Bioethics...
...was born of a desire to be relevant. The philosopher Daniel Callahan has said that he and his colleagues founded the Hastings Center—the premier bioethics think tank—in 1969 because they wanted to give philosophy “some social bite, some relevance.” Whether bioethics has achieved its goal is the urgent question at the core of this useful book, co-authored by Renée C. Fox, a highly distinguished sociologist, and Judith P. Swazey, a respected historian of medicine.
Between them, Fox and Swazey have spent many decades as participant observers in the house of medicine. Their intensive involvement with physicians, theologians, and philosophers has given them ringside seats to the development of modern bioethics. Through enjoyable interviews with major figures in the field and a rich trove of personal observations, the book perceptively, if densely, chronicles the growth of bioethics as a profession.
If success is measured by breadth of institutional footprint, then bioethics has indeed succeeded. Major universities house bioethics centers that offer a plethora of both graduate and undergraduate programs. Bioethicists serve on hospital ethics committees and on research review boards. In many hospitals, bioethicists are “on call” to offer guidance on whether certain life-prolonging treatments should be initiated or withdrawn. In the public policy arena, bioethicists are appointed to presidential commissions and state and federal task forces that formulate guidelines and advise politicians.
By other measures of relevance, however, bioethics certainly falls short. Though clearly fond of the bioethicist-physicians, bioethicist-philosophers, and bioethicist-legal scholars they interviewed, Fox and Swazey describe themselves as “critical of what we regard as the field's deficiencies and blind spots.” They identify these as the use of dumbed-down teaching formulae, an insensitivity to cultural differences, and the tendency of American bioethicists to emphasize “individual rights, and rationality” instead of “community, and common good,” which are the values that Fox and Swazey favor.
The matter of ethical expertise—what it looks like, who can claim it—is a profound one. Bioethics’ place in the academy, in the clinical realm, and in society turns on it. For most of us, the very idea of “right” answers to complex moral and philosophical dilemmas such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell cloning, or organ remuneration is absurd on its face. After all, deriving an “answer” depends upon which type of moral theory one favors.
Fox and Swazey have faith that expertise in ethics does exist, but they believe that such expertise will not be fully realized until bioethicists take on matters of social justice. Disconcertingly, they are not concerned that a social justice agenda risks blurring the lines between disinterested ethical analysis (the authentic expertise of bioethicists) and outright political activism. This oversight is made even more peculiar because the authors seem quite appropriately exasperated by some of the day-to-day perversions of ethics “expertise.” Ask almost any hospital physician about bioethicists and you will get, in reliable sequence, an eye roll, a sigh, and then an earful of anecdotes about swaggering cowboys posing as arbiters of right and wrong (“Wizards of Oughts,” as one critic put it). In the media, the coverage of almost any biomedical controversy is sure to contain a quotation from a bioethicist with oracular pretensions. The unmistakable message of ethics punditry is clear: anyone who disagrees with us is thoughtless or unethical.
Such arrogance discomfits some bioethicists as well, as Fox and Swazey note. Erik Parens regrets the popular view of the ethicist as “priggish or foolish enough to lay claim to how other people should lead their lives.” Fed up with Homo bioethicus, Carl Elliott, a physician and bioethicist, has remarked that “Many people working in and around bioethics wince if someone called them a ‘bioethicist.’… Some resist the aura of professionalism and moral expertise that the term bioethics seems to imply. Others are just embarrassed by the incivility and glibness of our public spokespeople. Others just don't want to be viewed as the ethics police.”
This raises a larger question. Is it politically desirable for society to credit bioethicists with expertise in resolving the most difficult moral questions? Fox and Swazey say yes, but only if bioethicists revise their mission. Instead of concentrating on issues surrounding biomedical technology, such as cloning, sex selection, nanotechnology, and so on, bioethics should address “inequalities in health and in access to health care in American society.” The field should become “more centrally and deeply involved with [global] suffering and … issues of social justice.
Ruth Macklin, a self-described “liberal, humanitarian bioethicist,” told the authors, “I acknowledge that my chief concern is in striving for greater social justice within and among societies, and reducing disparities in health, wealth, and other resources among populations in the world.” These are noble sentiments, yes. But what particular authority or particular skill do bioethicists possess that allow them to add much in the way of unique scholarship, practical wisdom, or ethical reflection that is not already being applied today, for better or worse, by experts in international development, global health economics, and political theory? Fox and Swazey do not answer this question. They simply assume that bioethicists bring a needed perspective.
This is not to deny a productive role for applied ethics in modern life. Bioethicists can be great educators of students and physicians and policy-makers. When an expert in bioethics approaches a problem, such as an end-of-life decision, he brings a deep knowledge of the cultural history of that controversy and the relevant legal decisions. This allows him to draw analogies to current situations. He is skilled at delineating conflicts, laying out the assumptions behind different positions, evaluating the soundness of arguments, and reflecting upon potential consequences.
Granted, many bioethicists endorse this as the proper role for bioethics. But they must compete to be heard in a field with widely divergent understandings of itself. Are we a field of scholarly inquiry, bioethicists ask themselves, or a learned profession, a consultancy, a form of policymaking or activism, an oversight apparatus that monitors researchers and physicians, a discourse, a project, or a collection of questions or issues? What training should a bioethicist receive? Should our field take stands on mainstream political issues, such as the war in Iraq or the crisis in Darfur? Are we excessively beholden to the institutions we serve?
Fox and Swazey portray bioethics as a field in turmoil. It suffers, the authors observe, from being “overly impressed with its importance” and steeped in a culture of “self-congratulation.” But at the heart of such self-conscious ceremony, they astutely speculate, lies professional insecurity. Fox’s and Swazey’s own prescription—to expand the bioethics’ franchise into global justice and activism—will not help. Bioethics would become politicized, thereby undermining the already shaky credibility of the field.
Sally Satel is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the editor of When Altruism Isn't Enough: The Case for Compensating Kidney Donors.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebo
A guidebook for strategic decision-making for executives in technology and technology dependent industries.
Rochlin; Hunter or Hunter.
My book Hyperinnovation is an analysis of the dynamics of how ideas come-together to breed new markets.
But the ‘Hunter and the Hunted,’ is remarkable text, and I would say a deeper insight into multidimensional innovation.
The one things that stand out is the part on ‘Timing.’
It’s a heavy weight book, confirmed by the best of breed business managers I know.
Listen to Bob Frick;
Testimial.
'For business executives, it is seldom clear whether a new and potentially disruptive technology represents an opportunity, a threat, or is simply a non-starter. Complexity and uncertainty often characterizes the competitive landscape and strategic choices surrounding technology and innovation. Finally, an exciting new book from Thomson South-Western’s Texere imprint presents a comprehensive outline of methods for stripping away much of this ambiguity.
Comprehensive and cohesive, “Hunter or Hunted?” delivers a powerful resource packed with practical s to help readers fully comprehend strategic choice and behavior relating to technology. An excellent book that both managers and engineers (and not just in high-tech industries) should read.'
Thomson / South-Western Publishing
Don't hold your breath: the 21st century will soon have 19 cities with populations of 20 million or more.
The history of the human species is a history of migration. In 1000 A.D. Cordova, Spain was the largest city. By 1500, Bejing began its rise to power, and 300 years later it was the first city to be over a million people. By 1900 London emerged the world's supercity with over 6 million people. In 1950 New York was proclaimed the first "megacity" with a population of over 10 million people in the greater metropolitan area.
How is increasing mass urbanization affecting the quality of life? 1.4 million people are moving into cities each week. How will this vast migration change the way we live and die; how we treat the elderly, the poor, the way work, trade, learn, the way we eat, consume, recycle, power, engineer, innovate?
While some say the world is flat, supercities are rising - vast, intensely urban hubs will radically redefine the world's future macroeconomic and cultural landscape. Most of the world's population right now lives and works in cities. Many more will. It's critical to gain a truer understanding of what's happening: the rise of supercities is the defining megatrend of the 21st century.
In 1800 only 3% of the world's population lived in cities; 47% by the end of the twentieth century. In 1950, there were 83 cities with populations exceeding one million; by 2007, this had risen to 468 urban areas of more than one million.
If the current trend continues, the world's urban population will double every 38 years. The UN forecasts that today's urban population of 3.2 billion will rise to nearly 5 billion by 2030, when three out of five people will live in cities. By 2050 two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities, up from about 50% right now.
The world’s population of slum dwellers increases by 25 million every year. The majority of these numbers come from the fringes of urban margins, located in legal and illegal settlements with insufficient housing and sanitation. This has been caused by the massive migration, both internal and transnational, into cities.
The greatest population increase will be most dramatic in the poorest and least-urbanized continents, Asia and Africa. Surveys and projections indicate that all urban growth over the next 25 years will be in developing countries, where one billion people, one-sixth of the world's population, now live in slum-level conditions; breeding grounds for crime, addiction, alcoholism, poverty and unemployment. By 2030, over 2 billion people in the world will be living in these mega-ghettoes.
If current trends continue, nearly 1-billion people will live in China's cities by 2025. Click here to see dynagram.
I vividly remember being ed on occasion through secondary-school education because ‘atoms’ where consistently presented as these perfect slick round little spheres. At one time I even called the teacher a fabricator of lies and shouted: “Atoms aren’t balls!!”.
Of course the poor man couldn’t help it, as it was just decided to teach us high-school kids a outdated, simplified 19th century version of the atom , rather than confusing us with subatomic particles like protons, neutron, up-quarks, down-quarks, gluons and what do you have nowadays.
In retrospect I was just a kid trying to be witty after having flipped through some of the science magazines of my dad, who was a physicist. Nonetheless, I always remained keen on the underestimated role of simulations in modern science.
Are you still reading? Then this call for proposals might be for you. The STRP Festival, Institute of Complex Molecular Systems, and Animation Studio invite artists, designers and scientists to develop a new visual language for molecular structures.
Recently, a new problem has emerged for molecular scientists. For many decennia they have used a world-wide accepted way of representing molecules, even though these molecules have never really been seen. Unfortunately, this language is not suitable to represent the increasing complexity of the molecular systems and dynamic processes that are subject of modern research. … I think that a breakthrough in this area is only possible with ideas of people with different specialisms.
Download the full Call for Proposals (pdf).
Where's Commercial Lighting Going Next?
Bioluminescence works to replicate processes for creating light found in chemical reactions in the natural world–such as with certain jellyfish or bacteria–for human purposes.
Nanoscale Engineering is Flying Ahead.'It can generate about 30 times the force per unit area of natural muscle,' they say.
Carbon nanotubes have fascinated material scientists since the early 1990s, when researchers started to explore the ultra-light, ultra-strong cylindrical molecules.
Carbon nanotubes are already used in bicycle components, and in prototypes of airplanes, bulletproof clothing, transistors, and ropes that might someday be used to tether a space elevator (On a historical note, carbon nanotube-infused steel was used to made Damascus blades, renowned as history’s sharpest swords, though the technique has been lost).
The latest muscle is made from bundles of vertically aligned nanotubes that respond directly to electricity. Lengthwise, the muscle can expand and contract with tremendous speed; from side-to-side, it’s super-stiff. Its possibilities may only be limited by the imaginations of engineers.
This apparently unprecedented degree of anisotropy — direction-dependent physical properties — is akin to having diamond-like behavior in one direction, and rubber-like behavior in the others.
Mouse Teeth and the End of the Dentist as We Know It.
'Living Doll' Composed of Collagen Cells.
Systemic Foresight Methodology.
Happy New Year to All You Mouses Out There!
Future Technologies, Today's Choices:
Nanomedicine: Vol I; and Vol IIA; by Robert Freitas.1: The Prospect of Nanomedicine.
2: Pathways to Molecular.
3: Molecular Transport and Sortation.
4: Nanosensors and Nanoscale Scanning.
5: Shapes and Metamorthic Surfaces.
6: Power.
7: Communication.
8: Navigation.
9: Manipulation & Locomotion.
10: Other Basic Capabilities.
The reading material is, at its very least, a book that turns scientific dreams into facts.
It’s the foundation of Nanomedicine; the use, in medicine, of bacteria sized programmable machines, constructed using molecular nanotechnology.
It sets the limits and possibilities of how nanoscale robots (nanobots) may function in the repair, maintenance and eventual augmentation of the human body.
Nanomedicine will be of interest to physicians, physicists, chemists, biologists, bioengineers as well as nonscientists who wonder how advanced technology may be used to solve currently unsolved problems in medicine. Anyone who considers themselves a 'futurist' or who is interested in aspects of nanotechnology should consider the book 'required reading'.
Even individuals who doubt the possibility of molecular nanoassembly will find this series useful due to the quantity and diversity of material relating to computing, human physiology, molecular biology and nanoscale physics that are brought together.
And more:
In Vol IIA Freitas has turned out a remarkable volume of information. It is probably useful to have read Nanomedicine Volume 1 before reading Volume IIA, but Volume IIA can be read on its own particularly if one has a biological or medical education (I've not).
Its emphasis is on whether we can expect nanotechnology based devices to be able to operate within the human body, but it also deals with whether or not certain aspects of nanotechnology might be dangerous to biological life in general. I thought the aspects of the book that identified the areas where we lack knowledge at this time to be particularly useful.
For example, topics are pointed out that still need deep research. The book is excellent in suggesting solutions for problems we can anticipate at this time in the area of biocompatibility.
This work is particularly timely because groups such as the ETC Group and Greenpeace have recently released reports that might reflect negatively on nanotechnology. This book provides a partial basis for informed debate on the risks vs the benefits of nanotechnology.
Since medical applications of nanotechnology may save 100's of millions of lives annually; arguing against it requires very strong arguments. Anyone who has not read this book and attempts to criticize the development of nanotechnology for biological applications can probably be considered poorly informed.
Passive structure design of 'Wind Energizer' by 'Leviathan Energy Inc' reportedly increases wind turbine efficiency 30% in field tests. But that pattern of incremental improvements may be a thing of the past if Leviathan Energy has anything to say about it.
Leviathan Energy has completed initial testing on their Wind Energizer unit and is reporting gains in wind turbine output in the ballpark of 30% — and as much as 150% at lower wind speeds.
.
The principle theory at work:
By placing passive objects around a wind farm will change the circulation or wind around a large turbine. The advancement is not in the turbine itself, but rather in the area around it
Units can be adapted to any wind turbine from any manufacturer.
.
Ive’s a shy genius, rarely speaking about his work and showing his face in public even less often. He’s most frequently found toeing the company line in official Apple videos, but the clip below from American TV show Objectified shows him more relaxed, working in his studio, and explaining the thought processes which keeps him at the top of the tech design pile.
James Dyson, inventor the Dyson Dual Cyclone: Dyson’s first vacuum cleaner, the G-Force, was sidelined when it was first unleashed in the 80s. Yet it’s follow-ups have set the tone for household gadgets all over the world. With the Dyson Dual Cyclone now found in the home of every self-respecting cleanliness freak Dyson has set his sights further afield.
Not content with fighting dust, Dyson’s Airblade hand drier has called time on weak-willed air blowers in loos across the globe, and earlier this year he set out to change desktop fans forever with his Dyson Air Multiplier.
Tim Berners Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web
Without Tim Berners Lee, what you’re doing right now might not be possible. The British engineer developed the www back in 1989, going on to build the first ever web browser and web server.
After the first website was built in 1991, Berners Lee’s creation went from niche networking to global colossus in ten short years. Tell me you could live without the world wide web now and you’d be lying.
John Piper, Chief Designer, Hound: You might not have heard of John Piper, but pay attention: Piper’s car, Hound, isn’t like other motors. That’s because it’s being primed to top 1,000mph in 2011, smashing the world land speed record in the process.
Whizzing by in a faster-than-sound blur, it’ll be driven by current record holder, Wing Commander Andy Green. Piper recently finished the design of Hound, positioning a small rocket underneath the engine of a Eurofighter jet. He reckons it’ll be enough to bring him success with the landspeed record, and cements him a place on my list of British tech giants.
Gordon Murray, McLaren F1 designer turned eco car maker: Murray is known as the man behind the McLaren F1 sports car. But he’s all set to make a name for himself at the bleeding edge of eco motoring with the T.27, a brand new type of electric car that’ll be ready to roll on British streets in just under two years.
A completely new concept, Murray is hoping to have s built and on sale by 2011. It’ll have a top seed of 60mph when it hits the tarmac in 18 months time, weighing around half the mass of today’s ‘leccy motors at 600Kg. At the moment, Murray’s prototypes look like he’s hammered them together in a shed, but he’s got form for creating fantastic cars in the past, and could be about to start a Prius-style revolution right here in the UK.
Trevor Baylis, inventor of the clockwork radio: Baylis is best known for inventing the clockwork radio, letting people snaffle signals without relying on batteries or the mains for their breakfast banter. His Freeplay radio, as it became known, was first unleashed in Africa, before a smaller hit the UK.
Since then Baylis has become a champion of British inventors, helping young bucks bring their high tech dreams to reality with the Trevor Baylis Foundation.
Kane Kramer, inventor of the Digital Audio Player: While Jonny Ive may have brought the MP3 player to the masses, it’s possible the iPod would never have happened without Kane Kramer. The British inventor first conceived a Digital Audio Player (DAP) back in 1979, also touting the idea of downloading music of your phone line and something that looks very much like an Apple store. It may have seemed mad back then, but he was bang on the money.
Kramer’s original drawings of a DAP clearly show a slab like device that many of us would recognise as an iPod today. In 1979 though, his ideas were seen as marginal. Apple was even moved to recognise Kane’s idea in 2007, although it won’t be stumping up any cash in return for making it popular.
Peter Molyneux, creator of Fable, Theme Park and Milo: Britain’s gaming industry is teeming with successful developers that are the envy of the world. But Molyneux has been a leading light in the world of video games since the 80s. Classics such as Theme Park, Populous and Fable all bear his hallmark. And he’s not shuffling off into retirement yet.
Molyneux is one of the driving forces behind the Xbox 360’s Project Natal. At its launch, he showed off a project dubbed Milo and the forthcoming Fable 3. If a gaming technology has Molyneux behind it, you’re guaranteed big crowds, and with his vote firmly in Natal’s ballot box he’s already making sure British games studios are taking Microsoft’s system seriously.
Richard Palmer, founder D3O: D3O is about to revolutionise gadgets. You might not know its name, but it’s one of the world’s first smart materials, and it was invented by a Brit! Chemical engineer Richard Palmer set up his own business to create the substance, which acts like silly putty in your hands, but stiffens up to absorb shocks and bumps whenever it’s hit.
It’s a silicon polymer that has the look and feel of playdoh, and is already in laptop and iPod cases from Tech 21, saving your precious tech from taking a battering. Palmer also says it could go into body armour too. Think futuristic football shin pads that mould to your legs but harden up when you’re hit by a crunching tackle. Smart materials are the future, and Palmer proves you needn’t be a mega multinational to make your mark.
Sir Howard Stringer, CEO Sony: Stringer hasn’t had it easy heading up one of the planet’s biggest tech giants. But his Sony United plan has made the gadget colossus more lean, better focused and able to make the most of its assets.
His first triumph was with the robotic Rolly. The device itself was never going to be a huge seller, but it let Stringer pull together Sony’s Walkman, Aibo and mobile teams to create a single product that was more than the sum of its parts. It was niche and bizarre, and stole headlines while proving that Sony’s sprawling divisions could work together effectively. And he hasn’t stopped there.
With the likes of the PlayStation 3’s XMB interface heading to Sony Ericsson phones and onto Blu-ray players, he’s helped Sony’s products have one core interface. The impending Sony Online Service, flogging eBooks, music and video will also be a huge match for iTunes, finally turning Sony’s ragtag army of products into a unified fighting force ready to stomp all over tech rivals.
eSolar Inc., has engineered a paradigm shift in CSP technology.
It’s Christmas (again), and So Time for an End of Year Story.Such as the facts that:
Visual prosthesis such as 'Artificial Retinal Implants' are now allowing the partially, even the profoundly blind Grandfather to see his teenage Grandchildren for the very first time (re: my Post Sunday 29 November 2009).
The maiden-flight of the first airplane that runs and flies be hydrogen jet-engines (watch a short video on the Antraes DLR-H2 Maiden flight! (re: my posts on Friday, 11 December 2009).
And that 'Tomographic Scanners' have reached a point where biological detail can be seen at the nano-scale (spacial and temporal), meaning greater elucidation of dreadful neurological problems such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and Stroke (re: my Post Sunday, 28 March 2008).
And so, to conclude:
The 'Galen Point' is a fact of our lives. We are obscured to such wondrous futures because of the time, place and context we live in.
Our horizons are not often that far away, and for most the far future is merely the next day or perhaps the planning of an event some months or years away (e.gs.; a holiday or a new product). We are obscured by the unimaginative, political and acutely myopic media. With day-to-day preoccupation: family, work, bills and the loft-conversion.
It's so easy to get trapped in those kind of Galen Points. So easy to fall into a pattern where we take things for granted. Where all that is around us has been here forever and day.
But it hasn't.
It's taken 4.5 billion years for life to evolve on this planet to a point where you are now reading this blogpost. What will happen in the next 4.5 billion years (ever cross your mind)? Practically speaking what will happen in the next 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000 and more years (ever think about it)?
My last point is, it does not just have to happen. You can have a hand in the future. You can break out of the Galen Point by not only appreciating the power of methodological Futures Studies, but engage in it. Learn the skills and tools of objectively projecting the future. Because a Futurist job is to smash and breakthrough through the limited Galen Point. To see, and build a future that benefits us all.
Wishing 'You' an Inventive Christmas and Visionary New Year.
Chris Harris.
A Sussex University student just asked me a rather curious question: 
New Book: Elizabeth Grossman and the Green Chemistry Revolution.
