Humans have modified crops and livestock for centuries; however, these changes accumulated over many generations of artificial selection. This effectively limited the degree of change that could be achieved per generation and had a balancing effect on the traits that were to be enhanced. For example, consider the potato. The wild ancestors of this staple crop were nearly inedible because of moderate levels of solanine, which acted as a natural pesticide and deterrent. After centuries of modification, the potato is safe for consumption, with some strains retaining their natural pest resistance. This was my initial opinion on genetic modification—it seemed to be simply a new spin on a (very) old idea.
However, while genetic modification as we know it today is similar in principle, it is radically different in practice. An example from the 70’s, is when Berkeley scientists isolated a mutant strain of a bacteria, the wild-type of which contributed to frost formation. The rarer mutant strain produced a defective version of the culprit protein, causing no damage to the plants. The mass-use of this “ice-minus” strain was scrapped for two reasons: (1) environmental activist groups destroyed the test sites in a public outcry, and (2) it was soon realized that little had been done to systematically assess the GM bacterial strain’s effect on the environment. The combination of lack of knowledge on the part of the public and poor risk assessment due to conflicts of interest was fatal. This story emphasizes how powerful, and potentially dangerous the ability to “speed up” evolution to such a massive degree truly is. To me, it primarily points out the dire need for government-funded, well-tested research before such technologies are implemented. Additionally, the public must be properly educated about the things that are going on around them, both for the sake of progressing science and to have a system of “checks and balances” (that does not consist only of the board members of the company developing the technologies) in place.
As with any technology of great consequence, there will always be those who will use it at the expense of others. Many issues about gene flow between GM and organic crops have recently come to light. In a 2011, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association sued the food giant, Monsanto, for filing numerous lawsuits against farmers whose organic crop became contaminated with Monsanto’s patented genes. The case reached the Supreme Court, and though Monsanto won, it was ordered not to sue farmers for traces of patented genes less than 1% in non-GM crops.
It is possible that such litigation over seed patents and ownership will become more common in the future. Already, large companies such as Monsanto control over 80% and 90% of the corn and soybean markets respectively. Such a fight, between a powerful giant (who often have legislators in their back pockets) and the common man, is never fair, especially in our society. A legislation system where the wrongs of the mighty are almost totally obscured by money is tantamount to sending David off to battle Goliath without a sling.
Nature will, in many ways, always be a final frontier in engineering. Few engineering fields involve the design and manufacture of products (organisms and genes) that can replicate themselves to achieve near infinite lifespans. However, to assure that these technologies are used to the benefit, and not the detriment of both mankind and our environment, we cannot leave all the decision making in the hands of a few powerful people with conflicting interests. Rigorous research on these technologies needs to be funded, not by the companies who are developing them, but by the government. And most of all, the public needs to be better educated about their choices, so that they can actually, fully, understand what they are choosing.

Humans have modified crops and livestock for centuries; however, these changes accumulated over many generations of artificial selection. This effectively limited the degree of change that could be achieved per generation and had a balancing effect on the traits that were to be enhanced. For example, consider the potato. The wild ancestors of this staple crop were nearly inedible because of moderate levels of solanine, which acted as a natural pesticide and deterrent. After centuries of modification, the potato is safe for consumption, with some strains retaining their natural pest resistance. This was my initial opinion on genetic modification—it seemed to be simply a new spin on a (very) old idea.

However, while genetic modification as we know it today is similar in principle, it is radically different in practice. An example from the 70’s, is when Berkeley scientists isolated a mutant strain of a bacteria, the wild-type of which contributed to frost formation. The rarer mutant strain produced a defective version of the culprit protein, causing no damage to the plants. The mass-use of this “ice-minus” strain was scrapped for two reasons: (1) environmental activist groups destroyed the test sites in a public outcry, and (2) it was soon realized that little had been done to systematically assess the GM bacterial strain’s effect on the environment. The combination of lack of knowledge on the part of the public and poor risk assessment due to conflicts of interest was fatal. This story emphasizes how powerful, and potentially dangerous the ability to “speed up” evolution to such a massive degree truly is. To me, it primarily points out the dire need for government-funded, well-tested research before such technologies are implemented. Additionally, the public must be properly educated about the things that are going on around them, both for the sake of progressing science and to have a system of “checks and balances” (that does not consist only of the board members of the company developing the technologies) in place.

As with any technology of great consequence, there will always be those who will use it at the expense of others. Many issues about gene flow between GM and organic crops have recently come to light. In a 2011, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association sued the food giant, Monsanto, for filing numerous lawsuits against farmers whose organic crop became contaminated with Monsanto’s patented genes. The case reached the Supreme Court, and though Monsanto won, it was ordered not to sue farmers for traces of patented genes less than 1% in non-GM crops.

It is possible that such litigation over seed patents and ownership will become more common in the future. Already, large companies such as Monsanto control over 80% and 90% of the corn and soybean markets respectively. Such a fight, between a powerful giant (who often have legislators in their back pockets) and the common man, is never fair, especially in our society. A legislation system where the wrongs of the mighty are almost totally obscured by money is tantamount to sending David off to battle Goliath without a sling.

Nature will, in many ways, always be a final frontier in engineering. Few engineering fields involve the design and manufacture of products (organisms and genes) that can replicate themselves to achieve near infinite lifespans. However, to assure that these technologies are used to the benefit, and not the detriment of both mankind and our environment, we cannot leave all the decision making in the hands of a few powerful people with conflicting interests. Rigorous research on these technologies needs to be funded, not by the companies who are developing them, but by the government. And most of all, the public needs to be better educated about their choices, so that they can actually, fully, understand what they are choosing.

When I was younger, I was insatiably curious. Just thinking about my own ignorance gave me a very eerie, almost physical sensation of emptiness. I took a great interest in my surroundings, and spent afternoons squatting in my backyard observing and grabbing anything within arm’s reach. Naturally, I became interested in biology as soon as I realized there was a word for it. But I began to feel that biology lacked the kind of “involvement” that the applied sciences had. Of course, observation and experimentation are important scientific tools, but they are also passive. One can’t draw accurate conclusions about how things work without a set of universalized physical laws.

Engineering had something that the sciences, even physics, didn’t. The one unifying theme in all fields of engineering is that everything can be not only understood, but deconstructed and manipulated, and in a way, “owned”. I wanted to take this class because I realize this mentality, the drive for progress, while completely natural, has consequences for both people and the environment, which brings me full circle, back to biology. With these ethical considerations, it is also important to me to understand how society perceives engineers; how engineering, through technology and modifying the landscape, has shaped out culture; and how this will guide the profession as a whole, in the future.

It is very funny to me that, while I hold engineers in high regard, I know next to nothing about the history of engineering. The odd part is that engineering is a very “modern” discipline with ancient origins. Natural philosophy, or what constituted as physics in those times, was mostly observation and speculation. There was apparently little validation for many of the theories these early scientists came up with. So what amazes me is even with such a poor knowledge base, there were engineers. If they were successful, they must have had at least a weak grasp of the laws of mechanics. And, perhaps then, there was a certain mystique that surrounded engineers and engineering. They knew “the craft.”

In my opinion, the engineer’s aura of esotericism never faded, but with industrialization, technology became more accessible, and its effects, more apparent. Technology was absolutely liberating! Looking at the art of the past century, we can see this change permeate and flourish. The lines and curves, the contours had a calculated grace to them. Indeed, seeing art deco and modernist pieces filled me with an unusual pride in our human legacy. From a biological perspective, this is unprecedented and amazing. No known species has manipulated their environment the way humans have. I want to learn more about this phenomenon— the social implications of interacting with our environment in the way we do. This is ultimately a result of the cultural contribution of engineers, and I am very interested in understanding how this contribution is perceived and valued from within and without the engineering community, though that would mean overstepping the boundaries between many separate fields (sociology, art, history). These cultural effects are significant because engineers are, in many ways, public servants whose work has a lasting impact on society, and understanding them is vital to the future of engineering and our professional responsibilities.

I had chosen to interview my sister, Jasmine Nirody, who is currently a graduate student here at UC Berkeley. Jasmine does not consider herself an engineer so much as a scientist. She has always felt drawn to the quantitative science, but she appreciates most the practicality of the applied sciences. My sister believes, that although engineering is only a form of applied science, one with an eye for the future in the immediate, the spirit of invention and then discovery is what sets it apart. Indeed, she believes the best way for concepts to “click” is to have “real, physical examples,” and so the philosophy of engineering was important in her education.

Jasmine graduated from NYU with a degree in applied math and biology, two fairly different fields. She explained the  “I’m a mathematical biologist on paper, but in reality, I guess I’d say I’m more an applied physicist than anything else.” Jasmine has often spoken to me about the progressive blurring of definitions within academia and science / engineering in general. Boundaries between what were once distinct fields are fast disappearing. She said: “Nowadays I think collaboration is getting more and more necessary because it’s very clear that no field is really “alone” anymore: biology is becoming more quantitative, physicists and engineers are realizing that bio-inspired design can improve their work. Everyone benefits.”

A major ethical issue in her field, which is pertinent to most fields in biology, is the use of animals in experiments. Jasmine has worked with animals in the past, in particular, for her undergraduate thesis on the locomotion of snakes, which she cleverly titled “Snakes on a Plane”. She explained, “My undergraduate research involved snake locomotion, and we did motion experiments on over 20 snakes.” I recall, many times outside this interview, she said that she had grown somewhat close to her subjects. Her experiments however, did not involve “sacrifice,” or euthanasia. I then asked her, what organizations regulate the use of animals. From the interview and from what I remember, is that the Institutional Review Board frequently inspects labs that use animals for research to see that protocol is followed and unnecessary suffering is avoided. Jasmine also told me that while research involving vertebrates is heavily regulated, research using invertebrates is virtually unregulated.

I understood that conflicts of interest are issues in academia, where opportunities for funding are in demand. I posed my question: “Are conflicts of interest within science common, what might their effects be, and what would that mean for your field?”  She responded, “In my field, I suppose they arise mostly due to funding sources,” and continued, explaining through example, that scientists are often under pressure to produce certain desirable results, since fore fear of losing funds if the project is “unsuccessful.”

A second common issue brought up was the idea of intellectual property. Jasmine said, “This is a touchy subject. I have a difficult time with this, because I don’t think you can “own” an idea — any thought you’ve had has been had by someone else previously.” In the end, it could be thought of as an unintended effect of competition, which on the whole, is beneficial in how it drives progress. Of course, many instances may seem closer to  “plagiarism”, resulting from improper uses of another’s work. Ideas can be shaped by conversations or talks and presentations, and the line between helping a colleague and “getting scooped” can be very blurry. This fear of the competition can often lead to lack of collaboration, and overall be a hindrance to scientific progress. Jasmine said, “Any idea you’ve had is very likely shaped by a conversation with someone or a paper you read or a talk you attended — is the idea then “partially owned” by those who influence you? Where is the line? If competition speeds along the progress of science, then so be it. At the end of the day, an advance is made and that’s all that matters.”

I agree with you all the way. I do think that a basic knowledge of ethics, or, at the very least, some altruistic tendencies should be necessary job criteria for an engineer or programmer. Personally, I don’t think that censorship is a way to address issues about privacy either. To a large extent, it is the responsibility of the programmers to understand when and how their handiwork can be abused. I thought both your presentation and report covered the main points of the author very well. At first, it was difficult for me to imagine scenarios in which this would really be an issue, but your examples convinced me that designers can be a little shortsighted at times. As you had mentioned during your presentation, technology does not always create more needs or concerns, but precautions and safeguards are still necessary. You presented your case well, so I don’t think you have to revise anything.

I had chosen to interview my sister, Jasmine Nirody, who is currently a graduate student here at UC Berkeley. Jasmine does not consider herself an engineer so much as a scientist. She has always felt drawn to the quantitative science, but she appreciates most the practicality of the applied sciences. My sister believes, that although engineering is only a form of applied science, one with an eye for the future in the immediate, the spirit of invention and then discovery is what sets it apart. Indeed, she believes the best way for concepts to “click” is to have “real, physical examples,” and so the philosophy of engineering was important in her education.

Jasmine graduated from NYU with a degree in applied math and biology, two fairly different fields. She explained the  “I’m a mathematical biologist on paper, but in reality, I guess I’d say I’m more an applied physicist than anything else.” Jasmine has often spoken to me about the progressive blurring of definitions within academia and science / engineering in general. Boundaries between what were once distinct fields are fast disappearing. She said: “Nowadays I think collaboration is getting more and more necessary because it’s very clear that no field is really “alone” anymore: biology is becoming more quantitative, physicists and engineers are realizing that bio-inspired design can improve their work. Everyone benefits.”

A major ethical issue in her field, which is pertinent to most fields in biology, is the use of animals in experiments. Jasmine has worked with animals in the past, in particular, for her undergraduate thesis on the locomotion of snakes, which she cleverly titled “Snakes on a Plane”. She explained, “My undergraduate research involved snake locomotion, and we did motion experiments on over 20 snakes.” I recall, many times outside this interview, she said that she had grown somewhat close to her subjects. Her experiments however, did not involve “sacrifice,” or euthanasia. I then asked her, what organizations regulate the use of animals. From the interview and from what I remember, is that the Institutional Review Board frequently inspects labs that use animals for research to see that protocol is followed and unnecessary suffering is avoided. Jasmine also told me that while research involving vertebrates is heavily regulated, research using invertebrates is virtually unregulated.

I understood that conflicts of interest are issues in academia, where opportunities for funding are in demand. I posed my question: “Are conflicts of interest within science common, what might their effects be, and what would that mean for your field?”  She responded, “In my field, I suppose they arise mostly due to funding sources,” and continued, explaining through example, that scientists are often under pressure to produce certain desirable results, since fore fear of losing funds if the project is “unsuccessful.”

A second common issue brought up was the idea of intellectual property. Jasmine said, “This is a touchy subject. I have a difficult time with this, because I don’t think you can “own” an idea — any thought you’ve had has been had by someone else previously.” In the end, it could be thought of as an unintended effect of completion, which on the whole, is beneficial in how it drives progress. Of course, many instances may seem closer to  “plagiarism”, resulting from improper uses of another’s work. Ideas can be shaped by conversations or talks and presentations, and the line between helping a colleague and “getting scooped” can be very blurry. This fear of the competition can often lead to lack of collaboration, and overall be a hindrance to scientific progress. Jasmine said, “Any idea you’ve had is very likely shaped by a conversation with someone or a paper you read or a talk you attended — is the idea then “partially owned” by those who influence you? Where is the line? If competition speeds along the progress of science, then so be it. At the end of the day, an advance is made and that’s all that matters.”