“Cultural Hermeneutics of Nanomedicine”
Chris
Toumey
Department
of Anthropology, USC
Monday,
February 28 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
<?xml:namespace prefix
= st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
Several
features of nanomedicine make it
hermeneutically problematic. It exists
mostly in the future; it is often described
in utopian terms; its potential benefits
will affect some medical conditions but not
others; and so on. These conditions will
generate trouble for nanomedicine as
different people understand it very
differently, and as the meanings of
nanomedicine change from year to year. Thus,
it may be extremely difficult to give
descriptions of nanomedicine which are both
accurate and general, or to anticipate how
nanomed will affect our lives, or to
anticipate how people will react to
nanomedicine. In this paper, I use the tools
of interpretive anthropology to explore
those problems and suggest how we might live
with their consequences.
“Codifying the Ethics of Nanotechnology”
Ashley Shew
Department
of Philosophy, USC
Monday,
February 28 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
Though
nanotechnology is not yet a profession,
thought needs to be given to developing a
code of ethics for responsible behavior in
this growing field.
In this
way, researchers from many different
disciplines will have some common
understanding of the expected ethical norms
for their work in the area. Nanotechnology
is something different from both science and
engineering and the area raises concerns.
So, developing some sort of professional
identity and code of ethics is particularly
important to the continued success and
funding of the area. The goal of this paper
is to urge professionalization (at least of
a loose sort) of nanotechnology and to
suggest a possible code of ethics for the
field.
“Nano Ethics Conference”
USC
March 2-5
(For
further information, please visit:
http://nsts.nano.sc.edu/conferences.html
.)
“The Conception of 'Knowledge' in
Technoscience: What Do Nanoresearchers Know”
Alfred
Nordmann
Technical
University
of Darmstadt
Monday,
March 14 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
“Definability in Physics”
David
BenDaniel
Johnson
School,
Cornell
University
Tuesday,
March 15 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
The concept
of definability of physical fields in a
set-theoretical foundation will be
introduced. A set theory will be proposed in
which we get just enough mathematics to
produce a nonlinear sigma model.
Quantization of the model will then be
derived from a null postulate and shown to
be necessary and sufficient for definability
in the theory. Examples of the relevance to
physics and philosophy of science will be
presented.
“International Perspectives on Socially
Responsible Nanotechnology:
Comparing European and American
Experiences”
Alfred
Nordmann
Department
of Philosophy, Technical University of Darmstadt,
Germany
Tuesday,
March 15 (5:30-7:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
(This talk
is also part of the Nano Semester.)
“The Visual Image of Science”
Joachim
Schummer
Technical University of Darmstadt and
University of
South Carolina
Wednesday,
March 16 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
The talk,
which has been prepared together with Tami
Spector from the University of San Francisco,
presents a new approach to the study of
visual images of science, both the public
image and the self-image. We take digital
images from databases, which can be searched
and quantitatively analyzed by keywords, to
identify the relative visibilities,
stereotypes, emblematic objects, and visual
associations of scientific disciplines.
Since chemistry turns out to be by far the
most visible science, we perform qualitative
analyses of image contents and the
iconographic and aesthetic traditions of
selected images of chemistry, including
chemical portraits, landscapes, and still
lifes. Among the many results of this
exploratory study, we argue that the visual
culture, both concerning the public and
self-image of science, is extremely
conservative, such that some visual
stereotypes, like the gazed-at-flask, can be
traced back to the 12th century if not
earlier.
“Smaller, Faster, Better? The Public Good
and Nanotechnology”
Ed Munn
Department
of Philosophy, USC
Tuesday,
March 22 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
Nanotechnology is presented by the NNI among
others as helping achieve “the public good”.
But this idea of the public good is a
famously slippery concept. Is this claim
simply an empty bit of praise or is there
more to it?
Whose
public good are we achieving? What might we
mean by the public good?
There are
several options that might be intended;
maximizing preferences; some Rawlsian thin
conception of goods that are necessary for
any other goods; some more substantive
conception of the good; a conception
connected to goods recognized in common
morality such as freedom and economic well
being; a confused mish-mash of some or all
of these. Does nanotechnology really help us
achieve any of these? Some better than
others? This paper will begin to explore the
possible connections between nanotechnology
and ideas of public good (or public
not-so-good).
“Ethical issues in
Nanobiotechnology: A Japanese Response”
Leslie
Jones
School
of Medicine,
USC
Tuesday,
March 29 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
I recently
presented an invited talk at a
nanobiotechnology conference in Japan on the
following two topics: first, ethical
concerns raised by nanobiotechnology
research, and second, a focus on where the
U.S. funding initiatives lie for
nanobiotechnology. I will present a
highlighted version of that talk. The first
part described concerns that extend from
worries about effects manufacturing
by-products might have on the environment,
to the most extreme fears about turning the
world into gray goo. In fact, I asserted
that the philosophical questions raised by
the new lines of research opened up in the
10-9 world are mostly just reiterations in a
new vocabulary of concerns that have been
heard with many other emerging areas of
research in the past. The fears articulated
by environmentalists over nuclear plants,
mining, and manufacturing are a distant echo
of modern fears over nanobiotech. Similar
issues have arisen with the advent of
genetically modified agricultural products,
for example, and recombinant DNA research,
or neuropharmacological medical
interventions. I presented ways in which the
arguments used in those debates apply to the
present discussions on biotechnology in the
minus 9 realm, and considered if there are
any areas of concern that only pertain to
nanobiotechnology.
In the second part of the talk, I gave
examples of funding targets as varied as the
Soldiers Institute for Creative Technologies
at MIT, funded in part by the DOD, and the
Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team at
the University of South Carolina, funded by
the NSF, to indicate the diversity of
funding directions the U.S. government is
trying to cover. If the NSF report on the
need for a Nano-, Bio-, Info Science,
Cognitive Science (NBIC) Convergence is any
indication, both government and private
sector sources may be directing their monies
towards goals in the future that may
surprise the general public, human
enhancement being the most obvious. After
presenting a speedy version of what I gave
in Japan, I would like to share some of my
observations of how ethical issues in
nanotechnology are received by Japanese
scientists and business people, as that was
largely who came to the conference. The
community of philosophers/ethicists who
might be examining the ramifications of the
nano- lines of research appears to be small,
and their impact on Japanese scientists not
very apparent. In fact, my presence and my
talk seemed to strike many as rather
perplexing. As in, "what's all the hubbub,
bub?"
“'Beauty doth of itself persuade':
Mathematical beauty and theoretical
understanding”
Michael
Dickson
Department
of Philosophy, USC
Wednesday,
March 30 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
In his
dissertation, and later in his famous book
on quantum theory, Dirac argued that the
equation of motion in quantum theory was,
given a few assumptions, mathematically the
only possible one. Dirac seems to have been
very impressed with the argument. However,
it turns out to be fallacious, and I think
it is likely that (eventually) Dirac knew,
or suspected, it to be so. Why did he then
continue to insist on its importance? I will
suggest that the answer is that he felt it
was beautiful, and that beauty was, in
Dirac¹s view, sufficient reason to think
that a piece of mathematical physics
contributes in an important cognitive way to
the development and understanding of
science. Finally, I shall compare (rather,
contrast) Dirac¹s view, which I more or less
endorse, with some contemporary views about
mathematical beauty and Œunreasonable
effectiveness¹ that initially sound similar,
notably those of Wigner and Steiner.
“Origins of Nanotechnology Policy: The
Inside Story”
Neal Lane
Rice University
(Former Director of NSF and Former Science
Advisor to President Clinton)
Thursday,
March 31 (5:30-7:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
(This talk
is also part of the Nano Semester.)
“Ending the Death March”
Alan
Cooper
Friday,
April 1 (4:00-5:30 p.m.)
BA 005 (Moore School of Business)
Abstract
Software
construction experts agree: Your software
project has a 50 percent chance of failure.
The other 50 percent suffer what is commonly
known as a “Death March” where the project
can only be completed on schedule by
jettisoning half of the functionality, most
of the flexibility, and all of the user
friendliness. What¹s more, the programmers
are exhausted, the managers are frustrated,
and the users are reduced to quiet weeping.
In Alan Cooper¹s latest talk, he will show
how executives can take control of their
technical efforts and vanquish the Death
March. As usual, his comments will provide
you with insights and techniques that are as
effective as they are unexpected.
Alan Cooper
is the founder of Cooper, a Palo Alto-based
consulting firm specializing in the design
of interactive products. Cooper is the
father of Visual Basic and the author of:
About Face: The Essentials of User Interface
Design; About Face 2.0: The Essentials of
Interaction Design, and The Inmates Are
Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products
Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the
Sanity. In 1994, Bill Gates presented Cooper
with the Windows Pioneer Award for his
invention of the visual programming concept
behind Visual Basic, and in 1998 he received
the prestigious Software Visionary Award
from the Software Developer¹s Forum.
This is the
Upsilon Pi Epsilon Keynote Address for the
UPE Honor Society for the Computing Science.
This talk is sponsored by the USC Department
of Computer Science and Engineering, and the
USC Philosophy Department.
“A Member in Name Only: Geology as a
Component in 19th Century American Natural
History”
Julie
Newell
Southern Polytechnic State University, Social and International
Studies Program
Thursday,
April 7 (3:30-5:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
Natural
history was a popular pursuit in
nineteenth-century America, finding a wide audience in
public lectures, books, periodicals, and
local societies.
Often
described by historians as a combination
of--or precursor to--botany, zoology, and
geology, natural history combined healthy
outdoor activity with wholesome
contemplation of the content and order of
the Creation. The place of “geology” in this
arrangement, however, became increasingly
problematic.
As geology
emerged as the preeminent science,
especially in the
United States,
of the first half of the nineteenth century,
it required and achieved widespread pubic
support even as amateur participation in the
science became more difficult and less
desirable.
“Some Issues Regarding Definitions in
Mathematics and Physics”
Adonai
Sant'Anna
Department
of Mathematics, Federal University of Paraná,
Brazil
Tuesday,
April 12 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
We will
make a brief review of some theories of
definition in physics and mathematics, with
special emphasis on applications and open
problems. From the formal point of view, we
show, for example, that there is a lot of
superfluous concepts in most of the standard
physical and mathematical theories. We
intend to make a critical analysis about
this and suggest some ideas for future
research.
“Publics for Nanotechnology and
Biotechnology in Canada and the United States”
Susanna
Priest
College
of Mass
Communications and Information Studies, USC
Wednesday,
April 13 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
Efforts to
resolve differences of opinion regarding
biotechnology (such as GM foods) through
various public discussion modalities, such
as consensus conferences, tend to ignore the
existence of worldviews that may be
irreconcilable. Analysis of survey data on
U.S. and Canadian opinion about biotech
reveal that the so-called “general public”
is better thought of as composed of several
distinct groups: “true believers” who
proceed from the assumption that science is
inherently progressive, utilitarians that
want experts to develop policy by weighing
risks and benefits, moral authoritarians who
seek guidance from ethical or religious
leadership, and two smaller groups that want
individuals to be empowered to make their
own decisions, whether on scientific or
ethical grounds. Many opinion differences
between the
U.S. and Canada can be
explained by differences in the
distributions of these groups. New data from
a February 2005 survey (again of Canada and
the U.S.) provide the opportunity to explore
whether this kind of analysis may also
explain differences in receptivity to
nanotechnology, as well as the extent to
which these distinct publics feel that those
who are developing these technologies share
their own values.
“Species Are Not Explanatory
Kinds: Evidence from the Debate Over Laws in
Biology”
Todd Grantham
Department
of Philosophy, College of Charleston
Friday,
April 15 (4:00-6:00 p.m.)
Room: TBA
Abstract
When Hull and Ghiselin first suggested that species
are individuals, they invoked a simple
dichotomy between classes and individuals.
The waters have been thoroughly muddied
since then. Philosophers and biologists now
recognize a range of different “degrees” of
individuality. Similarly, recent work on
natural kinds has led to the realization
that some classes are more robust than
others. The general consensus is that
species are neither robust kinds (because
they do not have essences and do not figure
in completely invariant laws) nor robust
individuals (because they are not generally
functionally integrated possessors of
adaptations). Thus, the question is whether
it is better to view species as weak
individuals, weak kinds, or some hybrid.
The
strategy of this paper is to return to the
question originally posed by
Hull:
do species function as kind terms within the
laws (explanatory
generaliziations) of biology? Although
species taxa do function as “kinds” in a
limited way (i.e., we use these kinds for
inductive reasoning and prediction), species
are only rarely used as kind terms in the
explanatory laws (or causal generalizations)
of biology. This confirms some aspects of
the “species as individuals” thesis. In
particular, I argue that the "kind-like"
aspects of species are best seen as deriving
from the more fundamental ontological claim
that species are lineages or historical
entities.
(This talk
is also part of the Philosophy Department
Colloquium.)
“Information in Economic
Theory: A Database-like Characterization”
Fernando Tohmé
Department
of Economics
Universidad
Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Argentina,
Tuesday,
April 19 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Abstract
We present
a discussion of the concept of information
in Economics. We begin by presenting the
prevalent model, closely associated with the
Maximization of Expected Utility hypothesis.
While it has proved to be useful in many
ways, it also exhibits many shortcomings,
which we illustrate with some examples. On
the other hand, the evidence accumulated by
Experimental Economics shows that the actual
behavior of economic agents does not
necessarily respond to the traditional
characterization that stems from von Neumann
and Morgenstern¹s (1943) work.
We present,
instead, the idea of information as
represented by a modular, updatable and
linguistic structure. We draw from Computer
Science the concept of 'database'
as an adequate structure with those
features. Logics provides a way of
characterizing the selection of an
appropriate database up from real world data
and underlying constraints. These
constraints do actually configure the
information held by an agent.
Anomalies
in rational behavior as well as non-Bayesian
information updates can be modeled by means
of this approach, although its full
development is still ahead. (This paper is a
joint work with M. Ficosecco.)
“STM, Modeling and All That:
How Not to be a Realist About Microscopy”
Otávio Bueno
Department
of Philosophy, USC
Wednesday,
April 20 (12:30-2:00 p.m.)
Sumwalt College,
Room 102
Previous Science Studies and Nano Culture Seminars
FALL 2003
 |
October 6
Monday,
12:30pm
Sumwalt 102 |
|
Anticipating Public
Reactions to
Nanotechnology
Christopher Toumey
(Anthropology
Department, USC
Columbia),
– and –
From von Neumann to
Drexler: Roots to
Nanoscience
Otávio Bueno
(Philosophy
Department, USC
Columbia) |
|
|
October 7
Tuesday,
12:30pm
Sumwalt 102 |
|
Nanotechnology and
the Public Sphere
David Berube
(English Department,
USC Columbia) |
|
|
October 22
Wednesday,
12:30pm
Sumwalt 102 |
|
Investigating
Chemistry on Metal
Nanoparticles
Donna Chen
(Chemistry and
Biochemistry, USC
Columbia) |
|
|
November 25
Tuesday,
12:30pm
Sumwalt 102 |
|
Nanotechnology and
the Culture of
Medicine
Robert Best (School
of Medicine, USC
Columbia) |
|
|
December 2
Tuesday,
12:30pm
Sumwalt 102 |
|
The Evolution of
Nanotechnology in
Science Fiction
Steven Lynn (English
Department, USC
Columbia) |
SPRING
AND SUMMER 2003
|
|
January 29
Wednesday,
3:30pm
Preston
Seminar Room |
|
A Systems Approach
to Nanoscience
Thinking and
Communication:
Linguistic Problems
and Opportunities
Jonathan Fletcher
(NanoCenter, USC
Columbia) |
|
|
February 19
Wednesday,
3:30pm
Preston
Seminar Room |
|
Modes of Legal
Regulation:
Implications for
Nanotechnology
Robin Fretwell
Wilson (Law, USC
Columbia) |
|
|
March 20-23
Thursday-Sunday
BA Bldg, 8th Flr,
Room H |
|
NIRT Conference:
Discovering the
Nanoscale
Sponsored by
University of South
Carolina and
Technische
Universität
Darmstadt |
|
|
April 16
Wednesday,
3:30pm
Preston
Seminar Room |
|
Visualizing
Nanotechnology
Chris Robinson (Art,
USC Columbia) |
|
|
April 30
Wednesday,
3:30pm
Preston
Seminar Room |
|
Modeling,
Representation, and
Implementation
R.I.G. Hughes
(Philosophy, USC
Columbia) |
FALL
2002
|
|
August 5-9
Monday–Friday
Gambrell Hall
428-429 |
|
NIRT Workshop:
Reading Nanoscience |
|
|
September 18
Wednesday,
3:30pm
Preston
Seminar Room |
|
Nano Visions:
Microscopy
Cathy Murphy and
Micky Myrick
(Department of
Chemistry and
Biochemistry,
University of South
Carolina) |
|
|
October 9
Wednesday,
3:30pm
Preston
Seminar Room |
|
Biological Aspects
of Self-Assembly
Loren Knapp
(Department of
Biological Sciences,
University of South
Carolina) |
|
|
October 30
Wednesday,
3:30pm
Preston
Seminar Room |
|
The Expert's Role in
Nanotechnology
Ed Munn (Department
of Philosophy,
University of South
Carolina) |
|
|
November 21
Thursday,
3:30pm
Gambrell Hall,
Room 151 |
|
The Idea of a
Post-Normal Science
Roger Strand (Center
for the Studies of
the Sciences and
Humanities,
University of
Bergen, Norway) |
|
|
November 22
Friday,
12:30pm
Preston
Seminar Room |
|
ELSA Studies of
Nano-Science:
Methodological and
Pragmatic Aspects
Roger Strand (Center
for the Studies of
the Sciences and
Humanities,
University of
Bergen, Norway) |
|
|
