Does The Person Who Manages Gene Editing Have Control Over The Historical Memory?

The summer of July was when Harvard experts used a technology for gene editing that was created back in the year 2013 to instruct bacteria to perform an amazing task that was to replay an animation of a horse galloping.

GIF animation GIF animation was created from the iconic series of images that was created in 1878 by famous motion picture pioneer Eadweard M. Muybridge.

The breakthrough involved scientists converting the image pixels into genetic code that they fed to their cells each frame. The bacteria were able to incorporate and reproduce the sequence of DNA and demonstrated the possibility of using living cells as storage and recording devices.

The world of technology was full of excitement. However, beyond the excitement the goal of scientists of extending the technique on human cell lines has profound philosophical implications.

A future where our bodies serve as hard drives may alter our entire conception of human history and view the world around us.

The History of The Beginnings

It is now hard to think of a future without history. From the vast collection of documents housed in libraries of the world to the numerous historical traces that are accumulating within the massive data centers that are part of the cloud in digital form History is all around us.

However, it wasn’t always this the way it was. Beginning about 4000 BCE the spread and rise of city-states from Mesopotamia through Ancient Greece, fundamentally changed the way we interact with humans and the physical world.

The new governance models and information technology created what’s now known as “historical time”, a system of truth that is based on analysis and evidence that’s documented in written documents and stored in the archives. These new structures of authority gradually replaced the concept of time that earlier defined the actuality of ancient civilizations such as the seasonal cycles, oral traditions as well as myths and rituals.

At the beginning of time, the process of changes no longer seemed to be cyclical. The idea of progress came into existence in the form of the idea of humanity progressing in creating the world, accumulating knowledge, and recording the evidence of this process.

However the whole concept of progress is based on power. Someone (or more likely, a specific part of the population) must decide which perspectives that are considered to be knowledge. What events are commemorated and which events are erased from the history books?

History is, therefore, far from neutral. From antiquity to the present those who controlled history were the privileged few typically men with high political power or professional standing. Access to knowledge required the ability to read and write as well as social mobility.

The Age of Reason came a wide-ranging questioning of the power. In the 1784 article “What is Enlightenment?”, Immanuel Kant stressed the importance of contesting the legitimacy and authority of norms and practices which limit the ability to make one’s own decisions.

In 1792, shortly afterward, Mary Wollstonecraft published A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Her argument for inclusion of women in education and in public life highlighted the absence of female voices in the history of women.

The book’s message of emancipation was soon lost to new forces. The ability to organize reality was accelerated in the 19th century with technological advances, industrialisation and the widespread use in the field of science.

Photography added a authenticity to the documentation of historical events. Charles Darwin transformed our concept of the time-line and origins of our animal species as well Sigmund Freud explained the way in which an individual’s history influences their mental state.

The amazing developments continued throughout 20th Century. With the help of modern computers researchers explored time on the scale of a universe (the theorem of relativity) and explained the nature of life at an atomic scale (the creation of DNA).

In this great wave of change, about one hundred years following Kant and Wollstonecraft’s death, a series of crucial movements finally brought the history of the world to task.

One of the criticisms was Michel Foucault’s study of the systems that govern our physical and mental states. Beginning with Foucault’s The Birth of the Clinic the 1963 study on the growing power of medical knowledge until his 1975 work of institutions that control societies, Foucault studied the Western need for complete oversight and control, primarily citing as the panopticon Prison model.

From a vantage point that is critical the impact of power as well as the technology used to monitor, represent and control populations and individuals becomes apparent. Women’s rights advocates spoke of male gaze. masculine gaze. Postcolonial theorists emphasized the concept of orientalism. Environmentalists have also demonstrated how the progress of humanity is ruining the natural world.

This is why there are risks associated with the recent use of CRISPR by imagining the past as an innate resource than a space for social memory is a major change that opens the history to radical new ways of control and exclusion.

The Combination of Technology And Biology

The scientific interest to “molecular recording” in humans and the creation of “cell historians” promises to enhance the control of time, life and the visual realm to new heights. As a result they will open the possibility of a Panopticon in.

Nowadays, progress is increasingly measured by the capacity of digital technology to link various aspects of our lives and eliminate the chasms between us. The internet, social media networks massive data, and the internet of things can make us safer, more productive, and connected.

However, not everyone is in agreement. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman believes that the globalization of information and economy produce an fluid reality that squanders our focus, breaks connections, and creates cultural amnesia.

The Harvard team has proposed a picture of the past that isn’t the record of culture, the entire set of practices of living that are transmitted through generations, but rather a summary of the physical states of human beings. This eliminates the evidence of the social environment that influences the way that bodies function.

The researchers emphasize the use of this technique in analyzing disease and developing treatments. These benefits could be true however, so is the concept Foucault refers to as biopower which is the application of a variety of technologies to manage and rule over the human condition.

If scientists are able to embed information into living human cells and collect data to regulate behaviour, it is possible to control in the most profound levels. Who decides how molecular recording’s power is used and who will have access to the data?

The manner the way in which history is constructed accessible, shared, and accessed influence how power functions and how reality is created. Since we all join and are absorbed to the web of virtual reality, the question of control over data poses new questions regarding agency.

The fact that both political and economic interests guide the application of science and technology, with their sneaky method of surveillance, expansion and profit – creates new concerns about control.

According to the Harvard team’s research on bacteria proves that we’ve come quite a way from the single-cell bacterium that most likely created the marvel of existence on Earth in the present. Their project on gene editing illustrates the technology’s ability to manage time in innovative ways.

It embodies the aspects that characterize it’s Network Ages: the compression as well as the acceleration and dispersion in life.

However, as the diversity of human life and the enduring memory illustrate, culture is much more than just information, and the range of our lives is greater than the technological measures. Are we able to trust that technological advances will lead to a world in which diversity is encouraged and where divergence is a possibility?

To answer this question, we need to not just praise the latest technologies, such as CRISPR. We must consider the way power works with the techniques’ extended coverage.

The Decolonisation of The Curriculum Is All In The Details And Not Only In The Wording

The past two years, since students’ protests started at South Africa’s universities people are becoming more concerned about the meaning of decolonisation. It is a result of protests by students’ demands for the curricula of their universities to be re-colonised. Many want to know the exact definition. It’s not so simple.

“Decolonisation” is a nuanced, layered concept. Its meaning cannot be uncovered with a scientific formula recipes, definitions, or formulas. A thorough understanding of the process that is “decolonisation” lies more in the specifics of its definition than its description.

For example, there has been little attention paid to the ways that universities follow colonial practices and methods which may not apply today in South African universities today.

The committee meetings are an instance of a tradition that has been passed down. A meeting is the gathering of of individuals to take decisions. A majority of organizations use a form of western parliamentary procedure to conduct their meeting. “Parliamentary procedure” is a set of rules for meetings that guarantees that the old-fashioned principles of harmony, equality and efficiency are adhered to. Robert’s Rules of Order The most well-known description of the standard procedure for parliamentary meetings is used by a variety of diverse organizations as their rules book to conduct effective meetings.

The notion of a two-hour ‘committee’ meeting – which is a common feature of life at university and a common occurrence for academics – causes many to feel fear. They are aware of what is likely to occur: they’ll just sit and listen, assisting only when requested; while watching other people dominate the meeting and push their agendas. They’ll stare on anyone daring to challenge or make a statement. Everyone just wants to get away.

Why do things go on this way? Some might ask, why it really matter?

There are many similarities in how students learn from colonial practices in classrooms and how they are reflected in university meetings practices. In both instances, the people who speak are those who have the money to be able to do so. Some, worried about the way their accents, usage of language and experiences will be judged remain silent and are left out.

There are many other methods to organize meetings and give lectures. Many of them are part of South Africa’s culture heritage. Can adopting, adjusting or just learning more about these practices help universities in releasing colonialism’s hold over their practices?

Rethinking The Traditional Ways of Doing Things

In African contexts, various “meeting” practices are followed. For instance, in ancient African communities, “meetings” were gatherings to take decisions and discuss issues that impacted the entire community.

The old-fashioned traditional lekgotla lekgotla, for instance was utilized for ages to hold village assemblies and leaders gatherings. Also, there’s an indaba traditionally an important meeting which was attended by the men of the main of a specific community or in collaboration with representatives from other communities; and finally, the Imbizo which is a platform for discussion on policy.

There are undoubtedly several more possibilities from a broader range of perspectives, which could result in diverse “meeting” approaches.

It is true that Lekgotla, indaba and imbizo have been featured in conferences and meetings for a few years. However, have these practices been just a flimsy appropriation? Are people truly engaged with the meaning of being part of a group?

Ideally, by bringing people together in a shared area, organizers are expected to invite different perspectives and perspectives. The way in which “meetings” are convened and held is an opportunity to discuss wisdom and knowledge.

In a recent meeting of the executive committee at the Higher Education Learning and Teaching Association of Southern Africa (HELTASA), we took the decision to put this idea against the wall. Our thinking was influenced by the writings of some scholars about decolonisation in the context of the “de-linking” gesture.

“De-” in decolonisation, they argue “de-” in decolonisation it is, according to them, an invitation to participate in creating an “gesture” that breaks with the colonial practices of working – specifically those that continue to enrage the marginalised, marginalised and silenced as well as their experiences.

We tried to think differently. The ways of communication that emerged were based upon the members’ backgrounds the context, their dispositions and theories of changes in relevant ways. Members’ feedback indicated that people found their voices, and contribute to discussions, and felt valued by the professional and personal experiences and stories they brought to the table.

A Different Method

The agenda was created to provide time for participants to make introductions, talk about their ideas and to meet with others within the group. They did this through participation and dialogue, such as drawings and reflective exercises. They discussed their identities, where they were in higher education, and discussed their experiences in higher education, as well as the reasons they were on their executive committee.

This was a major departure from the typical meeting process that has the chairperson make the introductions, and then addresses all attendees. The way we approached it was a chance for participants to be themselves and present their true self, their contexts and histories in the space.

The old academic-support staff division in universities is a way of transferring administrative tasks to those less affluent in academics. Tasks that are not particularly important are assigned to administrative staff and secretaries. The cognitive work is performed predominantly by academics. Through bringing everyone into”the “meeting” space on more like a level playing field, regardless of the roles they are assigned such as chair, secretary and treasurer – we began the process of “populate” the room in an entirely different manner that acknowledged and recognized the team’s diverse skills and talents.

The issue of agency within any organization is crucial. The ability and power to make choices cannot be entrusted on the shoulders of leadership. By giving people the tools to participate in meetings, you empower individuals to utilize their authority to inquire more, provide more suggestions, and contribute more effectively to the decisions.

“Powerful Knowledges”

The people who oppose decolonisation may say that you can’t remove all practices of the present way of doing things; that all practices or structures are detrimental.

However, by engaging in this cooperative and flexible manner meetings can be viewed as a cyclic, not a linear procedure. Academics must constantly be moving forward and backwards in their search for solutions. As they search for new ways to better understand South African higher education today professionals in the field must look back and evaluate what ideas are still relevant and which ones should be discarded to the naught.

If higher education is to be re-focused on its academics, the personnel must be able to participate in their “powerful knowledges” they bring into. They are a rich source of cultural assets that the academy should take advantage of. What can academics do to reconceptualise and redefine what they know and are doing in their individual fields, and then incorporate these ideas into conferences and other similar places?

The meeting format that we’ve described in this article could provide some answers to these tough questions. It offered a chance to gain insight into the stories, practices, and practices in more subtle, sensitive, and imaginative ways. It opened up dialogue that is characterized by mutual vulnerability, which we hope will be sustained and valued in the future.

Respect, vulnerability and authenticity as well as imagination – are crucial in the debate on decolonisation to ensure that we get into the specifics instead of shouting at each other about definitions.

The Argument For Requiring Politicians To Adhere To The Same Standards of Disclosure As Directors of Companies

Recent comments regarding the rules that govern political declarations of financial interests has revealed how easily they can be circumvented as well as the sloppiness in the way they are enforced.

Senator Cory Bernardi was involved in a controversy over whether he properly disclosed a $1 million commercial property that he owns located in South Australia. The senator denies any wrongdoing, and claims that he was in compliance with the regulations.

There are differences in the policies that govern directors and politicians in public companies. The first deal with assets, whereas the latter are governed by transactions. However, they all serve the same purpose – ensuring that there is transparency and lessening the risk of conflicts of conflicts of interest.

Then why are the rules so loose for politicians?

Why MPs Aren’t Being Pursued?

Parliamentary regulations oblige that MPs declare a wide variety of interests. They are also required to disclose that in which they’re “aware” are held by their spouses and children.

Politicians file interest late – often only after exposure in the media. They often ignore the rules for the minor asset and ignore the rules concerning reporting spousal assets. The requirement for being aware of family assets gives them an effective defense.

But the main problem is the enforcement. The pertinent law states that events happening within the parliament, which constitute breaches of the rules governing financial disclosure can’t be considered by courts.

This is important as it ensures that debate is free. However, it means that the enforcement of rules within the parliamentary system dependent on political pressures instead of solely legal concerns. This is due to the way the internal workings of parliament function.

The first decision about whether a member has been in a manner that is in violation of the law such as, for instance, not declaring assets is taken by the appropriate house’s privileges committee.

The government is majority support in the House of Representatives committee, therefore there is a good likelihood that it will come up any of their own lawmakers. If the committee makes an unfavorable decision that is not a result, it’s just an advisory. It is the whole house (in which, once again the government holds an overwhelming majority) to take the final determination as to whether or not contempt was committed and, if it has, the appropriate punishment.

When an opposition member is in the spotlight and is deemed to be in contempt, it is most likely. However, the reason it is only a theoretical issue is that the party that has an overwhelming majority knows that it will be the moment where it will lose its majority. This is why it is unlikely to set a precedent that could later be applied against it.

It is therefore best for both major parties to not engage in a rash and arduous pursuit of contempt.

This was clearly illustrated in 2002 when former defense Minister Peter Reith refused to appear before the Senate committee that was investigating investigation into the “children overboard” affair. In its simplest terms, this could be considered to be a display of disrespect. Additionally the Coalition parties were not able to secure an Senate majority. However, Labor was hesitant to force Reith to testify or risk contempt charges.

The result is no guarantee that MPs will be punished for violating the rules on financial disclosure. What happens is they’re allowed to “correct the record” – this makes a disclosures that are not disclosed basically unaffected.

Directors of Companies Must Meet Stringent Standards

Compare this to the obligations for directors of public companies.

If there is a “related party” of an organization which includes directors, spouses or child, parent, or any other company which one of them controls is looking to make an agreement with the director’s business the shareholder’s consent is required prior to the transaction.

For instance for instance, if the director’s father would like to purchase a vehicle that was owned by the company for where she served as a director shareholders must be in agreement before the purchase was completed.

In addition, anyone who is liable for a violation of these rules is at risk of an civil fine that can be as high as A$200,000 in the event that the violation is not honest (that is when it’s not deliberate) or could face criminal prosecution, and an amount of fine up to $200,000 or the possibility of imprisonment up to 5 years in the event that the breach was deliberate.

The penalties for MPs who violate regulations on disclosure of financial information could be heightened by changing the applicable law. The consequences of breaches should be a matter of regular court proceedings rather than relying on the shady procedures of parliament. Also, there should be a sanction regime similar to the one that is applicable to directors of companies.