I’m a tech enthusiast. It’s something that I can’t help – I was just born that way. Growing up, I couldn’t help the fact that my family had the resources to always have a new computer in our home, and I couldn’t help the fact that the education I was provided included classes on software development and future industries. I couldn’t help the fact that I came from money and means and that I was encouraged to go into app development – it’s who I am. It’s basically my race.
I don’t work in tech now, but I do identify with fellow technology enthusiasts. I identify with developers, and I pay close attention to the increasingly hostile attitudes towards my people in San Francisco.
While creating memes yesterday, I was looking at old photographs from WW2. Pictures from the camps. Pictures from the Polish ghettos in which Jews were required to wear gold stars, creating a sense of otherness and adding to the necessary fear that Hitler needed to create to justify the Holocaust. While these images were nothing new to me, something about them felt different. Something about them felt incredibly current.
“What if those little gold stars had cameras on them?” I thought to myself. “What if they could help you find restaurants or check your stock portfolio while you were on the go?”
As I jotted down my brilliant idea for a new piece of wearable tech, I realized that there’s not much of a difference between what those Jewish families faced in Poland, and what modern tech workers are facing in San Francisco. It’s just plain old racism, and it’s even worse now because people aren’t being attacked because of their faith or cultural background – they’re being attacked because they have lots of money and great ideas for gadgets.
When I read about rocks being hurled at the Google buses – the commuter system that ferries tech dynamos from “the ghetto” (recently gentrified neighborhoods where they have displaced longtime residents) to their “synagogue” (the Google headquarters where they make inordinate amounts of money to come up with things like Glasses that you can talk to) – I couldn’t help but think of the Freedom Riders in the south. I couldn’t help but think of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A man, who like many in tech, had a dream. A dream that one day young white girls and young black girls would play together – hopefully assisted by some kind of app that matches interracial friends based on location and skin tone.
I thought about those Freedom Riders, and how they had to stand up to local police departments that were predominantly staffed by KKK members. I realized that those Freedom Riders are just like today’s tech workers. Except they didn’t have WiFi on their buses.
“Hey Glass,” I said to my 1500 dollar glasses that record strangers without their permission. “Look up pictures of black people from the 60’s.”
They used to dress so nice back then. Kind of like how tech workers dress now. I felt like I was going to cry. Luckily I am physically incapable of weeping, as I had my tear ducts removed last year as to not accidentally damage my expensive nerd goggles that are only available to an exclusive group of people.
It’s funny, according to everything I hear outside of the snotty lamentations of my fellow tech enthusiasts, white people like myself are considered universal oppressors. Especially rich white people that are displacing those without means. But, if you think about it, and look at it through the Lens Of Innovation, it’s actually the affluent tech workers who are oppressed. The Google employees are basically the Freedom Riders and the Jews in Poland.
The poor people are Nazis, and the poor people are the ones we should be throwing rocks at. Not the tech people – not the people that the rocks hurt more. We bleed just like the poor, but our clothes are more expensive and so is our wearable tech. You’re causing more damage by hurting us.
It’ll be interesting to see how history views this debate. It’ll be good to know that I was right. In 40 years, people will look back and recognize the struggle of the brave tech workers against the oppressive lower income families that sought to destroy and oppress the only people that actually cared about making the world a better place.
The World Has Four Corners But Space Is Endless. The past is but the beginning of a beginning, and all that is and has been is but the twilight of the dawn. - H.G. Wells, "The Discovery of the Future," 1901
Monday, July 7
Thursday, May 22
Literary Therapy: 11 Quotes to Motivate Your Soul
“You can’t drive to the coastline. You can only drive so close to the white chalky cliff and then you have to get out and dive.”
-Joyelle McSweeney, Flet
“We all believe we can choose our own path from among the many alternatives. But perhaps it’s more accurate to say that we make the choice unconsciously. I think I did – but now I knew it, because now I was able to put it into words. But I don’t mean this in the fatalistic sense; we’re constantly making choices. With the breaths we take every day, with the expression in our eyes, with the daily actions we do over and over, we decide as though by instinct. And so some of us will inevitably find ourselves rolling around in a puddle on some roof in a strange place with a takeout katsudon in the middle of winter, looking up at the night sky, as if it were the most natural thing in the world.”
-Banana Yoshimoto, Kitchen
“Just say no
to family values,
and don’t quit
your day job.”
to family values,
and don’t quit
your day job.”
-John Giorno, “Just Say No To Family Values”
“I can look back and recognize the things I’ve done and said that were wrong: unethical, gratuitously hurtful, golden-rule-breaking, et cetera. Sometimes the wrongness was even clear at the time, though not as clear as it is now. But I did these things because I felt the pull of a trajectory, a sense of experience piling up the way it does as you turn the pages of a novel. I would be lying if I said I was a different person now. I am the same person. I would do it all again.”
-Emily Gould, And the Heart Says Whatever
“The only thing of value anyone has to offer
is their uniqueness
and individuality
no matter who you are or what you do.”
is their uniqueness
and individuality
no matter who you are or what you do.”
-Penny Arcade, “Manifesto”
“The meaning of mañana is ‘Wait until the signs are right.’”
-William S. Burroughs, Junky
“Both Henry and June have destroyed the logic and unity of my life. It is good, for a pattern is not living. Now I am living. I am not making patterns.”
-Anaïs Nin, Henry and June
“Move to the beat. Dance for hours. Plan and pack for a trip. Plan and pack for a scene. Set up camp in sub-zero weather. Cook over a fire. Sharpen a knife. Wield a scalpel. Fist her. Take a fist. Clean a wound. Kiss it better. Make ‘em laugh. Make ‘em cry. Lift weights. Pick up girls.
Wrestle.
Win.”
Wrestle.
Win.”
-Elaine Miller, “A Femme’s List of Incidental Skills or, Things This Femme Can Do”
“We keep moving. And as we do, things around us, well, they disappear.”
-Haruki Murakami, Dance Dance Dance
“Every now and then when your life gets complicated and the weasels start closing in, the only real cure is to load up on heinous chemicals and then drive like a bastard from Hollywood to Las Vegas. To relax, as it were, in the womb of the desert sun. Just roll the roof back and screw it on, grease the face with white tanning butter and move out with the music at top volume, and at least a pint of ether.”
-Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
“I knew people want most what they pretend to hate, that it takes courage to say what you really want.”
-Darcey Steinke, Suicide Blonde
Friday, May 9
An Advancement and Missed Opportunity for Alzheimer's
Last week a paper was published in Nature Medicine that drew significant media buzz. The paper was titled "Plasma phospholipids identify antecedent memory impairment in older adults." You may know it better by the headlines "New blood test for Alzheimer's disease" or "Alzheimer's can be predicted three years in advance."
As a scientist, the discord between the popular mainstream media's presentation of this paper and the actual scientific paper was jarring. Firstly, there is a sharp contrast between the precise language of the Nature title and the more attention-seeking, market-sensitive language of the mainstream-media headlines. Secondly, the mainstream-media headlines are relatively misleading. There is no blood test available on the market today; there are still large scientific gaps that we need to fill before the technique can be used to predict Alzheimer's in a diverse population.
The typical quick reader of these headlines will leave with the impression that science is ahead of where it actually is. There is a confidence exuded by the media that is not echoed within the paper. This kind of approach to scientific news does everyone, from patients to scientists, a huge disservice. It is particularly troubling with a disease as prevalent as Alzheimer's, which is predicted to impact one out of every six women over the age of 65 and one out of every 11 men over the age of 65.
A few caveats are stated within the news articles: USA Today, NPR, and CNN all explained that there is still research to be done. According to CNN:
If any of these tests work out -- and that's still an if -- it would take years to make it to doctors' offices, since the test would need to be validated by other labs and with larger groups of people.
However, there is a wide gap between delivering the facts and explaining how the science works.
In this particular paper, the approach to a disease like Alzheimer's was impressive -- and is important for the public to understand. We really do not completely understand how Alzheimer's is triggered, and we can only diagnose it after it has developed past a point. As a result, the authors chose to assay blood from patients with and without cognitive impairments over a period of time, and see if they could find a predictive change in the lipid composition. If I lost you at "lipid composition," think of it like this: Lipids make up the walls of cells, including neurons (brain cells). If those walls change, it may correlate with neurodegeneration, or neurons dying prematurely. So it's smart to think of testing lipid levels in patients with Alzheimer's, and even smarter to think of running a five-year study in which you could track patients with initial cognitive impairments and patients who developed those over time. Identifying lipids as predictive is useful not only for earlier intervention but for identifying potential therapeutic targets. If the public fully understood the merit of this kind of study, setting up a second trial may be an easier, quicker and more thoughtful process.
The second trial is necessary for several reasons. This is the first study of its kind, and it took five years to run. The last paragraph of the Nature paper itself states:
This biomarker panel requires external validation using similar rigorous clinical classification before further development for clinical use. Such additional validation should be considered in a more diverse demographic group than our initial cohort.
In other words, for certain data analysis, they had as few as 41 patients, and depending on the genetic background of participants, they may not be able to make assumptions of predictability for everyone. This is important and is often overlooked when clinical trials are discussed. Scientists desperately need participants from a variety of genetic backgrounds -- and larger numbers of participants to build a test that is accurate and meaningful.
The public's appreciation of the scientific methodology and merit behind the paper are critical to the furthering of research like this. Within science, authors are careful and precise. We understand that there is a fine line between prediction and causation, between statistical significance and repeatability. Every paper that is peer-reviewed is vetted through critical, careful eyes. The claims are brought down to the facts, and the holes punctured quickly.
That process doesn't exist for science in the media world. It's particularly telling that in Nature's social-media indexing for this particular article, they show less than 100 direct Tweets to the paper. CNN's news article had over 500 comments, and it doesn't appear as though the majority had read or understood the actual paper.
As a scientist and as a patient, this is alarming. I understand the need for science to be scientific -- precise, complex and detail-oriented. As a patient, I want to understand things in a way that is relevant to me -- clear, evidence-based and friendly. No matter how empowered I am as a patient, if I don't have access to accurate, complete information, I am still fumbling in the dark. If scientists don't turn the light on for patients and take the lead with scientific education, they will lose out on a population that is eager and energized and wants to meet the same research goals.
As a scientist, the discord between the popular mainstream media's presentation of this paper and the actual scientific paper was jarring. Firstly, there is a sharp contrast between the precise language of the Nature title and the more attention-seeking, market-sensitive language of the mainstream-media headlines. Secondly, the mainstream-media headlines are relatively misleading. There is no blood test available on the market today; there are still large scientific gaps that we need to fill before the technique can be used to predict Alzheimer's in a diverse population.
The typical quick reader of these headlines will leave with the impression that science is ahead of where it actually is. There is a confidence exuded by the media that is not echoed within the paper. This kind of approach to scientific news does everyone, from patients to scientists, a huge disservice. It is particularly troubling with a disease as prevalent as Alzheimer's, which is predicted to impact one out of every six women over the age of 65 and one out of every 11 men over the age of 65.
A few caveats are stated within the news articles: USA Today, NPR, and CNN all explained that there is still research to be done. According to CNN:
If any of these tests work out -- and that's still an if -- it would take years to make it to doctors' offices, since the test would need to be validated by other labs and with larger groups of people.
However, there is a wide gap between delivering the facts and explaining how the science works.
In this particular paper, the approach to a disease like Alzheimer's was impressive -- and is important for the public to understand. We really do not completely understand how Alzheimer's is triggered, and we can only diagnose it after it has developed past a point. As a result, the authors chose to assay blood from patients with and without cognitive impairments over a period of time, and see if they could find a predictive change in the lipid composition. If I lost you at "lipid composition," think of it like this: Lipids make up the walls of cells, including neurons (brain cells). If those walls change, it may correlate with neurodegeneration, or neurons dying prematurely. So it's smart to think of testing lipid levels in patients with Alzheimer's, and even smarter to think of running a five-year study in which you could track patients with initial cognitive impairments and patients who developed those over time. Identifying lipids as predictive is useful not only for earlier intervention but for identifying potential therapeutic targets. If the public fully understood the merit of this kind of study, setting up a second trial may be an easier, quicker and more thoughtful process.
The second trial is necessary for several reasons. This is the first study of its kind, and it took five years to run. The last paragraph of the Nature paper itself states:
This biomarker panel requires external validation using similar rigorous clinical classification before further development for clinical use. Such additional validation should be considered in a more diverse demographic group than our initial cohort.
In other words, for certain data analysis, they had as few as 41 patients, and depending on the genetic background of participants, they may not be able to make assumptions of predictability for everyone. This is important and is often overlooked when clinical trials are discussed. Scientists desperately need participants from a variety of genetic backgrounds -- and larger numbers of participants to build a test that is accurate and meaningful.
The public's appreciation of the scientific methodology and merit behind the paper are critical to the furthering of research like this. Within science, authors are careful and precise. We understand that there is a fine line between prediction and causation, between statistical significance and repeatability. Every paper that is peer-reviewed is vetted through critical, careful eyes. The claims are brought down to the facts, and the holes punctured quickly.
That process doesn't exist for science in the media world. It's particularly telling that in Nature's social-media indexing for this particular article, they show less than 100 direct Tweets to the paper. CNN's news article had over 500 comments, and it doesn't appear as though the majority had read or understood the actual paper.
As a scientist and as a patient, this is alarming. I understand the need for science to be scientific -- precise, complex and detail-oriented. As a patient, I want to understand things in a way that is relevant to me -- clear, evidence-based and friendly. No matter how empowered I am as a patient, if I don't have access to accurate, complete information, I am still fumbling in the dark. If scientists don't turn the light on for patients and take the lead with scientific education, they will lose out on a population that is eager and energized and wants to meet the same research goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)