Much of Crichton's work can be seen as writings on the ethics of technology. So, it bears explaining just what exactly the ethics of technology entails. First, ethics are a set of guidelines in an area of human activity that tell us appropriate ways to behave in order to find an appropriate balance between the well being of individuals and the need for harmony in society. Or, in very simple terms, what do people need to do in order to get on and get along. As ethical behavior becomes institutionalized and grounded in our grand narratives, it become morality.
The ethics of technology addresses those situations that arise as a result of new technologies. Recall from previous posts that technologies, in the large sense, are ways of bringing out reliable changes, or altering the future from its natural course. When we produce a new future, intentionally or unintentionally, we must take responsibility for it. Better yet, we should take responsibility before it happens and decide what a desirable out come would be.
The ethics of technology differs from traditional ethics in that in traditional ethics we may determine the ethical quality of an alternative based upon its consequences. However, in the case of new technologies we may not be able to determine consequences. For example, if a new technology were developed that allowed you to read minds would this be a good thing? We have no idea because we have no prior experience with such a thing.
In the ethics of technology we must consider possible consequences and we can do this through stories. Many of Crichton's works can be seen as cautionary tales in the ethics of technology. The Andromeda Stain, which was briefly discussed last week, asks "what if our explorations of space brought back a deadly microbial life form that we were not prepared to handle?" This is certainly a possible consequence. Jurassic Parks asks "what if science and technology were used strictly for profit making ventures?" And in both the book and the movie we saw some possible consequences and their sequels.
This is a theme that runs through many, possibly most, of Crichton's works and we will return to it often.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
The Andromeda Strain
The Andromeda Strain is a science fiction cautionary tale that proved to be a major turning point in Crichton's writing career and a harbinger of things to come. His unique style that seemed to coalesce in this book was unlike anything at the time and set the tone for many of his books to follow.
Perhaps the most significant characteristic of The Andromeda Strain was that it used science fiction to explore issues in the ethics of technology. In this story, a space probe picks up an alien microbe and brings it back to earth suggesting consequences of space exploration that were not being considered at the time. It is a very different life form from anything the scientists had seen before suggesting that if we do find other life in the universe it may not be cute little green men. It is far more likely that it would be a microbial form possibly a life threatening microbial form.
In the story, the government had created a secret laboratory for dealing with such events called Wildfire. Wildfire had all the latest technology but failed to control the microbe. Instead, the microbe just mutated into harmlessness suggesting that nature will go its way and all of our technology is powerless to stop it. These themes of unexpected consequences and the uselessness of our technology for dealing with them will become common themes in later books and brought to a crescendo in his masterpiece Jurassic Park.
We also see one of Crichton's signature techniques in The Andromeda Strain. He provides ostensibly factual material sprinkled throughout the story to provide greater credibility to the story. This technique works in two ways. First, it serves to make the fantastic scenario in the story more believable. And as we believe the story, we cannot help to see how easily we believe things when they are presented as factual scientific information.
Most readers were first introduced to Crichton in The Andromeda Strain as it was his first best seller book. And it has held up well over time. Although space travel is not the focus that it was in the late 1960's, nothing has happened since then to make this book seem out of date. We still have space probes. We still run the risk of bringing back harmful micro organisms. And we are no more prepared to deal with such an eventuality today than we were in the late 1960's.
Perhaps the most significant characteristic of The Andromeda Strain was that it used science fiction to explore issues in the ethics of technology. In this story, a space probe picks up an alien microbe and brings it back to earth suggesting consequences of space exploration that were not being considered at the time. It is a very different life form from anything the scientists had seen before suggesting that if we do find other life in the universe it may not be cute little green men. It is far more likely that it would be a microbial form possibly a life threatening microbial form.
In the story, the government had created a secret laboratory for dealing with such events called Wildfire. Wildfire had all the latest technology but failed to control the microbe. Instead, the microbe just mutated into harmlessness suggesting that nature will go its way and all of our technology is powerless to stop it. These themes of unexpected consequences and the uselessness of our technology for dealing with them will become common themes in later books and brought to a crescendo in his masterpiece Jurassic Park.
We also see one of Crichton's signature techniques in The Andromeda Strain. He provides ostensibly factual material sprinkled throughout the story to provide greater credibility to the story. This technique works in two ways. First, it serves to make the fantastic scenario in the story more believable. And as we believe the story, we cannot help to see how easily we believe things when they are presented as factual scientific information.
Most readers were first introduced to Crichton in The Andromeda Strain as it was his first best seller book. And it has held up well over time. Although space travel is not the focus that it was in the late 1960's, nothing has happened since then to make this book seem out of date. We still have space probes. We still run the risk of bringing back harmful micro organisms. And we are no more prepared to deal with such an eventuality today than we were in the late 1960's.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Five Patients: The Hospital Explained
Most of Crichton's work is fiction. However, he did write a few nonfiction, and Five Patients is the first of those. It is basically five case studies of patients at Massachusetts General Hospital that Crichton uses as a vehicle to introduce the reader to what actually goes on at a hospital and to make a few points regarding the state of medicine, health care and even insurance. It is not, in my opinion, a great read. But it is an important work to examine when looking at the evolution of Crichton's style.
Prior to this book, Crichton was writing primarily in the detective genre under the pen name of John Lange. A Case of Need written under the pen name of Jeffrey Hudson was a transition novel that combined a mystery with commentary on the medical profession as well as public policy issue. If Crichton had continued to write detective fiction, following in the trajectory established by his novels prior to Five Patients, he almost certainly would still have been a major author. His books were promising and he was beginning to take on larger social issues such as the issue of abortion in A Case of Need.
It is also interesting to note that if you consider the emerging trajectory which included A Case of New and Five patients and later went on to include the long running TV series ER, we can see another path to success. The roots of ER show clearly in Five Patients where Crichton exposes the reader to the raw human dynamic side of life in the ER along with a heavy does of technical medicine.
At this point we see several themes emerging. Crichton offers a healthy dose of nonfiction science to inform the reader and bolster the credibility of what he is saying. And, he comments on public policy issues. In five patients, he takes on health insurance and the rising cost of health care. In fact, in the Afterward, he states "Hospitals are becoming so expensive that financial considerations will soon become the paramount determination of function." Yes, that was nearly forty year ago and rings eerily true considering our recent debates on health care.
So, at this point there are two competing trajectories: detective fiction and medical fiction. Which way will he go? Well, since we already know about the success of the TV series ER it appears that the detective fiction died out in favor of the medical fiction. But in reality a new trajectory would emerge beginning with a book published a year earlier. The book was his first major best seller and set the course for much of his later work. It was The Andromeda Strain and that is the book we will look at next.
Prior to this book, Crichton was writing primarily in the detective genre under the pen name of John Lange. A Case of Need written under the pen name of Jeffrey Hudson was a transition novel that combined a mystery with commentary on the medical profession as well as public policy issue. If Crichton had continued to write detective fiction, following in the trajectory established by his novels prior to Five Patients, he almost certainly would still have been a major author. His books were promising and he was beginning to take on larger social issues such as the issue of abortion in A Case of Need.
It is also interesting to note that if you consider the emerging trajectory which included A Case of New and Five patients and later went on to include the long running TV series ER, we can see another path to success. The roots of ER show clearly in Five Patients where Crichton exposes the reader to the raw human dynamic side of life in the ER along with a heavy does of technical medicine.
At this point we see several themes emerging. Crichton offers a healthy dose of nonfiction science to inform the reader and bolster the credibility of what he is saying. And, he comments on public policy issues. In five patients, he takes on health insurance and the rising cost of health care. In fact, in the Afterward, he states "Hospitals are becoming so expensive that financial considerations will soon become the paramount determination of function." Yes, that was nearly forty year ago and rings eerily true considering our recent debates on health care.
So, at this point there are two competing trajectories: detective fiction and medical fiction. Which way will he go? Well, since we already know about the success of the TV series ER it appears that the detective fiction died out in favor of the medical fiction. But in reality a new trajectory would emerge beginning with a book published a year earlier. The book was his first major best seller and set the course for much of his later work. It was The Andromeda Strain and that is the book we will look at next.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
What Is Technology?
Science and technology are constant themes in Crichton's work. In previous posts, I attempted to clarify what science is and some of the social problems that surround it. In this thread, I will attempt to clarify what technology is and some of the social and ethical problems surrounding it.
Technology is not what most people think that it is. So before attempting to define it, I want to dispel two common misconceptions regarding the nature of technology. First, many people think of technology as applied science. Science figures things out and technology applies that knowledge. This seriously misses the contributions of technology itself to those applications; and saying that technology is applied science is like saying that the culinary arts are just applied agriculture. The analogy is apt because, in both cases, necessary raw materials are produced by the former, but the later still has a lot of work to do.
Second, people often think of technology as the gadgets that populate and sometimes even define the modern world. Computers, DVD players, cell phones, the Internet, and so on are all examples of technology.
A few posts back, I stated "Science is, first and foremost, a process". While we tend to view the products of that process as science, science is the process and the products are the products. Similarly, technology is a process and we also tend to view the products of that process as technology. But, again, technology is the process and the products are the products.
So, what is technology? If we go back to the roots of the word we can get some insight into its nature. Technology comes from two ancient Greek words: techné and logos. Techné is a reliable process by which a desired result is produced. We can think of the word as meaning craft although our modern understanding of a craft is a bit less disciplined than techné. Logos is a rigorous understanding of an area of inquiry. So, biology (bios logos), for example, is a rigorous understanding of life. Technology is a rigorous understanding of how to produce desired results. Our modern word, engineering captures much of this. Unfortunately, our modern understanding of the word engineering is, perhaps, a little too disciplined for the concept of technology. Persuasive rhetoric is certain a body of knowledge about how to produce a desired result. But, few people would refer to it as persuasion engineering.
Nonetheless, technology is a body of knowledge about how to produce desired results. The focus of science is the things that make up the natural world. The focus of technology are the things that are not yet part of the natural (or social) world but could be.
Technology is not what most people think that it is. So before attempting to define it, I want to dispel two common misconceptions regarding the nature of technology. First, many people think of technology as applied science. Science figures things out and technology applies that knowledge. This seriously misses the contributions of technology itself to those applications; and saying that technology is applied science is like saying that the culinary arts are just applied agriculture. The analogy is apt because, in both cases, necessary raw materials are produced by the former, but the later still has a lot of work to do.
Second, people often think of technology as the gadgets that populate and sometimes even define the modern world. Computers, DVD players, cell phones, the Internet, and so on are all examples of technology.
A few posts back, I stated "Science is, first and foremost, a process". While we tend to view the products of that process as science, science is the process and the products are the products. Similarly, technology is a process and we also tend to view the products of that process as technology. But, again, technology is the process and the products are the products.
So, what is technology? If we go back to the roots of the word we can get some insight into its nature. Technology comes from two ancient Greek words: techné and logos. Techné is a reliable process by which a desired result is produced. We can think of the word as meaning craft although our modern understanding of a craft is a bit less disciplined than techné. Logos is a rigorous understanding of an area of inquiry. So, biology (bios logos), for example, is a rigorous understanding of life. Technology is a rigorous understanding of how to produce desired results. Our modern word, engineering captures much of this. Unfortunately, our modern understanding of the word engineering is, perhaps, a little too disciplined for the concept of technology. Persuasive rhetoric is certain a body of knowledge about how to produce a desired result. But, few people would refer to it as persuasion engineering.
Nonetheless, technology is a body of knowledge about how to produce desired results. The focus of science is the things that make up the natural world. The focus of technology are the things that are not yet part of the natural (or social) world but could be.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
A Case of Need
A Case of Need occupies an interesting transitional place in the works of Micheal Crichton, and, I have to confess, that, at this point, I have far more questions than answers. The premise of the book is that a young woman has died of a botched abortion and a doctor who performs illegal abortions is charged with the murder. The protagonist, another doctor and a friend of the one charged does not believe the charge is legitimate and sets out to find out what happened.
Even though the book is published under the name of Jeffery Hudson, it is not a major departure from the preceding books published under the pseudonym of John Lange. I am not sure, at this point, why Crichton decided to switch names. I will have to look into that. I heard him say, in an interview, that Jeffery Hudson was a dwarf, and he found that amusing since in real life Crichton was very tall. But that does not seem to be an adequate explanation. The book is a mystery, written in a noir style not unlike Grave Descend, and the protagonist is a doctor, as was the case in Zero Cool. Had this been the last John Lange book, it would have fit right in.
On the other hand, we see some indications of where Crichton will be going in the future. You can see the roots of ER in his unflinching, perhaps even cynical, look at the realities of life in the medical profession. He enhances the credibility of the story by providing abundant medical information. And he takes on a social cause. The book was published in 1968. Roe v. Wade was not until 1973. So illegal abortions were still, very much, a social issue.
I found the book to be a very enjoyable read. As I approached the end, I slowed down not wanting it to end. At the very it weakened a bit almost as though it had to be finished to meet a deadline of some kind. But, overall, it was a delightful book and I will revisit it from time to time in future posts.
Even though the book is published under the name of Jeffery Hudson, it is not a major departure from the preceding books published under the pseudonym of John Lange. I am not sure, at this point, why Crichton decided to switch names. I will have to look into that. I heard him say, in an interview, that Jeffery Hudson was a dwarf, and he found that amusing since in real life Crichton was very tall. But that does not seem to be an adequate explanation. The book is a mystery, written in a noir style not unlike Grave Descend, and the protagonist is a doctor, as was the case in Zero Cool. Had this been the last John Lange book, it would have fit right in.
On the other hand, we see some indications of where Crichton will be going in the future. You can see the roots of ER in his unflinching, perhaps even cynical, look at the realities of life in the medical profession. He enhances the credibility of the story by providing abundant medical information. And he takes on a social cause. The book was published in 1968. Roe v. Wade was not until 1973. So illegal abortions were still, very much, a social issue.
I found the book to be a very enjoyable read. As I approached the end, I slowed down not wanting it to end. At the very it weakened a bit almost as though it had to be finished to meet a deadline of some kind. But, overall, it was a delightful book and I will revisit it from time to time in future posts.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Social Issues in Science
Following up on the previous posts on science, we can identify at least three major issues with respect to science that science, as an epistemology, cannot answer for us. These are questions about science that cannot be answered by science and consequently can be thought of as limitations of science.
First of all, when can we treat knowledge that was acquired through scientific inquiry as truth? There are abundant examples of scientists changing their mind about things and this is a good thing. It would be terrible if scientists stuck steadfastly to old ideas despite new evidence or new thinking. However, at what point along the discovery process do we accept scientific truth as true enough for now? When do we teach it as truth and when do we use it in making decisions?
Second, if we think a bit of knowledge is true or true enough, what does it mean and what are the implications? For example, penicillin was discovered to be an effective antibiotic. That relationship between penicillin and microbes was discovered and validated scientifically. But what does that mean? Does it mean you can give people penicillin to cure bacterial illnesses? It would seem so. But it isn't quite that clear. Some people have allergies to penicillin. Using penicillin creates bacteria that are resistant to it. Saving lives means additional population and a greater strain on resources. What do we do about those things? Science is not quite as well equipped to give us answers there.
Third, what should we do about the knowledge we acquire scientifically. Let's say that a particular ethnic group is discovered to excel at a particular kind of work or prone to a particular kind of anti-social behavior. Should than information be used in public policy decisions? Science is prudently silent on that issue.
The problem here is that we take what science is good at - discovering reliable knowledge, over time, about the natural world - and extrapolate that to things science is not good at - implications, meaning, and possibilities.
This is a theme that Crichton returns to time and time again. We have almost a blind faith in science to answer all of our questions (beyond knowledge about the natural world) and this blind faith is seriously misplaced.
First of all, when can we treat knowledge that was acquired through scientific inquiry as truth? There are abundant examples of scientists changing their mind about things and this is a good thing. It would be terrible if scientists stuck steadfastly to old ideas despite new evidence or new thinking. However, at what point along the discovery process do we accept scientific truth as true enough for now? When do we teach it as truth and when do we use it in making decisions?
Second, if we think a bit of knowledge is true or true enough, what does it mean and what are the implications? For example, penicillin was discovered to be an effective antibiotic. That relationship between penicillin and microbes was discovered and validated scientifically. But what does that mean? Does it mean you can give people penicillin to cure bacterial illnesses? It would seem so. But it isn't quite that clear. Some people have allergies to penicillin. Using penicillin creates bacteria that are resistant to it. Saving lives means additional population and a greater strain on resources. What do we do about those things? Science is not quite as well equipped to give us answers there.
Third, what should we do about the knowledge we acquire scientifically. Let's say that a particular ethnic group is discovered to excel at a particular kind of work or prone to a particular kind of anti-social behavior. Should than information be used in public policy decisions? Science is prudently silent on that issue.
The problem here is that we take what science is good at - discovering reliable knowledge, over time, about the natural world - and extrapolate that to things science is not good at - implications, meaning, and possibilities.
This is a theme that Crichton returns to time and time again. We have almost a blind faith in science to answer all of our questions (beyond knowledge about the natural world) and this blind faith is seriously misplaced.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Should Pirate Latitudes Have Been Published?
Should Pirate Latitudes have been published? Jane Julius Honchell raised this question last week in an interesting article on the perils of posthumous publishing. She makes some good points.
The heirs don't really need the money and we don't know if the author (Crichton) would have approved of releasing the book in its current form.
However, I am glad that it was published. There are three reason why this is the case. First, I enjoyed the book; perhaps not as much as Jurassic Park. But I enjoyed it. Second, I have been making the case that Crichton has attempted to write in a variety of styles, perhaps mimicking the styles of other authors. Pirate Latitudes provides us with yet another example of this.
But one of the things I found most interesting about Pirate Latitudes was the fact that it was clearly not ready for publication. There are endless amateurish mistakes that a master like Crichton would not have made in a final product. These mistakes give us insight into the writing process and help us understand why a master is a master.
The real question here is who really owns the work of an artist? Not from a legal perspective but from a moral perspective. Next time I will argue that once the writer is finished with a work, it is owned by the readers.
The heirs don't really need the money and we don't know if the author (Crichton) would have approved of releasing the book in its current form.
However, I am glad that it was published. There are three reason why this is the case. First, I enjoyed the book; perhaps not as much as Jurassic Park. But I enjoyed it. Second, I have been making the case that Crichton has attempted to write in a variety of styles, perhaps mimicking the styles of other authors. Pirate Latitudes provides us with yet another example of this.
But one of the things I found most interesting about Pirate Latitudes was the fact that it was clearly not ready for publication. There are endless amateurish mistakes that a master like Crichton would not have made in a final product. These mistakes give us insight into the writing process and help us understand why a master is a master.
The real question here is who really owns the work of an artist? Not from a legal perspective but from a moral perspective. Next time I will argue that once the writer is finished with a work, it is owned by the readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
