Outlaw Biology

If you're interested, like me, in how public participation in the biological sciences can extend beyond the older pedagogical model of PUS (Public Understandings of Science), and the juridical function of science courts, then you should probably read this.

.....autonomy, singularity, creativity

Global Spiral: Special Issue Debating Transhumanism

I'm a little slow posting this, so I thought I'd take the opportunity to embellish it with some graphics from Cream and 21C Magazine.

June 2008
Volume 9, Issue 3
Special Issue on TranshumanismHava Tirosh-Samuelson Guest Editor

Engaging Transhumanism: The Meaning of Being Human by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson
“If one accepts that transhumanism is more than an ideology, indeed a philosophy, one must look carefully at its understanding of the human, of biology, and of the relationship between technology and culture.” more
Of Which Human Are We Post? by Don Ihde
“...[O]nly if humans are stupid enough to end up worshiping the very idols they create, could the fantasized replacement of humans by machines take place.” more
Cybernetics Is An Antihumanism by Jean-Pierre Dupuy
“For there is no science that does not rest on a metaphysics, though typically it remains concealed. It is the responsibility of the philosopher to uncover this metaphysics, and then to subject it to criticism.” more
Wrestling with Transhumanism by Katherine Hayles
“One need not agree with Francis Fukuyama that transhumanism is 'the world’s most dangerous idea' to appreciate the critiques of transhumanism enacted in science fiction.” more
Brains, Selves and Spirituality in the History of Cybernetics by Andrew Pickering
“All of the practices and states that I talk about in my paper are already marginalized in contemporary society—it feels vaguely embarrassing to talk about them in public. But at least the margins exist, and one can go there if one likes. The transhumanists would like to engineer them out of existence entirely and forever. Yes, I’m starting not to like transhumanism.” more
Transhumanism and the Posthuman Future by Ted Peters
“[T]ranshumanist assumptions regarding progress are naive, because they fail to operate with an anthropology that is realistic regarding the human proclivity to turn good into evil...[R]esearchers ...in genetics and nanotechnology should...maintain constant watchfulness for ways in which these technologies can become bent toward destructive purposes.” more
June 2008 Page 1 of 3 May 2008

Gregor Wolbring

In an earlier post I wondered aloud whether there were any telling differences between the ethical approaches to synthetic biology used by Gregor Wolbring and Paul Rabinow:

http://whoeverfightsmonsters-nhuthnance.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-assembly-of-things-ramifying.html

I'm happy to report that I now have a response from Gregor, on the understanding that it may be posted on this blog for the benefit of others. If I have at all misconstrued Gregor's tacit approval of posting here, I will remove it upon his request. My question was general as I wanted a starting point to get to grips with the concept of "ableism" Wolbring is associated with:
HERE IS WHAT GREGOR WROTE:

Ok here my take. This is a cleaned up version. It is NOT a general critique of Rabinow. That also would be beside the point. I do not disagree with many of the sentiments. I just feel for them to be useful they have to be embedded into a totally different social structure and discours.

THe main sentence from how you quote Rabinow is "The question of what constitutes a good life today, and the contribution of the bio-sciences to that form of life must be posed and re-posed."

I agree with the sentiment of that quote and I wrote on that for example in my bookchapter Wolbring, (2003), "Confined to Your Legs," in A. Lightman, D. Sarewitz,and C. Desser (eds.), Living with the Genie: Essays on Technology and the Quest for Human Mastery (Washington, DC: Island Press). ISBN: 1-55963-419-7

However that is not the whole story.
Depending whom one talks to will lead to totally different answers as to what constitutes a good life and depending on how one answers that question one gets totally different answers to the question what the contribution of the biosciences to that form of life is and could be.

I cover in my recent writings a lot the concept of ability governance. (see for example here Wolbring (2008) "Is there an end to out-able? Is there an end to the rat race for abilities?" http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/57 for Journal: Media and Culture, Volume 11, Issue 3, July. 2008 or here Wolbring (2008) Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol 21,No.1,pp.25-40

What forms of ableism and favoritism of abilities one exhibits has a direct impact on how one defines and perceives what constitutes a good life, what the problems are that prevent the reaching of that good life and what solutions are thought out to deal with the 'problems'. The discourses around science and technology governance leave out many facets and subgroups of earth population and with that exhibits fairly homogenous take on acceptable forms of ableism and favoritism of abilities. The less diverse the reference group is, the easier it is to define a certain vision of the good life, the existing problems preventing one to reach it and the solutions for that problem.

Most of the science an technology governance discourse is about environmental and medical health issues. Social risk, social health issues are rarely raised by the proponent or opponents of a givens contested science and technology. And certain groups of earth populations are routinely excluded
Wolbring (2007) "Nano-Engagement: Some critical issues Journal of Health and Development (India)Vol. 3 No 1-2, pp. 9-29

In general how we govern science and technology and what science and technology we seek what is accepted and what is not is a direct result of what ableism's a given society is exhibiting and accepting and what abilities a given culture is seeking.

And of course as certain science and technolgy enable new abilities and ableisms the very appearance of certain science and technology will support certain new ableisms and favoritisms for certain abilities.

One other quote from how you quote Rabinow is “And ethics and science can play a mutually formative role”.
Again on the surface there is nothing wrong with such statement. However depending which ethics one uses changes quite a bit the nature of the formative role and what output the given ethics discourse generates.

Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous Practice

I'm posting this reference here in case it can eventually set a context for Steve Fuller's principled support for Intelligent Design. Even if these specific ideal types do not feature in the forthcoming interview, I would like to follow up on Delborne's work to consider their ramifications some other time for social epistemology.

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 38, No. 4, 509-541 (2008)

© 2008 SAGE Publications
Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous Practice

Jason A. Delborne
Division of Liberal AAs and International Studies, 301 Stratton Hall, 1005 14th Street, Golden, CO 80401, USA, delborne@mines.edu


Although scholars in science and technology studies have explored many dynamics and consequences of scientific controversy, no coherent theory of scientific dissent has emerged. This paper proposes the elements of such a framework, based on understanding scientific dissent as a set of heterogeneous practices. I use the controversy over the presence of transgenic DNA in Mexican maize in the early 2000s to point to a processual model of scientific dissent. `Contrarian science' includes knowledge claims that challenge the dominant scientific trajectory, but need not necessarily lead to dissent. `Impedance' represents efforts to undermine the credibility of contrarian science (or contrarian scientists) and may originate within or outside of the scientific community. In the face of impedance, contrarian scientists may become dissenters. The actions of the scientist at the center of the case study, Professor Ignacio Chapela of the University of California, Berkeley, demonstrate particular practices of scientific dissent, ranging from `agonistic engagement' to `dissident science'. These practices speak not only to functional strategies of winning scientific debate, but also to attempts to reconfigure relations among scientists, publics, institutions, and politics that order knowledge production.

Key Words: agricultural biotechnology • contrarian science • dissident science • genetically modified crops • transgene flow