II. To secure or reassemble the monster? Flashcards
What is meant by PPP and GOF?
Pathogen of Pandemic Potential - identified through Gain Of Function experiments.
To identify transmission mutations which can reliably predict human transmissibility from the genotype, which enhances surveillance by timely identification of high-risk strains, and vaccine design. This forms an effective preventive action to reduce pandemic risk -> potential to save lives.
What was the outcome of GOF experiments on AI?
AI considered next global pandemic (although COVID happened) because so good at mutating.
Through infecting two ferrets repeatedly -> only 3 mutations of H5N1 away from danger
An experiment that provides ‘vital information on mutations and host-pathogen interactions’ … apparently
Fouchier et al. 2011 / Kawaoka et al. 2011
What has since been done about GOF experiments?
US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity
Held moratorium to stop GOF on grounds that it is a major security risk.
Making new viruses that could escape, ethically questionable, potential to be weaponised.
DIY labs makes it easily accessible for terrorists, recipes for synthetic biology, overstated benefits (Lipsitch et al., 2014)
In what way has US risk policy shifted? What modes of anticipation has this led to?
From defence to security i.e. “from a reactive and conservative attitude to an active and constructive one…from reactive war attitude to an active attitude that pre-empts attack” (Hardt and Negri, 2005) - perhaps out of fear after 9/11
Defence: no instigation of conflict unless attacked
Security: actively pre-empting future threats; using uncertainty to justify more intervention
-> preparedness and pre-emption
Outline the four modes of anticipation?
Prevention
Precaution
Preparedness
Pre-emption
Define ‘prevention’.
an attempt to reduce the likelihood of causes of danger
to reduce likelihood of danger
risk rendered measurable, controllable, predictable (e.g. episodes)
investment into long-term ‘prophylactic’ intervention and redistribution of resources based on statistics, pop data -> creates bigger problem (e.g. LA River)
Define ‘precaution’.
acting event when there is little robust knowledge of the risks
when there are large uncertainties, action must be slower and steadier, to find evidence of no harm:
anticipation of harm -> burden of proof on those acting -> obligation to introduce control measures even with significant uncertainty over how harmful effects will be (but can be easily by-passed if other major risks/concerns seem more pressing)
Define ‘preparedness’.
fostering a state of readiness for uncertain though inevitable events
uncertainty and lack of episodic predictability (new dangers, can’t use history, complexity) acknowledged so prevention not ideal, but precaution too slow
towards being ready, flexible, adaptable i.e. emergency planning, rehearsals, infrastructural resilience, state of ‘constant vigilance’
impending threat, more surveillance, addressing vulnerabilities in infrastructure
Define ‘pre-emption’.
speculative attempts to counter possible future threats
away from probabilism towards possibilities; innovation mobilised to “actualise” the future ourselves (as we are so ignorant and uncertain) -> military responsiveness -> future-oriented -> disaster capitalism (see next lecture)
How does the shift to securing the monster link to the module narrative?
the governmental solution to uncertainty has not been to slow things down and engage more people (precaution + participation, Beck, Latour, Stirling), but to increase research and the centralise use of expertise – which in turn could create new monsters
How have responses to uncertainty compared to Beck, Latour, Stirling, Wynne and Pickering’s arguments?
Have not followed academic suggestions i.e. instead of slowing things down and being more precautious and participatory with redistributed expertise, security modes involve increasingly secretive security logic, even more centralised and top-down, exploiting uncertainty
What factors of the security approach have become roadblocks to re-modernisation?
Closure politics
Modern to emergency science
Emergence of emergency
Knowledge economy
(all leading to Disaster Capitalism)
In what way does security relate to closure?
politics: security favours closure, secrecy and exemption from public accountability e.g. IPCC; the security approach as a ‘roadblock’ to re-modernisation.
How has the role of science changed?
Modern: science reassures, reduces uncertainty, promises control (e.g. flood, disease, radiation, food safety, BSE, IPCC, GM, 2,4,5-T) -> critiqued for false assurance, fails to give voice to marginal concerns and map controversies
to
Emergent: raises the alarm, generates anxiety to justify more resources (e.g. pandemics, AMR, climate dynamics, perfect storms) -> critiqued for disaster capitalism, centralised, militarised authorities and expert-led research
What is meant by ‘emergence of emergency’?
the way we are has changed too, idea of life has changed in light of its ‘rapid mutability’ that has surpassed our imaginations -> no longer fixed, but constantly changing
-> possibility of single but lethal event high i.e. high possibility of new and dangerous things resulting from life
Possibilities rather than probabilities become matters for ever more speculative intervention
