At first I found this article rather difficult to read due to the technical terminology and scientific nature of the article. However, as I struggled through the first page and a half I started to find myself understanding the article much better. The author of the article, Eugene Thacker, begins to assert that we can consider “globalization as a biological phenomenon” (xvii). She explains how biotechnology has over reaching effects all across the globe and really always has since the industry first emerged in the 1970s. Then, Thacker begins to investigate the debate between the natural or technological nature of biotechnology. I found these points to be particularly interesting. Thacker explains how biotechnology is actually “fully biological” and more natural than current technology (xix). I was completely persuaded by this argument as our current technology of pacemakers and artificial organs is actually much more technical than the presumed future of biotechnology. I think when we first start to think of biotechnology, we think of advances in technology, which in our heads equates to less natural ways. However, in reality, advances in technology actually equates to a more natural and biological way to treat and/or cure ourselves.
I found this difficult to read, but once Thacker began to use examples to explain his statements it became a little bit easier. He starts off by saying that, "Biotechnology, it seems, takes place on a global level, be it in terms of exchanging biological information, controlling epidemics, deterring biological attacks, or standardizing intellectual property law" (xv) and I think everyone can find an example of this like the H1N1 flu that happened a couple of years ago that was considered a pandemic according to the WHO. I agree with Thacker that, "...biotechnology appears to be the new nature, the promise of a healthy and optimized body..." (xix) because I dont think we should limit ourselves just because we want it to be completely natural. I think its great that we can combine biology and technology to pave the way for artificial organs like the heart, or doing invasive surgery.
In the introduction to the Global Genome, Thacker stresses the globalization of an “industry” consisting of government regulation, research, biotech start-ups, information technologies companies, pharmaceutical companies and “Big Pharma,” and secondly, the integration of biological information and technology known as bioinformatics. He states none of this is new, the only novelty is how all of this development is affecting and influencing our way of viewing “life itself,” a phrase the he repeats several times in the introduction. The reading was kind of confusing, like everyone states. What did he mean by “moist” or “dry”? However, from what I can understand from a part of his introduction, Thacker is voicing the concern of how we constantly put our genetics/biological information in the form of codes and how this commonplace process in this modern era can change the way we view life itself. The example he gives is the patenting of biological life. How much technology can you have before you strip something of its “life” or how can you define what is artificial or what is not?
In the beginning of this article Thacker explains how "modern biotechnologies have always been global" (xv). He then argues how the worldview of biology is being impacted by "informatics" (xvi). To further explain his argument Thacker uses the contradictory claims of biotechnology. First claim is that "genetically modified organism is fully artificial and not something already found in nature" (xviii). The opposite claim is that "these "non-obvious inventions are 'natural' and thus safe for the environment, for the human body, for agriculture, and for medical application" (xvii). After reading these concepts of how biotechnology is manipulated, I got a clear picture of what Thacker wants the reader to understand. That is that there is a tension between biology and the political economy. Also that when it comes to the economical value of genetic patents, conflict of ethical principles exist. Like Thao said "how can you define what is artificial?"
I agree with the others who say this was a difficult read. I had to read it a couple of times just to get a general understanding of it. The portion of this article i found interesting was the mention of the debate over the patenting of biological life and GMOs. Biotech and pharmaceutical corporations make the claim that genetically modified organisms are fully artificial and not already found in nature. Then there are those who argue that genetic patents "by definition, "life itself" cannot be subject to patent laws..." What surprised me is that the biotech corporations begin to contradict themselves when they try to turn around and push their biotech products, such as GM foods, to the consumer. Thacker states that the statement is often made that the product is natural and "nothing that "nature itself" does not already do".
What is meant by "natural"? Does "natural" mean something that is biological or something that is not artificially created? It is difficult to determine the nature of biotechnology when the term natural can take different meanings. For example, a genetically modified crop can be both natural and artificial at the same time. It is natural in the sense that a gene from a pesticide resistant bacteria, a biological organism, is placed into another biological organism, the crop. It is all biological, or "natural". However, the crop originally did not carry a resistance gene. Placing the gene into the crop's genome can be not natural, or artificial, in the sense that it has been changed and the crop is a different crop. The crop has been made to be resistant to herbicide, something that is not initially capable of doing.
At first I found this article rather difficult to read due to the technical terminology and scientific nature of the article. However, as I struggled through the first page and a half I started to find myself understanding the article much better. The author of the article, Eugene Thacker, begins to assert that we can consider “globalization as a biological phenomenon” (xvii). She explains how biotechnology has over reaching effects all across the globe and really always has since the industry first emerged in the 1970s. Then, Thacker begins to investigate the debate between the natural or technological nature of biotechnology. I found these points to be particularly interesting. Thacker explains how biotechnology is actually “fully biological” and more natural than current technology (xix). I was completely persuaded by this argument as our current technology of pacemakers and artificial organs is actually much more technical than the presumed future of biotechnology. I think when we first start to think of biotechnology, we think of advances in technology, which in our heads equates to less natural ways. However, in reality, advances in technology actually equates to a more natural and biological way to treat and/or cure ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI found this difficult to read, but once Thacker began to use examples to explain his statements it became a little bit easier. He starts off by saying that, "Biotechnology, it seems, takes place on a global level, be it in terms of exchanging biological information, controlling epidemics, deterring biological attacks, or standardizing intellectual property law" (xv) and I think everyone can find an example of this like the H1N1 flu that happened a couple of years ago that was considered a pandemic according to the WHO. I agree with Thacker that, "...biotechnology appears to be the new nature, the promise of a healthy and optimized body..." (xix) because I dont think we should limit ourselves just because we want it to be completely natural. I think its great that we can combine biology and technology to pave the way for artificial organs like the heart, or doing invasive surgery.
ReplyDeleteIn the introduction to the Global Genome, Thacker stresses the globalization of an “industry” consisting of government regulation, research, biotech start-ups, information technologies companies, pharmaceutical companies and “Big Pharma,” and secondly, the integration of biological information and technology known as bioinformatics. He states none of this is new, the only novelty is how all of this development is affecting and influencing our way of viewing “life itself,” a phrase the he repeats several times in the introduction. The reading was kind of confusing, like everyone states. What did he mean by “moist” or “dry”? However, from what I can understand from a part of his introduction, Thacker is voicing the concern of how we constantly put our genetics/biological information in the form of codes and how this commonplace process in this modern era can change the way we view life itself. The example he gives is the patenting of biological life. How much technology can you have before you strip something of its “life” or how can you define what is artificial or what is not?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of this article Thacker explains how "modern biotechnologies have always been global" (xv). He then argues how the worldview of biology is being impacted by "informatics" (xvi). To further explain his argument Thacker uses the contradictory claims of biotechnology.
ReplyDeleteFirst claim is that "genetically modified organism is fully artificial and not something already found in nature" (xviii). The opposite claim is that "these "non-obvious inventions are 'natural' and thus safe for the environment, for the human body, for agriculture, and for medical application" (xvii).
After reading these concepts of how biotechnology is manipulated, I got a clear picture of what Thacker wants the reader to understand. That is that there is a tension between biology and the political economy. Also that when it comes to the economical value of genetic patents, conflict of ethical principles exist. Like Thao said "how can you define what is artificial?"
I agree with the others who say this was a difficult read. I had to read it a couple of times just to get a general understanding of it. The portion of this article i found interesting was the mention of the debate over the patenting of biological life and GMOs. Biotech and pharmaceutical corporations make the claim that genetically modified organisms are fully artificial and not already found in nature. Then there are those who argue that genetic patents "by definition, "life itself" cannot be subject to patent laws..." What surprised me is that the biotech corporations begin to contradict themselves when they try to turn around and push their biotech products, such as GM foods, to the consumer. Thacker states that the statement is often made that the product is natural and "nothing that "nature itself" does not already do".
ReplyDeleteWhat is meant by "natural"? Does "natural" mean something that is biological or something that is not artificially created? It is difficult to determine the nature of biotechnology when the term natural can take different meanings. For example, a genetically modified crop can be both natural and artificial at the same time. It is natural in the sense that a gene from a pesticide resistant bacteria, a biological organism, is placed into another biological organism, the crop. It is all biological, or "natural". However, the crop originally did not carry a resistance gene. Placing the gene into the crop's genome can be not natural, or artificial, in the sense that it has been changed and the crop is a different crop. The crop has been made to be resistant to herbicide, something that is not initially capable of doing.
ReplyDelete