<eyebeam><blast> Cyborgs

[Steven Kurtz <72722.3157@compuserve.com>]

Hi Joy

Thanks for the comments.

>The biotech industry has hyped itself to the public more than you know.
>The Human Genome Project must be the most hyped project ever concocted.
>Almost anyone who reads a paer has heard of it , and its claims of
>importance are highly regarded.

That is exactly what CAE claims in the section you quoted. But look at
it in a comparative sense. How much do you hear about the Human Genome
compared to microsoft windows? Which of these two is the nonspecialist
public more familiar with (knows more about it than just the name)? How
many members of the nonspecialist public know the difference between DNA
and RNA, and how many know the difference between a hard drive and a zip
drive? How many more biotech projects can you name that are as big as
the Human Genome, and have the same public recognition?

At present it seems that I cannot escape the cyber-celebration. It's
constantly advertised, there are TV and radio shows dedicated to it,
politicians who rave about it, and it's constantly in the press. For the
middle and upper classes information and communications technology is a
fact of everyday life, as it has invaded both home and work space as a
modern necessity. Can the same be said for biotech? Certainly the hype
isn't close, and while biotech has invaded the home, I would guess that
few are sure as to how.

>The primary problem which afflicts the sciences, indeed our culture in
>general, is not a lack in teerms of tools of facilitation or
>technological prowess; the problem is a lack of substance to the
>inquiries actually undertaken, and a tremendous failure to support
>individuals who do have substantive ideas. A lack of desire to do good,
>or to support those whose research is to do good, whether or not their
>methods of inquiry lie outside the fashions and trends of the moment.
>(This is also a problem in the arts.) A good treatment that has little
>m0ney-making potential may never be brought to market. Areas of
>research that aren't potential moneymakers, seldom get enough funding
>or attention. Substance carries little clout, credential and prestige
>are only badges.

I certainly agree here. The sociology of knowledge in regard to science
(both pure and applied) is very sad.




-
-------------------------------------------------------------
a critical forum for artistic practice in the network
texts are the property of individual authors
to unsubscribe, send email to eyebeam@list.thing.net
with the following single line in the message body:
unsubscribe eyebeam-list
information and archive at http://www.eyebeam.org
Eyebeam Atelier/X Art Foundation http://www.blast.org
-------------------------------------------------------------