Archive for November, 2007
November 28, 2007 at 12:32 am · Filed under biotechnology, genes, genomics, semantics
“Genetics Just Got Personal” is the new tagline for 23andme, a new start-up that aims to take people’s saliva samples, genotype them, and make their genetic “plot points” accessible and searchable. Individuals can compare their single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to identify ancestral locations, compare them with celebrities, and see what diseases are associated with these SNPs. If an entire family submits their samples for testing, each of them can compare themselves to each of their family members. 
In 23andme’s letter to the medical community, they state that “the information [23andme service] provides is tailored to genotypes, not to individuals”.
It’s surprising then, given the history of genetics, that 23andme decided to use the “Genetics Just Got Personal” tagline. When someone says that something just got personal, it usually points to conflict, and that a specific individual, rather than a group, stands to loose as a result. Likewise, when someone says it’s not personal, it often refers to some effect that has had an asymmetrical effect on an individual even though it was not directly intended for them. The 23andme tagline sounds like something Arnold Shartzeneggar would say. It does sound tough and too the point, but it also raises suspicions about what getting personal means. Does this mean that my SNPs, which were previously unknown to me, will enter the forefront of my individual decision-making and social interactions? Will it become a part of the design ecology that other will consider when making medicines, devices, or services?
If genetic information does enter our everyday decision-making processes, a central concern is how that information is conveyed and how the information design biases or constrains the decisions we make. Given that 23andme is providing incomplete information, should I make a health decision based on what’s available? I don’t think they’re advocating that anyone make health or reproductive decisions based on the information they provide. They do, after all, provide suggestions for a range of resources (including genetic counseling) for contextualizing the costs and benefits of these kinds of decisions.
Still, I’m left with questions about how the visual design of bioinformatic resources like 23andme creates and constrains different ways of thinking about and engaging with the information.
23andme’s stated goals include advancing research and being world’s most trusted source of genetic information. Can we imaging any scenarios where these goals would come into conflict?
Given that the value of the resource increases with each additional genotype, are those that contribute to the resource entitled to any of the database’s value over time?
November 23, 2007 at 5:56 am · Filed under Design, boundary objects, ecology, ecoregionalism, interdisciplinary, network entrepreneurship, technology
How do you take into account the diverse factors that contribute to a product or service’s ecology? How do you determine which factors are more relevant than others? One of the ways to begin this process is by mapping these interactions at a conceptual level. Then, we an begin to map them in individuals, societies, and real-world environments.
November 21, 2007 at 10:47 pm · Filed under interdisciplinary
I have a long-standing interest in interdisciplinarity and how it is practiced in thought (conceptual models) and action (fitness costs and benefits).
Here is a article from Inside Higher Ed that examines the paradox of interdisciplinary ways of working and the promotion criteria that accompany them. The article’s authors, Diana Rhoten and Stephanie Pfirman, describe how universities are promoting interdisciplinary ways of working to attracts women to science and engineering careers. Consider the University of Michigan’s recent decision to hire more than 100 new interdisciplinary faculty as evidence. The authors describe four models of interdisciplinarity: cross-fertilization, team-collaboration, field creation, and problem orientation. While each of these contributes significantly to innovative ideas and processes, they also come with significant pitfalls, difficulties, and constraints. This is why the authors highlight the extreme disconnect between promotion guidelines and interdisciplinary models. Much of their work centers on science and engineering, but the same conclusions can largely be applied to the arts and design fields as well. Read the full article here…
November 16, 2007 at 9:31 pm · Filed under bioinformatics, genes, genomics, semantics
Well, it looks like 23andMe finally went online. It’s been over a year since I did this sketch (left) and less than that since Google invested heavily in their startup costs. So when I opened up the New York Times today and saw their article on 23andMe’s launch (that’s effective PR), I still couldn’t help but be surprised that they had gotten going so quickly.
The key question for me is about their interface and interaction design. Will it compare to the same old bioinformatic machine style gene representations (square genes; primary colors), or will there be evidence of a concerted effort to push the visual language of the genome into something that connects with the wide array of meaning associated with genes? After I’ve had a chance to browse their site a bit, I’ll
report back with some visual analysis. One thing is certain; they’ve definitely internalized the web 2.0 visual style of rounded corners and big type!
November 16, 2007 at 2:27 am · Filed under Uncategorized
Subject: National Academy of Sciences: call for artist proposals
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:30:39 +0200
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/arts/NAS_Building_Restoration_Art_Proj
ect.html
National Academy of Sciences Building
Restoration Art Project
The Office of Exhibitions and Cultural Programs (OECP) of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) is now accepting proposals from artists for a
site-specific work to be installed on or near the NAS building during
its upcoming building restoration project.
For more than 25 years, the National Academy of Sciences has provided
world-class art exhibitions that explore the nexus of art, science,
medicine, and technology to the Washington, D.C. community. Beginning in
the middle of 2009, the historic home of the National Academy of
Sciences (2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C.) – including its
exhibition spaces – will close for approximately two years for
restoration. This project provides an opportunity for the NAS to use the
exterior of the building and its grounds as an art installation site.
For more information about the building and its history, click here.
Goals of the installation:
* Engage the public by drawing attention to the restoration of the
historic building.
* Provide a venue for an exploration of ideas pertaining to visual
culture, science, and technology.
Preference will be given to proposals that:
* Understand and use the temporal nature of the installation.
* Creatively take into consideration the evolving nature and
restrictions of a construction site (scaffolding, equipment, etc.).
* Creatively explore the intersection of art, science, medicine, or
technology.
* Relate to the NAS role in the history of science as context for an art
installation.
* Take into consideration that the site is on the National Mall and may
be subject to restriction of the DC government and or the National Park
Service.
Proposals should include:
* A project outline and artist’s statement
* An artist’s bio and CV
* An estimated budget to execute the project
Proposals should be postmarked no later than April 1, 2008. The NAS will
notify those submitting material of the status of their proposal by
email on or before June 1, 2008. All proposal material will be returned
to applicants. Proposals may be submitted by email or postal mail to:
JD Talasek
Director
Office of Exhibitions and Cultural Programs
National Academy of Sciences
500 5th Street, NW
Washington DC, 20001
202-334-3104
fax 202-334-1690
jtalasek@nas.edu
www.nas.edu/arts
November 5, 2007 at 7:25 am · Filed under Uncategorized
Come visit Zack and Gabe from CEMA at the Mutamorphosis conference in Prague on November 8 – 10.
We will be blogging from the conference, and handing out our nifty new 90% postcards.
In 23andme’s letter to the medical community, they state that “the information [23andme service] provides is tailored to genotypes, not to individuals”.
