Fred Truman
Design & Code Creative
Reactions to The Double Helix & A BioPunk Manifesto
September 14, 2011
To catch up quickly on the history of genomics, the structure of DNA, the stuffy world of academics in the middle of the previous century I read The Double Helix, by James D. Watson over the weekend. It’s touted as a exemplary account of intricate and very human process of scientific discovery, I would agree that the level of detail and honesty conveyed by the author here is admirable. What’s also very apparent from the account is the bureaucracy and sexism of the academic world and its inherently conflicting modes of cooperation and competition. I won’t pretend to have ever had ideas on the level of what the structure of DNA might be, but it’s really cool to see how this guy navigated his social/professional relationships and a work/life balance in pursuit of something as epic as the double helix.
I wonder how this differs from the way in which science has always operated, and if it deviates far from that legacy is this example seen as a somewhat new kind of process? One in which the “discoverers” didn’t actually do much of the heavy lifting and observation, but rather de- and re-assembled the pieces to create various new possibilities until one was finally and undeniably correct. Should they really have been given credit, or is Rosalind Franklin the real genius here? I’m not really sure if there’s any one real genius ever at work on any given idea. If I think back to my reading of Where Good Ideas Come From the point driven home is that every new idea is built and tied very closely to what came before. The “adjacent possible.” The more we explore the adjacent possible, prodding it for further inroads into the unknown, the greater our progression. Therefore my conclusion would be that although Rosy, in a creative-commons-attributed-world would have gotten more of her due credit , Watson and Crick cannot be faulted or accused of theft when the very nature of how our ideas grow and spread is incremental. Having more minds on a problem inevitably leads to more possible solutions, eventually leading to the correct solution. Iteration.
I think handing out medals totally misses the point – but it’s a great motivating incentive and probably a great way to pick up fit birds in your old school, cardigan sweater community.
This leads us to the BioPunk Manifesto:
This Manifesto seems to continue along a path started a while back by Watson and Crick. If all that these Nobel prize winners are doing is stealing other people’s observations and reconfiguring them, why not give the observer their due credit and encourage them to broadcast their findings to a larger population. This larger population has the potential to find cheaper and faster solutions. They also don’t have to be completely pompous about the whole thing. I get this. Cool.
From here, however, my mind inevitably shifts from the ethics of the community and credit, towards the ethics of the act. It gets pretty sketchy thinking about anyone and everyone fiddling around in their garage making three-legged insects that smell like cherry coke (or whatever) just for fun. I have no idea what these boundaries of “cool” and “not-cool” look like.
Admittedly, I’m going to ramble now. I have these thoughts that there is something very libertarian about the BioPunk movement. The same can be said about Pro-Rights groups. Last night, I saw a PBS POV documentary called If a Tree Falls, where we take a look into the world of the Earth Liberation Front and the “terrorism” they’ve committed in defense of their ideals. I’ve definitely read Industrial Society and it’s Future, by another guy not quite satisfied with the academic community. This BioPunk movement is simultaneously dangerous, empowering, frightening and definitely exciting. I wonder, however, what does the world look like when so many different types of people have decided that the system no longer works for them, subsequently abolish it, and then are left to defend themselves against the other disgruntles. Will I be attacked by God-nuts if my experiment creates an “unnatural” peanut (or whatever)?
Whether it’s James D. Watson or Meredith Patterson or Ted Kaczynski – are the nerds just doing this so they can call themselves punks and put on leather jackets?