Second Group Status Update

Our group, after much preliminary research, finally focused our efforts into one major idea for our research paper. We decided it would be worth it to venture into the field of genetic engineering, specifically genetic manipulation. We as a group believe that this type of modification of human beings is ethically unsound, and should not be used except in the most dire circumstances. We decided to combat the cosmetic usage of genetic manipulation and prove that it does pose many risks to health, not only in the individual being treated, but also in the offspring of that individual. With these general ideas now in mind, we are ready to begin our full research in the project. I will be focusing on the history of genetics along with the founding of the Human Genome Project so as to establish a basis for genetic research and an understanding of where we are today. Also, I am in charge of researching the health risks of genetic modification as well as the social consequences of doing so.

Research Group Status Report

At this point in the timeline, our group has made some important strides in our project. First, we were able to focus on one specific topic, which involved the implications of genetic manipulation. There are many possibilities for this topic to search into, yet we chose to focus on three main ideas: humans becoming the creators of our known biological universe, the possible loss of variability in the human genome, and finally a discussion on our limitations and exactly how far we can take genetic engineering. Now that we have a sense of where we want to take our paper, we were able to create a research proposal where we outlined our research methods, possible sources, and the structure of the paper. As we begin the new month, we will continue to meet to further dissect the project for each of our roles.

Collaborative Meeting Feelings

Just before we left for spring break, our group was able to meet to discuss possible ideas for our collaborative projects.We were able to finally narrow our scope of topics to one central idea focused around biomedical engineering (BME). The BME track was convenient for us since three of our four members are pursuing majors in either chemical biology or biomedical engineering. Also, when we broke down what possible topics we could cover in each selection of fields of discussion, we were much more comfortable with research in the BME field than any of the other fields. We came up with possible research topics, the two primary topics being gene manipulation and gene engineering, i.e. reconfiguring the human genome to explicitly express or suppress specific genes in humans or organs to acquire specific results. This topic also brings into the argument a possible religious aspect, with the question being should humans be allowed to play God in the laboratory? The second suggested topic would be in the area of stem cell research and how the advances in technology allow for a greater understanding of how these cells work and how they are beneficial to human life. As of right now, all that's left is to finalize our topic and get started on the research. Personally, I'm leaning towards the stem cell research since I have looked up information in the past as well as the ethical debates surrounding it.

Response to Slaughter Article

John Slaughter describes in his article a scenario that all universities should strive to meet: that of a truly balanced education, specifically concerning students in the science and engineering fields. He repeatedly uses the term "diversity", but not just in the politically correct use where all individuals have an opportunity to advance themselves. While he does argue for that cause as well, Slaughter's true argument is for diversity in the actual curriculum structure at universities. He flat out states "big scientific and technical problems like renewable energy, climate change and infrastructure replacement cannot be solved by math and science and engineering practice alone", in which he is correct. Modern dilemmas and phenomena are too complex to be solved with only strict knowledge of the sciences or math; instead, those tackling the problems must have a greater appreciation for the social consequences of their actions, an appreciation that can be gleaned through careful study of subjects such as philosophy, ethics, and psychology. Slaughter's point is that a diversified education is no longer optional in today's world if we wish to compete against other nations, and we as a society must ensure that our children are educated in all subjects so that their decisions are based on strong foundations of science, math, and the liberal arts. Should we be unable to meet this demand, we are warned that it will "quickly undermine the ability of our nation to continue as the preeminent leader in science and engineering."

Reaction to Gandhi & King

Gandhi and King, two figures whose legacies will continue to extend further into generations to come, have been monumentally influential in social justice movements and social awareness programs all over the world. The words of both men have shaken individuals to act against social justice and violence in general. The commitment that Gandhi and King had to nonviolent routes of persuasion and change is so inspirational, its a wonder violence still exists in the world today. Both men abhor physical violence; Gandhi himself calls anyone who leans towards physical violence weak, that those who use "soul-force" are the strongest individuals in society. If only we could find more individuals who would strengthen themselves in the path of nonviolence, maybe our world would be in a different shape than it currently is. Gandhi's work in soul-filled, non-violent action ultimately led to the civil justice in India that he craved, and it proves that modern society could mimic this behavior as well if we so wished. King followed in Gandhi's footsteps, promoting nonviolent action, and pleading with his counterparts to consider how to calm their anger into a constructive force for good. He details his ambitions in his "I Have a Dream" speech, and these goals couldn't ring truer. King dreamed of a future where all people would be united, regardless of background or skin color, all through the use of nonviolent action. Passive resistance doesn't necessarily define the action that Gandhi and King define; it is too focused on reception of immoral or improper laws and systems instead of the changing of those systems. Both men focused on actively changing the systems without violence, which ended up being a whole new definition entirely.

Reaction to "The Concept of Discourse Community" by John Swales

There’s no secret in the writing that Swales presents us with. His style of writing is complex, advanced, and likely not very understandable by lesser-educated individuals like myself. Swales speaks of “discourse communities” and “speech communities” like they are common things that everyone and their mother is aware of. I don’t know about many other people, but for me, this paper when right over my head, juggling vocabulary and data effortlessly while I still try to get past the opening sentence.  At least that’s how I felt until he brought into his essay an example that I could somewhat understand. Using a stamp club to develop his definition of discourse communities, Swales effectively clarifies his entire essay into one simple metaphor. To add to his metaphor, I believe that you could view a Facebook group as a discourse community. If we were to take his first characteristic of a discourse community and apply it to Facebook groups in general, I think we could see how these internet groups could qualify for the title. Swales identifies that “a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals” (11), and if you were to browse your own Facebook page, I think you could find any number of pages and groups that follow that description. Most groups are formed for a singular purpose: to get followers to daily see the updates the company or group is making, as well as in what direction the group is heading. Once you’ve liked the page (your admission into the community), they will bombard you with information pertaining to the group and you will be in constant communication with the group or company. This is another quality that Swales identifies, where a particular community will accept members, and keep them connected to the community through pamphlets, letters, or status updates. With the advances of technology, discourse communities are no longer a rarity, and whether you like it or not, I firmly believe we are all involved in community or another.

Intro to Lao-Tzu vs. Machiavelli

Modern civilization has become one that is centralized around fear: fear of the unknown terror, fear of the neighbor, and fear of the alien. Fear is an extremely powerful tool that governments and rogue individuals can employ at a whim in order to establish dominance over those claimed by fear’s death-like embrace. Lao-Tzu, a well-established sixth century writer, warns us that fear is not the way by which those in power should govern their people. Instead, he glorifies the benevolent and calm ruler who does not seek to empower himself over the people, but instead allows the people to empower him. While agreeably an ideal scenario, the time of Daoist philosophy is gone. Those currently in power instead choose to adopt Machiavellian codes of conduct, where they can use fear to their advantage. While not necessarily inspiring fear in their subjects, these modern leaders choose to manipulate our darkest fears against their enemies. A random attack on a nation is taken and manipulated by the government to forge a weapon of anger and hate against an alien whom the common individual still has yet to understand. An unprovoked school shooting is taken by the government-controlled media and is again reshaped and reformed so that now we have no choice but to fear our own neighbors.  In a broader setting, governments are able to take information that rests at the forefront of the population’s minds, for example cancer and other health risks, and conform that information to feed the fear that rests in the darkest corners of our subconscious: the terror of that which we do not yet know about. Machiavelli’s ideals are practiced today because they are the most practical; governments can use our own fear to rally people against a singular threat. Our nation has been asked to “speak softly, but carry a big stick”, and as Roosevelt requested, it is doing just that.

Reaction to Lao-Tzu & Machiavelli

Two distinct styles that reflect unique time periods almost perfectly, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli wrote beautifully on the roles and obligations of those in political and socioeconomic power. Lao-Tzu chose to write in a style that alone accomplishes the same purpose as what his focus was. By writing stanza by stanza, Lao-Tzu forces his readers to approach his writings with patience and clarity, otherwise it would be easy to miss the messages his words contain. Once he has put his reader in a calm state of mind, Lao-Tzu approaches the subject of subjugation; or more clearly how one with the power to subjugate should handle themselves. Lao-Tzu uses his model of “the Master” to be an example of a proper, just, and benevolent ruler. He encourages all those in power to act almost in the shadows and without bringing the spotlight on themselves. Early in his writing, he states “The Master doesn’t talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say ‘Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves’” (Lao-Tzu, 25). This promotes the laissez-faire concepts of government policies where the government doesn’t restrict the populace; however it also states that the ruling powers must work quietly to benefit the society. On the contrary, Machiavelli’s writings not only imply governmental involvement, but also promote it to the point where he believes a prince must constantly remain vigilant and hard working so as to ensure cooperation within his nation. Machiavelli believes that an individual of influence must portray their influence in the daily activities of their realm. This is a stark contrast to Lao-Tzu in that Machiavelli directly challenges Lao-Tzu’s beliefs and statements. In response, which course of action, or inaction in Lao-Tzu’s terms, is more effective? How can near apathy of a ruler lead his subjects to believe everything will work itself out? Lao-Tzu even mentions in his writings that his critics believe his teachings to be impractical, which I cannot say I disagree with. Machiavelli seems to be the more practical writer, affirming that those in charge have an obligation to be constantly vigilant, or else their empires will fall. Apathy is the greatest danger that a government can face, whether imperial or republic, and it is up to our leaders to ensure that it does not exist, even in the lowest levels of office. 

Reaction to Globalization: The Super Story

Globalization is a human process that has a plethora of advantages, including, yet certainly not limited to, sharing of ideals, cooperation of governmental systems, and a sense of interdependence between all those nations involved. However, along with these undeniable advantages, globalization can bring with it certain detriments to global societies that raise caution among scholars, researchers, and the general populace alike. Friedman does very well in explaining how globalization works in modern society, albeit from a Western-biased vantage point, yet his implications bring to light the true nature of globalization. Friedman blatantly states “…the United States is now the sole and dominant superpower and all other nations are subordinate to it to one degree or another” (Friedman 473), which begs the question: is this really where we want, or more importantly, need the world to be? This bold statement is neither totally biased nor inaccurate; the United States has incredible pull with regards to the global system and can theoretically run the table however it so wished. Friedman’s entire publication focused on “balance” and the “three balances” that makes up the modern globalized worldview, yet a global system run by one major nation does not seem like one that follows the definition of balanced. Yes, globalization allows certain nations and countries to fail without much consequence to the world focus knowing that the larger, more stable countries and nations will fortify and reestablish the failing or failed ones. This adds, whether we are conscious of this fact or not, additional pressure on those larger nations to maintain stability, or all groups fail. One could view heavily globalized economies as inverted pyramids, in which the many disadvantaged nations rest on the shoulders of the few seemingly well-off countries. This is an extremely dangerous situation, as the smallest stumble from the major players, aka the United States and China, would cause chaos in the rest of the world. Ironically, globalization does not seem to be following the tree-pronged balance that Friedman proposes; instead it seems to be forcing the world to revert back to a divided worldview where it’s the United States versus someone else. Yes, we are all connected globally; however this could ultimately spell doom for several economic and government systems.