Event 3 | Chemical Entanglements

Inside the panel session:"Everyday Life, Everyday Labs"
On May 5th, I attended the event, “Chemical Entanglements: Gender and Exposure”, presented by the UCLA Center for the Study of Women. I listened to the second panel session: “Everyday Life, Everyday Labs”, which centered around the consequences of science on the public, especially women. Discussions of endocrine disruption, environmental justice, and science communication highlight the need for collaboration and understanding between scientists and the public, which may be facilitated by the work of artists. 

The first speaker, Teresa Montoya, discussed water toxicity within a Navajo population due to radioactive waste from government-funded experiments. She calls regulatory oversight “amnesia” as the government neglects the effects of such experiments on people. Peggy Munson, via video presentation, described her own struggle with chronic fatigue syndrome and her chemical sensitivities that forced her to move away from metropolitan areas. Liza Grandia then described the irony of how carpeting in an EPA office made EPA employees sick while the EPA was investigating, rather, discrediting that chemicals in carpets were harmful at all.
Liza Grandia speaking about harmful chemicals in household products (including carpets)

The final presentation, entitled “What is hindering regulation of endocrine disruptors?”, resonated with me the most. Ana Soto studies the deleterious biological effects of synthetic chemicals in the environment. Despite her scientific background, Soto is concerned with the lack of regulation regarding harmful chemicals/experiments. She poises, “When is enough, enough?”. In other words, if there is substantial evidence that something is harmful, whether or not the scientific mechanism or explanation is known, that should be enough to halt manufacturing of a product (medicine or carpet). She urges scientists to differentiate between performing science for the sake of science and performing science for the benefit of society.

Soto's slide on lack of regulation due to "science for the sake of science"
This panel correlates to concepts we have studied which force us to consider the societal implications of science. In our discussion of BioTech+Art Eduardo Kac and other eccentric artists, such as Kathy High, Stelarc and Orlan, are often discredited by scientists. However, these "biology outlaws" play an important role in distributing information to the common layperson and shaping public perception of science. “Chemical Entanglements” illuminates the need for more communication between scientists and the public. As we have learned, artists possess the power and position to bridge this gap, highlighting the importance of art in science. Thus forward in my pursuit of a career in chemistry, I will always consider the consequences of the work done in the lab on the public and the environment.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 3 | Robotics + Art

Image
This week’s discussion of Robotics and Art was not what I expected. I envisioned learning about the ways in which artists and scientists use robotics to create. Instead, we viewed robotics from a cultural perspective, focusing on the history of industrialization and robotics, the implications of such technologies on society, and how these robots and mass-produced media later connect the arts and sciences. One of the works I studied was Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, in which he explores society’s perception of art in the age of mass production. According to him, mass reproduction eliminates the originality and authenticity of art, thus "changing the reaction of the masses toward art." (Benjamin) He describes people who go to films as passive participants to exemplify how reproduced art ultimately results in the “liquidation of the traditional value of the cultural heritage”. (Benjamin) His description of the public as an "absen
Read more

Week 1 | Two Cultures

Image
Within the UCLA community, there is a perception that humanities classes are “easier” than physical science classes. For this reason, an underlying tension exists between those pursuing degrees in the humanities and those pursuing degrees in the physical sciences.  The geographic division of the two disciplines—North Campus (arts and humanities) and South Campus (math and physical sciences)—only magnifies this separation. Ironically, as a college student trying to find her place among these “Two Cultures” (Snow), I was unaware of how deeply rooted in our education system this divide between North Campus and South Campus is until thinking of them as two distinct "cultures".   Although C.P. Snow delivered his famous lecture over 50 years ago, his ideas are still relevant. He  noted: “the politeness [between scientists and non-scientists] has gone, and they just make faces [at each other]” (Snow 19).  The Sokal controversy (Vesna 123) exemplified this hostility
Read more

Week 7 | Neuroscience + Art

Image
Neuroscience is so engrained in our society that we—myself included—fail to notice its’ impact on our everyday lives. This week we took a closer look at this connection.  Left (analytical) and right (creative) brain argument  We begin with a bit of history. Phrenology is a pseudoscience, in which the size of bumps on the head is believed to indicate character traits. (Vesna) Franz Joseph Gall’s practice of phrenology led to the notion that brain size is related to intelligence. Despite being a pseudoscience, it did influence science in that specific areas of the brain do have specific functions (i.e. Broca's and Wernicke’s areas). Phrenology allows us to revisit the left brain versus right brain argument. Regarded as fiction by many neuroscientists, this idea of the brain reinforces the division between art and science by providing an explanation for the stereotypes of artists and scientists.  Adult coloring book, which recently gained popularity This week I
Read more