ROUGH EDITED COPY
Gallaudet University
Diversity as Normalcy: Research, Ethics & Social Responsibility
Presentation by Dr. James Giordano
AUGUST 24, 2010
10:45 AM-12:15 PM
CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY:
ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION SERVICES, LLC
PO BOX 278
LOMBARD, IL 60148
* * * * *
This is being provided in a rough-draft format. Communication
Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to
facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally
verbatim record of the proceedings.
Editor’s Note: The original CART transcript was edited minimally by Terry
Coye in the creation of this document. All of Dr. Giordano’s remarks have
been retained, but comments by other speakers were deleted. Headings and a
new title were added to increase clarity.
Introduction by Dr. Carol Erting
>> Good morning, again, to some of you and good
morning to everyone. It's my distinct honor to introduce our
guest lecturer for today. Dr. James Giordano hack working with
us here at -- has been working with us at Gallaudet University
as the William H. and Ruth Crane Distinguished Visiting of
neuroethics. He's working with us in that capacity since
February. Gallaudet's community -- he's gotten to know the
community here and different faculty members. He's a formal
introduction to the undergraduate and the graduate students. I
would like you to read the formal affiliations that are here on
the slide. That would be easier than me finger spelling all of
the agencies this he's working in. The Potomac institute for
policy studies is the area -- is actually located in Arlington,
Virginia which is next to the national offices. It's known as
PIPS. Dr. Giordano in addition to these titles has recently
become a vice president for the academic programs at the center
in PIPS. His responsibility has been to interact with different
universities all over our area as well as internationally and
throughout our country. Gallaudet is one of those fortunate
universities to have been chosen to work and collaborate with
PIPS.
So today is really just the beginning of a very
exciting year ahead of pursuing this particular topic for our
faculty development areas here at the university. There will be
a lecture series on a monthly basis with invited guests that
Dr. Giordano had affiliated us with. Those lectures will be
open to the community. This lecture that we will be having
today is the foundation for the lecture series that will focus
on this very important issue. And this issue is not important
only to Gallaudet university, of course, nor to just the
research community, but rather to the entire state of our global
community.
Dr. Giordano has published widely a variety of
articles, prestigious journal entries, countless books and is
one of the premier collaborators that I have ever met. He works
with a wide array of people in a variety of fields. And not
only that, but he mentors students. The list to students that
he has mentored is quite long, he's been on student's Ph.D.
committees. I'm sure he doesn't sleep. It would be impossible
for him to have hours to sleep. I guess he can talk more about
that. Without further due, I would like to introduce
Dr. Giordano to you. You are in for an invigorated stimulating,
exciting morning. Dr. Giordano, welcome.
Presentation by Dr. James Giordano
>> Let me apologize for my rud men tear ability to
sign. I'm learning as quickly as I can. I'm a slow learner.
Be patient with me. If the terms are foreign to you, you can
stop me. I also have a nasty New York act sent. This is one of
the few forms where I can get by with that and not have people
laugh at me. What I would like to do this hour is answer
nothing. I want to give you questions. I want to give you
questions. These are questions that I wish I could answer. I
wish science could answer. Philosophy, history, anthropology,
we cannot. Science remains iterative, progressive, facts
change, truth is contingent. But it's our responsible as
members of the human community engaged in the human condition
and human predicament to embrace that contingency and adapt our
norms to a deep understanding of our biology and what it means
to be human
As graduate students, my hope is that this ves tube to
your professional career. I'm far older than most of you. My
career will end far before yours will. This is a baton. I pass
it on to you. You are the future of science, social sciences,
humanities, healthcare, the public and social good this all of
its divergent forms. I pass you this baton for a meaningful
reason. My junior colleagues I line you with the dialectic.
But I give this to you in challenge, not in any way that's
antagonistic, but to conjoin and you inflate you to the
opportunity that lies ahead. To change the predicament to
change the world before you make the world a better place. From
science to social sciences to ethical discourse writ laws.
Viewing the world through a multifaceting lens that appreciates
that acuity comes from each and all of the prisms. We will talk
about normalcy. The discussion does not stop here. It begins
here. The hopefully the discussion will be one that ground you
to the individual fields as diverse as they are to trying to
understand this particular component of what it means to be
human and all of the incumbent responsibilities, obligations and
actions that arise from our understanding of history,
historicity and the candidate that imparts from your field
What we know right now in contemporary fields of
science that creates science as a basis of knowledge is indeed
the biological variation exists within a number of species if
not all species inclusive of the human species. Such
biological -- flourish and adapt inclusive of the environments.
Failure to achieve such diversity imparts failure of adaptation
which imparts perishing. Humans have been very successful at
our capacity to adapt, to utilize tools, to harness the
environment, shape and relate to nature and in some ways, change
nature and in that way, perhaps, falsely believe that we have
changed our nature. You cannot buck your biology. Plainly and
simply.
Moreover, what we understand is that these biological
variations are preserved through a complex and dynamic series of
characteristics and traits that engage different levels of the
environment on both an individual level and a cohort level.
This imparts vigor. The premise is simple. Biological
variation and diversity is the norm.
I'll state it again. Biological diversity is the
norm. What does this mean? If we break this down to its simply
and most component parts and we look at a single characteristic
and I'm being ridiculously simple, we can say that the presence
of a particular trait as conferred from genetics to physical
expression which we call a phenotype, enables, allows, supports
a particular function or sets of function, X, but also
influences a variety of other functions and they take on an x
influence. Let me give you an example
I don't have to worry about buying hair care products
every morning, so I can spend far more time making coffee. Now,
if on the other hand I had to worry about hair care products and
what side my hair was parted on rare than the part in the middle
that I wear, I would, in fact, engage my daily activities and
influence my environment in a slightly distinct way. The
absence of hair on my head in some ways detracts from certain
things but in other ways imparts other things. Both benefits
and in some cases burdens and perhaps even risks. However, I
cannot ascribe burden or risk simply due to the presence or
absence of a trait that has been biologically preserved. It's
the old niciam maxim, (phonetic) what doesn't destroy me, makes
me stronger. If it has not destroyed me, it's there for a
reason. Even if as an artifact, we as a species as so many
other species exploit these arty facts to maximize our
capability and flourishing. In some, it imparts a particular
gain. Still with me?
Good. It gets fun from here. I could bore you for
the next 30 or 40 years talking about systems and complexity,
but it works out much easier if I can show you with an equation.
It balances out on two sides of the screen. You have it before
you. Very simply put, genes plus environment interact with
physical expressions in environment. Genes provide only a
blueprint. They require an internal and external environment
for their expression. That expression in physical
characteristics is calls a phenotype. That phenotype effects
environments. The environments effects the phenotype which
actually feeds back upon the genes to determine what genes are
selectively activated, suppressed or may be latent. The
preservation of genotype and phenotype confers particular
advantages to different individuals, groups of individuals and
ultimately a species at large based upon the environments. It
either finds itself in or has created. Simply put, we cannot
extricate one from the other. To do so is factually wrong.
And we know that these physical characteristics occur
along a spectrum, not all or none, not either or, but more like
both and very few things in biological terms are absolute.
For those of you who are comfortable with this
equation, I give you this equation, this is what looks back at
you every morning in the mirror. You are this. From the
formation of your genotype, that is, the genes that made you
you, there is a environmental interaction. Being the scientist
that I am, I would make the presumption that each and every one
of you had a mother and a father. I learned that in Ph.D.
school.
Irrespective of whether said mother and father are
still in the picture, you needed one of each. They got together
in a particular environment. For a reason. Sometimes
accidental, sometimes purposive, sometimes a combination of
both. Geographic, social, all of the above. Moreover, I would
make the strange strong -- strong wager that each and every one
of you spend 8 months in change in a womb. Just a hunch. That
was influence as to what genes got turned on and turned off and
what you were like when you came out of that womb after eight
months in change or nine months, in most cases. And what you
were predisposed to be and be once you came out.
From the point of conception and even before, we like
so many other species are an inextricable of genes and
environment and physical being. Moreover, as you can see,
feedback, meaningfully. They produce what's called spectrum
effects. If we look at the abscissa. If we look at the X axis,
we see that this equation can, in fact, be quantified,
particular levels, qualities, types of genes, interacting with
environments, producing particular physical characteristics that
interact with environments that feedback on both genes and
physical characteristics.
This is referred to as a dynamical. It sounds very
George Bushism. It's a real word. Unlike strategery, which is
not. This interaction produces qualitative manifest
characteristics. that we enact and perceive. At some point or
another, there can be a line drawn, a threshold that would
suggest the viability of these characteristics to do something.
For example, we might be able to draw that threshold of my
ability to be drafted in the national basketball association. I
do not have a very good slam shot. At 5' 6", my phenotype does
not permit that, however, this can also be a social threshold.
So not only do we say that there are particular biological
practical thresholds, given my biology, for example, I cannot
fly by flapping my arms. I cannot suck oxygen out of a water
without a device. I cannot jump high buildings in a single
bound despite what my bosses wish me to do at the Potomac
institute. Those are real thresholds. They are natural kinds
of limitations and abilities.
However, we also incur practical types that are more
social. We say that certain characteristics allow me to do
certain things socially. We draw that line. My argument is
simple, that line socially must be consistent with the most
contemporary current knowledge of our biological capacities,
limitations and adaptabilities. Otherwise, it is at least
anacronistic and criminally. And I use criminally literally and
hope to show you how.
We can say that individual and group variation is the
result and interaction of genetic predisposition, particular
phenotypes. Those phenotypes working back to modify certain
genes and how our psychosocial environment affects what we do
and who we are. Remember, we cannot extract the organism from
the social new you and environment. There are biological norms.
We cannot deny that. But these biological norms are iterative.
They are dynamic interaction with various environments. They
change. We as a species adapt. We preserve particular
characteristics because of the environment and the environments
we have created. This is based upon an interplay. And so what
it allows us to do is to see components within an organism,
organisms within an environment and it nests biology and
culture. Not or, not one versus the other. It grounds biology
to the culture that gives rise to it.
Let's spend a little time on this word. We in the
English language do not do a very good job with this word. We
have, in fact, bastardize it. We have ruined it. My native
language, German does a much better job with it. And I made
some suggestions from that language for those of you who may be
familiar with it. We can preface the German world coutua with
word other words that describe it more fully. Germans are
notorious for attaching a bunch of nouns and adverbs to bring in
big words. This means a predispositional culture. A
predispositional culture. Culture as a medium that gives rise
to something. We also have something known as (speaking German)
culture for the forum of the expression which that it has given
rise to.
These are finely grained terms that require rich
insight and give deep analysis to the interaction of biology and
culture. In systems language, in systems verbiage, we can see
how biology and culture establish conditions, at tractors and -attract fors and constraints. As well as a forum for particular
expressions. Certainly we can see here biology encultured as we
would think of culture like a petri dish. We say we culture a
certain thing. But we also seek culture -- see culture as a
forum for its expression. What are the limits? What are the
gains? The at tractors for such expression? Let's get
specific.
Let's then take these premises and concepts and delay
them to notion of human nature hearing and deafness. And so we
must ask what nature? Are we looking at a contemporary
biological orientation to the nature of the human person and the
human condition? We can look at contemporary biological
doctrine and in so doing, appreciate and acknowledge what we
know, how we know it and the consistent and current facts. Are
we looking at simple statistics. How many are born one way and
how many develop one way, et cetera. Are we looking at human
nature in more of a social construct where we now embed the
biological facts within their social meaning and take instead
the social meaning to be truth while ignoring the reality of
biological fact? My argument is simple, it's erroneous to do
that. And it grounds to a simple question when looking at
nature, human nature, what is the appropriate norm from which to
instantiate any further discussions as to what such nature
means? My argument is that we must base this upon a biological
form simply because we are biological organisms that are
embodied and embedded within a social fabric.
That does not deny our social characteristics or its
importance. Only sheds light upon the interaction.
Psychologically, we respond to both. So it becomes important to
appreciate norming as one that arises in and from the biological
facts that we have at our disposal and appreciate all of those
facts, recognize that that biology is enacted in a particular
set of social environments and understand our psychological
response and reaction to this. This brings us to a point of a
bridge.
The bridge is one by now that you should appreciate
which is how do we form our psychological impressions of our
biosocial nature? This speaks to a more profound philosophical
and ethical position. Are we looking at what we are, the being
that is the human organism, its ontology or are we just looking
at a set of operations which change over time with particular
limits and other delimitations?
The question is one of are we really looking at what
is the nature of the entity or simply looking at its
effectuation. And more over, can we, based upon the knowledge
that we have right now, not antiquated knowledge, not dated
knowledge, but neither the knowledge that ignores history are we
able to appreciate the relationship and more forward in such a
way to counter and move away from this. What can and what does
contemporary science provide of human nature? What level of
knowledge?
How does this impact or impart social and
psychological effect? How do we or better how should we
examine, assess and embrace the relationship between what we do
or cannot do and what we are? And my argument continues to
suggest that the directionality of that relationship needs to
proceed from an understanding of what we are to an appreciation
and acknowledgment of how that provides capacities to do
different things.
The question really is one of what level shall we base
normalcy and normativity? Biological? Social? Our
psychological response to the similarities, alignments
disalignments and disarticulation of those two? I argue that we
must be both cautious and prudent. Because how we embrace
science and its tools and artifacts of technology very often
give rise to biocentric, biologically centered definitions. And
although I'm arguing for an understanding of biological norming,
and understanding what that means to human nature, we must be
equally cautious because we cannot afford to continue to
selectively cherry pick what data we use and what data we do
not.
We cannot make those mistakes again. Moreover, we
need to be prudent and cautious in accepting what our
contemporary data tell us. Information is not knowledge and
understanding requires a mixture of biological fact and
appreciation for both history and philosophical meaning.
Because these definitions affect our activities, what we do and
what we don't. Our stature, what we are. Our status, what we
mean. The moral decisions that we make and the mores that are
our behaviors in response to our activities, stature and
moralities.
We need to learn from history, we need to be cautious,
we need to be prudent and responsible. This approach, this road
map, utilizing science as perhaps its good, its humanistic value
is consistent with any philosophical orientation. If we look at
the philosophy of science, the philosophy of history, we say
philosophy is an analytic tool that enables three tasks. I beg
consistency with those tasks as we move forward to appreciate
our biology and acknowledge how we utilize this information and
understanding towards instantiating social good. It must be
epistemologically current.
Philosophy engages the anthropological task. That is
the utility and use of knowledge and its contingency in the
human dimension and human condition. And ultimately if we are
looking at the application and use of science, then we must do
so in the literal definition of science, not simply knowledge
for knowledge sake, but knowledge toward human good. Important
to understand that this then embraces the ethical dimension.
What is the good? How do these constructs impact the scope,
tenor, direction and future of our technological development and
its use in applications, research what we study and how we study
it, medicine, treating those who are rendered vulnerable and
upholding the obligation to treat and in some cases maximize
flourishing. Particular philosophical presents. The ethics of
what that meaning is for the good and obviously the translation
and articulation of these intellectual concepts in the
practicalities of daily life. In appreciating the good, we must
understand that good entails right. Aquinas said it good in
Latin. It sounds lovely and reads just as well. It translates
into the right balance use of knowledge as critical to the
right, good use in application. We cannot cherry pick such
knowledge, but we must be prudent in the use of application. We
must understand that utilizing science techniques and
technologies in ways that are indeed technically correct as
consistent with the way these things would be designed to be
used and not misused is a part of achieving the good.
Misusing science and technology usurps good. It
affords us caveat against misinterpretation. Cherry picking,
inapt use of science and anthropology and history or Frank
misuse of all of the above.
It's important to engage in what is referred to as
bricolage. Being something of a jack of all trades. A jack of
all trades. Essentially, we cannot ignore history, but we must
base our future upon it. We cannot throw out the old simply
because it is old. But we must also embrace the new, but do so
in a way that's tempered in the lessons of history. The issue
at hand here is one that particular historical lessons may be
gained. And I give you three biographical examples. Sir
Francis Galtin. Very instrumental in the use of the term norm
and normal. With regard to the idea that particular
characteristics fell outside of a distribution and should be
weeded from a population. That concept was then advanced by his
student, colleague and ultimately academic successor, Karl
Pearson who is known for developing the correlation statistic.
Pearson advanced these concepts that together were referred to
as positive, genetic control you know this more colloquially as
eugenics. Not necessarily an idea that one could embrace as
intrinsically bad or evil. But rather one can look historically
and see that only some of the data and information were utilized
in the formulation of this thesis.
Moreover, it's easy to see how such thesis can be
readily adopted when they are constrained within social and
political agendas and not appreciated as a larger component of
the body of biological knowledge. Indeed, Galton and Pearson's
work grew out of the new science of evolution which did not
wholly appreciate genetics, but only heredity. Very often, we
make due with limited knowledge. But when, in fact, we then
engage social practice and policy with such cemented knowledge,
we fall into a fallacious construct and activity. We need to
embrace the entirety of the knowledge at hand. Neither Galton
or Pearson did so.
We love to point a finger elsewhere. We love to see
that people in other countries did heinous things with partial
information. It was generated here and there being the U.K.
being England and America. We know the history of
American eugenics. Certainly it speaks loudly, pun intended.
To the historicity and deafness of the United States. Not the
least of which through the involvement of Mr. Bell.
In Germany, at that time, a mecca for scholarly
activity, these concepts were embraced by an academic careerist
Fonfarshi in ascending the ranks of academia within the Kaiser
Vilhelm institute which became embraced by national Socialist
politics, he married a limited amount of information and
knowledge to a large sociopolitical agenda to advance
opportunity for himself and his colleagues. We know this as the
T-4 program. Eugenics and u then 80s Shah. Although we like to
point a finger in the accusations of the nasty Nazis, let us not
forget that the foundational volume that set the stage for
consideration of eugenics as policy was actually written by a
jurist and a physician in 1920.
In a paper in subsequent volume published by Lysic
publications entitled releasing restrictions on the lives
unworthful of life. Eugenics was posed as a viable mechanism to
instantiate public health and reduce the burden of financial
strain incurred by disability. You may be very familiar with
the terminal phrase of this treatise. Lives unworthy of life.
It's simply posed conflation of biology norms based on a prior
history of doing that. In part from the animal welfare -impose the thesis for discussion. It asked the question, should
we, can we and what does it mean? We can see how very easily
adopting the title from its full, original form which was
considerations of releasing restriction into a more verb-based
form release those restrictions very easily begins to serve the
purposes of a Fonfarshua and his colleagues that lead to this.
Whose life is unworthy of living? What biological
characteristics do we establish a practical threshold upon to
determine worth and value? Both operational labor as well as
ontologically. We cannot repeat lessons from history. I throw
you out food and fodder for consideration. It's easy to look
here and point a finger and shake our heads with regard to
crimes against humanity, committed by medicine. It's easy to
look back to 1920 and recognize, ah, what did they know? They
knew a lot. The idea was posed as partial consideration based
upon a reflection of the work of Galton, Pearson. Darwin in
reality, the bastardization that and the inscription of -- lead
to this. Unless you think it's all gone, I will pose to you two
contemporary situations that I think demand your attention. One
is the current Bill 2702 appropriated first in California that
examined the potential and viability of various forms of
treatment with individuals with, quote, disabilities, inclusive
in that definition are individuals who are deaf. And what
treatment options are available and/or prescribed as mandatory.
But perhaps more importantly something that is
occurring in the other place where I spend about half of my time
which is in U.K. which is the human fertilization and embriology
act which stirs the cauldron of eugenics. By dictating how,
whom and in what directions humans as individuals and species
may procreate. There's a whiff there, folks. Get it?
In the spirit of Bruno Latur, I will not answer
questions regarding these two. They are your questions. These
are things that you must wrestle with. That you must address.
And perhaps try to answer because each and every one of these
based on historicity gives us a contemporary cannon that gives
rice to ontological assertions. When we define these things in
terms of ability, disability, when we set particular standards
that, in fact, acknowledge or disacknowledge biological norms in
the sake of social or psychological norms, we must be weary and
cognizant of the power of such assertions to name, frame and
claim who, what individuals and groups are and what that means.
When focusing this upon the notion of deaf, we must
then ask, is this diagnosis? Is this some assertion of this
ability or is it a declaration that suggests for more doctrinal?
Are we aligning this with the biological, social and in between
reaction and reflection of psychology, on an individual or
social level. The idea of diagnosis, disability or declaration
of capability and capacity for particular gains is laden and
reflective of dissonance, tension and perhaps frank conflicts
and various normative values, criteria and thresholds. My
premise, arguments and conclusions are straightforward. If we
are to base much of our contemporary social -- know you and
reliance and science and technology as we are, if we are to nest
that within our social environments and our public and political
activities, we better get the science right. And we better use
that knowledge in right in good ways. I urge the primacy of the
biological model. I think it establishes a baseline for the
medical norm. We must appreciate that the facts are contingent
and a particular flexibility of how we use these biological
norms. We cannot cherry pick these data, but nor should be just
knee jerk and react and respond to them. We must be prepared,
prudent and responsible.
I think it's important that understanding what it
means to be biologically human sets particular thresholds for
psychosocial effects. What is normal, what does it mean to be
autonomous? What are certain things that we gain? What things
can we lose and what does that mean based upon those norms in a
biological frame work that's nested with an ongoing interaction
between genes, physical expression, environments and our social
constructs. There is a burden that we carry. It is my burden.
It is your burden. It is all of us. Simply put, with great
capability, cognition to make machines, to manipulate through
our technology, to help heal and harm comes tremendous
responsibility to use these things in ways that are technically
right and that we strive to be morally good. In many ways, this
is the faustian bargain. And it's of interest, the doctor,
Faust, craves knowledge and he craves knowledge so that he can
acquire the love that he desires that he can navigate the
shifting realties of the human conditions. And so he learns to
mafisto. The fallen angel in a way that is both desirous and
begging. Faust urges mafisto to give him all of the knowledge
that humanity will one day acquire. And manfisto urges
prudence. The fallen angel sees the ability to reconcile his
own falling, dump it back on humanity. As Faust stands poised
at the threshold of limitless knowledge, and unending
capability, mafisto weighs on his shoulder and with urged hand,
urges him to pause, you stand, stock, pull and stare if before
the lecture hall. This is not an academic exercise, you fool,
this is reality. There in the flesh, physics and metaphysics is
there. Not only what is tangible, but what we believe is there.
He urges him, you want to go there? Come on? I've
got your soul. We made the bargain, let's go. But, what about
the dangers? Are you ready for the truth? Then he urges him.
Remember the blood guilt that you might have from your own hand.
Are you ready to be responsible for the knowledge and capability
that it brings?
He urges him, caution and prudence. How will you use
this knowledge and will you use it in ways that are right and
good? In many ways, we are imparted with the faustian bargain.
Contemporary science have given us great capabilities. We must
use that capability to understand and finely and richly grain -on human fallibility to utilize such understanding and knowledge
in ways that are sometimes less than right and fall far short of
good.
If I'm going to give you any answers, I give you
answers solely towards a fix. We cannot retard progress. The
status quo is progress. Hanna Arent was well-known for the
study of convicted war criminal and she referred to humanities
binality of evil. She looked at the human conditions we slave
away as opportunists, careerists and labor away and then at one
point, we pick our heads up and go, what have we done? She
urges against that. Such noncontemplative advancement is no
longer tenable. Arent referred to this as slaving like an
animal.
If, in fact, we are not going to live by the rules of
nature and we choose to manipulate it and control it, then the
responsibility is not upon nature, but upon us. Indeed, we must
appreciate that our nature is one of manipulation, no our nature
is inactive and we must -- interactive and we must be
contemplative of our action, knowledge and effects. She calls
this homofeber. The creative, building human. One that steps
back with reflective pause before, during and after the
instantiation of any progress or advancement of science to ask
what does it mean and how shall we use this?
Indeed, my invocation to you is simple. I believe
that this must, can, should be instantiated and implied into
three critical domains that academia and scholarly activity
provides to society. Research, what is studied, how is it
studied, by whom, for whom, to what ends? Critically important
to this community. Wishes to create evil or do harm, one needs
only to choose what is taught as the good. In cherry picking
that, in not affording a rich, finely grained, 360-degree view
of facts and contingencies, one can view the world through a
straw which may be very easily proloined for agendas outside of
that which is buy logically or psychologically or universally
good. How does what we learn give us prudence and purchase to
make learning better? How does what we learn get integrated
into curricula today so we don't make the mistakes tomorrow that
we did yesterday?
And the reciprocal integration of education back into
research. What does the educational forum dictate about what we
should study and how we should study it? In reality, this
describes one of the problems that is going on at Gallaudet.
The VL2 program. I urge consideration of programs like that.
Writ large within a curricula integration. To be able to then
move on to practice in healthcare, social sciences, humanities,
public life. They all require educational address and
explication. What I urge is very simple. That ethics must
remain in step with scientific progress.
It's a nice little contraction. It's the integration
of science, technology, ethics and policy. Not after the fact
like Hanna Arents slaving animal that looks up one day, what
have I done? But for and during the process so as to be
reflective, analytic, prudent and responsible. It's a paradigm
in an Arentian spirit. Simply put, the pace, breadth and depth
of technological advancement is such that we must ensure lessons
are not repeated. We are moving too fast. Not to measure twice
and cut once. Because as history has caught us, far too often
as Faust learned from Fasito, there's no turning back. This is
available to you in Gallaudet. I want to invite each and all of
you to do is to engage this in discourse, dialectic and
expression.
Remember, I started this not by saying here is a
lecture, sit and listen for an hour and then go have lunch.
This was an invitation. This was an invocation. This was a
conjoinment, welcome to the field. You want to be in this
field, that vests you to a level of responsibility one of the
ways that we are doing this at Gallaudet is through ongoing
participation in the international ethics consortium that brings
together a group of diverse academic institutions in the
humanities and the sciences, from around the globe, the
international ethics consortium is gaining tremendous momentum
and focused upon those issues in ethics that reflect the most
contemporary questions, problems and solutions, science,
technology and the social agenda.
These universities are literally the founding members.
We get about one new participant a week. Gallaudet is, indeed,
the top of the list. By mission statement, the international
ethics consortium seeks educational development -- forms of
healthcare, human services, humanities in the arts across
multicultural and global perspectives. How do we do this in
engages participation through a tool, we become participatory
with the university of Michigan's ethics share. Through an
ongoing multicenter partnership, University of Michigan has
created this portal. Gallaudet university is part of this
portal. It enabled through consistent funding unique facets of
the lens to be shared. Moreover, it's attributional. It's not
anonymous. Does not infuse viewpoint, voice and insight into a
larger add mixture of anonymity. But allows people to retain
voice so as to be able to advance their insight of those with
multicultural. Work with colleagues as junior peers. As junior
members of the profession in this contributory effort. Indeed,
it allows expression and exchange of ideas and I close this talk
and thank you for your time and your patience and support and,
number, two, open information to pick up the baton from my hand
to your future, thank you.
[Applause].
* * * * *
This is being provided in a rough-draft format. Communication
Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to
facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally
verbatim record of the proceedings.
* * * * *