Science, Technology and Society

Table of Contents

Video 1 ---- People’s Science Initiative

Video 2 ---- People’s Science Initiative

Pictures & Facebook link ---- People’s Science Initiative

Theme Paper 1 ---- Power relations as central to the institution of Western science

Theme Paper 2 ---- The Digital World Order: social media and our power to bring about change

Theme Paper 3 ---- Ebola & the need to collapse the science-culture dichotomy

Theme Paper 4 ---- Climate science: the co-dependence of data and models

Abstract ---- Digital Society versus Orwellian Society

Presentation ---- Surveillance societies: Orwell and Han

Reflective summary of STS ---- my learnings and experiences, potentialities for future applications and suggested readings

Weekly Learnings

Week 1 ---- The socio-political nature of science and technology: intellectual property regime, bio-colonialism and the gender divide in science and engineering

Week 2 ---- Power relations as central to the modern institution of science

Week 3 ---- Conceptualizing and understanding cyborgs as human-animal-machine

Week 4 ---- Hacker versus vectorialist classes

Week 5 ---- Commodification of hacks, bio-hacking, gift vs. market economy, creative commons, and networks of power

Week 6 ---- Increasing demediatization and loss of representation in the digital age

Week 7 ---- The Digital World Order: social media and our power to bring about change

Week 8 ---- Otaku culture, simulacrum and hyper-reality

Week 9 ---- Databases, moe-elements and the replacement of grand narratives by grand non-narratives

Week 10 ---- Viewing epidemiology as a people’s science, and understanding the importance of techniques of the body

Week 11 ---- Ebola & the need to collapse the science-culture dichotomy

Week 12 ---- Relativism, material entanglements, and the inseparability of subject and object

Week 13 ---- Agential Realism, Intra-activity, and diffraction versus reflection

Week 14 ---- Climate science and the challenges of thinking historically

People’s Science Initiative - Video 1

People’s Science Initiative - Video 2 

People’s Science Initiative - Pictures

This is the public health initiative that adopts a people’s science approach, as explained in the reflective summary below. I have taken some screenshots of the Facebook page to give an idea of the kind of work that it displays. The first image shows the icon, while the other two images show how patients stories are given with their pictures to create an emotional impact.

The link to the Facebook page has been provided below.

Theme Paper 1

In this paper, I will reflect on the power relations that underlie the institution of science in the light of Kleinman’s discussion on bio-colonialism, the notion of intellectual property protection, and the overall nature of Western scientific knowledge in past and present times.

In contemporary times, there is a hegemony of science over other forms of knowledge, as it is considered to be a bias-free field. It is, however, not as value-neutral, meritocratic and apolitical a field as it is portrayed to be. The modern institution of science is not an abstract or immemorial entity that emerged in isolation from the world it developed in. Like any other field, science also developed as a result of certain socio-historical processes, such as the European Enlightenment Movement, that shaped what the institution of science in the present day entails.

Science has always been steeped in social and political structures of power. Bio-colonialism is one manifestation of this uneven power. The term ‘bio-colonialism’ refers to the appropriation of indigenous biological resources. Colonialism has traditionally had one form: invasion of a foreign land, appropriation of its resources and the gradual alienation of natives from their own context. The colonization of genetic material has taken a similar form. Klienman (2005) mentions the cases of the Cichona and rubber seeds, both of which were taken from colonized lands to serve the needs of the British colonizers, and in the process were appropriated from the lands and people they initially belonged to. This is especially evident in the case of rubber, where a British employee took rubber plant seeds from Brazil to Britain, and within a few decades, rubber went from being a commodity that was once almost exclusively produced in Brazil to one that was produced and supplied mainly by Britain (p. 70). Since the colonized countries normally did not have industries advanced enough to compete with the well-established manufacturing industries of the colonizers, they were left to sell raw materials which were then processed and converted into ‘value-added’ goods by the colonial countries. This perpetuated a cycle where the already rich countries got richer as the poor countries served their economies at the expense of their own. The developing world became not only a resource reservoir for the West, but eventually also became a lucrative market where they could sell their value-added, more expensive goods.

The concept of intellectual property rights played a role in furthering bio-colonial injustice instead of preventing it. In principle, the intellectual property rights were made to acknowledge the intellectual investment of people and companies in making new discoveries or inventions, and protecting their right to its ownership.

However, there has historically been hypocrisy in the recognition of indigenous intellectual property. This is due to the idea of ‘common heritage’, which is that nature is for the common use of all humankind.  This concept completely ignores the fact that many so-called ‘natural materials’ are actually products of effort put in by generations of people. For example, most food crops and domesticated animal species now found in North America were taken from countries in the South. Crops and livestock are not naturally occurring in nature; they develop as a result of conscious effort on the part of local farmers to improve productivity and efficiency. Farmers constantly research on crops informally to create varieties of land races that give the best performance in different geographical locations. Similarly, pharmaceutical companies that seem to be conducting independent research on naturally existing plant materials also usually draw upon indigenous knowledge. They generally study plants that are already being used by the local communities and thus, have been streamlined through several rounds of trial and testing through which many of their properties have been discovered. Ironically, if these supposedly ‘natural materials’ undergo any genetic changes by a scientist, the product no longer remains public property and can be patented as the researcher’s own intellectual property. The Western discourse on property rights acknowledges scientific research as an intellectual endeavor that can be privatized but is completely dismissive of indigenous forms of knowledge.

Just like effects of land colonization are present in post-colonial countries to this day, bio-colonization still has effects on the way global society is organized even now. The recent hype about Argan oil as a new product in the global hair care industry is an example of how biological appropriation from developing countries is going on to this day (Turner, 2014).

Similarly, a hierarchy of knowledge, under which certain forms of knowledge are privileged over certain other forms simply because the Western world recognizes some as more valuable, has also continued into modern times. Oftentimes, it not even the content that might not meet standards of ‘proper knowledge’, it is the style of representation. This problem exceeds the realm of empirical sciences, and is observable even in the ‘softer’ sciences. Social sciences, for instance, have their own specific jargon for describing social phenomenon in academic writing. Academic writing, which is a dense, complex style to navigate and master for an outsider, is privileged over other forms of textual knowledge. Several texts from all over the world are written about social phenomena, but they are not considered to be ‘valid’ for referencing or further research because they do not follow certain academic conventions which have been decided and standardized by Western academia. Academic journals are typically exclusionary, with pedantic standards for presentation. There is an esoteric circle of Western and Westernized academicians that the layman or the unacquainted individual, no matter how brilliant, usually finds opaque, evasive and inaccessible.

This essay has attempted to shine light on the socially constructed institution of science, its rootedness in power dynamics as represented through a history of bio-colonialism, its prevalent ideas such as intellectual property protection that served the interests of powerful classes, and the manifestation of its unjust power in the modern day. The discussion on bio-colonialism, intellectual property protection and the closed-off nature of science shows how power relations work in inconspicuous ways, and how discrimination and injustice is not always evident.

 References

Kleinman, D.L. (2005). Science and Technology in Society: from biotechnology to the internet. Blackwell Publishing: UK.

Theme Paper 2

In ‘In the Swarm’, Han claims that increasing digitalization has caused a paradigm shift in society. While discussing the concerns brought about by increasing digital consumption, he lays special emphasis on how it has led to a loss in our ability to bring about change. In this essay, I will explore and evaluate some of the arguments Han makes about how digital media affects our capacity to instigate change.  

Han asserts that digital media differs from all previous forms of media because while all other mediums are used to represent, digital media is used to be present. While through slower mediums such as writing or television, one engages in a gradual process of representation of thoughts and views, social media allows for direct and unhindered presence. It allows one to stand right in the middle of ongoing global debate and intellectual activity, instead of being at the receiving end of it. Han describes this as the phenomenon of ‘demediatization’, which refers to the removal of intermediaries in the process of information transfer.

On social media, there is an immediacy in communication that is not possible through the newspaper, radio or television. Expressing something through a newspaper requires a lengthy procedure of careful written articulation followed by a meticulous method of selection and editing by the editorial team. TV and radio programs follow a similar format. Contrarily, a social media comment quickly expresses what a person feels in the moment without any refinement or further thought to it.

With demediatization, there has been a declining need for representation. We no longer require a collective, representative voice on any issue because we can each offer our personal opinions on social media. Politicians are now viewed as barriers, and journalists or expert analysts are no longer opinion-makers for the masses. While this does allow everyone to have a voice, and reduces the tolerance that the common person has for deceit and lies from the higher authorities, it also leads to a loss of trust on authorities to guide the masses.

Everyone wants to lead themselves. The quick pace of social media does not allow time for grand, long-term plans to mature or for emotions to simmer up.  We no longer depend on a singular entity for the projection and representation of causes, because every individual can support or oppose a cause with the addition of their personal variations. Since we are constantly engaged in this process of production and consumption of information on digital media, we are over-flooded with information, and end up in a distracted and ‘narcissistic’ state. The more scattered, self-absorbed and disconnected we are, the easier it is to control us. Han describes contemporary society as a Digital Panopticon, where everyone willingly gives in to being watched and surveilled. Han thinks that the excessively transparent nature of the online world discourages the “voicing of unpopular or dissonant opinions” (Han, 2017, p.18).  As there is a feeling of constantly being watched, people tend to abide by social norms in order to avoid being singled out.  

Han also attributes the complete and drastic shift in our work-life balance to the influx of digital technology. For the first time in history, we have our ‘work machines’ with us all the time. Due to the mobility of our work devices, the line between our work and leisure is blurring. We are becoming so career-oriented that our life goals are starting to align with our work goals.        Han’s idea of digital control replacing bio-control has some semblance to Wark’s idea of an emerging vectorialist class that has replaced the capitalist class (Wark, 2004). The conditions of production and the exploitation of labour has remained the same, but the means of production have shifted from capital to digital. Instead of capital, the exploiters now control the vectors of production. Because workers are constantly engaged in this production process, they are in a continually distracted state, and do not subscribe to a ‘grand narrative’ or a collective purpose anymore.

The scatter that characterizes modern society indicates a reduced ability to create conditions for change. While there still is an emergence of ‘waves of outrage’ every now and then, they are not stable enough to cause actual change. Each individual acts separately, and there is no mobilization for a unified cause through a single platform. Due to the nature of social media of amassing everything on the same forum, there are multiple other causes for concern at the same time that create distraction. Furthermore, not all participants of a cause on social media are present fully because of their undivided interest in the cause. Many are there because they are just present in the same online sphere. Han believes that “for a crowd to emerge, a chance gathering of human beings is not enough” (Han, 2017, p.10). There has to be a ‘spirit’. People on social media participate in online movements because they just happen to be there. Due to all these reasons, Han believes that the will to act on a cause dissipates quickly in digital society.

I disagree with some aspects of Han’s arguments. While Han claims that mass media assembles people and digital media isolates them, I believe that the opposite is also true. Social media provides a platform for people to communicate their views, interact with each other and represent themselves as a collective unit. With analog communication, people are just passive receivers of information who cannot express themselves or assemble on a forum.          Similarly, while Han dwells upon the negatives of losing the need for representation, I believe that in most cases they are outweighed by the positives. I think that declining dependence on external representatives has empowered the masses and has, in fact, increased their change-inducing ability.

In conclusion, it can be said that the shift to digitalism has certainly brought about unprecedented historical changes in terms of transforming the nature and structure of society. However, its effects on our collective ability to inspire change have to be explored still further.

                                                                                                                                          Bibliography

Han, B. (2017). In the swarm: digital prospects (E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Theme Paper 3

This essay aims to analyze the commonly perceived dichotomy between science and culture in light of the Ebola epidemic of West Africa. Using Richards (2016) treatise on the role that a people’s science approach played in helping end the Ebola epidemic, I will try to discuss what a people’s science implies, how traditional, rigid definitions of science deter the cause of public health and why the science-culture binary is harmful.

A people’s science refers to scientific pursuits that concern the general public and thus demand their cooperation and participation. Epidemiology, by its very nature, is a people’s science as it demands the participation of the community, and fails to be effective without it.

This is similar to the idea of participatory development, where the people who are the beneficiaries of development projects participate in the decision-making process. Participatory development initiatives are ideally supposed to initiate at grassroots level and travel upwards to seek external help and expertise, unlike externally designed projects, which are oblivious to the on-ground reality, and are imposed by external actors (Hickey & Mohan, 2008). Like participatory projects, people-driven science may appear to be more time-consuming as it involve more stakeholders, each representing different perspectives, demands and desired outcomes, but the solutions derived from having all concerned parties onboard are more effective, sustainable and less likely to cause resentment and disobedience.

In the Ebola epidemic of West Africa, international responders tried to communicate the dangers of Ebola viruses to the community, and tried to impose a blanket ban on all personal and communal activities which had the potential of transmitting Ebola (such as funeral rites) and which were considered as useless and merely ritualistic. This only led to a backlash from the community which refused to comply with many of these strict regulations.

Richards (2016) explains that instead of viewing rituals as unnecessary behavior, they should be viewed as a society’s collective ‘techniques of the body’. Mauss (1973) explains that different human communities develop different sets of techniques as a result of their circumstances, such as their unique way of eating, bathing and sleeping. Different societies embody different techniques, which help them in the articulation and generation of their social and material life. These techniques are formed over, and passed down, many generations. For Mauss (1973), “technique (is) an action which is effective and traditional… there is no technique and no transmission in the absence of tradition”.

The Ebola-affected West African communities had their own pre-existing techniques which were necessary for their successful social organization. These also included some Ebola-transmitting techniques, such as the funeral rites of washing the body, preserving the grave cloth, and lowering the dead body into the ground. These rites had spiritual and social significance. For the afflicted communities, maintaining social balance and wellbeing was as important as maintaining physical health and wellbeing.

Richards (2016) shows us how body-washing was wrongfully regarded as a strange, illogical ritual instead of a practice that was common in most parts of the world and a normal extension of bathing the patient during their lifetime. Similarly, the social significance behind funerals was ignored. For West Africans, funerals are important occasions, where social matters such as debt and personal hatred are settled, which helps the community to function smoothly. Being ignorant of the importance of funerals in the community blinded the policy-makers and medical practitioners to an understanding of why there was such a strong a resistance to the ban on funerals.

The medical community treated these ritualistic practices as unnecessary, and saw no harm in proposing to discard them completely. On the other hand, it viewed nursing practices, which posed an equally great risk of transmission, as a necessary life-saving practice. Richards (2016) proposes that instead of viewing the former as exotic and impractical and the latter as important and practical, both the activities should have been viewed as techniques that could be modified to respond to present circumstances. Ignoring the importance of techniques and attempting to completely remove them is more damaging and impracticable than devising ways to modify those techniques in order to achieve the desired ends.

The spread of Ebola is a good example of why the purely scientific medical practices alone are not the answer to public health problems. In fact, one might even go so far as to say that some of the problems in the Ebola epidemic were elongated or solutions delayed by this very hardcore, mainstream version of medical science which considered only certified medical practitioners as capable of nursing the sick safely. Due to overemphasis on the “no homecare” policy, a gap continued to persist between theoretical and practical ways to address the problem of Ebola containment. In many cases, homecare was the only option because of the lack of medical services available to the community, but there was an absence of detailed guidelines on how to care for Ebola patients at home, which led to people devising their own methods. If brochures and other marketing material had recognized the lack of medical services and addressed this earlier on by increasing the content regarding the provision of home care, then there is a possibility that the epidemic could have been better managed.

This essay does not imply that cultural rituals and practices did not bar or slow down the efforts to eradicate Ebola from West Africa. It only shows that a more effective means to handle Ebola would have been to acknowledge the importance and relevance of cultural practices in order to encourage their modification and adaptation instead of neglecting them as obstacles to be overcome. It also shows that there were bigger obstacles than culture, such as the lack of healthcare facilities, but culture was pinpointed and criminalized. Instead of viewing culture as a force opposed to science, understanding the cultural context and identifying approaches to alter local techniques would have helped in ending the Ebola epidemic faster.

 Bibliography

Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2008). Participation, from tyranny to transformation? : Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London: Zed Books.

Mauss, M. (1973). Techniques of the body (B. Brewster, Trans.). Economy and Society, 2(1), 70-88.

Theme Paper 4

In this essay, I attempt to discuss the centrality of modelling to climate data collection, as discussed by Edwards (2010) in his book.

A model defines what kind of data is collected, for what purposes it is collected, and what patterns will it generate. There can be no climate data without a model. Climate data is called as ‘shimmering data’, because there are missing portions of data here and there, as some datasets may not contain certain data points while others may not contain certain other data points. However, due to modeling, these data points all converge around a central line, lending credibility to the collected data. There have been a variety of scientific instruments, data-gathering devices and different forms of weather knowledge throughout history, along with different geographical, social and political contexts in which weather data was generated. Therefore, there is a tremendous amount of spatial and temporal difference in the datasets that need to be assembled together in order to form a suitable and useful picture of the climate’s past.

What primarily differentiates weather from climate is its spatial and temporal scale, as the former spreads over long periods of time and covers the entire globe while the latter is comparatively fixed in time and place. Therefore, while weather is observed in the present, thinking about climate science requires one to think historically. Different data gathered by different people, in different political settings, using different apparatus and measurement techniques, constitute knowledge of the climate. In order to bring all the data on to one platform, and make it coherent, data has to be generated using models. This is labeled as ‘model-data symbiosis’, which refers to the co-dependency of data on models and vice versa. Philosophers of science have interpreted models as mediators between theory, apparatuses and the real world. Even when raw data is obtained, it is obtained through instruments, in which some form of modeling is built in already. This symbiosis is necessary, and it can be observed in all forms of sciences to some extent. For this reason, conceiving models as purely theory-based and data as figures generated through unguided observation of nature is simply foolish and unrealistic.

Infrastructural inversion is a useful concept in this regard, as it refers to how present infrastructure is used to analyse, or rather re-analyse, past data. This is a dialectical relationship which compels the infrastructure to engage in continuous self-interrogation, examination and reexamination of its own past. This includes several processes of revisiting and reevaluating, such as visiting individual weather stations’ records, identifying inconsistencies, removing outlying data points and other such procedures. For it to be effective, this re-analysis is conducted on a global scale. As per Edwards (2010), ‘global re-analysis’ is likely to produce the most accurate set of data ever produced, despite the fact that most data points would be produced from reanalysis models instead of being drawn directly from observation (p. 253-254).

Climate science is a science of complexity and interaction. It does not, or rather, cannot, take place in isolation. It requires the study of a complex web of interwoven connections, and it has the capacity to instigate change while undergoing change itself.

Edwards (2010) claims that nature is not a separate entity, preceding humanity or existing outside of the domain of human influence, but a product of humans’ interactions with it. It is constantly changing as humans change. Barad (2007) conception of the world as a whole, instead of as divided into distinct natural and social domains, ties up with this idea. Barad’s concept of agential realism points out that all entities, human and non-human, have agency that affect each other. Agential realism provides a framework, in which all acitivities of seeking knowledge, such as observing, computing and theorizing “are material practices of intra-acting within and as part of the world. We do not uncover preexisting facts about independently existing things as they exist frozen in time”, rather we learn about the world in its becoming, a phenomenon that we are automatically participating in (p. 90-91). This does not simply suggest that our tools of observation and engagement with the world have real consequences; it suggests that we play a role in reconfiguring the world itself while being reconfigured in return. Our ways of knowing are constantly producing change as a result of their interaction and intra-action, wherein “intra-action signifies the mutual constitution of entangled agencies” (p. 33).

The criticism over the lack of objectivity of climate science because of its dependence on models, instead of data, becomes moot when the objectivity of data itself is called into question. Barad (2007) does precisely that by casting a doubt on the neutrality of not just on data collection and analysis as is commonly done, but even the instruments of data generation. For Barad, apparatuses are phenomenon in themselves. They are instruments designed to work a certain way for a certain purpose, and if need be, they can even be changed as they being used in a scientific experiment. “Apparatuses are not preformed, interchangeable objects that sit on a shelf waiting to serve a particular purpose, as any experimentalist will confirm. Apparatuses are constituted through particular practices that are perpetually open to rearrangements, re-articulations, and other re-workings” (p. 170).

The above discussion shows why models are so essential for the study and practice of climate science. In conclusion, it can be said that data-generation and model-making are co-dependent phenomenon that necessarily have to work together to produce knowledge of science in general, and the climate in particular.

Bibliography

Edwards, P. N. (2010). A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Abstract

In his book, In the Swarm, Byung-Chul Han talks about how present day society is becoming increasingly digital. He shows how it has become a surveillance society, which he likens to a Panopticon-like structure that is being watched over by the Big Brother. In the light of Han’s central ideas about digital surveillance society, I will explore Orwell’s depiction of Big Brother’s surveillance society in his book, 1984. I will draw upon key themes and motifs in Orwell’s work to elaborate on Han’s idea of modern-day surveillance.  

To analogize Han’s ideas about digital society to Orwellian society, I will discuss certain specific symbols in 1984, including Big Brother, Newspeak, telescreens and the various oxymoronically-named ministries.

Orwellian society is characterized by fear, mistrust and a constant threat of information disclosure. Han (2017) explains that in modern society, Big Brother has been replaced by Big Data. Because there is such an excess of information, trust is neither possible nor needed (p. 71) in the digitalized world.

Newspeak, the official language of Oceania, narrows down language in order to control human thought. It is similar to Han’s idea of how social media, by depriving human communication of tactility and physicality, is preventing human interaction from existing in its entirety (p. 21). Digital society is afflicted with ‘manual atrophy’, and is thus losing the Heideggerian hand, which is not only a medium of action but also a medium of thinking (p. 37). Newspeak lacks words that have opposites, because that allows for the possibility of contradiction. Han claims that the Facebook ‘like button’, which is only capable of communicating positivity, and which quantifies communication, has replaced ‘discourse’ (p. 68).

Han’s ‘noise’ society is depicted in Orwell’s blaring two-way telescreens since they emit constant propagandist views, are unavoidable, and cripple a person’s ability to think clearly without interruption. For Han, the medium of thinking is quiet, and the constant ‘noise’ created by digital society inhibits clear and effective communication (p. 19).

Han engages in a discussion on the anti-social nature of social media and the compulsive freedom of a smartphone, where a compulsion to communicate is created by the freedom to communicate (p.34). This antithetical nature of modern-day technology to its stated purpose reminds one of Orwell’s oxymoronic naming of ministries, where the Ministry of Peace waged war, the Ministry of Truth tampered with historical records, and so on.

Besides these similarities, there are also key differences in the surveillance society as conceptualized by Han and the one depicted by Orwell. Orwellian society is controlled by disallowing individual freedom and governing the masses as a collective unit, whereas digital society is controlled by promoting individualization over collectivization. While the former is controlled by one powerful, omniscient entity that surveys individuals, the latter is one where each individual is both the surveyor and the surveyed.

In conclusion, my paper explores how Han’s digital society is reflected in Orwell’s fictional 1984 society, and how the two are philosophical variants of the same surveillance society.

Reading List

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.

Fuchs, C., & Trottier, D. (2015). Towards a theoretical model of social media surveillance in contemporary society. Communications, 40(1), 113–135.

Han, B. (2017). In the swarm: digital prospects (E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Reflective Summary of STS

Having taken a course called Scientific Methods last semester, I had a very narrow conception of what constituted the field of science. To me, science was universal, objective, bias-free and followed a certain prescribed method which could not be modified if one were to remain in the domain of science (in short, for me, science completely followed the Mertonian norms). The STS course introduced me to a unique way of looking at the field of science. It showed me how science and society were simultaneously being co-produced, and how they did not exist as separate entities, but existed only in relation to each other.

It changed the way I thought about science and I began to observe the overlap between science and society more often in my daily life and in my academic work.

I was working on my thesis on solid waste management (SWM) in Karachi alongside taking the STS course. As a result of this course, I started to observe that the majority of the academic papers written on the subject of waste management problems and its solutions for Karachi had a very narrow approach to science as a means to solve the problem. While most of them did propose the use of technology and scientific models for the improvement of the SWM system, they did not consider the social, economic or political context of the problem. They conceived SWM technology as a completely separate field which had no concern with the social setting of the problem. In my thesis, I try to challenge this narrowly conceived notion of technology by drawing upon Mauss’s notion of technique.

As presented in my blog, I have created a Facebook page called Students against Thalassemia, in order to spread awareness about the fatal disease and communicate how easily avoidable the disease is to university students. I shared stories of real people affected by the disease to create emotional impact, alongside easy tips on how to avoid the disease. I chose the medium of video because I thought it was more effective in reaching out to the community than written content. Most Thalassemia clinics and treatment centers had brochures and banners which illiterate people could not read. I also designed the content of my videos to address some of the most commonly raised concerns by members of the community, as I learned through my discussions with community health workers and doctors at Thalassemia centers. For example, one concern that I try to address in my videos is that of people thinking that testing for Thalassemia, and discovering they were a Thalassemia-minor would mean that they would not be able to marry another Thalassemia-minor person anymore. For this reason, many people treat testing for Thalassemia as taboo. I explain why that does not have to be the case, and why marriage and childbirth is still possible between two Thalassemia-minor persons. In short, through my project, I was trying to make information about a public health issue more accessible to the public. After reading the book, Ebola: How a People’s Science Helped End an Epidemic by Paul Richards, I learned about the concept of a people’s science and recognized how important it was especially in regards to public health. I also realized that what I was trying to do with my Thalassemia awareness project was one form of practicing a people’s science. After reading the book, I have decided to develop an even more culturally sensitive outlook that could convince people to join the effort to prevent Thalassemia without offending their religious or cultural sensibilities. For this purpose, I plan to ask the affectees to identify ways to explain Thalassemia and its prevention strategies to the general public. 

Furthermore, Kleinman’s book on bio-colonization and the intellectual property wars has inspired me to write an article or blogpost about the intellectual property regime in the modern day. I wish to write about the health and environmental benefits of bathroom practices commonly found in the developing world versus those commonly found the developed world, wherein I discuss the benefits of using bidets (or water-pots) and relieving oneself sitting in a squatting position instead of using toilet paper and defecating in a sitting position. Using the framework of colonialism, I plan to explore why the former practices have slowly been dying out in the so-called third-world as they were labeled as lacking the refinement and sophistication of first-world practices, while at the same time, they are being gradually adopted by companies in developed countries who are re-inventing these concepts and gadgets and copy-righting them.

These are some of the ways in which I have already implemented STS learnings in my life, and the ways in which I plan to carry these lessons forward.

On an ending note, I would like to recommend some other readings related to the subject of STS. Since environment is one of my core areas of research, most of the books that I have read related to the field of STS center on environmental problems. I am going to recommend two books that are very informative but have been written in an easy-to-read, journalistic style which make them accessible and enjoyable for the lay reader.

1. Slow violence and environmentalism of the poor by Rob Nixon

This is one of my favorite books on the subject of environmental activism. It was recommended to me by one of my professors who taught me a course on human rights at Stanford University. The book discusses the various kinds of environmental disasters created by human activity on earth, including global warming, deforestation, extinction of many species, and nuclear disasters. It describes these activities as ‘slow violence’, a cleverly devised term, which encapsulates the atrocious nature of the crimes committed against the environment and marginalized populations by equating it with ‘violence’, while showing the reason for inattention given to these crimes against humanity/environment, which is the ‘slow’-ness of their impacts.  He uses the work of several writers-cum-activists, including the likes of Anudharti Roy and Wangaari Mathai, to provide examples of slow violence. 

2. Dumping in Dixie. Race, Class and Environmental Quality by Robert Bullard