Imprint on the Future by Gerell Malazarte
It has been a pleasure working with you all!
Imprint on the Future by Gerell Malazarte
It has been a pleasure working with you all!
Imprint on the Future by Gerell Malazarte
I chose these two paragraphs because they closely reflect my voice in my writing. I also chose them because they are both very important for my over all paper. The first paragraph is part of my introduction that I am using to draw the reader in. The second paragraph is an important paragraph to my writing as a whole because it lists very important information.
“Over the course of human existence there have been many pivotal inventions that change the way humans live. These life changing inventions comprise of the wheel, compass, printing press, combustion engine, light bulb, telephone, penicillin, internet, etc. and many more to come. The next invention that has the potential to be added to that list is 3D printing. 3D printing, also called additive manufacturing, is the process of making a three-dimensional object by successive layers of various materials laid down under computer control. Throughout 3D printing’s years of operation and alteration, it has become quite an innovative machine. Today 3D printers can print many things such as toys, tools, prosthesis, food, instruments, and molds. Recently scientists, engineers, and doctors integrated the 3D printer to bear the capabilities of printing organs, tissue, cartilage, body aiding contraptions, etc. 3D printing with its versatility and revolutionary effect on the medical field will undoubtedly earn its spot in the worlds most important inventions.
3D printing recently has made large impact on certain individual’s lives and has future plans to affect many more. One individual impacted by this invention is Garret who is mentioned in Nicole Edine’s article 3-D Printers Are Saving Babies’ Lives One Breath At A Time in the The Huffington Post. Edine states that, “Garrett, was born with a weak, soft cartilage in his windpipe – a rare condition called tracheobronchomalacia – which would cause him to stop breathing at a moment’s notice.” In response to this unusual disorder, Scott Hollister, a University of Michigan biomedical engineer, and Dr. Glenn Green, a trachea specialist, created a 3-D-printed flexible splint to hold open his windpipe until it’s strong enough to work independently, at which point it’ll dissolve.” A device like this splint has never been created before.”
Over the course of human existence there have been many pivotal inventions that change the way humans live. These life changing inventions comprise of the wheel, compass, printing press, combustion engine, light bulb, telephone, penicillin, internet, etc. and many more to come. The next invention that has the potential to be added to that list is 3D printing. 3D printing, also called additive manufacturing, is the process of making a three-dimensional object by successive layers of various materials laid down under computer control. Throughout 3D printing’s years of operation and alteration, it has become quite an innovative machine. Today 3D printers can print many things such as toys, tools, prosthetics, food, instruments, and molds. Recently scientists, engineers, and doctors integrated the 3D printer to be capable of printing organs, tissue, cartilage, body aiding contraptions, etc. 3D printing with its versatility and revolutionary effect on the medical field will undoubtedly earn its spot in the worlds most important inventions.
The method of printing organs and bodily tissues, derived from 3D printing, is called bioprinting. bioprinting is a computer-aided bioadditive manufacturing process that deposits living cells together with hydrogel-base scaffolds for 3D tissue and organ fabrication. Although the organs printed from bioprinters are far from actually being transplanted into patients, the invention has come a long way. Bioprinting is just a toe deep in its development, but has already made major breakthroughs with functional organs, tissues and contraptions.
If you take a second to notice many of your friends, family or acquaintances that have ever suffered from an illness or even have passed away, you will come to your attention that it was probably because of a failing organ. Luckily the organ transplant system was created or the number of fatalities would be even higher. But the system is not flawless; patients have to undergo immunosuppressive therapies, which can lower the recipients’ quality of life. Matter of fact the number of organ donors is significantly lower than the number of patients that are in need of an organ transplant. 120,000 patients are waiting for transplants and about some 18 people pass away each day waiting in vain for an organ transplant. Bioprinting might just be the solution for the shortage of organs and the countless number of other illnesses or injuries because in the process of Bioprinting they use your own cells or cells that were grown the be identical to yours so that your body does not reject them. The idea seems far fetch but future ramifications are already being thought up.
You will notice many articles listed out there that state the success stories, future implications, ethical issues, obstacles it will encounter, and possible problems this technology could give rise to. But most of them do not state that the successes are not out weighing the possible problems this technology could cause. They also do not address, solutions to those problems, or the fact that it will change the meaning of life, as we know it.
In addition, if bioprinting does not show any signs of slowing down or halting at a certain goal. Research will continue to drive onward; it won’t just stop at fully functioning organs. Effects toward the future are detrimental and if bioprinting really works, we may draw that much closer to reinventing the very definition of life itself and testing the sustainability limits of our planet. Bioprinting must have serious regulations set upon it or research must come to a complete stop.
I claim that bioprinting will negatively alter life, as we know it
Because it will cause too many moral concerns on top of the many doctors already have to deal with on a daily basis.
Because bioprinting gives rise to too many ethical problems in the future such as the use of stem cells in their research, mixing cells with animal cells, etc.
Because bioprinting will change the meaning of healthcare, insurance, and liability.
Because the social concerns will change the way life goes one from here on out, this technology likes others could soon be abused, etc.
Because before biopriniting continues there are many regulations it must comply with, the major one being the code of ethics by the Biomedical Engineering Society.
APA Citation: Adhikari, R. (2014, March 27). Bioprinting, Part 2 – The Ethical Conundrum. . Retrieved July 25, 2014, from http://www.technewsworld.com/story/80205.html
Live Link to Article: Bioprinting, Part 2 – The Ethical Conundrum
Richard Adhikari continues, from his first article Bioprinting, Part 1 – The Promise and the Pitfalls, in this article to express the ethical side of Bioprinting. Adhikari Initially states the problem that resides in the United States which is the long wait for organ transplants. 3D printing is the best alternative because even organ transplants have to undergo immunosuppressive therapies, which can lower the recipients quality of life.
He then moves to the moral and ethical questions Bioprinting generates. He mentions that money, insurance, moral decisions of who will get treatment, initial patients being guinea pigs, rules and regulations that have to be followed, and the use of 3D printing for athletes and for people that want to change appearance, will all be issues that will come about.
“Nearly 120,000 people in the United States are on the waiting list for an organ transplant that may save their lives, according to the American Transplant Foundation.
“In the short term, we need many more people to register to be a potential organ donor,” Jordan Miller, assistant professor of bioengineering at Rice University, told TechNewsWorld.
However, donor organs require immunosuppressive therapies, which can limit the recipient’s quality of life, so over the long term, the medical community is “extremely excited about focused research funding to help progress 3D-printed organoids and organs for treating human patients.”
The present thinking is that it will take decades to clear up the many technical problems that still have to be resolved before 3D-printed organs can be used for transplants. However, given that improvements in technology tend to follow a logarithmic rather than a linear pattern, the wait might be shorter.”
In this nugget from the article Adhikari answers Linda Federico-O’Murchu’s question, “Even if it technically works, should we be doing it?” on a medical standpoint. As stated in this article the amount of organ donors is too high compared to the amount of patients that need transplants. As a result Brandon Griggs in The next frontier in 3-D printing: Human organs states, “Some 18 people die in the United States each day waiting in vain for transplants because of a shortage of donated organs.” It seems like we should be doing it, but it just is not that easy.
“There already are guidelines to handle patients being exposed to new medical technologies.
Hospital oversight boards would regulate donor issues, cells and tissue for informed consent, Kevin E. Healy, who chairs the department of bioengineering at UC Berkeley, told TechNewsWorld.
A magazine covering ethics in biology, engineering and medicine already exists.
The Biomedical Engineering Society approved a code of ethics back in 2004.
“Medical consent laws and medical ethics have come a long way since the days of Henrietta Lacks,” Rice University’s Miller said. “The FDA has strict safety and efficacy standards for implants made from a patient’s own cells.”
3D printing or Bioprinting seems like the best solution to the organ problem, but in Adhikari’s article I learned about a new twist. Along with all the debatable questions there exists an actual code of ethics for the Biomedical Engineering Society. I generated my research around the ethics of Bioprinting but never actually knew there were codes for it. There is no doubt in my mind new rules will be set on this area of Biomedical Engineering. It could in fact lead officials “to ban the use of 3D printing for human and nonhuman use by 2016” as Adhikari also asserts.
Bioprinting again proves to constantly have loop holes in every advancement it accomplishes. As it continues to grow Bioprinting could either carry many rules and regulations on its back or seize to be permitted.
Critique the in-text citations, signal phrases and links.
The first link about the emotions on Facebook affecting other users was very applicable in this situation. They also summarize the article with one condensed sentence that left out a few points like who wrote the article, credentials and other facts they could have included. They failed at including a signal phrase, in-text citation, and using a useful quote to add to “contagious” Although the link they used was a great definition the word “contagious” used in medical terms it was not relevant to the use of “contagious” in this article. In addition they could have used a better signal phrase and added some in-text citations, but since it was more of a summary it was not needed.
2. There have been studies done on Facebook and all the emotions related to posts. “We have enough power in this data set to show that emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”
This example had a general idea, displayed their point, and included an in-text citation. They also did not use effective signal phrases in their writing. First, they used a rudimentary link of the Facebook log in screen. Although this might be helpful if someone did not know what Facebook was, it should have been stated earlier in their overall writing. Second, like example 1, the positive expression link was a link that had to do with medical issues not psychological or social issues which would have been helpful in this example.
3. Researchers in a new study have found that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. They found enough data to show that “emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”
This example is a combined and better model of example 1 and example 2. They used a great in-text citation, a fairly good signal phrase, and a link to the article they were pulling information from. They did not necessarily fail, but could improve on using a better signal phrase, including credentials, and including more about the data that was found or elaborating on the in-text citation.
4. In a new study, researchers from University of California, San Diego have found that feelings displayed on Facebook are contagious. Publishing a paper in the journal PLOS ONE, the team analyzed over a billion anonymous status updates from more than 100 million Facebook subscribers across the United States and found that positive posts beget positive posts and negative posts beget negative posts. They said that while both are common on the site, the positive posts are more influential. They concluded, “We have enough power in this data set to show that emotional expressions spread online and also that positive expressions spread more than negative.”
The writer used great signal phrases to give credibility to who is speaking, where this article was physically published, and where online it was published. Unlike example 3, which was the best example until this one, example 4 includes statistics and a more elaborate explanation behind the in-text citation that was chosen.
Giving the reader more information about the quote makes it easier to understand and less likely for you to have to find the answer. Lastly the link to the article was a good choice because in the article it detailed on the research as a whole and also offered visuals to their findings. Furthermore, this article also listed all of the other authors that were included in the experiment, essentially giving credit to them.
This “Personal Dynamic Media” by Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg was written by writers way past there time! They have descriptions of cursors. Programs like Word in which you can save, edit, delete, create folders, etc. Programs like Paint in which you can draw in different tones, symbols, and brush shapes. Add animation. Add music. Add simulation. Something like the description of an IPad which is very complex yet so simple to use that elementary school kids can use it.
This whole article listed great information and facts that was strengthening my thinking. It was hard to include separate nuggets that included everything I wanted to touch on until I found this nugget in the conclusion. In this nugget I found a lot of information that intersected with my work. I basically treated this article about the Dynabook like it was an article about a 3D printer.
“What would happen in a world in which everyone had a Dynabook? If such a machine were designed in a way that any owner could mold and channel its power to his own needs, then a new kind of medium would have been created: a metamedium, whose content would be a wide range of already-existing and not-yet-invented media.
An architect might wish to simulate three-dimensional space in order to peruse and edit his current designs, which could be conveniently stored and cross-referenced.
A doctor could have on file all of his patients, his business records, a drug reaction system, and so on, all of which could travel with him wherever he went.
A composer could hear his composition while it was in progress, particularly if it were more complex than he was able to play. He could also bypass the incredibly tedious chore of redoing the score and producing the parts by hand.
Learning to play music could be aided by being able to capture and hear one’s own attempts and compare them against expert renditions. The ability to express music in visual terms which could be filed and played means that the acts of composition and self-evaluation could be learned without having to wait for technical skill in playing.”
Alan and Goldberg first states that the Dynabook would be a metamedium, whose content would be a wide range of already-existing and not-yet-invented media. Similar to 3D printing whose abilities are able to touch so many different industries. Alan and Goldberg also mention that the Dynabook was designed so the owner can mold and channel its power to their own needs. I related this to an article where a dad uses 3D printing to make his son a prosthetic hand from The Huffington Post. In that article a boy’s father molded and channeled the power of a basic plastic 3D printer to make a new prosthetic hands as he got older. One of the many examples of the 3D printer being applied to different fields.
Alan and Goldberg go on to state how the Dynabook is used for architects, doctors, composers and children. Just like the 3D printer’s ability to print objects that can be used by doctors, students, musicians, and children. 3D printers are able to print organs or replicas , print molds for students to practice on, print violins, toys, tools etc. Like the Dyanbook’s ability to aid and awake new ways to experience certain events like learning music, the 3D printer aids and also awakens many life experiences.
“For educators, the Dynabook could be a new world limited only by their imagination and ingenuity. They could use it to show complex historical inter-relationships in ways not possible with static linear books. Mathematics could become a living language in which children could cause exciting things to happen. Laboratory experiments and simulations too expensive or difficult to prepare could easily be demonstrated. The production of stylish prose and poetry could be greatly aided by being able to easily edit and file one’s own compositions.
These are just a few ways in which we envision using a Dynabook. But if the projected audience is to be “everyone,” is it possible to make the Dynabook generally useful, or will it collapse under the weight of trying to be too many different tools for too many people? The total range of possible users is so great that any attempt to specifically anticipate their needs in the design of the Dynabook would end in a disastrous feature-laden hodgepodge which would not be really suitable for anyone.”
After reading this nugget I concluded that the 3D printer could be some sort of extension to the Dynabook. The Dynabook is able to display more realms than a book can. It can touch your sense of sight and sound. The 3D printer could be added to this technology to create a sense of touch and possible smell or taste, because of a 3D printer’s ability to also print food.
Lastly I would like to focus on the last paragraph. Like the 3D printer it is being forced to be applicable to everyone. Could the 3D printer be useful to everyone, or will it collapse under the weight of trying too many different tools for too many people? In its early stages it has proven to be nothing but helpful and beneficial but it could in the end be disastrous after being forced into so many different spheres of research.
APA Citation: Federico-O’Murchu, L. (2014, May 11). How 3-D printing will radically change the world. . Retrieved July 24, 2014, from http://www.cnbc.com/id/101638702#.
Live Link to Article: How 3-D printing will radically change the world
Linda Federico-O’Murchu proclaims the reasons why 3D printing is going make the world we know today unrecognizable in 50 to 75 years. Advances in 3D technology are going to make us live longer, abolish outsourcing, change production and present unimaginable possibles. She also states a lot of 3D printing’s advancements and the potential advances it may carry. Then like many other authors she starts to question 3D printing’s progress over time.
Her biggest question is even if it technically works, should we be doing it? Printed food although looks the same under a microscope could affect us down the road and printing guns could infringe on certain rules or laws. Those could be uprising problems but she assures that 3D printing is still in its “Wild West” phase, meaning, the laws have not yet caught up with technology.
“Even if it technically works, should we be doing it? If we start creating food instead of growing or harvesting it—that gets a little scary. At a molecular level, does your body accept something that’s been artificially and genetically manufactured? Even if it looks the same under a microscope, what will it do to you over 10, 20 years?”
The hype over 3-D printing, say technology experts, ignores the potential problems it will create. One significant problem is the legality and ethical ramifications of widespread public use. Right now, additive manufacturing (the technical term for 3-D printing) is in its “Wild West” phase, meaning, the laws have not yet caught up with the technology.
An example of this is 3-D printed guns. Last year, blueprints for a 3-D-printable gun, The Liberator, were posted online and downloaded some 100,000 times before the State Department ordered them taken down.”
Federico-O’Murchu brings up a great point in her writing when stating 3D printing is still in its “Wild West” phase. It is true that 3D printing is very new and that is why there are so may prolonging questions. One question I derived from this writing was, can we even create these laws in time to stop the potential problems these new areas of 3D printing might create?
Similar to what was stated by Johnston in his writing, if it is digital it is able to be stolen. An example stated in this article about 3D printed guns where after it was downloaded about 100,000 times, was taken down. Was every single blueprint taken down or are they still floating around. Then again if it is digital it can be stolen which means someone still has there hands on it. It makes it that much harder to regulate 3D printing because of its ability to be rapidly shared. Will speed be a factor that positively or negatively effects 3D printings growth? Will we be able to act as quick and efficiently as the State Department?
“And there are other ethical issues to be considered with 3-D printing. Though Daniel Castro, Senior Policy Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation in Washington, DC, believes 3-D printing’s capacity for innovation will ultimately benefit society, he wonders how intellectual property rights will be protected and enforced.
“I don’t think we’re going to be too worried about consumers printing out Mickey Mouse and Disney being mad about that,” says Castro. “We’re more likely to be concerned about India or China or another country stealing digital designs using corporate espionage, and then being able to perfectly replicate what’s been produced in the US or elsewhere. Governments will have to hold companies accountable for what could be massive intellectual corporate property theft.”
Technology gurus like Jack Uldrich, however, say there’s no stopping a speeding a train. The choices are get on board, get passed by or get run over, he says.
“If you can print out food, components of homes, body parts as we age, it points to a really interesting future,” he speculates. “We’ll be treating animals in a humane way, rewriting the rules of society. What if we really don’t need to work? In the hands of 7 billion creative people—we can’t even begin to imagine how people will use this technology.”
Federico-O’Murchu’s writing can also be compared to Hampson’s writing because of the fact that she also takes a stab at the ethical side of 3D printing. However her standpoint on ethics is broader than just viewing it on a medical standpoint. Federico-O’Murchu points out that 3D printing’s capacity for innovation will ultimately benefit society but wonders how intellectual property rights will be protected and enforced. We are not concerned about consumers copying products, which was a concern Johnston also had. We are more concerned for other countries stealing those digital designs, basically stating we want to limit 3D printing to only being shared domestically and want to protect them. In the end, she suggests that the government will have to hold companies accountable for that. Keeping the copying under the domestic roof will not effect this process as much as it would if the copying went international. The government is going to have to do a lot of work to keep 3D printing’s progress to continue smoothly.
Lastly, Federico-O’Murchu closes with a quote from technology guru Jack Uldrich. This quote makes 3D printing seem like an inevitable advancing piece of technology. From my point of view 3D printing is going to get out of control and like Uldrich said, “The choices are get on board, get passed by or get run over.” We will in the end be rewriting the rules of society soon enough but nobody knows how it will affect us. This quote matches perfectly with my research as to the fact that although 3D printing is able to revolutionize and impact the medical field, it will in the end cause more problems.
Part I: Adding Hyperlinks and Multimedia
By William Hughes
Jun 27, 2014 3:30 PM
Scientists at Facebook have published a paper showing that they manipulated the content seen by more than 600,000 users in an attempt to determine whether this would affect their emotional state. The paper, “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks,” was published in The Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences. It shows how Facebook data scientists tweaked the algorithm that determines which posts appear on users’ news feeds—specifically, researchers skewed the number of positive or negative terms seen by randomly selected users. Facebook then analyzed the future postings of those users over the course of a week to see if people responded with increased positivity or negativity of their own, thus answering the question of whether emotional states can be transmitted across a social network. Result: They can! Which is great news for Facebook data scientists hoping to prove a point about modern psychology. It’s less great for the people having their emotions secretly manipulated.
In order to sign up for Facebook, users must click a box saying they agree to the Facebook Data Use Policy, giving the company the right to access and use the information posted on the site. The policy lists a variety of potential uses for your data, most of them related to advertising, but there’s also a bit about “internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.” In the study, the authors point out that they stayed within the data policy’s liberal constraints by using machine analysis to pick out positive and negative posts, meaning no user data containing personal information was actually viewed by human researchers. And there was no need to ask study “participants” for consent, as they’d already given it by agreeing to Facebook’s terms of service in the first place.
Facebook data scientist Adam Kramer is listed as the study’s lead author. In an interview the company released a few years ago, Kramer is quoted as saying he joined Facebook because “Facebook data constitutes the largest field study in the history of the world.” It’s a charming reminder that Facebook isn’t just the place you go to see pictures of your friends’ kids or your racist uncle’s latest rant against the government—it’s also an exciting research lab, with all of us as potential test subjects.
Part II: Reflection
When reading this article I read it as if I had no idea what Facebook was or as if I was not a constant user. In response to reading it that way I was able to identify what others would not understand and would need more information on. So I hyper linked the important information that one would need to know to understand Facebook and I also hyper linked the concepts I could not fully grasp. I chose the sites I linked to by reading them and making sure they did not leave you with any questions unanswered. Some links describe what is highlighted (Example: The actual paper that was published in PNAS aka The Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences), some showed you what they were (Example: The Facebook Terms and Conditions), and some gave you a little background information (Example: More information about Adam Kramer). As a minor side note I did use a link to Wikipedia to describe what PNAS was because it has the best explanation and breakdown. So in the end if the viewer does not click on my links they will lose vital information to perfectly understand the article.
Choosing multimedia for this assignment and any other assignment is always tough because I am never sure other viewers soak in the photos the same way I do. In terms of the writing it self, it was really easy to understand his concept but seemed a little short. When I read more information about what he was writing about I wanted to include it in the writing for a more in depth explanation. But since my links are present I do not think that will be necessary. If I could edit his writing and develop it more thoroughly I would only revise the segment where he was speaking about the algorithm and how the manipulated content would effect users emotional state. That whole bit was a little confusing but since I have heard of this concept before it was easy to piece together.
I included three images in this post that I thought got you thinking more. I chose them because they looked interesting not just simply displayed something in the writing. The first picture I chose says “Psychological Experiment” to simply portray what this writing is about. I also chose it because in the background is a basic Facebook home screen and feed. The second photo I chose says “Terms and Conditions May Apply” to represent the agreement you must accept on Facbook and where your information may go or used for. From my knowledge I know that our names will end up on google, Facebook is linked to twitter, and things on Amazon could be advertised to use based on the information they gathered from our profiles. Lastly the third picture is just the Facebook emblem on a flask to represent Facebook being Adam Kramer’s experiment.