The Year 2007 -- A Recap
The Choice is Yours biweekly column by Gregor Wolbring
December 30th 2007
http://politicsofhealth.org/wol/2007-12-30.htm
My first column in 2006 started with the sentence “ To choose a topic for ones first installment of ones column on innovation is a daunting task. Scientific news of today becomes yesterday's news, fast replaced by even more astonishing news. One field of science is chased by another in ever increasing speed.”
I could start the reflection on the first full year I wrote the column, and on all the columns I have written so far, with a similar sentence. Because of how fast things are changing, to choose a topic for ones column is indeed a daunting task.
The biggest challenge I face in writing my columns is to decide what topic to write about. So much is happening so rapidly that such decisions are difficult. And when I say happening, that entails not only advances in science and technology, but also events that alter the societal and cultural landscape, and the way in which these two factors influence each other. I try to suggest the nature of these dynamic interactions in my columns. Indeed roughly half of my columns focus on science and technology on the horizon and the other half focuses on the societal impact of science and technology, and vice versa.
When I look back onto the columns I wrote this year, synbio 3.0 may have been the most fascinating one related to the science and technology area, not because of the science but because of the monumental changes this field experienced since I covered it a year earlier in synbio 2.0 I definitely look forward writing synbio 4.0 around the synbio 4.0 conference next year.
Related to societal structures there were two columns, which were the most fascinating ones to write:
NBICS and the 2030 face of Education revealed that at least half of the science and technology role envisioned in education was not related to changing the deliverance of education but about changing the student. Most people who think about the future of education still think about education deliverance and content, not about changing the student through science and technology products. However I feel that this area will become much more prominent in the future.
NBICS and Other Convergences: The Paralympics, the Olympics, Human Enhancement Technology and the Doping Discourse was the other most fascinating topic to write about, as it began to indicate how science and technology products are changing societal structures and discourses. The column showed that the class system based on abilities -- which treats the Paralympics inferior to the Olympics and assumes that ‘impaired’ labelled athletes will never be able to perform on the level of the ‘normal’ labelled athletes -- is falling apart. The column also highlighted the lack of foresight in the development of international documents such as the fairly new World Anti-Doping Convention which in its language is much too limited to guide actions towards the doping tools of the future.
It may be that the most depressing story to write was the NBICS and Military Products . Although the content was not surprising it is still depressing that so much money flows towards this area which could be better spent elsewhere.
I am fortunate that two groups are publishing my columns. I want to express my appreciation here to David Forrest and Jay Edson who give me a platform to write these columns. Innovationwatch.com and David Forrest gave me the first platform for the columns. Since June 30 2007 the Politics of Health project of the HealthWright.org group and innovationwatch.com alternate in publishing my columns.
David Forrest from innovationwatch.com described in a newsletter which announced my column last year why he felt I should write this column.
I give below Jay Edson's explanation at to why he felt it useful to jump on board and to give me another platform for the column.
When I asked Jay Edson to write something he sent the following back:
“To put it in the most general terms, the Politics of Health Page is happy to have the opportunity to publish "The Choice is Yours" because the column presents important information that is relevant to our concerns in a way that is compatible with the values we espouse.
To be more specific:
The articles are informative -- in a very succinct manner broad trends are highlighted and links are provided for anyone wanting to explore any specific issue in greater depth.
The articles make it clear that technologies that will have a huge impact both on the health of individuals and on the larger ecology are being implemented often without much thought for broader consequences.
The articles show the impact that various technologies might have on health -- which is obviously relevant to our page. In this context they raise questions about what should be developed and what left alone and what regulations must be imposed in the interest of the greater good.
The articles emphasize the importance of keeping the needs of marginalized groups in the forefront -- including the need that people in these groups have for participating in the decisions making processes that will impact their lives.
The articles point toward an important philosophical question that our society has not really confronted -- much less solved: what is the optimal relationship between the existing ecological order and human innovations? Eg. Is there even such a thing as a "natural order," that must be respected. If so, what would "respecting it" mean in practice.
The central thrust of the articles is to challenge the reader to become informed and to think about these issues rather than to espouse any specific idea or way of understanding.
We like having some original material on our site – material that first appears here.
The Choice is Yours:
I enjoyed writing every column, and I am sure I will continue to enjoy writing columns. I hope the columns are of use to you, the reader, and that they encourage you to learn more and to speak up on these topics. All the topics I cover impact everyone globally and everyone globally should involve themselves in the topics. The consequences of poor decisions are too severe to leave dialog to just a few.
The Choice is Yours
Please contact the author for any information desired at gwolbrin@ucalgary.ca© Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2007. Please contact the author for permission to reprint. More columns can be found at innovationwatch.
Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, disability/vari-ability/ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology governance researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Part Time Professor at Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and former Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO (2003-2007 maximum terms served). He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.