MITPressLog

Happy Arbor Day

Founded over 135 years ago by J. Sterling Morton, today is the day we celebrate the planting and caring for trees.  His simple idea of setting aside a special day for tree planting is now more important than ever. As a special Arbor Day treat, we wanted to share a few of the stunning photographs from Barbara Bosworth's Trees: National Champions. 

Enjoy the photos and get out there and plant a tree.

 

 

 

Achtung, baby!

Via Science Daily, word of research showing that even brief periods of meditation can strengthen cognition and improve our attentional span and vigilance. Of course, the cognitive benefits of meditation are nothing new to us: Since 1998, James Austin, Emeritus professor of Neurology at the University of Missouri, has been studying the links between Zen meditation and the science of the brain. His latest, Selfless Insight, is a synthesis of his research into the way that brain research explains the basis for meditative states and clarifies how meditation affects our understanding of consciousness. As he puts it by way of introduction:

My quest has spanned an era of unprecedented progress in neuroscience research. Every month or so, new developments help us envision how meditation trains attention, how our notions of Self are rooted in interactive brain functions, and how extraordinary states arise that can help us live more harmoniously and selflessly. This is an exciting time. A whole new field is taking shape.

The crux of the new findings is that brief periods of meditation can elicit cognitive benefits, rather than the long periods of devotion that were previously thought necessary. Perhaps this idea will find its way into Austin's research: He's currently at work on a compact 'how to' guide to attentional meditation. Stay tuned...

The Earth, its Day, and its Future

It is Earth Day's 40th anniversary - a chance for some to reflect on the future of the environmental movement, for others to sneer at what they see as the illusory danger posed by global warming and other environmental 'alarmists.' Others think that every day should be earth day.

To the glut of commentary, we'll just add a few reflections from two brand new books on the future of our relation to the natural world. Thomas Princen, in his new book Treading Softly: Paths to Ecological Order, says that the problem isn't just what we do on Earth Day, or whether we drive a hybrid car, or whether we recycle enthusiastically. If we really want to save the earth, and ourselves, from the coming calamity, we need nothing less than a full reorientation of how we ought to live, both ecologically and economically. We need to imagine a new relationship with nature and society:

As valuable as it is to lay out the context and explain the science (see data quoted above, and more below, as examples), there comes a time when we must go beyond gloomy trends. That time is now. Citizens and policy makers alike rarely respond constructively to a barrage of scary facts and scenarios. Rather, I take it that people do better for themselves and others (and “the environment”) when they roll up their sleeves and tackle a problem, however big or small their contribution may be. They do better when they are realistically hopeful, engaged, and working with others...

So this book is about imagining—about getting grounded ecologically and ethically. And because getting grounded is demanding, this book is also about hard work. Repairing the current edifice is, by comparison, easy, if ultimately futile. Laying groundwork is the task ahead; all signs—scientific, intuitive, experiential—point there.

Of course, one reason we prize nature is for the sense that it represents something distinct from, other than, the man-made world. That wild, untamed-ness of nature is, for all intents in purposes, gone, so extensive has human intervention in nature become. That point was first put forward by Bill McKibben in his widely noted book The End of Nature.

Paul Wapner, of American University, has taken this idea one step further. In his book Living Through the End of Nature: The Future of American Environmentalism, he introduces to what he calls the postnature era, one that accepts that a certain amount of human intervention in nature is unavoidable and that preserving nature as an unsullied realm is no longer possible. Yet instead of feeling despondent, Wapner thinks it presents fresh opportunities for the environmental movement:

The end of nature offers—indeed demands—a new orientation. It presents the chance for the movement to liberate itself philosophically and politically from a nature-centric perspective, and thus cultivate frames of reference as well as devise strategies for creating ecological and social health in a world where it is impossible to separate humans and nature. To the degree that environmentalists recognize the hybrid character of human-nature relations and appreciate the end of nature arguments, they can self-consciously work to protect the well-being of both people and the nonhuman world, and capitalize on environmental protection opportunities that arise at the complicated interface between the two...In short, rather than become nervous, environmentalists should embrace the end of nature, and take advantage of the opportunity it offers to become philosophically clearer and politically more effective.

Happy Earth Day to all.

What Were You Doing When the Lights Went Out?

In our lastest MIT Press podcast, David Nye talks with Chris Gondek about his new book, When the Lights Went Out: A History of Blackouts in America.  Whether they are related to a thunderstorm, an air attack, or they were turned out on purpose, Nye provides a fascinating social and technological history of the blackout to help explain our relationship with electricity. 

Have a listen.

Patents and the Future of Genetics

The worlds of genetics, law, and health care all stand to be affected by a recent federal court ruling that a patent on human genes is invalid because the genes are natural substances and thus not subject to patent by a company called Myriad Genetics. The so-called BRCA genes are used to determine susceptibility to two types of cancer, and Myriad had sought to be the exclusive licensee of the patent.

The plaintiffs, including the ACLU, called on the expertise of Shobita Parthasarathy, a University of Michigan professor who wrote extensively about BRCA discovery and testing in her book Building Genetic Medicine. So we asked Shobita about the case, her participation, and the wider implications of the case. She sent along the following:

On March 29th, Judge Robert Sweet ruled in a NY District Court that patents on the BRCA genes, which are linked to increased susceptibility for breast and ovarian cancer, are invalid because the genes are "products of nature." This ruling calls into question the 2000 gene patents that have been issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office in recent decades, as well as patents on other biochemical compositions, including stem cells, which could also be understood as "products of nature". The coalition of plaintiffs (including scientists, physicians, patients, and civil liberties groups) who challenged these patents argued not only that they are "products of nature", but also that genes are free speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. They also charged that the BRCA gene patents stifled innovation and made health care prohibitively expensive.

The plaintiffs asked me to write a declaration in support of their case, based on the findings from my book. This declaration--and my book--discusses the process of BRCA gene discovery, the development of BRCA testing, and Myriad's effort to patent the BRCA genes in the US and elsewhere, and its aggressive position towards its intellectual property. The evidence presented disputes the company's claim that the BRCA genes would not have been discovered without Myriad's involvement, and also describes the implications of Myriad's BRCA gene patents for scientists, health care providers, and patients. In his ruling, Judge Sweet cited my declaration--and by extension, my book--quite extensively.

As this case goes through the appeals process over the coming months, the public should pay attention to its enormous potential implications. First, if gene patents are ultimately invalidated, this could transform the field of biotechnology. Although it might negatively affect the fortunes of the biotechnology industry, the traditionally collaborative culture of biomedicine may reemerge, which will benefit research and health care. Scientists will no longer be able to patent "upstream" research tools like genes and biochemical pathways, stimulating innovation by allowing other scientists to get involved in early stages of research. Second, the invalidation of gene patents may improve health care delivery by creating a more competitive market for genetic testing and therefore likely improve quality and reduce costs.  Finally, the benefits and risks of patents may become a more central topic in public debate. For the first time, Judge Sweet ruled that citizens without direct financial interests in a particular patent nevertheless had legal standing in the case and could therefore file suit. With this ruling, we are likely to start a national conversation about how the public interest should be defined in the context of patent law. Should it be focused primarily on economic competitiveness? Or should it also consider the morality of commodifying life, the implications of patents for the future of scientific research, and the costs of health care delivery? This discussion has now begun.

Also: Take a look at a video of Shobita discussing the case here.