Following our conversation today, I was interested to see another entrepreneurial project (by Dot One) at the art/science/technology nexus–this one however raises important questions about the willing sharing of personal DNA information. The pretty scarf you can order is definitely appealing (although expensive)–but should I give up my personal information so willingly? (Source)
Add yours Comments – 1
This diverges from the issue of privacy, but I thought I would try to articulate my reaction.
I find myself interested in what is left out of the “picture” (and brand name) here, i.e. the commonality of the “not .1%”. But likely that would be harder to sell. Not “Your DNA sample. Your DNA results. Your DNA print.” but instead our, our, our shared heritages… Not what distinguishes us but what connects us to one another, to other species, and even other kingdoms! I find that truly inspiring.
I get the sense that the Dot One products are pushing an implied adequation between DNA and identity. This perpetuates an overstatement of genetic determinism which lags current research. I hesitate to critique in terms of what something does not do. But there is so much ground breaking research happening in these fields which keeps enriching and expanding our understanding of genetics.
To name just two:
Epigenetics: DNA not as an immutable genetic code, but rather a dynamical system with cascades of feedback loops and external influences turning genes on and off.
Microbiota: The microbial ecosystems we host in our guts, without which we would be unable to digest anything. So for something as important as feeding we depend intrinsically on these bacteria, and a rich trove of non human DNA to access chemical processes we don’t have. Links between neuroscience and the microbiome are being currently researched.
And there is so much more…
It might be a stretch, but I am tempted to put this overemphasis on genetic determinism in parallel with Mitchell and Hansens’ critique of Kittler, as they propose “to resist the seductive fallacy of technical determinism” (p. xv). If there is a valid analogy I guess it is to be wary of reductive simplifications.