Biotechnology and Power

Three billion bases of a sequence can be put on a single compact disk, and one will be able to pull a CD out of one’s pocket and say “Here is a human being, it’s me.” (van Dijk 1998: 123)

As frightening as the above quote by the co-founder of the Human Genome Project sounds for the future of human individuality and the control over human destiny, most of us are aware that Walter Gilbert’s vision of the future is surprisingly close to fruition. Advances in biotechnology are coming at a breathtaking rate, and while there is discussion of the role such technologies will play in the ethical framework of society, there is still more to be said about the vast power that biotechnology will give to its holders.

Much of the discussion on the growing role of biotechnology in the functioning of culture has been centered on the Human Genome Project. Indeed, as Jose van Dijk has outlined in his article on the implications of the Project (1998), the Human Genome Project has become “the biological version of the ‘man-on-the-moon’ project” (van Dijk 1998: 119), mobilizing corporations, academic institutions, and governments to invest time, money, and intellectual resources in order to discover the “code” upon which mankind is created. The interest in the human genetic code is not new; however, it is with the advent of advanced biotechnologies that such a project could even be conceived.

With the advent of the Human Genome Project, the biotechnologist has been reframed as not a simple scientist or computer programmer, but rather as a hero who will save mankind from its ailments (van Dijk 1998: 132). In fact, the language used to frame the Project itself — originally arising from the metaphor of the map and discovery — has been manipulated by media: “gene therapy offers all the ingredients of an enthralling medical drama: heroic doctors, desperate innocent victims, a hope for cure, and last but not least, a number of hurdles that doctors have to face on their way to success” (van Dijk 1998: 137). The co-opting of the linguistic framework of the project has then enabled the biotechnology to disappear behind a human face, whereas it is really the technology that is enabling such discovery (van Dijk 1998: 148); the technology then becomes part and parcel of the project, unquestioned, infallible. Carlo Ginzburg shows how medicine has become perhaps one of the most trusted of conjectural sciences (Ginzburg 1990: 118), and the inclusion of biotechnology in the sphere of medicine rather than in the tech world allows for its substantiation.

The emergence of the strength of biotechnology — as well as the ignorance of the actual technologies that power the wave of biological research — has led to a distortion of power which can be characterized as “biopolitics”. A result of the potential for abuse of the results and consequences of biotechnological research, biopolitics emerges as a “form of power that regulates social life from its interior” (Rose and Rabinow 2003: 5). This echoes closely Foucault’s conception of governmentality (Foucault and Rabinow 1984: 68), only the internal regulation within society now not only comes from social norms, but from biological standards. Ultimately, “race, health, genealogy, reproduction and knowledge are intertwined” (Rose and Rabinow 2003: 16) in the conception of a biological identity, which has only become possible through the rise of biotechnology — and thus requiring a closer look on bioethics, biopolitics, and the new framework of power offered through the rise of such technologies.

It is not farfetched, then, to say that the advances in biotechnology will give rise to a new form of colonialism. Just as advances in transportation technology — specifically seafaring — helped initiate early colonialism and advances in marketplace and communication technologies has helped instill what some call an economic or neo-colonialism, the ability to harvest and patent genetic sequences and technologies have all the potential to lead to a form of genetic imperialism (Cunningham and Scharper 1996: 5). Anthropology’s historical tendency for “othering” and “primitivizing” peoples has to be consciously avoided in the debate on biotechnology, particularly when there is a rising sense that genetic patenting could lead to the preservation of “disappearing peoples” (Cunningham and Scharper 1996: 3). Hilary Cunningham and Stephen Scharper argue that questions should be regarding “how indigenous communities and poor nations should be compensated for their DNA resources” (Cunningham and Scharper 1996: 4) particularly when taking into account that there is a frightening trend of people in developing countries being exploited for their natural resources: could exploitation for genetic resources (Cunningham and Scharper 1996: 4) be far behind?

Biotechnology not only has the potential to exert power over our status as individual humans, but in a more immediate issue, has the power to dictate what we eat and how our food is produced. An issue of The Ecologist appearing just over seven years ago outlined the influence of biotechnology companies like Monsanto in food production. Perhaps too alarmist and cynical, various articles in the issue nonetheless addressed important issues such as the monopoly over seed control and local farming (Steinbrecher and Moooney 1998), the dangers of foreign bio-chemicals entering the environment (Prince Charles 1998), and the infiltration of biotechnology companies within high levels of government (Ferrera 1998). Brian Tokar’s look at Monsanto’s controversial history (1998) shows how the company was responsible of the release of dioxins into the environment (Tokar 1998: 255) in the Times Beach incident, but goes on Monsanto has been responsible for other contaminants through its products and bio-chemical production.

One pressing issue regarding biotechnology and its influence on food production is the power that such technologies are giving large corporations over the agriculture industry. With the advent of seeds that do not reproduce themselves in their crops, many farmers — particularly in impoverished areas around the world — will be forced to purchase seeds regularly from large corporations (Steinbrecher and Mooney 1998: page). This usage of biotechnology in the production of crops and seeds gives an unwarranted amount of power to the creators of such products.

Such power over our daily lives through biotechnology may remind some of Hollywood films such as Gattaca and Minority Report. In fact, in Spielberg’s fantastic view of the world where a crime can be prevented before it can be committed, biometrics is the prime method of identification and interaction. Gerard Noiriel, in his look at the rise of the identity card in France (1996) and the treatment of foreigners based on methods of identification, details a procedure where social context and technology both play a role in the need for national identification. On a global scale, biometric technology can now give anyone with an iris scanner and access to a database all the information they need, creating a virtual “health passbook” (Noiriel 1996: 62) that can be used and abused in many ways. Perhaps in the past, such identification could be used for discriminatory practices (Noiriel 1996: 60) — and biotechnology could enable the continuation of such discrimination, additionally based on genetic and biological factors over which the individual has no control — but the real exertion of power was clear in Minority Report, as even the advertisements on the street could scan your iris and target their messages directly to your tastes, interests, and prior behaviors. This is where the power of biometrics and biotechnology is truly daunting.

There is a lot of promise in the growing field of biotechnology: the eradication of disease and suffering, the promise of the continuous availability of food and resources, and the possibility of the reaffirmation of one’s self identity are but a few of the positive outcomes of the growth of knowledge in this field. However, with possibility and hope comes the threat of abuse; after all, biotechnology — and the knowledge obtained through it — is a form and manifestation of power, and any type of power must be regulated and controlled. With the advent of biotechnological power comes the increased need for responsibility and transparency, lest we get lost in a world — previously only conceived of in the futuristic Hollywood horror — where our lives are dictated not by what we do, but by the arrangement of proteins in our bodies.

Sources

Hilary Cunningham and Steven Scharper. “Human Genome Project Patenting Indigenous People.” 1996.

Prince Charles. “Seeds of Disaster.” In The Ecologist 28(5), 1998. pp 252-253.

Jennifer Ferrera. “Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the regulators.” In The Ecologist 28(5), 1998. pp 280-286.

Foucault, Michel and Paul Rabinow, ed. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon, 1984.

Carlo Ginzburg. “Clues: Roots of an Evidential Paradigm.” In Myths, Emblems, Clues. London: Hutchison, 1990. pp 96-125.

Gerard Noiriel. “The Card and the Code.” In The French Melting Pot. Immigration, Citizenship, and National Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. pp 45-90.

Nicholas Rose and Paul Rabinow. “Thoughts on the Concept of Biopower Today.” 2003. pp 1-37.

Richard A. Steinbrecher and Pat Roy Mooney. “Terminator Technology: the threat to world food security.” In The Ecologist 28(5), 1998. pp 276-279.

Brian Tokar. “Monsanto: a checkered history.” In The Ecologist 28(5), 1998. pp 254-261.

Jose van Dijck. “Biophoria: The Human Genome Project.” In Imagenation: Popular Images of Genetics. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1998. pp 119-145.

Viacom Learns Small is the New Big

I’m going to devote this post to a very large news story that broke in the past few days that a lot of people have been talking about. And no, it’s not the verdict of the Michael Jackson trial.

Recently, Cineplex Galaxy LP here in Canada bought out its largest rival, Famous Players. (I apologize for the links to the Toronto Star, I know they require registration. BugMeNot comes in handy at these times.) With the merging of Cineplex Galaxy theaters and Famous Players theaters in Canada, Cineplex will now hold over 60% of the movie theater revenue in Canada, with over 1,300 screens across the country.

Of course, the competition is crying foul, saying that this move will push them out of business, despite the fact that Cineplex Galaxy has agreed to sell 35 theaters in order to win approval from the federal Competition Bureau. The competition claims that Cineplex Galaxy will use this clause to get rid of unprofitable and high-lease properties; they’re right. So what can they do to survive?

It is clear that the major competition to the Cineplex Galaxy mega-chain now must adapt in order to compete. In my humble opinion, the best way to do that is to capitalize on the large and burgeoning film industry of Canada, as well as the thriving foreign film industry. People may turn to Cineplex Galaxy for the Hollywood blockbusters (which are losing money and interest very quickly), but when was the last time you saw a megaplex show such critically acclaimed films as Moolaade, Jesus de Montreal and 5x2? There is a large market for foreign, Canadian and independent film in this country, which is being greatly ignored by the large multiplexes and is an excellent way for the competition to adapt to the changing Canadian cinema scene.

How does this amalgamation affect the everyday movie-goer? Well, the first thing that is clear is that the Famous Players $9.95 movie ticket deal will quickly disappear. Ticket prices will inevitably rise, but this is not the crux of the problem. Such a powerful force as the new Cineplex Galaxy will also have a considerable influence on film distribution in this country, and the real effect on viewers will be the reduction of the availability of a diversity of film and the rigid control of the distribution of movies.

What is being slighted in the whole discussion of this acquisition is the role of Viacom, the former parent company of Famous Players. David Olive, in the Toronto Star yesterday, wrote a brilliant article that dealt with the slow and steady of dismantling of Sumner Redstone’s media conglomerate.

Already having shed Blockbuster from the Viacom fold, Redstone has been reconsidering the role of the various parts of his media stronghold, spinning off Paramount Pictures into a new separate operating framework, separating CBS from cable channels like MTV and Comendy Central, and possibly shedding baggage like the various themeparks (including Canada’s Wonderland just north of Toronto). Viacom is not the only large conglomerate that is conciously coming apart: Time Warner and Vivendi are another two of many large media conglomerates that have been releasing assets.

Which reminds me of an article I read recently on Seth Godin’s blog where he claimed that “small is the new big.” Stating examples such as Craigslist and JetBlue, Seth goes on to show us how “small gives you the flexibility to change the business model when your competition changes theirs.” Which is perhaps what Sumner Redstone realizes. By breaking up the conglomerate into smaller pieces and getting rid of assets it doesn’t need, Viacom will be able to better compete against the new smaller, adaptive, and more personal companies that also realize that small is the new big.

Copywriting: More Important Than You Thought

I had read this article by Jason Fried quite some time ago, and I just went back and read it again because of the importance of writing on the web. I remember when I first started out creating content for the web six years ago (yes, the six year anniversary for this blog in some incarnation was two days ago, and I missed it), and I used to think a flashy design and a bright colors were the best way to grab a reader’s attention. I quickly learned that though those techniques may command immediate attention, the best way to keep someone interested is through good content, and subsequently, good writing.

I’m not going to pretend that the writing on this site is classy or elegant in any way. In fact, I’m well aware that I have the occasional typo and I make up words on many an occasion. However, I do feel that the writing on my blog is perfect for the audience to which it is geared: myself, and people who value (though not necessarily agree with) my opinion on certain topics. The writing on Wholesome Goodness is an extension of the way I would speak to you if we were good friends, and that is precisely the way I want to interact with my readers.

That being said, I do feel that varying writing styles are needed on the web in accordance to the situation and target audience. Notable Words — a blog I just discovered recently — does an excellent job in finding great writing on the web, and it also sports a clean, straightforward, and pretty design. It is definitely worth adding to your bookmarks, as it effectively showcases the way writing, with varying styles and forms, has an important influence on the user experience.

Finally, I’ll endorse Jason again when he says, “if you are trying to decide between a few people to fill your position, always hire the better writer.” And if you’re looking for someone who has a decent pulse on current events and shows some writing promise (and has a lot to learn, but learns quickly), then hire me.

What, I’m not allowed to shamelessly plug myself on my own weblog?

Aga Khan Visits Canada

This past week, His Highness the Aga Khan was in Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver to inaugurate the Delegation of the Ismaili Imamat, be conferred as a Companion of the Order of Canada, meet with Paul Martin and other government officials, and visit with the Ismaili community in Canada.

In her speech at the inauguration of the Delegation, Governal General Adrienne Clarkson spoke highly of the Aga Khan’s committment to building civil society and improving the living conditions of all people around the world, as well as of the Ismaili community in general:

“No one here needs to be told of the beneficial presence of the Ismaili community, both here in Canada and in its remarkable work in education and development throughout the world.”

In establishing the Delegation of the Ismaili Imamat and the Global Centre for Pluralism in Ottawa, and the Aga Khan Museum of Islamic Civilization in Toronto, the Aga Khan has called upon our nation to participate with him in bringing about goodness across the globe. The Aga Khan himself spoke very highly of Canada and its role in being a sphere of positive influence:

“The Delegation of the Ismaili Imamat in the federal capital, the new Aga Khan Museum and the Ismaili Centre to be built in Toronto, are symbols of this seriousness and respect that Canada, leading the West generally, accords to the world of Islam, of which the Ismaili Community, though a diverse minority itself, is fully representative. May this mutual understanding, so important to the future stability and progress of our world, flourish many fold.”

In a private ceremony at Rideau Hall on the same day, Governer General Clarkson conferred the Companionship of the Order of Canada on the Aga Khan, with the following citation:

Personifying cherished Canadian values, His Highness the Aga Khan has devoted his life to protecting the environment and alleviating human suffering due to poverty. Imam of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslims since 1957, he has guided the spiritual growth of his followers, teaching compassion and tolerance by example. In 1967, he launched his foundation, the Aga Khan Development Network, with branches in countries around the world, including Canada. Recognizing our nation’s caring spirit, he cites Canada as a role model for the world and has selected Ottawa as the home of a new Global Centre for Pluralism.

In her introduction of the Aga Khan, Governor General Clarkson concluded with the following statement:

“May I again say how pleased I am to be part of this important event in the life of the Ismaili community and also of this city and this country. Please be assured that you are welcome here. Know that when you speak, Canada and the world will listen. All of us here for this groundbreaking occasion would like to hear from you now.”

The Ismaili community in Canada were especially waiting to hear him speak, as it had been thirteen years since the Aga Khan had last visited his followers in this country. As part of his visit, he addressed the Canadian community from eastern Canada in Toronto on June 8, and the western Canada community in Vancouver on June 10. For weeks prior and days after, celebrations took place to commemorate the momentous occasion.

With Ismaili Muslims coming to Toronto from across the country, continent, and from over 25 different countries to see the Aga Khan, these past few weeks have been quite busy, but very physically exciting and spiritually stimulating. This was definitely an experience to remember for a lifetime.