1.b. Positioning

This subject has exposed us to a range of views and insights into what the future could hold. Originally when thinking about the future, what comes to mind is the Hollywood high-tech version with flying cars and robots. What we have learnt about futuring is that all these prophecies will have further implications. In Cameron’s lecture, he discussed the idea of flying cars. He then prompted us to think about the repercussions of this. Will there be roads? Will there be drivers? Will there even be traffic? This idea is something I had never previously thought about in relation to futuring. What will be the effects of this technological revolution and how will this change the world we live in?

One huge technological advancement that the future holds is genetic modification. Already, there has been scientific breakthroughs in this field but it’s possible now that one day that humans will be born in science laboratories rather than hospitals.  Ridley Scott’s 1982 film Bladerunnertoys with this idea of human vs non-human in the representation of the replicants. He presents the dichotomy between natural born humans and the replicants born from science – who are created stronger and smarter –  through the films story line and the huge divide its created. The replicants are a threat to human society and are being retired by the ‘bladerunners’. Scott’s film suggests that only real humans can feel emotion not replicants.  The contradiction is revealed when Pris (a replicant) meets her creator J.F. Sebastian in her response “I think, therefore I am”.Do robots have emotion? Or, can they learn how to feel?

“Roy: We’re not computers Sebastian, we’re physical”

See for yourself: Key scenes from Bladerunner

In the movie, god is replaced by the corporation – Tyrell, created by Eldon Tyrell who has been declared the god of biomechanics. Tyrell has taken on the role of god in his creation of own super-human race. Although this dystopic view of the feud between humanity vs the artificially created androids seems like pure fiction, genetic engineering of humans could lead to a similar divide. Through Cameron’s framework of futuring, it’s important to consider the repercussions of all these revolutionary scientific advancements. Bladerunner has prompted me to think that there will be a divide between natural born humans and genetically engineered humans.

If genetic engineering will allow parents choose all the features of their child including their intelligence and athletic capability, how will natural humans compete? Furthermore, not everyone will be able to afford the luxury of gifting their child a high IQ and Olympic abilities. There will be an obvious gap between those who can afford and can’t afford this luxury which will lead to a class divide. Only the elite will be have access to genetic engineering. Only the elite will now get all the best jobs, live in the best areas and offer the best life for their offsprings. These are the ideas that informed our scenario. Genetic modification is not only a possibility but it is quickly becoming our reality.

References:

Boissoneault, L. 2017, Are Blade Runner’ replicants “human”?,Smithsonian, Washington, viewed 4 October 2018, <https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/are-blade-runners-replicants-human-descartes-and-locke-have-some-thoughts-180965097/?&gt;

Gramstad, T. 2017, Humans & technology: What separates them?, Blade Runner Insight, viewed 4 October 2018, <https://br-insight.com/library/humans-and-technology/index.html>

 

1.a. Literature Review

The practice of futuring is purely speculative. Theorists examine the past and try understand the present to make predictions about future possibilities. Time is crucial in the debate of futures, as time and the human body are inextricably linked – with humankinds natural expiration date signalling the end of their past, present and future (Fry, 2009 p. 146). Despite being uncertain, there are factors to suggest that the future will be dystopic and could hold catastrophic consequences. Practitioners grapple with the vague concept of the future in an attempt to understand — and perhaps even plan — for these impending and potentially threatening scenarios. What is clear is that there are an infinite number of possible futures, all of which result from our choices today and the decisions of past generations. Unfortunately, while we are able to forecast about the future, it is often impossible to change.

Futurists, therefore, are designing in a race against the clock. Although the problems are not always clear or easily defined (Inyatallah 2008, p. 6), by attempting to develop a range of solutions, practitioners can take promising steps towards preparing for the unknown. But the question still remains — how do we design for these futures?

While futuring as a practice is an effective method for prophesising about future problems, it is only speculation — there are no definite answers. This is where research is crucial in creating a possible future. Fry’s method of creating future scenarios builds upon extensive research and uses the present as a driving factor for discovering future possibilities (Fry 2009). Fry’s design thinking has two main propositions. One being that the ‘impact events’ within the present have a direct and lasting effect on the future (Fry 2009, p. 148). The other being that these future scenarios must be relational. That is, a consideration of all the effected spheres – social, technological, economic, environmental and political –  must be taken into account. Without this consideration, the future becomes threatening. Therefore, we must seek to recognise major issues before they become uncontrollable. This way we can ensure that discovery of new potentials and opportunities can be realised (Inyatallah 2008, p. 8). These methods help designers discover the crucial information used to design for the future.

Using this method of forecasting, scientists have been planning for a future world where genetic modification (GM) is the norm. For biotechnologist Jaime Metzl, GM is not only a possibility but a future reality. As humans are progressing, so too is our evolutionary process (Ivy Magazine 2017). The technology for GM is already being used by scientists today. Metzl predicts we are close to being able to take control of science to change our future. This development raises grave ethical concerns as humans take the future into their own hands. As Metzl warns, “just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should do something” (Ivy Magazine 2017). This technology has the potential to create generations of ‘designer babies’, further echoing the ethical repercussions of taking nature into our own hands. In a world of designer babies, parents are no longer guardians but rather act as gardeners picking and pruning their children to ultimate perfection (Green 2007). This scientific breakthrough in human germline modification has been criticized for surpassing divine and biological limits. As natural reproduction is replaced with artificial engineering, futurists predict apocalyptic consequences like the downfall of political democracy (Macintosh 2018) and an expanding gap between manufactured and natural humans.

Click here for inital research into genetic modification:

 Is Genetic Modification the Future?

GM breakthrough

References:

Fry, T. 2009, ‘Design futuring: sustainability, ethics and new practices’, Methods of Change 2 Designing in Time’ in Design Futuring, Oxford, pp. 145-155

Green, R.M. 2007, Babies by design, Yale University Press, New Haven

Inyatullah, S. 2008, ‘Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming’,Foresight, vol.10, no. 1, pp. 4-21

Ivy magazine, 2017, Genetic engineering the future of humankind, Ivy Magazine, 1 March,  accessed 12 October 2018, <http://magazine.ivy.com/2017/03/genetic-engineering-jamie-metzl/&gt;

Macintosh, K.L. 2018, Enhanced beings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Futuring is the process of analysing, speculating and taking action toward different futures. Inayatalulluh summarised the importance of future studies: “[it] allows individuals and organisations to better understand processes of change so that wiser preferred futures can be created.” (2008, p. 2) He argued that future studies have become increasingly vital as our world becomes more complex, disruptive and overwhelming, as it allows one to regain their agency to act toward their desirable futures. Riedy (2018) also expressed the need for futuring, noting the ‘great acceleration’ of socio-economic and environmental trends from the past to present day:

(Riedy 2018)

Riedy (2018) draws similarities between the discipline of future studies and story-telling, as telling ‘good’ stories about the future allow us to speculate, imagine and desire that future. ‘Bad’ stories warn about possible dangers going in the future, helping us make wiser decisions in the present day.

This speculative future immediately allows you to imagine the utopia and the actions needed to be undertaken on this path to the future (UK Government, 2014). The paper this belongs to can be found here.

Designers are storytellers. Designs inspire the imagination, spark critique and inform actions. Consequently, designers have the potential to shift the world toward more desirable futures – making futuring vital for designers. Designers also have a social and ethical responsibility for the designs they put into the world – i.e they are responsible for designs that contribute toward desirable and undesirable futures. Thus if designers do not consider the future, designs will be created that are incompatible with the future era – obsolescence is found where there should be innovation.

Alternate futures is key concept in the field of future studies, usually divided into three categories: possible, probable and preferable (Voros 2017). From this, the model of the ‘Future Cone’ was developed and adapted, seen here:

This model of the cone has 7 alternative futures. A more in-depth analysis of these futures can be found here. Voros states that the cone can be thought of as a ‘torch’, as it is “bright in the centre and diffusing to darkness at the edge—a nice visual metaphor of the extent of our futures vision” (2017, para 8). Thus, it is the designer’s job to widen the cone and move the ‘torch’ toward preferable futures.

Analysing and better understanding these alternate futures is the foundation of the futuring process. Sohail Inayatullah (2008) pioneered a framework and methodology to approach this in his article “Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming”. He describes six foundational concepts, six questions and six pillars. The foundational concepts provide a framework and vocabulary to investigate the future. The questions force reflection and broaden perspectives, where these observations can be built upon to speculate and analyse the future using the six pillars and different methods.

Professor Riedy (2018) summarises the pillars succinctly:

The nature of human relationships is changing rapidly in the face evolving technology (for example: the government-citizen relationship, relationships involving children, education and primary care). Futuring allows us to take charge of how modern-day love evolves. In summary, “futures thinking does not wish to condemn us to hope alone” (Inayatullah 2008, p. 20).

 

References:

Inayatullah, S. 2008, ‘Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming’, Foresight, Vol. 10 Issue: 1, pp.4-21, <https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.uts.edu.au/10.1108/14636680810855991 >.

Riedy, C. 2018, ‘Intro to futuring’, UTS Online Subject 85202, PowerPoint presentation, UTS, Sydney, viewed 7 Oct 2018, <https://online.uts.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-3037296-dt-content-rid-35484935_1/courses/85202-2018-SPRING-CITY/Intro%20to%20futuring_180810%281%29.pdf >.

UK Government, 2014, Living in the city, future research report, viewed 7 Oct 2018, <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/336660/14-801-living-in-the-city.pdf >.

Voros J. 2017, ‘The Futures Cone, use and history’, Joseph Voros’ futuring blog, weblog, WordPress,  viewed 7 Oct 2018, <https://thevoroscope.com/2017/02/24/the-futures-cone-use-and-history/ >.

By Xingyu Gao (Nicole)

Genetic modification has becoming a popular topic since the technology developed rapidly in 21th century. Human beings are so curious about genetic engineering, also they are so fear of that technology actually works on human ourselves and we have to accept those changes no matter they are positive or negative. So we are always careful with genetic experiments.

In order to avoid unwanted gene, the related gene segments need to be changed in the early. The fertilized ovum carries all the information of a human being, it was decided and never change as it grows up and eventually developed to a fully formed organism. So this prototype visualize its use on change gene segments in fertilized ovum.

In this scenario, there is a female Lily Chen who is preparing having a baby. According to the procedure of pregnancy, she wants to do a pre-pregnancy test ensure her baby is 100% healthy. We got her blood sample for analysis. Unfortunately, through technical testing, her gene carries a mutation on the x chromosome, a genetic mutation that causes her future child to suffer from autism. Autism is a diffuse central nervous system developmental disorder caused by a variety of environmental factors under certain genetic factors（Kuras, 2016）. So all we have to do is fix this genetic factor and change its specific fragment on the DNA so that Lily’s offspring and each subsequent generation will no longer have this disease.

The principle of this project is not difficult to understand. When a virus invades a bacterium, the DNA of the virus is injected into the bacteria, which is fatal to the bacteria. Therefore, the elimination of viral DNA has become the main task. At this time, the bacteria will identify the DNA of these viruses in their own database, that is, CRISPR, and give the “navigation information” to a “cutting guard” – Cas9 protein, which will cut the DNA of the virus, and the bacteria will saved. More importantly, these integrated genes are passed on to the next generation of bacteria, protecting the next generation from the same virus. In short, CRISPR is the database and Cas9 is the weapon.

For all of this, I know what you want to say: Will humanity in the future be human?

When the CRISPR/Cas9 is mature enough to not only eliminate all genetic-related diseases, but also to modify every subtle feature of a person, don’t you want your next generation to grow taller and better? Let his/her eyes be big and the nose is quite straight? In short, once humans use CRISPR/Cas9 for embryo editing, this Pandora’s Box is no longer likely to be closed. When each creature becomes the most perfect existence in nature, what is the unique difference and naturalness of all things? But on the other hand, after the birth of the first “perfect baby”, the ethical view of human beings on the design of the baby may change: if the embryo is not genetically edited, it is equivalent to letting the birth be born. Babies suffer from illness and death. Not genetically editing embryos has become a new “immoral” .

 

References:

Michelle, K, 2016, “Recognizing the Signs and Symptoms of Autism”, blog, viewed 16/10/2018,< https://blog.stageslearning.com/blog/recognizing-the-signs-and-symptoms-of-autism>

 

By Xingyu Gao (Nicole)

Background: interview with an obstetrician-gynecologist

Professor Huang is an expert in reproductive medicine who is currently a professor of Shanghai Jiaotong University. Speaking of genetic modification in clinical using, she knows a lot and holds her own opinion. While asking her whether genetic engineering is widely use, she nodded. According to the data(Zhang, 2018), the birth defect rate in China is as high as 5.6%, and the number of birth defects is about 900,000 per year. The annual economic loss caused by birth defects in China exceeds 20 billion yuan. Government has established three precaution methods for birth defects but they are still not enough to prevent giving birth to a defective baby, therefore the significance of genetic editing is obvious. Here, birth defects refer to the general term of various structural malformations and functional abnormalities at birth caused by congenital, hereditary and adverse environment(EMORY, 2008), as fact suggests, there are 30% of them are caused by hereditary. Professor Huang demonstrated the significance of these new technologies in controlling birth defects with success stories in several clinical applications. Last year, Ms. Yang, a mother who seeking for children extremely difficult came to professor Huang. Ms. Yang lost her children three times before, as a result of carrying the pathogenic gene. Professor Huang used PGD (Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis) technology to block the pathogenic gene and eventually had a healthy baby girl, she told Ms. Yang that the genetic disease of her family will be no longer exist in the future. This is a typical example of genetic editing in China which In terms of gene editing, some domestic fields are also at the forefront of the world, including genetic editing techniques for hereditary diseases. However, the technology has relative risks include technical and ethical risks. In recent years, with the popularization of gene editing technology, especially the molecular scissors technology CRISPR-Cas9 technology, there are more and more ethical and moral disputes on the transformation of human genes. Professor Huang believes that genetic editing should continue under appropriate legal and ethical supervision. In specific, if genetic editing of early human embryos or germ cells is performed in the study, the modified cells should not be used for pregnancy purposes.

There is a case happened in June 2018 in the north of china (TMTPOST, 2018), a woman recognized the positive result of prenatal examination, so she didn’t take further test on the advice of doctors, but eventually gave birth to a baby with birth defects and as a result in tragedy. Therefore, I have a question that can DNA examination be accepted and become the most credible test? Professor Huang said that it would not be a problem in the future, the result can be much more accurate as the technology is developing. Opportunities and challenges are simultaneously unfolding in front of human beings, and in the case that human beings are not fully prepared at the technical, legal, and ethical levels, every step we take must be careful, because it is impossible to be God.

References:

Dan, Z. 2018, “China researching rising birth defects as ease on child limits contributes to older mothers”, Global Times, viewed 15/10/2018

Department of Human Genetics, 2008, “Genetic Population Risk for Birth Defects”, EMORY University School of Medicine

Working on my protypes in class – from brainstorms to first drafts

brain storms of possible prototype ideas

testing how to sculpt the chin and jaw area priliminary prototype with elastic attatched to a metal ‘head band’

We meet on a brisk Tuesday morning at an empty cafe. The air is cold, yet the atmosphere is warm; Elise has just arrived and seems slightly nervous for the interview.
“I have no idea what you’re going to ask me” she says. Elise has brought some material with her – a document regarding genetic testing in the midwifery field of study. Elise is a midwifery student after all. We waste no time and begin with the first question.

“What do you do in your placements normally?”
“Generally the Birthing Unit, Maternity Ward and Antenatal Clinic.”
Elise explains each of the roles she has been acquainted with in the past two years. The Birthing Unit, as the name suggests, is the role in which babies are delivered, Maternity Wards are for the care of new mothers and Antenatal Clinic is the regular tests applied to babies. We cut to the chase and I begin to probe about my scenario.

“Do you have any thoughts or opinions on Genetic Modification?”
“Well, I don’t actually have that much knowledge regarding genes, but I do know a few tests that we do when the baby is still in the womb.”
Some of the methods she describes include: Nuchal Translucency – a test for Down Syndrome, similar to ultrasound and Morphology Scan – another test similar to ultrasound aimed at specifying the growth of the baby in the mother’s womb.

“So what potential impacts would GM have on midwifery?”I ask the question, but it takes some further probing to procure a response; the question was too broad.
“Well, if the regular issues of genetic diseases were dealt with, then I wouldn’t really have much of a job then…however there still is an emotional care that midwives need to give the mothers. Certain hormones might cause anxiety and depression during pregnancy, which is something I noticed in my sister when she gave birth.” Elise continues to explain the impacts of birth and the roles of midwives.

“How about if a machine were to do all of the pregnancy work for the mother?” I ask.
“That might potentially damage the relationship between the mother and the child! The mother and the child are already building a relationship when it is in her womb and the child becomes used to the smell and sound of its mother. When my sister gave birth, my nephew would cry in someone else’s arms, but whenever she picked him it would calm him down immediately. There’s a connection between the child in a mother’s womb and their relationship.”

This particular answer was intriguing; I had never considered that benefit of natural birth. Knowing all this, there seems to be a major flaw in our future scenario. In a society that is focused on beauty, wealth, artificial birth is an attractive alternative (what with the baby oven prototype developed by Jessica Fan), yet this may come at the cost of the baby’s development and its relationship with its mother. Whilst this world seems like an idealised society for the rich, it comes at a cost – one that may not be seen until we see such a world in reality.

Prototyping has been an interesting experience in the way that it has shown me how to engage with creating ideas and developing them further. As I set out to develop a product for Perfect Babies TM, I was met with a few challenges. How would I approach brainstorming these ideas, especially when I felt so restricted in my ability to imagine the universe in this scenario? How could I develop a prototype which didn’t seem unoriginal? And how would I be able to create a product which not only served a function, but also had a refined feel to it?

As the process of brainstorming began, I tried to imagine what our hypothetical company would produce. In developing our scenario, it was evident that much like any company, the main objective of the company would be to make a profit. As such, I decided to look at how a Genetic Modification clinic could maximise profits. Some potential ideas that I developed included: An automatic birth giver, a gene identification kit, a gene evaluator and a birthing simulation machine.

In order to cull my ideas, I tried to evaluate the potential of each product and the viability it proposed to a company such as Perfect Babies TM. As for the automatic birth giver, it seemed to be a product that would fit quite well into a scenario focused on the beauty and wealth of its society; not many inhabitants would be eager to place their bodies at risk. However, a team member of mine had already begun developing a similar idea to this, so I decided not to pursue it. The gene evaluator and the birthing simulation machine were interesting ideas, but I was not sure as to how I would execute the creation of such prototypes. As such, the kit seemed like the most viable option to pursue; it was a prototype which could justify the commercialisation of genetic modification. The only issue at the time of conception was how I could keep the idea original.

My initial prototypes were simply packaging styles of the box in which I would place genetic testing material as seen below.

I began by looking at the way ancestry websites and genetic testing companies test the genes of their clients.  What I then realised was that many companies already had genetic testing kits, and as such, I had to develop my idea further than simply have a testing kit. The only drawback to these kits were the extended waiting time required in the laboratory in order to develop a comprehensive result (MyHeritage, 2018). Many of these required swabs of the cheek or samples of urine or hair, but would need to be mailed back to the company in question. As such, I decided to create a prototype which would shorten this process.

My eventual design was an “Instant Genifier” or “Gene Identifier” which would require two inner cheek swabs of either side of which would be placed in a decontaminated testing capsule in the box. This would then analyse the data and produce a genetic report card, as seen below.

I decided to also include an animation in order to make the prototype seem more viable.

 

References:
My Heritage, 2018. <https://www.myheritage.com/dna>  Viewed 3 October 2018

by Xingyu Gao(Nicole)

Youtube Link:

U.S. Scientists Use CRISPR to Fix Genetic Disease in Human Embryos For the First Time

This article reflects my understanding, cognition and thoughts after viewing the documentary of  CRISPR.

 

Genetic engineering used to be popular in the world in the early 20^thcentury when physical anthropology and genetics flourished, and a new theory called “eugenics” appeared. With the advancement of technology and changes of people’s thoughts, most studies and experiments focus on genetic improvement. Creating “artificially transformed babies” is a topic of concern. It’s not entirely far-fetched to think that we might one day use Technology to edit the human genome to eliminate disease, or choose athletic ability, or to get better intelligence. On June 2nd 2016, Science magazine published a breakthrough on CRISPR technology(figure1) which has been developed as an efficient gene editing tool. (figure1:Specific operation process diagram of CRISPR-Cas9)

Take one of experiments as an example, Scientists at the university of Oregon health and science and colleagues in California, China and South Korea say they have repaired dozens of embryos to tackle mutations that cause a common heart disease that often causes sudden death in children as they grow up(Cater, J. and Wiedenheft, B. 2015). If embryos that repair the mutation can develop into babies, they will not have the disease or transfer it to their offspring. To achieve this, scientists put CRISPR/Cas9 with an egg，then let them be fertilized with a sperm. The CRISPR/Cas9 is a system built into bacterial DNA that helps it identify and defend against attack viruses in humans. This process is just like record what suspects look like, and when they find it with specific genetic code, they chop it off to remove the threat.

However，people holds different perspective towards this kind of technology. On the one hand, it helps reduce the rates of getting diseases as born, and it’s permanent. In addition, many couples suffer from certain DNA issue that causes infertility or effect the fetus, this technology has potential to cure them. On the other hand, some people may concern it can be abused: what if there is only male progeny in the future-and then use gene drives across the population, as time goes by, the population will go extinct. From an ethical perspective, the less intervention in the reproductive process is correct. The religious community is worried that genetically modified babies will bring endless social problems. In 2001, Sing TaoNewspaper (Hong Kong) published that the reverend honorable Fung Chi-wood(2001) pointed out that the genetic modification of the baby causes adaptation problem. Where did the baby come from? “If a baby has genes from multiple persons, then who is his parents?” Fung said. This will increase orphans and lead to genetic discrimination problem, the worst thing is to repeat the history of Nazi Germany screening eugenics. In summary, genetic modification does more good than harm, it depends on how people use the technology rightly. What’s more, relevant departments of government should public relevant laws and regulations to restrict its use.

There are thousands of genetic diseases in humans. Although not everyone brings huge physical harm, some people may suffer from it, and even suffer for generations. We have the need to transform our own body, and this demand is universal. Irreplaceable. Science itself has always offered possibilities only and not promised results. The same is true of life sciences that the combination of eugenics with specific history is rejected. But eugenics and human rights are fundamentally contradictory.

 

Reference

 

1. Abudayyeh, O. O. et al. 2016, C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector, Science, aaf5573.

2. Alice, P. 2017, U.S. “Scientists Use CRISPR to Fix Genetic Disease in Human Embryos For the First Time”, TIME Health, viewed 08/10/2018,<http://time.com/4882855/crispr-gene-editing-human-embryo/>

3. Cater, J. and Wiedenheft, B. 2015, Snapshot：CRISPR-RNA-guided adaptive immune system., Cell.163(1): 260-260.

4. Jackson, R.N., and Wiedenheft, B. 2015, “A conserved structural chassis for mounting versatile CRISPR RNA-guided immune responses”, Mol. Cell. 58, p.p.722–728.