Today
in my general biology class I taught about the techniques and amazing
accomplishments of biotechnology. We only got as far as DNA technology
(fingerprinting, archaeological identification, evolutionary studies, etc.) One
clear message was that, if you commit a crime, you will almost certainly leave
some DNA evidence that can be used to track you down. Only felons have their
DNA fingerprints in a national database, but the old Perry Mason days (when
Lieutenant Tragg could only testify that the blood at the murder scene was the
same type as that of the defendant, for example) are long gone. The DNA on a
licked envelope or a hair follicle is enough to catch you.
This
past weekend in Tulsa, I saw something truly tragic. Underneath a bridge on
71st Street, I found a lot of garbage, but it was not from a dumpster. It
consisted mostly of children’s clothes, dolls, a beauty parlor appointment
book, an empty purse, a receipt book, etc. It looked as if burglars had
ransacked an apartment, and then had gone through the stolen items under the
bridge, discarding anything not of value to them. Or, possibly, a woman had
taken her child and fled domestic abuse, only to discover that she could not
hide under the bridge, and had to abandon personal items. Somebody’s life was
uprooted, and thrown to the winds. The most touching item was a notebook in
which a little girl had drawn and colored in pictures of princesses.
Are
these two paragraphs connected? I believe they are. The police must have known
about all the stuff under the bridge, but had apparently not investigated it.
If a lower-middle-class woman and child live in an apartment, and all of their
belongings are stolen, the police consider this a crime but not a very
important one. The police will probably never get around to investigating this.
Their attention is taken up by investigating any crimes committed against
upper-class people or against corporations. If you want to see the police
spring to action, just try shoplifting something out of Wal-mart. I did not try
this, but I saw someone who did. At least three police cars descended on the
store, and the suspects were surrounded by uniformed personnel.
We
have amazing tools for law enforcement, including biotechnology. Much of the
biotechnology was developed at public expense. But on whose behalf does law
enforcement use these resources? Mainly for the rich and for corporations; they
are important. I do not have any reason to suspect the Tulsa Police
deliberately ignore the lower-middle class and poor, but it looks to me as if
poorer people get pushed down the priority list. Lower-middle class people do
pay taxes, including property taxes (through their rent). The same comment
could be made about advances in health care. Amazing medical technologies,
developed largely at public expense (at least in the early stages of research) are
available mainly to the rich.
It
is impossible to teach about biotechnology without dealing with political
issues such as privacy of DNA information. But you cannot really understand
biotechnology without seeing that the main beneficiaries of biotechnology are
the rich. Anyone need some bioidentical hormone replacement therapy? Tell that
to the woman whose stuff was under the bridge.
No comments:
Post a Comment