On the Assembly of Things

Two Cultures, Unequal and Incommenserable

rabinow — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:26:53 +0000

There may be more than two cultures but the 1962 diagnosis of Snow in its broad outlines is something we live with everyday. The fundamental and seemingly unchangle fact is that we are not equal in power relations or in what we consider to be learning, knowledge and truth. The unblushing demands for us to jump through hoops that we have already jumped through is simply unquestioned. When PR forcefully shows them what they are doing it changes nothing.

Hence we are begining yet another phase of secession.

Letter from Washington

rabinow — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 01:16:35 +0000

Monday the last day of November, we are informed once again that we are under threat. The NSF people inform Keasling that they want more from the Thrust IV on security. This was not something they mentioned in their review of the site review.

So the usual absolutely distinctive treatment of us whereby we are told what to do while no other thrust or investigator– even the most unproductive or delinquent has anything but total autonomy.

Two intense encounters follow: one between Jay Keasling and PR between 9 and 10. And one between PR and Leonard between 12-2 with the two WASPS watching the two Jews duke it out.

Net result very little except that the fate of the Thrust is once again up in the air.

More details elsewhere.

Standards, TSCA, and Nano

ckelty — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:20:29 +0000

Here’s another standards-related issue following on the issue of “functional composibility” we’ve already raised. For years now, I’ve been hearing the nano-concerned discuss the issue of whether nanomaterials like nanotubes, which are made of pure carbon, are the same thing as something like graphite, also made of pure carbon. Obviously, the answer is no, since graphite is good for pencils and nanotubes can apparently Do Anything(tm). However, the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Substances control Act, in its current form, would treat them as identical. Here, then, is a good place to focus on not only issues of substance (what is it?) but issues of mode: what is it for, what is it expected to do. TSCA is written only to deal with the former, and this may, or may not, reflect a scientific consensus as to how to treat objects, or it may reflect political expediency.

In any case, this blog post from Richard Denison at Environmental Defense finally raises an issue that I have informally raised with colleagues over and over again: why focus on only nano and its difference, when all chemicals on the list should probably be treated with respect to mode as well as to substance. Perhaps this is what is nagging me about SynBio objects as well, in that the attempt to define a standard is focused on the substance of the thing and not its mode. (Substance and mode might not be the right terms here… been reading Spinoza).

News items

rabinow — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:32:09 +0000

1. There is an article in Wired on George Church and the personal genome project. Pictures at a Walden Pond equivalent. Or as Marc (my son) puts it-one of those dreary leafless places in the East.

2. two articles in nature biotechnology: Drew Endy on standardization and Adam Arkin as well.

NYT article on InnoCentive

ckelty — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:52:31 +0000

An NYT article profiles the online research-contest start up Innocentive. The Article is a spin on “open source science” that confuses a lot of the issues but also raises interesting questions about both the nature of organization in contemporary science (both corporations and academic labs are too cloistered, according to this view) and is related the issues of “modularity”– namely the question of how to “decompose” a problem into doable chunks so that an open source-ish approach is worthwhile. As Karim Lakhani puts it:

The company, with offices in Waltham, Mass., has a staff of scientists who work with seekers and solvers, reviewing challenges to make sure they are clear and detailed, and guiding would-be solvers who may have a solution.

That specificity is crucial to InnoCentive’s operation, people who have studied the company say. “If you say, ‘find me a cure for cancer’ it may not work,” Dr. Lakhani said. But if problems can be “decomposed” into what he called modular questions, like “find me a biomarker for this condition, these questions may be more tractable.”

Functional Composibility

gaymon — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:37:39 +0000

Functional composibility (i.e. can modularized “parts” be assembled” is a central challenge in synthetic biology, on which much of the overall enterprise depends. It is a challenge that bears on questions of design and composibility, e.g. to what extent are living systems suceptible to the classic goals of engineering such as standardization and modularization. It is also a challenge that bears on questions of ontology: what is being made in synthetic biology.

A question we have is: how does functional composibility play out in nanotechnology?

Eppendorf and Bio-rad finally target their market

ckelty — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:05:39 +0000

Just a little weekend fun…

Apparently laboratory supply companies have cottoned on to whose actually using their equipment day and mostly night. It’s not Nature-loving eminences grises and their Science-magazine reading betes noires… it’s The Youth:

Eppendorf’s advertisement for it’s epMotion automatic pipetting system is a boy-band inspired goof.

And Bio-Rad, maker of PCR machines, goofs on “We are the World”

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

rabinow — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:32:23 +0000

We might all take a look at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It has short pieces on security in synbio and nano.
Nothing truly startling but a part of the discussion that is taking place out there.

Problems

rabinow — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:24:29 +0000

“The Chinese are very adept at reducing big problems to small problems, then reducing small problems to nothing at all, as the saying goes. It’s a survival skill they’ve developed over millennia.”
Beiing Come, Ma Jien,
Reviewed by Michiko Kakutani, \NY Times, July 4, 2008

Rabinow on Contemporary Equipment

gaymon — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:42:47 +0000

In February 2008 Rabinow was interviewed by ADRD (Architecture and Design Research and Development) in Paris on the concept of contemporary equipment and its relevance to the relation of the human sciences and the life sciences. Here is the link to that interview: http://www.adrd.net/adrd_wip/