Archive for February, 2011
February 27, 2011 at 1:13 PM · Filed under evolution, metaphors, semantics
Even before Darwin authored “On the Origin of Species” he used variants of the term ‘selection’ to describe the (now well-known) theory of evolution by natural selection. In the 19th century England, ‘selection’ was in common use among animal and plant breeders who isolated desirable variants and bred them for future generations. Darwin appropriated the term as an analogy and an appeal to experiences grounded in everyday life. Darwin’s ‘natural means of selection’ was a tactic to deal with the cultural inertia of teleology – supernatural design explanations for the emergence of species. The term stuck, and it continues to resonate – in part because ‘natural selection’ is an extension of human desires and not those of other species.
Following publication of “On the Origin of Species”, Darwin went on to reconsider his use of ‘natural selection’ to describe the evolutionary process. In letters to Asa Gray and Charles Lyell on the 26th and 28th September, 1860, respectively, Darwin suggested that ‘natural preservation’ would be less confusing for some readers. He also hoped it might discourage related uses he found objectionable and inconsistent with the meaning he sought.
In 1866, Alfred Russell Wallace wrote to Darwin describing the difficulties that ‘natural selection’ posed to acceptance of the theory. Wallace argued that ‘natural selection’ was “indirect and incorrect”; Wallace thought ‘extermination’ rather than ‘selection’ was more appropriate to the evidence. It is evident that Wallace preferred personification as a rhetorical tactic, but he also recognized that people often took the metaphors too literally. He cited use of ‘Nature’ as a personification and begs for caution in Darwin’s rhetoric.
When Wallace wrote to Darwin about his use of ‘natural selection’, he pointed out how other contexts (e.g. watching, choosing, preferring, seeking, thought, direction) led to some of these anthropomorphic and voluntarist biases. Darwin’s pervasive anthropomorphic, voluntarist description of natural selection is described in depth by Young (1985) who elucidates Darwin’s contemporary milieu. Darwin appropriated ‘selection’ to reach across disciplines. He was seeking clarity in the processes he was trying to explain. In drawing on breeding culture, he found a ready example from everyday life to equate his theory with. Breeding, being a subset of natural selection, would provoke visual comparisons in people’s minds. Young points out another benefit of using ‘selection’ was that, in breeder’s terms, it simply differentiated their understanding of variation into known and unknown causes (Young p95). Darwin was just trying to imply that he had expanded what was known about the causes of variation in nature.
In his 1866 letter, Wallace’s ultimate goal was to convince Darwin to replace his ‘natural selection’ with Herbert Spencer’s term ‘survival of the fittest’. This was suggested to obviate the invocation of an external actor ‘selecting’ among individual variants. Darwin largely ignored Wallace’s suggestion, but he put the phrases ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ into direct competition in his reply to Wallace:
The term Natural selection has now been so largely used abroad & at home that I doubt whether it could be given up, & with all its faults I should be sorry to see the attempt made. Whether it will be rejected must now depend “on the survival of the fittest”. As in time the term must grow intelligible, the objections to its use will grow weaker & weaker. I doubt whether the use of any term would have made the subject intelligible to some minds, clear as it is to others; for do we not see even to the present day Malthus on Population absurdly misunderstood.
Dawin went even further and inserted the term into the 5th edition of “On the Origin of Species.” Unfortunately, ‘survival of the fittest’ turned out to be fairly resilient and has led to a great deal of misunderstanding – in part because it became equated ‘natural selection’ which Darwin had not intended.
Young (1993) sums it up nicely:
“Natural selection – Darwin’s metaphor – needn’t therefore embarrass us now, because it’s allowed. It’s allowed once again to acknowledge the purposiveness, the final causes, the analogies to human intention, embedded in our concepts of and about nature. …the metaphorical nature of fundamental concepts in so-called basic sciences – affinity, gravity, natural selection – dissolves the barrier between scientific discourse and other modes of expression.” This makes one wonder what other metaphors would be just as productive – connecting to different modes of expression across existing barriers.
Biologists are now caught between choosing to use the metaphor in its anachronistic form, refusing to see its metaphorical quality altogether, or using it to support teleological evolutionism.
Another possibility to to attempt to synthesize what we have learned since Darwin to apply ever more imprecise metaphors in the hope that they too will stimulate enough refraction in meaning to generate productive research questions.
References
Darwin Correspondence Project Database. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2930/ (letter no. 2930; accessed 5 September 2010)
Darwin Correspondence Project Database. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2931/ (letter no. 2931; accessed 5 September 2010)
Darwin Correspondence Project Database. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5140/ (letter no. 5140; accessed 5 September 2010)
Darwin Correspondence Project Database. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5145/ (letter no. 5145; accessed 5 September 2010)
Young, R. M. (1985). Darwin’s Metaphor. Cambridge University Press. pp92-112.
Young, R.M. (1993). Science as Culture (no. 16) 3 :375-403.
February 27, 2011 at 12:32 PM · Filed under recipes
It’s a cocktail. I’ve been languishing on my recipe posts. Tasted it for the first time at Summit Public House, Seattle.
1 ounce rye whiskey
1 ounce Cognac
1 ounce sweet vermouth
1 teaspoon Bénédictine D.O.M.
2 dashes Peychaud’s Bitters
2 dashes Angostura Bitters
Mix all ingredients in a double Old Fashioned glass over ice; stir.
via Chuck Taggart at Gumbopages
February 27, 2011 at 12:05 PM · Filed under boundary objects, Design, making it public, metaphors, service design, symbolic systems, visual culture
Towards the last quarter of 2010, the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE) held an open contest to design its new logo. They constraints they articulated included dimensions and the need for it to show the work “evolution” or “SSE”.
Mock-up journal cover
I’ve been a member of SSE in the past, and I’ve also been interested in the dynamic between values, visual communication, and scientific advancement. SSE’s mission is to promote the scientific understanding of organic evolution, and that role has always occupied it with controversies around evolution as science and cultural currency.
For these reasons I was very excited to give it a shot. I was also very anxious to see how some of my current and former peers would respond to this sort of public engagement around something so central to communication of values – a logo. Designers and organizations that actively seek to build relationships with their customers and stakeholders know that branding and identity creation and co-creation is extremely important for a holistic engagement strategy. I count many of the stakeholders involved as friends, so I took on this project with a very deep sense of urgency and meaning. However, because it was a contest, all of the design work would be speculative. Still, I was excited to see how the SSE community and its stakeholders would react to the range of designs.
As a result of the contest, the competition generated more than 40 logos from more than 30 designers. However in the end, the kind of community discussion and open engagement never materialized. A letter about the results had this to say:
A slide show of the logos was sent to a panel consisting of the SSE council as well as a graphic artist and a publisher’s representative. Everyone was asked to explain what they liked about their favorite designs, and we took a poll. Originally, we had intended to send a selection of designs to our membership for a vote, but the council was unable to achieve consensus on which designs these could be. Neither was the council ready to adopt any particular submission as our logo. We did award the $1000 prize for the design that was most highly favored by the panel, but we will continue to work with to devise a logo that suits our needs.
As I read this I thought it was hugely interesting. A handful of things stand out:
- Non-experts (except perhaps for the graphic artist) are being asked to make strategic decisions about branding, identity, and service design (somewhat ironic in my opinion).
- Along with #1 is a tacit assumption that such expertise exists.
- A formalized plan was scuttled because a non-expert group didn’t have a system for making clear choices.
- It wasn’t made clear at the outset how the designs would be evaluated or how the visual characteristics and metaphors should map to the organization’s goals and mission.
- It was stated in the end that there are needs, but these remain hidden or unarticulated.
- A small number of people were involved in the selection process and were not ready to adopt any of the submissions.
As you can probably guess, it was likely a pretty lively discussion among the group. They acknowledged that the the diverse range of styles and content were useful for them to see. They also indicated that they would be more effective in working with a graphical artist to design a logo that expresses the identity of the society. That’s great for them, but has the community at large gained anything from the process, and will it embrace future designs any better than it has in the past?
Working with designers can be tough, but working with the right ones can be refreshing, especially when they are actively involved early in the process. It’s pretty clear from the context that the society was working under the archaic model of design, where logos are pretty things that don’t do much other than identify the organization – and also that everyone’s opinion is both valid and meaningful. Designers know their stuff, and they can make informed judgements about seemingly minor differences.
I do think that through the process the society gained a better understanding of how the quest for identity formation reveals unspoken values and commitments in some interesting ways. That’s one of the better things that design does: it makes things visible. Values becomes lines on paper. Assumptions get turned into letterforms. Goals become shades of color. What is really cool is how the design process can activate those discussions. Indeed it can lead to co-creation.
The value of design is to create a substrate for the vocalization of values that people are unable or unwilling to share. This is participatory design, and there are a variety of techniques for making this a more robust process. The first iteration in design is always just a starting point, with many examples to continue the process with. The design process is a continuous one with multiple rounds of iteration and feedback. Values (usually derived from mission statements) are what SSE is effectively selling to its members and society at large. With values, there is never an end point or product. A logo is simply an indicator of those values; it can be honest or something different altogether.
Given the public controversy that can sometimes follow a group like this, engaging in a forthright community discussion about the values it intends and how they are perceived can itself be valuable for opening up the process of doing science to the lay public. I agree that it can be dangerous, but then again, physics has been very good at doing this, perhaps because its outcomes are used by so many people in everyday life and because its concepts can also be so abstract.
In general, designers are discouraged from doing speculative work – i.e. work that contributed as a reasonably finished product in anticipation of future compensation. Contests are basically speculative work, but they usually trade off the probability of a financial award with other benefits – usually in the form of some public exposure. Most designers will agree that speculative work and competitions usually devalues the profession (see AIGA’s policy on spec work). Non-profits often exploit this kind of work, though I doubt other consulting services would receive similar treatment (imagine a contest for accounting services for example). So one part of a publicly engaging discussion is just that – publicizing the results, however satisfactory, so that it opens up additional communication that may not serve the direct interests of the SSE.
I do feel it was unfortunate that the committee wasn’t able send the preliminary designs to the wider SSE community. They indicated that they didn’t have an effective mechanism in place for responding to such input. If I had been able, I would have told them about this thing called Web 2.0 and gone on to demonstrate the variety of tools for collaboration (e.g. OpenIDEO, Kluster, or some of GOOD’s contests). I think it would have served as a fun and compelling way to engage in a discussion about science and society.
P.S. The visual identity system you see here is up for grabs;)
February 19, 2011 at 9:40 PM · Filed under health, making it public
Condition, Made Visible
Well, maybe not your heart, but this caught my eye. Let’s call him Jonathan. He was diagnosed with Type I diabetes from an early age. Type I diabetes arises from an autoimmune conflict where the pancreas cannot produce the insulin needed for regulating carbohydrate and fat metabolism. Jonathan requires regular insulin treatments because without them, he will likely die.
By the time he arrived at college he knew he didn’t like wearing the medic alert bracelets, and decided to get this tattoo to indicate that he has the condition. He says if he needs to, he can cover it with a watch (e.g. for job interviews). He also didn’t want it on his chest, which would have been another place that medics look at for indications of at-risk conditions.
Jonathan doesn’t personally know of anyone else who’s done this, but he thinks he may have heard about it elsewhere. Given Jonathan’s lifelong condition, it’s a compelling and durable solution to the need to communicate with health providers in any situation.
February 15, 2011 at 8:54 AM · Filed under host-parasite, public health, service design
The good people at GOOD have had some great design contests. They really believe in the efficacy of design for responses to difficult problems. I love how they run ‘em too; they’re straightforward and they get the creative juices flowing.
The GOOD Vaccine Challenge aims to raise awareness about vaccines and the vital role they play in the fight for global health. And they’re offering $5000 to projects (er, publicly voted on) that can be done in 3 months.
Sign for Immunization Centers to Advertise the Availability of Vaccines
Vaccine delivery is severely limited by bias, cultural beliefs, and communication among health service providers and vaccine recipients. One action to be taken is to create durable signs as messages to help reinforce demand for vaccination services.
An analysis of refusal data shows that resistance to vaccine is highest in underserved (largely Muslim) communities and that social influencers are critical to acceptance. The name Taveez describes an amulet or talisman worn around the neck to ward off evil. It is a prevalent practice among Mulsim groups, and it influences beliefs about health and protection among some of the most polio-vulnerable populations.
CKS and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation created this Vaccine Delivery Report (pdf 5mb) to highlight some of those challenges. Using a service design approach, researchers identified a range of patterns and barriers to delivery. They identified some possible solutions that can serve as technological options that would fit in the socially-contested landscape that affects people’s understanding and acceptance of health interventions.
One of the “low-hanging fruits” is the simple and direct need to communicate the presence of vaccination service points. It is often assumed that people will know where and when some vaccination event is happening, but this may not be the case. It is also critical that vaccination services create expectations of trust that comes from durability and continuous presence (and accountability) in the community.
The proposal is a simple mock-up for a sign that would be placed at vaccination locations or elsewhere with location information. The goal is to help raise awareness among mothers in regions (particularly the states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) where polio still impacts the livelihoods of children and families. It draws on the need for a non-verbal approach that clearly indicates the risk, the solution, and the recipient population. According to the WHO, only four countries remain endemic: Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, and Pakistan. This proposal would be implemented in India.
While this seems a simple distribution task, it is complicated by complicated institutional infrastructures. Decisions typically go through the Indian Government (which tends to treat public health as a function of medical treatments and not in terms of broad population education). Other providers include Rotary International and UNICEF, which have their own processes and policies regarding health communications. These can be difficult organizational structures to promote change in (especially if you aren’t in a leadership position).
I asked a colleague with firsthand knowledge of how service design may get integrated into the system:
The diffusion is the biggest challenge here. First of all, the government health mission will not entertain individual designs for mass roll out. These posters are generally put up by funded health agencies and only when it is a part of a larger program in which they have a hand. For this also I think many such organizations like UNICEF already have their own internal graphics team.
Design can provide significant added value with a relatively low cost of implementation. Push strategies such as incentives are unlikely to be successful unless they consist of other health services of value. Thus, a demand-based approach may be more appropriate in getting recipients to pull for vaccinations themselves, but they must see the value demonstrated conclusively. The use of celebrities as influencers has been successful in the past. It’s a one approach among more general tactics that use social proof to reinforce demand and acquisition of the vaccinations by vulnerable individuals.
In discussing the plan with a colleague, she sees private players like mobile operators and fertilizer companies as partners in the process. India Post is anther possibility and especially extensive given their broad network. The project would then be to work with them to get graphics endorsed and uniformly rolled them out along with their own communications and throughout the landscape as a gesture of support. She went on, “This has a mutual benefit of building up their brand equity as well as drawing people’s attention using a product (telecom) which more Indians have access to than anything else.”
Using Social Proof to Build Credibility and Demand for Vaccination Services
