Welcome to 'Cyberculture'

Contemporary urban lifestyle necessitates the merger of traditional culture and technology; yielding what is commonly referred to as ‘cyberculture’.

This is evidenced in our increasing dependency on machines in carrying out our daily activities, such as waking up in the morning (alarm clock), brushing your teeth (electric toothbrush), making breakfast (stove, microwave, kettle, and toaster), etc.

In the greater scheme of things ‘cyberculture’ is primarily understood in terms of communication networks, software and programming. However, ‘cyberculture’ also constitutes “artificial intelligence, virtual reality, artificial life, and the human-computer interface” (Lister et al. 2003: 287).

In addition to the above, ‘cyberculture’ explores the:
- “construction and politics of artificial life
- “complexity and technological resources of organic bodies
- and “the indissociability of biological and technological systems”
(Lister et al. 2003: 287).

To help you contextualise the above, simply consider movies such as Blade Runner (1982, 1992),Gattica (1997),The Matrix (1999), ),Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001), and i, Robot (2004).



Although some of the prospects envisioned in these ‘cyberpunk’ science fictional movies appear farfetched, some of theme actually point to current developments in science technology. As a result, ‘cyberpunk’ science fiction has been “accorded the status of a sociology of new media cultures” (Lister et al. 2003: 288).

The sciences pertaining to these facets of ‘cyberculture’ are “biotechnology, robotics and AI research, genetics and genomics” (Lister et al. 2003: 287).

Research surrounding ‘cyberculture’ often explores the relationship between culture, technology, and nature. As a result, these studies fall under what is now understood as ‘cybercultural studies’.

‘Cybercultural studies’ also explores the blurred “distinctions between science fiction, sociology and philosophy” (Lister et al. 2003: 288). This post is a first of a series of explorations into these blurred distinctions.

Click and Clone

Recently I came across a rather interesting website: Learn.Genetics- Genetic Science Learning Centre. The website is hosted by the University of Utah, and is meant to “[help] people understand how genetics affects their lives and society” (the website’s mission statement).

Learn.Genetics covers an array of issues pertaining to genetic engineering, ranging from stem implantation to cloning. What I enjoy most about this website is that it doesn't just launch you into uncharted area- it eases you into it with interactive step-by-step infographics.

If you are not familiar with the configurations of a cell or DNA molecule, then you should probably start off with the 'Tour of the Basics’. Among other options, you can choice to explore what are genes, chromosomes and DNA molecules.

My favourite interactive infographic is ‘Click and Clone’, whereby as a user, you get to clone a mouse called Mimi. You ‘literally’ (well, maybe 'virtually' is the better term) conduct the scientific procedure yourself. You have to ‘click and drag’ the nucleus and cells using the instruments provided. The audio accompanying each interaction brings some degree of life and immediacy into the animation.

Step-By-Step
Before you embark on the experiment, you are introduced to the mice and tools you will be using to clone Mimi. There is:
- Mimi: the brown mouse you will be cloning
- Megdo: the black mouse, which will be the egg cell donor
And finally
-Momi: the white mouse, which will be the surrogate mother in which the Mimi clone is grown.

Your instruments are a:
- Microscope
- Petri dish
-Sharp pipette
- Blunt pipette
And
- Chemical to stimulate cell division.

Afterwards you have to click on ‘Let’s Clone Mimi’ to proceed to the initial step. At this stage you get to examine each step in the procedure, as follows:

-Isolate donor cells from Mimi and Megdo.
-Remove and discard the nucleus from the egg cell.
-Transfer the somatic cell nucleus into the enucleated egg cell.
-Stimulate cell division.
-Implant the embryo into Momi, the surrogate mother.
-Deliver the baby mouse clone of Mimi.

I do not want to spoil the experience for you so I will not go through the steps. However, I do encourage you to do so yourself. Just a word of warning- read the instructions on each step before you start clicking and dragging.

History
This interactive infographic is based on a research protocol that was used in one of several milestone experiments on cloning. The last slide reads as follows:

In 1998, scientists at the University of Hawaii made mice genetically identical to the mouse from which the cumulus donor cell was taken. The first-born survivor was named Cumulina.

The scientists learned that allowing between one and six hours for the newly transferred nucleus to adjust to adjust to the enucleated egg cell was crucial before activating the cell to successfully develop into an embryo.

If you are still unclear with the procedure and terms described above, just go through ‘Click and Clone’.

Human cloning- the next ‘natural’ step from stem cell growth?

Graphic courtesy of Michigan State University.

There have been numerous cases of stem cell growth for therapeutic purposes, such as the regeneration of skin and heart tissue, and the pharming and transplantation of animal organs into human patients, i.e. the Robert Pennington case.

Our generation of bio-scientists has also cloned mice and sheep, i.e. the case of Dolly. Therefore, is not the cloning of humans the most ‘natural’ next step in our progression in human enhancement?

The process followed in stem cell regeneration is similar to the one followed in cloning. The only distinguishing factor is the final stage, whereby the cloned cell could either be used for stem cell regeneration or to impregnate- refer to the graphic above.

Theoretically this is possible, and to some extent practically possible as displayed in the case of Dolly, the first cloned sheep. However, some bio-scientists have gone as far as brazenly claiming to have successfully cloned humans. Dr Brigitte Boisellier of Clonaid is one of them.

In an interview with Sir David Frost on "BBC Breakfast with Frost" (November 23, 2003) Dr Boisellier claimed that her cloning company had already cloned five babies (without any defects), and the eldest was almost a year at the time of the interview (having been born in December 26, 2002).

According to Dr Boisellier it is “[e]asier to clone human beings than it is to clone any other mammals”. She also claimed that Clonaid had already been cloning humans for over 25 years.

In recent years Clonaid has been shadowed with fraud claims as Dr Boisellier has failed to provide any evidence of her clone babies. This was her argument during the interview:

DR BRIGITTE BOISSELIER: "Okay. For me it's not a problem, it's for the parents. You know, they have their baby, they want to lead a happy life and they want to protect the child, the children. So for me, I respect that even if it was hard. Can you imagine like last year when I had to say well it's impossible to give the proof because of them saying no. But in the second, I think the second generation might be easier, ... the second ... babies ..."

Although I am eager to jump onto the Clonaid train of endless possibilities, I am afraid that I remain as sceptical of her abilities at cloning humans as bioethicist Professor Nigel Cameron of the Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy.

NIGEL CAMERON: "I think virtually every scientist in the world would say that it is impossible at the moment to clone live-born human beings. That's one clear fact. There's a lot of research into aging processes but this stem cell stuff is so hard to control at the moment I think it will be a long way away."

Until further evidence I too share this sentiment. However, I suspect I am far more positive about the prospect of successful cloning of humans than Professor Cameron.

Stay tuned for the next blog post, which will be an infographic on how one (theoretically) goes about cloning a human. Then decide for yourself if human cloning is or isn't the next 'natural' step from stem growth in human enhancement.

International Day Against Homophobia vlog

Below is a vlog of a picnic hosted by OutRhodes (the Rhodes University gay and lesbian student society) on the International Day Against Homophobia- 17 May.

The debate around human enhancement

Human enhancement is any attempt, natural or artificial, at overcoming human body limitations. However, the term is often applied to the use of "technological means to select or alter human aptitudes and other phenotypical characteristics, whether or not the alteration results in characteristics that lie beyond the existing human range".

Human enhancement entails the application of specific technologies- i.e. neuro-, cyber-, gene-, and nano-technologies — onto human biology. The uses of these technologies ranges from medical purposes (or therapeutic- such as the common use of laser eye surgery to rid one of cataract), to more cosmetic purposes (non-therapeutic- such as breast implantation).

The use of human enhancement technolgies on healthy bodies has raised some significant ethical, legal, and social concerns. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical consequences of the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, philosophy, and theology. Bioethicists such as Arthur L. Caplan argue that the use of biotechnologies on healthy humans is merely an indication of vanity, and that this will result in a greater divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots".

However, transhumanists including Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom argue for human enhancement. They view the science as a means to unify humans and technology in the progression towards human evolution. They argue that evolution should be in our hands.

The purpose of this blog is not to take either side of the argument. It is merely to offer insight into human enhancement and provide a forum for the debate to continue.

Which side of the debate do you fall under?

Interview with Prof. Sandra Kemp on Human Enhancement

The SuperHuman Race

Imagine waking up one day to the realisation that the world as you know it is actually an isolated high-tech compound and that you are a clone whose organs are soon to be harvested?

This is the plot to Michael Bay’s recent science fiction blockbuster 'The Island' (2005). The protagonist Lincoln Six-Echo (played by Ewan McGregor) goes on the run after discovering that he is actually a clone kept in a utopian facility, only to be later harvested.

If you thought that this was far fetched, think again. According to Director of Research at the Royal College of the Art (in London) Professor Sandra Kemp, “we are already doing [this] with stem cells but not with fully grown people or babies. Scientists are already cloning human stem cells and animal stem cells”, for transplantation purposes.

In 1997, Robert Pennington (of Dallas, USA) faced acute liver failure and no available human match. He underwent a pioneering surgical operation that connected him to a transgenic pig’s liver, whilst he waited for a human donor. To date, Pennington believes his life was saved by Wilbur the transgenic pig. Organs of transgenic animals are genetically modified to be human compatible. This process is known as animal Pharming.

Although Professor Kemp says she has not come across any case whereby a human clone had been harvested in this manner, she does not see why this would not be possible in the near future.

Genetic engineering has seen a shift in recent years from medical to cosmetic purposes, to help curb our limitations as human beings. In 2002, cyborg professor Kevin Warwick gave himself an ultrasonic sensory ability. The professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading (in England) said, “those who want to stay humans, you’re going to remain a sub-species”.

Professor Kemp predicts that in our search for the perfect human race, we will arrive at a future form of racism, whereby the genetically modified being will be considered superior to those who are not.

Kemp admitted that if she was in the position of genetically enhancing her embryo to bear a superior being, she would, considering everyone else would be doing it and if she did not, her child would be at a disadvantage.

Here are a few questions Professor Kemp asked the audience at her ‘Human enhancement: Future designs and bio features’ lecture:
- Would you enhance your body and/or mind?
- Would you have a genetically engineered baby?
- Would you accept an animal part?

Respond with your answers.

Stay tuned for my next blog post for a video/audio slide of the interview with Kemp.