A Life Through the Lens

I ended my last post with a trailer from the new "Life in a Day" movie. The film is meant to "serve as a time capsule to show future generations what it was like to be alive on the 24th of July 2010." One of the reasons I was so attracted to this film is because it shows us how something as simple as making a recording (even of the most seemingly trivial events) can provide insight and knowledge into other cultures.

I recently discovered that one of my friends is involved in a similar project. Her group has embarked upon a journey to prove that recording our day-to-day events provides a medium for universal connection, and subsequently, a more vibrant and cohesive global community.

Their project is called Nancy May Flowers: A Life Through the Lens.

Nancy M. Flowers

They are researching the human obsession with self-documentation through the life of Nancy May Flowers. Their mission? To uncover what a "lifetime of photographs can reveal about our obsession with digital identities."

Please visit their website, watch their video, and back their project so that they can continue this intriguing work.

Internet Innovations: Cause for paranoia and pessimism or optimism and openness?

About a month ago, I had the unique opportunity to attend a briefing on Capitol Hill, led by Herb Lin, a cyberanalyst at the National Academies. A clip of Herb Lin is embedded below:

In the lecture I attended, Lin explained that as the world becomes more interconnected, cyberattack poses  and increasingly ominous threat to every nation. While it may not cause physical harm (which, as Lin explained, many people believe to be the definition of the use of force) it can disable economies and disrupt livelihoods. 

The United Nations recognized how detrimental a cyberattack could be, in a recent report declared Internet blackouts to be a violation of human rights. Their premise is that "by enabling individuals to exchange information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders, the Information allows access to information and knowledge that was previously unattainable. This, in turn, contributes to the discovery of the truth and progress of society as a whole." The report even claims that access to the Internet is equally as vital as access to food.

Probably influenced by this statement, the Pentagon declared in the end of May that cyberattack can be considered an act of war. While this decision seems necessary, as cyberattacks can be both dangerous and disabling, I feel that it also heightens the chances for preemtive technological warfare. As Lin explains in his clip above, and detailed more in person at the briefing, there is really no way to guard against cyberattacks. He states above that the only way to go on the defensive, is to launch an offensive attack. 

This strange paradigm reminds me so much of Cold War politics, in which there was no way to defend against a nuclear weapon--countries could only fight by launching preemptive "hot wars." I believe that cyberattack could cause our current international order to revert to a stage of mutually assured destruction through cyberwarfare, particularly since we will only grow increasingly dependent on technology.

There are currently many hacking organizations that are capable of both attacking and exploiting information at the highest levels. One example is LulSec, a group that seems relatively harmless, but recently hacked NATO websites to prove that their defenses were weak. The full letter pokes fun at the FBI and exposes flaws in their online security. Here is the beginning of the letter (read the full version by clicking on the link above):

"It has come to our unfortunate attention that NATO and our good friend Barrack Osama-Llama 24th-century Obama have recently upped the stakes with regard to hacking. They now treat hacking as an act of war. So, we just hacked an FBI affiliated website (Infragard, specifically the Atlanta chapter) and leaked its user base. We also took complete control over the site and defaced it, check it out if it's still up: http://infragardatlanta.org/..."

Governments also use cyberattack to disable enemies. Britain recently used hacking technology to gain access to an Al-Queda magazine, replacing its bomb-making instructions with recipes for cupcakes. The hacking also removed sensitive information from the magazine, such as articles by Osama bin Laden and a piece called "What to Expect in Jihad."

Despite the current hacking and technological threats, I am still inclined to think positively about the innovation occurring so rapidly. I had the opportunity to hear Ralph Nader give a lecture, in which he stated that we can use technology to "connect classrooms to our communities."He was a huge proponent of using technology to impact people through civic involvement, just as we have been discussing all semester. 

Organizations with this mission are beginning to emerge everywhere. One such group is Kiva, whose mission statement is to "connect people through lending to alleviate poverty. Leveraging the internet and a worldwide network of microfinance institutions, Kiva lets individuals lend as little as $25 to help create opportunity around the world."

Although throughout the semester I have uncovered many instances of the dangers underlying technology, such as cyberattack. However, at the conclusion of the class, I am inclined to be a technophile rather than a technophobe. Technology provides the world with increased financial access for the poor, cheaper healthcare, and, most importantly, it unites people in new ways.  I will conclude by embedding the trailer for the "Life in a Day" project, coming to theaters very soon. This conclusion seems appropriate, as the movie uses film, internet, Facebook, and Twitter to create a connection that is all at once individual and universal. 

When Profit Trumps Security: The problem of corruption in mobile banking

The CBS news report above is an incredible testament to the central role that mobile phones are beginning to take in our financial lives. According to the report, smartphones is on the way to revolutionizing the way we conduct our banking. 

The report says that financial analysts concur that "smart phones will be the key to making mobile banking accessible to the masses, and when that happens, banking as we know it today could be history." I found the segment about Near Field Communication (NFC) particularly fascinating. As the analyst says, entities beyond the bank are going to completely change their infrastructure and technology to accommodate mobile banking. People will be able to purchase their coffee in the morning with a quick swipe of their phone.

These predictions are not totally surprising, as mobile banking has evolved dramatically over the last five years. One increasingly influential innovation is the usage of "apps" for mobile banking. In fact, "Virtually every large bank and many regional banks and credit unions have rolled out applications that allow their clients to use a mobile phone for fund transfers, bill payments and even check deposits." 

The person-to person payment system, in which instantaneous transactions could occur at the tip of  one's fingers is also fascinating. However, this reminded me of some of Alice Liu's comments in class on Tuesday. She said that often, mobile banking in not well-tracked and there are many ways for "elicit transactions to happen." After doing some research, I found that the implications of this emerging system are also frightening. A whole "new generation of phishing scams" could occur as a result of this new system. Senior analyst at Aite firm Nick Holland explains that fraudulent applications may be even more difficult to detect than fraudulent websites, because buying them from an "app store" gives them the appearance of credibility. 

The following is a link to an insightful YouTube video about the dangers of applications in mobile banking:

Beware of Mobile Banking Dangers

The report describes how mobile banking brings new threats to your money and your security.  The news anchor even states that mobile banking fraud is currently such a sensitive issue that all major banks declined an interview with Channel 4 Action news.

These incidents are not just originating from teenage hackers, or college age students looking to start trouble. An article in the American Banker describes how in a recent incident, "gangsters were trading not just bank account details and card security codes, but mobile phone numbers, as well as e-mail addresses, PIN numbers, passwords and dates of birth of unsuspecting members of the public." The article goes on to describe how "Mobile banking touch points are easier for criminals to gain access to, as they don't have the security layers that Internet sites do." These attacks are giving birth to new detection software, called Client Device Identification (CDI) that accesses data beyond passwords and login information to detect criminal activity at the device level.

Fraud through mobile banking also has severe implications for developing nations, where mobile banking has been so successful. One of the reasons "mobile banking has quickly penetrated developing countries such as Kenya and the Philippines is because the formal financial sector has failed to tap into a huge market composed of the unbanked population." However, the dependency on mobile banking is wrought with danger of fraud here as well because of the dilemma that mobile banking companies face. Alice Liu described this problem as "regulation versus business." 

Banks can either strictly regulate through "Know Your Customer" procedures to prevent fraudulent behavior, but this may reduce their ability to amass as many people in the mobile banking system as possible. Illegal activities occur in a higher rate in these developing countries because banks usually sacrifice security for business. Alice Liu informed us that in many developing countries, "if you can't transact at the time you sign up, people are less likely to use the service." Due to this eagerness to gain customers or lose them, banks allow nearly anyone to open a mobile banking account, without thought to credibility or background checks.

Alice Liu mentioned corruption in the "Hawala" system in Afghanistan, which I find to be one of the most illustrative examples of criminal activity in mobile banking in the Third World. In A Banking System Built for Terror, Meenakshi Ganguly of Time Magazine describes how the Hawala system enables terrorists to launder money through mobile phones without leaving a paper trail. Ganguly explains that with Hawala "Not only is there no paper trail, Ali's system avoids bank charges, transmission delays and foreign exchange regulations. All that hawala requires is trust. And that, ironically, is why it thrives in the underworld." 

These businesses, with all their benefits, are also detrimental not only for individuals who have their information hacked and money stolen. Loosely regulated banking, like Hawala, harms the economies of developing countries, which need foreign exchange deposits, as the mobile system is often used to defraud trade regulations. The only way this problem can be fixed? Banks must commit to placing security above profit.

Collision Course: The destruction of democracy at the intersection of social media and political propaganda

Click on words in large blue font to access external links*

We are all familiar with the images from Egypt that depict crowds of people carrying signs for "Facebook," the word painted on walls, and even stories describing parents who name their children after the social network. The praise is not unwarranted. Many in Egypt see social media as their savior, a tool that enabled them to mobilize against an unjust government (This link contains a fascinating roundtable discussion of the impact of social media, particularly in this uprising).

Although the use of social media in the political movement in Egypt is utterly inspiring, its scope and power are simultaneously terrifying. I recently visited the new "Nazi Propaganda" exhibit at the Holocaust Museum, so the effectiveness of this campaign came to mind. Even in an era during which no mass networking or social media existed, the Nazi party sparked a movement through its use of propaganda. 

Now there exists a forum for these types of ideas to spread more quickly. I began to think about the kind of turmoil that would ensue if social media, such as Facebook, Google, News Channels, and Twitter were utilized to effectively mobilize terrorist groups. These news sources could rapidly disseminate hateful propaganda, targeted at innocent people, and possibly even create an extremist revolution.

After doing a little bit of research, I found that this is not a hypothetical situation. Extremist groups are currently using social media to rally people around their causes. And how is the United States responding to these threats? Our defense tactic is nearly as frightening as the extremist efforts we are targeting.

The United States Army, under General David Petraeus has created software that will allow it to effectively manipulate social media sites. The program allows users to create fake online profiles on blog forums and in chat rooms in order to counter the uprisings of extremist groups. More specifically, the purpose of the program is to disseminate pro-American propaganda. While it is good to know that the United States is formulating defense tactics, it is frightening to imagine the implications of such software, if it were in the wrong hands. What if these fake personas, or "sock puppets" were used in political campaigns? This type of propaganda would certainly be in violation of federal law, but if the users were not caught or identified, it could result in a complete usurpation of the democracy. In fact, this program is even being compared to China's efforts to stifle free speech over the internet.

In a separate article, I found that the Pentagon recently released information on a new intitiative called the Social Media in Strategic Communication program, which they describe as "an effort to get better at both detecting and conducting propaganda campaigns on social media.  Both this example and the "sock puppet program demonstrate that the United States government is becoming incresingly aware of the ideas being spread in the social media sphere, and inventing new ways to secretly manipulate these ideas.

I believe this kind of software is so dangerous because it would attack the core of America, which, as we discussed in class on Tuesday, is now wireless. We came to a consensus that many Americans essentially live through the internet, using online personas to get information, share ideas, and engage in political discussion. 

Aaron Smith's Pew Studies provided us with the statistics to back up this assumption. His research shows that 1/3 of online adults use digital tools rather than websites to get information about government agencies or officials. This means that they are gaining their knowledge from videos, e-mails, blogs, "following" on Twitter, or "fanning" on Facebook. A whopping 26% of Americans used their mobile devices to participate in the 2010 midterm elections and Aaron Smith explained how social media can now reach a wider audience, particularly minorities. If people were using manipulative software which was difficult to track to create "fake personas" to spread false political information as if it were truth, internet discussion would be wrought with nothing less than corruption.

I interviewed a Policy Director for a United States Senator while I was at my internship this week about this topic (I must omit her name for privacy). I asked her if she was equally as overwhelmed by this issue as I was, and her response was:

"I have been doing this job for a long time. I grew up in a time that people questioned the political information they read. They got it mostly from the newspaper. They were looking for real sources. If they read something, they didn't accept it off the bat. Now we live, and you guys have grown up in, a time where you have information at your fingertips. When you get an e-mail, read a blog, go to a website, watch TV, you think it's true because you just trust. I talk to people about policy every day--constituents, lobbyists, even other policymakers. They will throw out a belief, a "fact," anything to back up their viewpoint and I will say "where did you hear that?" They tell me, "I just got it in an e-mail."

She went on to tell me that this belief is shared by many other people on Capitol Hill who see the growth of social and mass media as a detriment to democracy, and not only through such complex tactics as "sock puppets." Many on Capitol Hill feel that social media and instant connection simply provides forums for misinformation and the spread of political ignorance. In an article in The New Republic, Evgeny Morozov explains how this is true about Google, whose motto "Don't Be Evil," may just be propaganda in itself. The article had a particularily interesting section about Google Autocomplete, a feature that provides possible search items after typing a word, or even a few letters into the query box. She describes how autocomplete works by providing completions based on the most frequently sought after topics. Thus, when users type "Barack Obama" autocomplete may yield results that say "Barack Obama is the Antichrist."

In a political campaign, this feature could enable a party to "search" items that would degrade the image of the opposing candidate, regardless of their truth. Google serves about 34,000 searches per second, and 3 Billion searches per day. And, according to Aaron Smith's Pew Studies, 48% of people search a public policy issue online. Therefore, one can only imagine the kind of impact that this searching could have on a political campaign. In fact, "marketers are already hiring people to conduct searches with the intention of tricking Google's Autocomplete into producing favorable suggestions" (Morozov). Political theorist Jurgen Habmeras summed up this type of effect, stating that this type of "technocratic consciousness reflect not the sundering of an ethical situation but the repression of 'ethics' as such a category of life."

I suggest searching politicians names, and seeing what you find (and then imagine that this could happen with your name if someone wanted to destroy your public reputation). This is not only a flagrant breach of privacy but, again, undermines democracy.

At the absolute least, corruption and the use of propaganda in news media spread ignorance and misinformation. I found a fascinating clip online of Minnesota Senator Al Franken showing a group of students, step by step, why statistics on Fox News were simply incorrect. He sums up the video by explaining the exact message I want to communicate to my generation through this entry: "You've got to be able to watch the news, and read the paper, and say 'that doesn't make sense to me'. The age of social media, fake online personas, information which claims to be credible demands that we get smarter about politics, and question the sources feeding us our ideas. Because in the words of Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google himself, "the Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand."

Fearing Treatment: Despite increased accessibility to diagnosis and care, denialism obstructs progress

*Click on words in large blue font to access external links*

In lecture on Tuesday, Jody Ranck, Director of Thought, Policy, and Advocacy in the mHealth and UN Foundation, spoke about the breakthrough work he has done with the Grameen Organization to improve health conditions in developing nations. His success in this effort can be attributed to an innovate approach that focuses on equalizing access to information about health conditions and treatment locations. I went on the Grameen website and was impressed with the MOTECH initiative in Ghana, aimed at helping women access prenatal and antenatal information.

When Ranck began describing breakthrough technologies using mobile imaging, such as MIT's low cost mobile phone eye test, classmates expressed the concern that such technology could lead to the degenerating value of visits to a real doctor. Some argued that this competition with technology could affect a doctors paycheck, changing the whole nature of medical care. Ranck and Professor Roman argued that this situation would probably never exist because of the high value that people place on face-to-face interaction. In my opinion, even if technology did advance far enough to replace visits to the doctor, this would be completely beneficial and legitimate, particularly to the poorest of the poor.

In his essay Spheres of Justice, Professor emeritus at Yale University and leading social theorist Michael Walzer argues that medical care is already too privatized. He states that access to medical care is linked to the dominant good of wealth. Therefore, it is subsequently the rich who disproportionately receive care, even when their conditions are not as serious as those living in poverty. Even in the United States, poor people often go untreated to avoid the copayment in a doctor's office for their diagnosis. This situation would only be magnified in a third world country, where doctor visits would not only be expensive, but also inaccessible as the closest clinic might be miles away from the subjects village. 

To me, the ability of mobile phones to provide free and equal access to diagnosis (regardless of the impact on the medical profession) is nothing more than the enactment of justice. This type of technology is the embodiment of Walzer's theory; it separates the good of wealth from the service of care, two entities which should not be linked. Health is too valuable an asset to be "awarded" to those who can afford it. And, often, the poor are the members of the community who are in the most desperate need of care. Despite criticism from angry doctors, the Grameen Foundation is working to provide diagnoses to the members of the community who need it most.

But what happens if the diagnosis reaches people, but they fear treatment? What if they are too afraid to get diagnosed in the first place? What if the government has attached such a negative stigma to a certain disease that people are terrified to access the care they need? Although we would like to believe that a government so tyrannical could only be hypothetical, we would be wrong. 

There is currently an AIDS crisis in South Africa, in which the government has attached such a negative stigma to HIV that people fear diagnosis. Nicoli Nattrass, a Professor at Yale, spoke on the MacMillan Report on April 19th about the tragedy of AIDS denialism in South Africa. Her interview is below:

She explains that the refusal to provide antiretrovirals for AIDS victims was not a cost-related issue as the government had stated to the public. The basis for this refusal was drawn from a certain set of theories that AIDS did not exist, and that if it did it was harmless. The President and the Health Minister colluded to deny access to treatments. Although treatment has improved today, South Africa still has more HIV positive people than any other nation in the world.

Around the 12 minute point in the interview, Nattrass discusses the issue of disclosure, and the fact that many South African people who are HIV positive are  resistant to admitting their condition, even to family members, for fear of rejection. 

In a report in The Economist called "A Doctor in Your Pocket," Zinhle Thabethe expands upon the problem with denialism. She states that "So great is the stigma attached to the disease that some four-fifths of victims in the region will not venture into their local clinic to get an HIV test. Across South Africa perhaps a quarter of the population is HIV-positive, but fewer than 5% know their status." Enraged by these statistics, the article explains how Thabethe turned to the mobile phone as a solution to the crisis. Her "iTeach" program sends out millions of messages per day to people around South Africa encouraging them to call AIDS hotlines, or visit their local clinics to get tested. iTeach even does this in different languages, specialized for each community!

The article explains how mobile health (mHealth) is increasing awareness all over Africa. In Uganda, a

 text based quiz called "Text to Change" raises AIDS awareness, and has brought a 40% increase in the

 number of people getting tested. In Kenya, electronic health records are being set up through people's

mobile devices, enabling doctors to more effectively identify and treat AIDS patients. This seems like

 an extremely effective and necessary program, especially given Ranck's description of the current flaws

in the patient identification systems.

The article also describes incredible tracking technology based on sophisticated software that."can 'crawl' the web and look for press reports in many languages that point to the outbreak of an unusual disease." Google actually has a program very similar to this, which predicts flu outbreaks around the world.  It is easy to see how a similar initiative could be implemented for HIV detection. 

It is certainly commendable that technology can be used to spread information and predict disease patterns. In my opinion, these breakthroughs are equalizers for medical care, defying Walzer's wealth/care dilemma in society. In many cases, they provide free alternatives for the poor to gain access to vital medical information.

However, a focus on the serious problem of denialism in nations such as South Africa lends credence to the idea that an important piece of the puzzle is still missing. Technology could do more. In developing nations, there must be mobile, or online communities that allow people with diseases to connect and share information. Jody Ranck addressed the practical applicability of such programs when he explained how the Patient to Patient network allowed people with the rare Lou Gehrig's disease to connect and share information via the internet. He gave this as an example of the power of "recombinant" innovation. In other words, we can use existing resources to create new opportunities for people with diseases. 

I think this type of community would have incredible implications for AIDS patients in South Africa. We can use Facebook to connect HIV positive citizens in South Africa so they no longer have to fear diagnosis, or live in silence. Facebook could also be used to rally people around events, such as demonstrations or parades to raise AIDS awareness and promote openness. 

South African AIDS victims openly admitting their condition to fight for care

I imagine the creation of "SMS Support Groups" where patients can exchange numbers, receive free text counseling, or anonymously send concerns. I see the development of awareness blogs, and online sharing resources, like the Patient to Patient program. Such programs could also be targeted at specific subgroups in an HIV positive population, such as rape victims and homosexuals, who often contend with harsh discrimination and societal rejection. Ultimately, information is only the first step. True support, community, and change in corrupt government must be the second. I believe technology can achieve this as well. 

Education or Westernization?

*Click on words in large blue font to access outside links*


"La educación centrada en el papel de la formación ideológica y mitificando la historia. Fue represivo y enseñó una sola identidad nacional: La de Francisco Franco."


Don't speak Spanish? Technology has, yet again, come up with a solution:

This is only the beginning. Predictions state that by 2030 technology will have advanced so far that  learning a second language will no longer be necessary.


But I digress. For those of you who who cannot read the words (and haven't already visited freetranslation.com), the quotation refers to the state of education during the Spanish Civil War, under fascist leader Francisco Franco. It says that the education curriculum under Franco was focused on the role of ideological formation and mythologized history to promote a spirit of "Franco" nationalism among school children. Much literature and film, such as "Las Bicicletas son para el Verano" and "La Lengua de Las Mariposas," reflects upon Franco's repressive education system and criticizes his emphasis on promoting governmental values over objective knowledge.


I realize that the quote in a foreign language, combined with links to apps and predictions for the future, along with a quick history lesson might seem unconnected. However, the point I want to communicate is multi-dimensional. 


As Americans, it is easy for us to view Franco's corrupted education system with a critical eye. Our First Amendment grants us the freedom of speech. It's hard for us comprehend a nation that prohibited the right to criticize and question the government in a classroom. In our country, we like to think that we would never mix nationalist values with education. But what if we are being blinded by American exceptionalism?


In lecture on Tuesday, we discussed a plethora of topics relating to the role of technology in education in third world countries. Our speaker, Mike Trucano of the World Bank, told us about the initiative to distribute laptops in Uruguay. He explained that it was successful because the effort took place at a local level, and was consistent with the national ethos of equality. However, the effort was more to promote widespread access to computers in the homes of Uruguayan citizens rather than to improve education.


Although the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) initiative was relatively successful and widely accepted in Uruguay, it has failed in other developing nations. The Kramer article gave many reasons for this, the most compelling of which I found to be that "Diffusion does not depend only on the nature of the innovation itself...more important is the social and cultural environment in which it will operate." I began to wonder: did the OLPC project in Uruguay work because implementation was highly localized and consistent with national ideology? The failure of OLPC in Peru was due to the "experiment [being] initiated without being explained to the national teachers' union." I found it fascinating that an initiative so positive could generate controversy and dissent.


But then it struck me. What if the technological development in third world countries is not always positive? I began to think about an issue that we did not fully touch in our readings or in our class discussion: the impact of technological initiatives when a developed country is highly involved in distribution and implementation. Specifically, how has United States technological "aid" actually affected developing nations? Did technological assistance carry with it western values, and unanticipated detrimental outcomes?


The answer is yes, in more ways than one. For example, between 1997 and 2004, the United States funded a technological aid program called the Integrated English Language Program-II (IELP-II) in Egypt. The stated goal was to "assist in the integration of instructional technology into teaching and teacher training. However, there were underlying motivations. The United States actually implemented the program for economic, as opposed to educational purposes. In fact, its "major long term goal [was] to better prepare the Egyptian workforce for participation in a [U.S. dominated] export-oriented economy." 


IELP-II had such little success because of its focus on westernization rather than local development. The computer training programs were in English, Egyptian teachers were brought to the U.S. for training courses which they stated were of "little relevance to their needs," and the videoconferencing part of IELP-II was more for the purpose of building a connection between Egyptian and American institutions rather than promoting education locally.  In a design "based on Westernization rather than democratic participation" the program was not only ineffective, but generated increased animosity between the government and teachers as well as promulgating a widespread anti-American sentiment.


In another article about the impact of technology on education in developing nations, Mercy N. Fodje does not deny the importance of the role of technology in schools and communities. However, she notes that "educational programs in the third world have...been designed around western ideals." She recognizes, like Kramer does, that a strong local base for implementation and a deep understanding of the community are necessary for development. She believes that the programs must "reflect the indigenous cultures and promote human values."


While I do not intend to suggest that United States aid is equivalent to the biased educational system of the oppressive dictator Francisco Franco, I do want to draw a parallel. Just as Franco suppressed creativity and openness in education, through our distribution of technological aid in developing nations, we may repress local culture and language in eduction. One more example from an online blog illustrates this point about U.S. aid in Pakistan. Although foreign aid helped communities after the 2005 earthquake, the widespread distribution of cell phones had an unintended outcome. The tradition of whistling as a means of communication was "lost to younger generations since they have cell phones to communicate with."


The United States should not cease in its efforts to promote education through technology in developing nations. However, we must ensure that in these efforts we emphasize local control, internal awareness and cooperation, and a focus on native cultural values and language. Our assistance cannot consist of all-English computer programs, or "apps" like the one at the beginning of the blog to simply translate all other languages to English. The United States may genuinely want to assist countries in bettering their educational systems through technology. But it cannot allow technology to become inextricably connected to western values. This will ultimately result in undermining the original attempt to assist and creating negative perceptions of United States aid. 

Commercials, Controversy and Core Values

*click words in large blue font to access external links*

 

"UNTIL the Great Exposition closed its doors in November, Adams haunted it, aching to absorb knowledge, and helpless to find it. He would have liked to know how much of it could have been grasped by the best-informed man in the world...Then [Langley] showed his scholar the great hall of dynamos, and explained how little he knew about electricity or force of any kind, even of his own special sun...to Adams the dynamo became a symbol of infinity. As he grew accustomed to the great gallery of machines, he began to feel the forty-foot dynamos as a moral force, much as the early Christians felt the Cross."--The Education of Henry Adams, 1918

Humans have been perplexed by technology and science for centuries. In many cultures, faith was used as a way to explain things that were difficult, or seemingly impossible to understand. The above is an excerpt from Henry Adams' personal account of the Great Exposition in 1900. He is expressing his fascination with the "dynamo," or electric generator (to avoid confusion I should mention that he writes in the third person!). He finds himself in awe of an invention so complex that he cannot grasp the science behind it. Yet, its mystery is part of its awe. The dynamo is so mysterious to Adams that he compares its effect on him to the ability of religious objects, such as the cross, to evoke wonder. Ultimately,  Adams concludes that that accepting the science behind the great machine is simply a matter of "faith."

On Tuesday we got into a small in-class debate about the best way to generate interest in science news. Should we market science in a way that skims the surface, but provides tips on how people can improve the environment, educate themselves, and become better citizens? Or should we find an entertaining way to present science so that citizens want to learn about it without sacrificing in-depth knowledge?

As Americans, we live in a capitalist society, where incentive is the motivation behind most decisions. Like Matthew Nisbet said in class, Americans won't want to learn about climate change without an immediate, compelling reason. Advertisers are well aware of this phenomenon, and have strategically manipulated science issues to engage consumers.

Here is a great example from  my Stonyfield yogurt container:

 

Front side of the lid: "A climate change movie that doesn't even care if you believe in climate change. Carbon Nation: gives all sorts of good reasons to reduce carbon emissions. Win a DVD"

The back side the lid: "Reducing carbon emissions isn't just for us environmentalists anymore. Carbon Nation is an entertaining movie that shows how even climate skeptics are reducing carbon emissions to keep the air and water clean and produce jobs, profits, and greater economic strength and national security."

Stonyfield's marketing re frames the issue of climate change. Just as Nisbet explained in class, they are marketing global warming in terms of jobs, profits, clean water, and a stronger economy, issues that are currently of immediate national importance. The yogurt company is selling science by gearing their marketing toward "something the public already values or prioritizes, conveying personal relevance" (Nisbet). Stonyfield understands our capitalist society, and is giving us a strong incentive to care about this issue.

This video is an ad for an Olay cosmetic product. Although it does not pertain to a certain issue, it is an illustration of how advertisers are exploiting the widespread lack of knowledge about chemistry to sell a product. They describe utilizing a concentration of "amino peptide b3 complex" to firm and hydrate the skin. They could have just said protein. Instead, the ad is specifically designed to evoke the same sense of awe from the seemingly "magical" product as Henry Adams felt from the dynamo. After watching, we want to purchase it, not because we understand the science, but because we have "faith" in its ability to work.

What a contradiction! For "faith" is exactly what makes science issues like global warming, evolution, and stem cell research so unnecessarily controversial. I grew up in an extremely conservative area in Western Maryland, where my 10th grade science teacher skipped the chapter on evolution in our biology textbook. She readily admitted being fearful of criticism from the large and vocal minority of students (and their parents) who adhered to a literal reading of the biblical story of creation. The science of evolution causes such a religious uproar because it threatens many Americans' core religious values. The 46% of Americans who reject evolution and think the earth is less than 6,000 years old do not want to accept this science because they think it challenges their fundamental world view, and for them, that's scary. In Nisbet's words, when people get scared they respond in one of two ways: denial or submission.

I suppose this is why new marketing on climate change takes the approach that Stonyfield does. Instead of "scaring us into caring" or threatening long-held beliefs, they tell us its fine if we don't believe in climate change, and give us tips on how to improve our individual lives and national economy. So is this type of science education okay? Can we really skirt around the issues to manipulate people into half-halfheartedly participating? The answer might be more complex than a simple yes or no. Nisbet says that "if the public feels like they are simply being marketed to, this perception is likely to only reinforce existing polarization and perceptual gridlock." He gives the great example of the controversy which resulted from EcoAmerica's attempt to "re-brand" the debate over global warming as the "environment."

However, public communication about science through advertising could be the first step to grabbing the public's attention. For example, if Stonyfield's purchasers followed up and won the DVD advertised on their yogurts, they might develop an interest in reducing carbon emissions. Even if they simply read about the topic or googled "Carbon Emissions," the company would have heightened awareness through its advertising campaign.

But ultimately, this can only be a first step. It is not enough to tell people what actions to take and what products to buy and expect them to trust in the science behind that marketing. This approach puts scientists on the same plane as the closed-minded skeptics whose "faith" they often criticize. They are simply asking the public to have a different kind of "faith" in their research, technology, and theories.

As the public, we deserve more for ourselves, our community, and our future generations. The only way that science progresses is through innovation. We cannot be content in our ignorance, or even submit to it like Adams. We must take on the mental challenge to understand science so that we can make informed decisions.

In order to do this, we must utilize creative resources available to us as well as develop new, and better resources. Nisbet's solutions are a great place to start. Although we are in difficult economic times, we cannot continue to cut funding for programs like NPR when we have spent 1.2 trillion dollars on war since 2001. Instead, we need to increase funding for public radio and television, specifically in the area of science. We also need to make science accessible to groups beyond the elite, engaging the broader public in meaningful dialogue about about the issues. Finally, we must ensure that our schools have a strong science curriculum. Science news can be entertaining, but it must delve into substantive issues. Darlene Cavalier is a leading expert on this strategy.. She realized that "sexy science would sell" and found a way to connect scantily dressed cheerleaders with science! NASA has also created an interactive video game for children (much like the idea I had in my second blog) to engage kids with science. However, it is most important to connect science to people's values in meaningful ways. We can show citizens that it is possible to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific knowledge through face-to-face discussions throughout the community--even in churches!

In my opinion, the most effective way to promote science education is through the development of a strong partnership among scientists, journalists, and advertisers. We must stop using science as an exploitative tool that we manipulate to get consumers to buy our products, or follow our messages. A joint relationship among scientists, journalists and advertisers would foster the creation of sources that inform the public in a straightforward way without sacrificing valuable information. If the public feels defeated and confused by science, they will simply disengage. I believe that the tripartite relationship between these sectors would result in better information, and lead to a greater public incentive to actively engage with science. Furthermore, positive public response to interesting science news would provide scientists, advertisers and journalists with an incentive to continue their profitable partnership. And who knows? What might start as a strategic economic approach could very well lead to the integration of science and technology into the core values of American citizens.