on the planet know how to operate this technology first hand.  The reason this technology is not democratic is because the inception and design of this aircraft was done very secretively.  The United States government wrote this project off as something that would not bring much attention and spent outrageous quantities of money on it.  Although, this type of sophisticated military technology needs a type of undemocratic force behind it.  The government can not just release a statement saying they are designing and developing a secret airplane that is undetectable on radar.  If they did, it would bring much speculation and ploys by foreign powers to try to get their hands on it.  In some cases, I believe that undemocratic methods are necessary for the greater good.

   The intended use of the stealth bomber is to bomb targets in an undetectable way.  It’s intended use is exactly how it sounds.   This type of technology requires a very authoritarian power structure with heavy government control.  This ensures the safety of classified materials and the security of the technology.  The gatekeepers of this highly sought after technology are the United States government, the United States Air Force (who controls it), and the actual pilots that operate it.  The conditions for participation is a need for the aircraft such as a threat on the United States such as a war.  The most important condition is the actual training the pilot receives. 

    This very innovative and weaponized technology was created solely for the purpose of use during the Cold War.  Since the Cold War ended and the use for it diminished, it wasn’t first used in combat until the Kosovo War in 1999 (20 years after it was started).  This is an example of a technology that was made for a specific time in history.

   Stealth Pic2.jpg

   In conclusion, this aircraft is one of the most advanced technologies on the face of the planet.  It also is used for very important and highly crucial missions for the United States of America.  There are many controversial issues associated with this technology, but in my opinion it has only helped us as a nation. 

 

Works Cited

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_project

Image Sources

http://custodialsmackdown.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/b2.jpg

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/24/1

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/Commercial_Airliners-Military_Aircraft_Pictures/b2_stealth_bomber_aerial_refueling.jpg

 

http://www.mimenta.com/Mimenta_Art/Images/Extra%20Graphics/Desktops/B2%20StealthBomber.jpg

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Valiant_Shield_-_B2_Stealth_bomber_from_Missouri_leads_ariel_formation.jpg

 

                                                          Video Link

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntcsZH5N-MA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technology and Politics: Gas Turbine Engine

2 Replies

The gas turbine engine is one of the most widely used technologies in the world today. Its uses range from powering aircraft, seacraft and some military vehicles (e.g. M-1 tank) to generating electricity.

The basic principle of a gas turbine engine is a very simple thermodynamic cycle. It comprises of 3 main parts. First is a compressor which takes air from the atmosphere and compresses it to a high pressure increasing its velocity, This high-pressure air then enters the combustion area where fuel (generally jet fuel, propane or n�atural gas) is injected and combusted. This gives the air more energy by further increasing its velocity and also in the form of thermal energy. The air finally enters the turbine stage. Here the hot air turns the turbine blades and we obtain energy in the form of shaft work. Part of this goes back to powering the compressor and the rest is the useful output.

image002.gif

The concept of a turbine engine goes back much further in time than one would imagine. The first model was developed as far back as 150 AD by Hero of Alexandria. This model used steam to make a wheel turn. Leonardo Da Vinci also invented a device which used the same principles to turn a roasting spit. The hot air rising from the chimney turned a fan which through a series of gears was connected to a spit which turned. Various models of turbines (mostly steam turbines) were invented in the 16th and 17th centuries. But the biggest breakthrough was in 1791 when John Barber obtained a patent for his design of a gas turbine engine which had most of the elements present in modern gas turbines. After making various improvements to his design, it was used to power one of the earlier automobiles which were known as a ‘horseless carriages’. Since then gas turbine design has improved with advancing technology and we now have the turbines that we can see in our modern aircraft and power plants.

In this discussion the focus will be on the turbines that are used in power plants. This is an inherently political technology. It is part of a process and system that distributes electricity to a mass populace so it can be called a democratic technology. However it is not completely democratic as for example solar power (Winner) since it is very much an elitist technology which is why we don’t see people trying to build a turbine in their backyard and generate electricity. It requires large centralized power plants to generate and distribute electricity. And it requires a certain management and power structure to run. In most cases the government owns and ensures the running of power plants.

Even though the gas turbine is one of the most useful technologies today, it has its drawbacks. The main one being emissions which has become quite an ethical issue of recent times. The combustion process of the gas turbine engine results in gases such as carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) being released into the atmosphere. Statistics by the Environmental Protection Agency have shown that electricity generation and fossil fuel combustion are two of the biggest contributors to this problem. Continued emissions at the current rates would result in more formation of smog, acid rain and increased global warming.

Now a question that has been raised a lot in the recent times is if there is any alternate form of energy we can use? There exist many forms of alternate energy like solar, wind, geothermal etc. but the fact of the matter is that none of these can fully replace a gas turbine engine. Nuclear power plants use steam turbines which have similar issues as gas turbine engines do. And the other forms of energy mentioned have issues with storing the acquired energy which is a critical factor to consider since energy cannot always be harnessed from those sources (e.g. solar panels cannot do anything at nighttime). Research into alternative forms of energy will go on but in addition to that universities like Penn State and gas turbine manufacturers like GE are looking into finding methods of building low emissions gas turbine engines. The main way they hope to achieve this is by using a more lean mixture (more air than fuel) during the combustion process. Of course this method has its issues too like pressure oscillations and heat fluctuations that occur when the fuel and air don’t mix uniformly. Researchers are working to find ways of predicting and preventing these phenomena. The issue of emissions is one that needs a solution soon or the future of the gas turbine industry as well as our environment will be at risk.

Thumbnail image for alternative_energy_vs_improving_current_design.jpg

 

References

Langdon Wagner, Do artifacts have politics

National nitrogen oxides emissions by source sector from http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_service=data&_program=dataprog.dw_12cat_nat.sas&pol=227

Assignments for Week 3

Leave a reply

Reading

• Read Chapters 1 -3 of “The Timeless Way of Building”
• Read Introduction to SCOT approach. (Social Construction of Technology–pdf file in folder)
• Read Introduction and Chapters 1-3 of “How Users Matter”

Class Presentation and Blog Post on Politics of Objects

Part I: Between now and Tuesday, 6/1

Use the tools provided by our discussion of Winner to analyze some technology from the perspective of its politics–Think about questions such as:

• Is it an inherently elitist technology?
• Is it an inherently democratic technology?
• What is its intended use?
• Is it used to either deny or allow certain people access to goods or services that others enjoy?
• What kind of power structure does it require/allow?
• Who are the gatekeepers to its use?
• What are the conditions for participation?
• How is it connected to the politics of the time in which it was introduced?
• How does it function in contemporary arrangements in society?

Prepare a 10 minute presentation (using power-point, web-sites, video clips, or whatever tools you like) that informs the class about the history of the technology, its current role in society, and the social and ethical issues the technology raises and/or attempts to address.

Part II: On Tuesday, 6/1

Give your presentation to the class. After each presentation, we will have five minutes for questions and discussion. Take note of whatever factual questions come up that you don’t yet have the answer to, and of whatever questions about values that deserve some further reflection.

Part III: Between Tuesday, 6/1 and the following Tuesday, 6/8

Prepare a blog post with:

• A written version of your presentation
• Links to the materials you used and/or embedded video clips
• A list of the questions brought up in discussion, your provisional answers to these questions, and your thoughts on what more would need to be done in order to provide fuller answers.