Skip to main content

Full text of "Processed World"

See other formats 


LUDRLD 


1 

/ 

f- 

J 

^ 

'<^ 

-^x 

^ 

r 

7 

/ 

1 

Ji 

i^lSf^ 

J 

m 

m 

\- 

%^ 


'^     I' 


%^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2010 


http://www.archive.org/details/processedworld28proc 


The  Quest  for 
MicrowavaUe  Pasta  'IS 

biotech  tale  oftoti  by 
Robin  Wheatworth 


Greenwashing 

Agricultural 

Biotechnology  •  16 

analy,is  by  Tom  Mhananou 


Shadowboxingthe 
Future  •  51 

and/ysis  by  Sdm  Butova 


We  Don't  Gotta  Show 

You  No  Stinkin' 

Gene  Screens!  •  46 

inlerneiv  with  Dr  Paul  Billmgs 


My  Best  Job*  10 

biotech  tale  of  tod 
by  Kwazee  Wabbit 


T  / 


Reproductive  Rights^ 
Rant •  57 

by  Angela  Socage 


People's  Ambulance 
Chaser  •  29 

tale  ol  toil  by  R  L   Tripp 


Biohell  •  18  ^ 

'  biotech  tale  of  toil  \J 


.9.^1 


^'' 


vCa 


-A 


llllll' 


V^/ 


\^' 


5 


Jim 


^vS^.:^ 


A^ 


oFFic 


-TA^£5, 


!i.. 


fh 


Pissing  in  the 
Gene  Pool  •  34 

'  ana/y  Sis  by  Ptimitiyo  Mora/es 


Castro's  Genes  •  41 

bio/ech  trayi^  toil  by  Michael  Dunn 


Genetic  Engineering 
Pioneer  •  24 

((^fvfev\  yvitb  Marco  Schwarzstein 


Temporary  Coding  •  61 

tale  ol  toil  by  Mickey  D 


Generation  X  •  22 

tiction  excerpt  by  Douglas  Coup/and 


Splicing  Heads  •  2 

introductory  editorial 


% 


\ 


0^ 


53 

.  Lazzara,  Morales 


Bar  Raps  •  26 

prose  poem  by  Marina  Lazzara 


^P 


^^V^ 


/: 


LETTERS '5 

uom  our  re-^decN 


X 


V 


meltDOWNTIME  •  43 

nuke  dump,  deep  dish  fv 
amazonian  ecogroup 


Front  Cover:  Bill  Koeb 
Back  Cover:  Arch  D.  Bunker 


UNINDICTED  CO-CONSPIRATORS: 

-jBean,  Kwazee  Wabbitt,  Mickey  D, 
7  D.S,  Black,  Frog,  Pnmitivo  Morales, 
~  Chris  Carlsson,  Zoe  Noe,  Ellen  K.,  Denim  . 
-  Daddy,  Paula  Orlando,  IRS,  Trixie  T- 
-Square,  Neil  M.,  Mark  B.,  Louis' 
"Michaelson,  Curlis  inlerruptus  Shelley 
~  Fern  Diamond 


h^^^ 


CONTRIBUTING  DELINQUENTS: 

Claude  Ewell,  Tom  Tomorrow,  Ate 
Backwords,  Man  Bianca,  Doug  Minkler 
IB  Nelson,  Arch  D  Bunker,  The  ; 
^  Stranger,  Max  FHardley  and  Tony  Allen, 
Lili  Ledbetler,  Todd  LeFurge,  jovan 
Severin  Head,  Chaz  Bufe,  and  others, 
readers  and  workers  alike 


PROCESSED  < 

WORLD 

Winter  1991-92 
ISSN  0735-9381  i 


The  material  in  Pfoccssed  IVor/ci  reflects 
the  ideas  and  fantasies  of  the  specific 
r  authors  and  artists,  and  not  necessarily- 
^those  of  other  contributors,  editors  or; 


POEMS  •  32 

Nathan  Whiting,  Marc  Olmned, 
Alan  Mendoza.  DS  Black, 
Blair  Ewing,  Art  Tishman. 
Mbundu 


Pro-Choice  Poem  •  59 

by  fauid  (_)r/ando 


IMMIGRATION        ^ 
NEW  PATRIOTISM  v 

EDUCATION  N 

secondary       primary         college     '      \ 
students      teachers  research      _  V 


FUTURE  THEMES 


^\usss«s»' 


Processed  World  is  a  project  of  the  Bay  ~ 
\rea  Center  for  Art  &  Technology,  a  ' 
nonprofit,  tax  exempt  corporation. 
BACAT  can  be  contacted  at  1095  ^ 
Market  Street,  #209,  San  Francisco,  CA  N 
44 10^;  PW  or  BACAT  may  be  phoned  — 
at  (4151  626-2979  or  faxed  at  (415)  626- 
2685 


Processed  World  is  collectively  edited 
and  produced.  Nobody  gets  paid  (ex- 

I  cept  the  printer  and  the  Post  Office).  IT 
^  We  welcome  comments,  letters,  and 

I  submissions  (no  originals!).  Write  us  at 
41  Sutler  Street,  #1829.  San, Francisco.  ~ 
(A  94104.      ^   ,  1^    \    ^      ■       s      - 


SPUCING  H£A\DS 


"New  Technology^'  Again 


31; 


elcome  to  PROCESSED  WORLD  28,  whose  theme  is 
biotechnology,  a  very  broad  category  that  includes  mak- 
ing both  beer  and  transgenic  species.  The  present  direction  of  bio- 
technology's development  is  another  bracing  slap  in  the  face  for 
all  of  us  who  demand  popular  control  over  technology,  science, 
and  work  itself.  Those  of  us  working  on  the  magazine  are  not  bio- 
logists. Our  attempt  to  analyze  biotech,  then,  represents  something 
of  the  social  process  we  think  the  majority  of  the  population  needs 
to  engage  in. 


As  we  grope  for  ways  to  understand 
what  is  happening  in  this  new  realm,  we 
face  the  disadvantage  of  being  non-experts 
challenging  experts,  posing  problems  for 
our  credibility  right  from  the  start.  Teach- 
ing ourselves  about  arcane  technological 
developments  challenges  the  authority 
vested  in  scientific  expertise.  This  chal- 
lenge intensifies  when  we  reject  attempts 
by  scientists  and  their  boosters  to  force 
the  arguments  onto  technical  grounds. 

A  case  in  point— from  an  editorial  in 
the  May  1991  issue  of  Biotechnology 
magazine: 

"If  I  were  opposed  in  principle  to  the 
deliberate  release  of  genetically  modified 
organisms  (GMOs)  into  the  environment 
(which  I  am  not),  I  would  build  my  case  not 
on  hazards  supposedly  inherent  in  the 
recombination  of  diverse  fragments  of 
DNA,  nor  on  the  artificiality  of  gene 
splicing,  nor  on  the  presumptuousness  of 
hurrxans  "playing  God,"  nor  on  the  added 
impetus  biotechnology  allegedly  gives  to  the 
growing  polarization  of  the  planet  into  the 
rich  North  and  the  impoverished  South,  nor 
even  on  the  question  of  whether  we  really 
need  better  bio-control  agents  or  novel  plants 
with  built-in  herbicide  resistance.  I  would 
focus  instead  on  one  simple  question:  is  our 
knowledge  of  natural  gene  transmission 
sufficiently  comprehensive  to  adopt  as  the 
baseline  against  which  to  assess  the  conse- 
quences, perhaps  distant  in  space  and  time, 
of  today's  release  of  GMOs?.  .  .  In  less  than 
two  years  we  have  learned  that  bacterial 
viruses  are  vastly  commoner  in  water  than 
was  previously  imagined,  and  that  they 
probably  have  extensive  interactions  with 


aquatic  bacteria.  Clearly,  this  new  know- 
ledge extends  our  vision  of  the  machinery 
available  for  the  horizontal  movement  of 
genes  in  nature.  And  that,  in  turn,  alters  our 
perspective  on  the  possible  onward  journeys 
of  stretches  of  D'NA  ferried  into  GMOs  and 
then  disseminated  into  the  environment." 
"Commentary:  Revelations  Recur' 
ring"  by  Bernard  Dixon 

Dixon,  an  unabashed  cheerleader  for 
biotech,  admits  our  knowledge  of  the 
consequences  of  releasing  genetically 
modified  organisms  into  the  environ- 
ment is  woefully  inadequate.  His  glib 
dismissal  of  an  impressive  list  of  social 
criticisms  is  typical.  By  rejecting  social  or 
ethical  or  economic  considerations,  by 
willfully  ignoring  the  social  conse- 
quences of  their  endeavors,  the  "experts" 
compel  us  to  rise  to  the  occasion  with 
affirmations  of  our  right  to  subject 
science  and  technology  to  more  serious 
social  criticism. 

Biotechnology  encompasses  two  pow- 
erful efforts  to  develop  vastly  profitable, 
marketable  commodities.  The  first,  engi- 
neering the  human  body,  comprises 
everything  from  genetic  screening/ther- 
apy and  the  Human  Genome  Project 
(HGP)  to  the  insatiable  and  probably 
infinite  market  for  new  ways  to  "im- 
prove" human  bodies/longevity/pleas- 
ures/health. This  market  will  likely  bal- 
loon as  the  HGP  generates  the  raw  data 
needed  for  new  "breakthroughs."  Ap- 
proaching rapidly  are  new  pharmaceuti- 
cal products,  new  ways  of  "enhancing" 
the  human  condition,  new  definitions  of 
disease  and  "disorder,"  and  a  worldwide 


industry  mobilized  to  create  and  fill  new 
needs  through  biological  manipulation. 
Covering  this  front  is  "We  Don't  Gotta 
Show  You  No  Stinkin'  Gene  Screens," 
an  interview  with  Dr.  Paul  Billings,  a 
genetic  discrimination  specialist  (page 
46),  and  Primitive  Morales'  look  at  the 
history  of  eugenics  and  the  state  of  the 
art  in  genetic  screening,  "Pissing  In  The 
Gene  Pool"  (page  34). 

Curiously,  we  already  know  an  awful 
lot  about  improving  human  health  but 
don't  implement  it.  We  could  provide 
basic  preventive  medicine  through  uni- 
versal, freely  available  health  clinics, 
adequate  prenatal  care  for  all  pregnant 
women,  adequate  housing  and  useful 
participation  in  society,  and  decent  san- 
itation, sewage  treatment,  and  clean 
water,  to  name  a  few.  This  year,  a 
quarter  of  a  million  people  in  South 
America  have  already  contracted  chol- 
era, a  disease  for  which  the  solution  has 
been  known  for  over  a  hundred  years: 
clean  water  and  enclosed  sewers.  Claims 
that  biotechnology  alone  can  vastly 
improve  human  health  will  divert  atten- 
tion and  resources  away  from  such 
pressing  problems. 

In  much  the  same  way,  agricultural 
biotechnology  diverts  resources  and  re- 
search from  such  worthwhile  goals  as 
sustainable  agriculture  and  puts  the 
emphasis  on  new  technological  fixes. 
Food  production  is  where  the  debate 
over  the  releasing  oi  genetically 
manipulated  organisms  into  the  envi- 
ronment is  hot  and  heavy,  although  it  is 
only  a  more  attention-grabbing  part  of 


f»fft<::>dHsssi>  woR.i.i>  -^sx 


the  field.  Biotech  companies  are  devel- 
oping or  considering  the  creation  of 
transgenic  species  of  plant  and  animal; 
cloning  and  in-vitro  propagation  of 
animal  embryos;  harnessing  of  microbial 
interactions;  biotech  pest  and  disease 
control  products;  and  the  use  of  crops  as 
feedstock  for  the  chemical  industry.  See 
Tom  Athanasiou's  "Greenwashing  Ag- 
ricultural Biotechnology"  (page  16), 
Robin  Wheatworth's  "The  Quest  for 
Microwavable  Pasta  and  Other  Vital 
Needs.  .  ."  (page  13),  and  Sam  Bulova's 
"Shadowboxing  The  Future"  (page  51). 
And  check  out  PW  22  for  a  good  look  at 
diminishing  genetic  diversity  in  Mark 
Leger's  "Plants  Bursting  With  Energy." 
Our  biotech  issue  also  looks  at  life  on  the 
lab  bench  in  Chudaman  Royale's  "Bio- 
hell,"  and  in  "A  Genetic  Engineering 
Pioneer,"  an  interview  with  Swiss- 
trained  Brazilian  geneticist  Marco 
Schwarzstein,  who  has  left  the  field 
because  of  terminal  suspicion  towards 
science.  This  interview,  along  with  a 
brief  report  on  Cuban  biotechnology 
("Castro's  Genes"  on  page  41),  hint  at  some 
of  the  promise/hype  and  problems  of  this 
new  technology  in  the  Third  World. 

As  multinationals  develop  bioengin- 
eered  substitutes  for  a  wide  range  of  vital 
export  crops  like  sugar,  cacao,  and 
vanilla,  the  suffering  of  millions  of 
already  poor  farmers  and  peasants  in- 
tensifies. A  new  biotech  peasantry  is 
being  "engineered"  in  tropical  forests 
and  other  genetically  rich  hotspots  as 
the  new  raw  material  producers  suffer 
the  same  old  fate:  low  prices,  expensive 
imports,  and  ever-increasing  debt. 
Crushing  poverty  in  places  like  the 
Amazon,  with  its  unplanned,  chaotic 
urban  sprawls,  usually  without  basic 
running  water  and  sewerage,  ensures  the 
availability  of  "human  resources"  for  a 
nightmarish  biotech  future. 

The  absurd  claim  that  "transgenic" 
creations,  like  the  more  mundane  her- 
bicide-resistant crops  and  bovine  growth 
hormone  (BGH),  will  somehow  end 
world  hunger  clearly  shows  how  some 
scientists  can  so  lose  themselves  in 
arcane  technical  detail  that  they  com- 
pletely fail  to  understand  what  is  going 
on  around  them. 

Increases  in  agricultural  productivity 
might  be  of  interest  to  people  who 
simply  need  food  that  they're  not  get- 
ting. But  increased  production  is  a  big 
problem  —  because  it  bears  no  relation 
to  specific  need  and  is  not  coordinated 
with  distribution.  Instead  of  simply  de- 
livering the  surplus  to  the  needy,  the 


government  buys  it  and  holds  it  back 
from  the  market  to  maintain  prices.  This 
allows  most  farmers  to  pay  their  debts 
(good  for  banks,  y'know)  and  keeps  the 
"system"  going. 

A  technological  breakthrough  in  this 
environment  does  not  change  its  logic, 
unless  other  forces  in  society  pressure  it 
to  do  so.  Predictably,  the  industry 
leaders  will  gain  greater  market  shares 
and  drive  out  weaker  competitors.  So 
while  new  biotechnologies  may  help 
increase  food  yields,  unless  there  is  a  break 
between  having  money  and  being  able  to 
eat,  surpluses  will  just  create  problems 
for  the  "price  stabilizers." 

PLANNING?  WHO  WANTS  TO?!? 

The    promise    of   biotechnology,    like 


any  promise  made  by  the  leaders  of 
this  society,  should  be  put  to  popular 
scrutiny.  As  with  any  new  technology, 
we  should  have  some  way  to  learn  about 
it,  evaluate  the  changes  it  may  bring, 
and  decide  what  needs  it  should  address. 
But  we  don't  make  decisions  about  ANY 
changes  that  take  place  in  our  lives,  so 
how  can  we  suddenly  assert  a  public 
right  to  control  our  latest  whiz-bang 
technofix?  As  it  is,  most  of  us  don't 
really  care  about  the  "why"  oi  what  we're 
doing  at  work  now.  If  we  can't  get  worked 
up  about  how  we  spend  our  lives,  what 
chance  is  there  that  we'll  confront  the 
ramifications  of  new  technology?  This  is 
just  a  glimpse  of  the  enormity  of  our 
problem! 


DRAW  COLUMBUS 

Liar       Slaver      Murderer      Thief 


FUTURE  THEMES!  Please  SUBMIT  articles/tales  of  toil/ 
graphics/fiction/poetry  on  Immigration^  The  "New" 
Patriotism,  and  Education,  for  upcoming  theme  issues. 


f»B<0<:i.ESSEI>    W<I>B<t.I>    2tS 


The  biotech  research  scientists  them- 
selves are  not  even  involved  in  deter- 
mining the  nature  of  their  work.  Our 
various  tales  of  toil  from  inside  the 
corporate  biotech  world  demonstrate 
repeatedly  that  research  and  develop- 
ment priorities  are  set  by  the  market- 
place, not  by  the  pursuit  of  Truth  or  the 
satisfaction  of  human  needs.  In  a  sidebar 
to  a  salary  survey  in  the  September  1990 
Biotechnology,  scientists  complained  of  a 
lack  of  support  from  the  company 
hierarchy  and  "not  enough  participation 
in  decision  making."  This  frustration 
indicates  that  the  front  line  scientist  is 
already  at  odds  with  the  money  boys  & 
girls.  Can  we  imagine  scientists  re- 
directing biotechnology  away  from  mere 
commercial  ends? 

To  evaluate  biotechnology  or  any 
technology,  we  have  to  have  values  and 
a  vision.  These  are  not  something  we  are 
much  encouraged  to  develop. 

Part  of  Processed  World's  vision  is 
abundance  in  general,  with  less  work  and 
a  balanced  ecology.  This  is  what  bio- 
technology seems  to  promise  (see 
"Greenwashing.  .  .").  Instead  of  saying 
STOP,  we  say  "we  want  the  goods,  but 
the  marketplace  can't  provide  them,  and 
will  actually  obstruct  our  ability  to 
determine  our  real  desires."  Our  vision 
of  a  free  society  is  not  any  more 
"natural"  (or  unnatural!)  than  the  mess 
we're  living  in  now.  A  socially  and 
spiritually  free,  ecologically  sound,  and 
materially  abundant  life  takes  democrat- 
ic planning.  We  know  the  results  we  get 
by  leaving  it  up  to  the  same  corporate 
and  governmental  elites  that  have  had 
their  way  for  decades. 

Debating  the  nuances  of  technological 
change  may  seem  irrelevant  in  the 
absence  of  social  control  over  society's 
resources,  including  the  work  it  does. 
Nevertheless,  we  must  continue  to  stim- 
ulate this  debate.  Since  the  mid-1970s, 
grassroots  movements  have  challenged 
the  experts  on  nukes  and  offshore  oil 
drilling,  as  they  now  do  over  AIDS 
treatment.  In  the  momentous  shift  to 
bio-engineered  production,  we  must  de- 
termine what  we  want  before  we  can  be 
in  a  position  to  influence  the  outcome  of 
events. 

AMBIVALENCES 

Restoring  the  earth  absolutely  depends 
on  the  successful  implementation  of 
biological  knowledge.  Advanced  biotech 
makes  this  more  possible.  The  blurry  line 
between  analysis  and  intervention  has 
been  crossed.  If  we  want  to  understand 


photo:  Bean 


what  we've  done  and  begin  clarifying 
how  to  make  it  "right"  (a  concept  which 
is,  inevitably,  a  human  construct  too), 
we  need  to  understand  and  analyze  life 
and  ecosystems  at  both  the  cellular  and 
the  systemic  level.  That  is  what  basic 
biology  allows  us  to  do;  how  capital 
turns  it  into  products  is  quite  another 
story.  Genentech's  refusal  to  develop  a 
malaria  vaccine,  which  could  quickly 
make  a  huge  difference  for  tens  of 
millions,  is  a  sordidly  normal  example  of 
decisions  driven  by  the  profit  motive. 

Biotechnology  also  encompasses  re- 
production and  contraception,  which 
further  complicates  simple  opposition. 
Freedom  from  procreation  requires  safe, 
efficient  and  invisible  contraception.  But 
like  any  product,  contraceptives  come  to 
us  at  the  expense  of  those  who  produce 
them.  The  personal  sexual  freedom  pro- 
vided by  contraception  is  contingent  on 
others — to  say  the  least!  Because  we  have 
no  control  over  research  and  develop- 
ment, a  disproportionate  share  of  re- 
search goes  into  female  contraception. 
The  inadequacy  of  contraception  in 
general  leads  to  the  "moral  crisis"  of 
abortion,  an  issue  Angela  Bocage  fumes 
about  in  "Reproductive  Rights  Rant" 
(page  57).  Don't  we  all  wish  for  a  new 
birth  control  fix— safe,  easy,  without  side 
effects  or  ecological  repercussions?  How 
do  we  develop  the  social  imagination  to 
conceive  of  and  fight  for  the  technolo- 
gies we  want,  in  the  face  of  an  agenda  set 
by  capital? 

Of  course  the  U.S.  government  has 
been  actively  engineering  a  good  busi- 
ness climate  for  biotechnology.  The 
Supreme  Court  did  its  part  by  ruling  in 
favor  of  the  patenting  of  life  forms. 
Without  guaranteed  property  rights, 
investment  in  new  life  forms  would  be 


drastically  curtailed.  The  first  imperative 
in  the  national  biotechnology  policy 
report  of  the  President's  Council  on 
Competitiveness  (chaired  by  that  famous 
scientist/intellectual,  Dan  Quayle)  is  to 
"re-emphasize  technology  transfer  from 
government-supported  research  institu- 
tions to  commercial  practice."  Plans  are 
also  underway  to  remove  federal  regula- 
tions that  apply  only  to  biotechnology 
and  abandon  public  oversight  of  the 
process  in  favor  of  cursory  regulation  of 
the  products. 

THE  SLIPPERY  BIOTECH  SLOPE 

Every  time  we  are  drawn  into  an 
argument  about  the  safety  or  efficacy  of  a 
particular  innovation,  we  abdicate  on 
the  larger  questions.  Why  this?  Why  a 
"product"?  Why  are  we  going  down  this 
road?  What  kind  of  life  do  we  want,  and 
will  this  help  us  achieve  it?  At  what  cost? 

We're  speeding  to  Hell,  few  people 
think  life  is  getting  better,  and  the 
human  condition  and  global  ecology  are 
worsening  at  a  precipitous  rate.  A  thor- 
oughgoing overhaul  is  long  overdue.  We 
work  far  too  hard  doing  things  which  are 
destroying  us,  and  have  no  clear  vision 
of  how  to  make  life  worth  living— or  the 
means  to  do  so.  But  we  must  create 
them! 


On  Processed  World's  traditional  turf, 
this  issue  takes  a  look  at  the  miseries  of 
working  in  law  with  two  tales  of  toil, 
"People's     Ambulance     Chaser"     and 
"Temporary  Coding."  We're  excerpting 
a  chapter  from  "Generation  X,"  a  great 
new  book  by  Douglas  Coupland.  Just 
published  by  St.  Martin's,  it  captures  the 
Processed  World  experience  to  perfection. 
"Bar  Raps"  is  a    poetic  account  of  life 
behind    the    bar.    Our    DOWNTIME! 
section   features   a   warning   about   the 
still-not-dead  nuclear  industry  "Mutate 
Now,  and  Avoid  The  Rush,"  along  with 
great  letters  and  poetry  to  round  out  the 
issue.  As  always,  we  crave  your  response. 
Write  to  us.  What  do  you  think? 
PROCESSED  WORLD 
41  Sutter  St.,  No.  1829 
San  Francisco,  CA  94104. 
Telephone  (415)  626-2979 
Fax  (415)  626-2685 
We  are  always  seeking  new  contribu- 
tors of  graphic  art,  cartoons,  photo- 
graphs,    reports     from     workplaces, 
stories  about  daily  life,  tales  of  toil, 
poetry  and  fiction.  We  pay  nothing! 
Getting  in  print  is  its  own  reward, 
(ha  ha). 


••fftociESsso  vy<:L>5«.i-o  ssj 


More  On  Good  Jobs 

Dear  PW, 

Thanks  for  sending  issue  26/27,  another 
fine  issue,  though  one  article  ("Ambivalent 
Memories  of  Virtual  Community")  managed 
to  deflate  a  dream  of  mine  in  one  fell  swoop. 
It  seems  that  we  should  be  able  to  apply 
what  we  have  learned  about  hierarchy  and 
make  it  stick.  I  feel  your  contributors  for 
26/27  failed  to  do  this.  One  after  another 
enthusiastic  egalitarians  fell  (or  were 
pushed)  back  into  the  manager/worker/ 
consumer  roles.  I'd  like  to  see  a  follow-up 
questionnaire  asking:  "What  happened? 
Were  you  or  your  co-workers  polarized  by 
apathy  or  responsibility?  Was  it  the  outside 
pressure  of  too  many  other  institutions  saying 
'Not  you,  let  me  talk  to  your  supervisor!'?  Was 
your  group  structured  like  the  corporate 
world  and  planning  only  to  listen  to  each 
other  and  thinking  good  thoughts?" 

In  my  experience,  groups  work  well  when 
their  members  respect  each  other  independ- 
ent of  the  job  or  role  and  share  on  interest  in 
the  purpose  of  the  group.  This  holds  true  in 
my  job,  social  and  political  groups  and 
probably  others.  It  fits  with  my  anarcho- 
feminist  politics;  organizational  hierarchies 
obscure  lines  of  real  respect  (do  I  like  her 
because  she  is  concerned  and  cool  or 
because  she  is  in  control  of  my  life?)  and 
fossilize  a  particular  group's  purpose. 

Along  with  whatever  issues  of  respect, 
fossilizing  the  purpose  of  a  particular  group 
sure  sounds  like  a  port  of  what  G.S.  William- 
son and  S.  Colatrella  have  run  up  against. 
The  groups  I've  appreciated  being  involved 
with  decided  what  they  would  do  based  on 
what  the  people  within  them  valued  rather 
than  on  some  Grand  Scheme.  Considering 
the  importance  of  Grand  Schemes  (fyiake 
Money!  Save  the  Earth!  Provide  Service  X!)  to 
how  we  organize  ourselves  and  our  expecta- 
tions, it's  not  surprising  that  the  sort  of  groups 
I  like  are  usually  either  '■social"  (i.e.  pagan 
groups  I've  been  in)  or  "subservient"  to  a 
larger  group  who  impress  their  Grand 
Scheme  upon  lower  echelon  groups  (i.e., 
teams  I've  been  on  at  work). 

Please  do  more  with  the  idea  of  Good 
Work.  More  tales  of  folks  who  made  it,  both 
as  stable  entities  and  in  organizations  worth 
being  port  of.  Kelly  Girl  ( "Kelly  Girl's  Good 
Job "  PW  26/27)  has  the  right  idea.  I  have 
been  working  as  an  independent  contractor 
and  the  control  over  one's  work  life  is  great. 
The  only  downfall  I  see  in  this  realm  of  work 
is  that  it  doesn't  hove  much  camaraderie 
and  can  be  somewhat  meaningless.  Lets 
hear  more! 

-J.B.P 


Petulant  Ravings?!! 

Dear  PW, 

Let  it  be  known  that  the  petulant  ravings  of 
the  disgruntled  former  Wheatsville  employee 
have  their  groundings  in  the  frustrations  of  a 
rebel  without  a  cause.  Certainly  Wheatsville 
is  not  perfect,  but  having  worked  there 
myself  for  over  four  years  after  experiencing 
many  other  types  of  counter-cultural  jobs,  the 
place  definitely  shines  forth.  Since  one 
usually  comes  to  the  decision  to  work,  the 
beauty  of  working  at  Wheatsville  is  in  its 
tolerance  for  most  everyone  and  its  atmo- 
sphere of  free  thinking.  Many  of  the  co-op 


employees  at  Wheatsville  were  able  to  come 
to  terms  with  certain  personal  issues  and 
establish  a  few  ideals  in  the  safety  of  that 
environment.  I  suppose  the  opinions  ex- 
pressed in  "Beatnik  Managers  and  Tye-Dye 
Bureaucrats .  .  "(PW  26/27]  were  the  au- 
thor's way  of  working  out  a  few  of  his  own 
issues,  however  I  must  soy  that  working  with 
him  was  a  drag. 

As  he  mentioned,  he  looked  for  ways  not  to 
work;  not  everybody  hod  that  same  attitude. 
And  for  those  interested  in  sharing  the 
responsibilities  of  co-oping,  he  was  a  definite 
thorn  in  the  side.  It  is  true  that  the  pay  was 


THIS  M«»fclH  W*IU» 


by  TOM  TOMORROW 


SAW,  SILL"  WE'VE  JUST  OlSCOVCRED 
A  MINOR  ARlTMMATiC  £HROk  IN 
OUR  RECORDS  AMD  ME  NEED  VOJ 
ro  I?EFIGURE0UR  CORftJf?ArE- 
r/NANClAL  RECORDS  fOR  XHt  PAST 
fOOR  DECADES...  CAN  YOU  GET 
THAT  To  ME  gy  fiVE? 


kCCUZmo  FL\iS^  DOUBLBi  iOUR 
METABOLIC  RAT£--SPEED»N6  OP 
youR  SENse  of  SUBJECTiVETiMEl 
SOtU^TfiTMMtMt/rli  Stiffs  UKt 

Ty^eftri/  o^e  hour  seet^s  like 

rVfl/ JUST  IMAGINE.'  iOOLL  BE 

ABLE  TO  Work  a  si%rUH  hou/k 

Mi--  IN  41/ST  £IOMrHOUAS: 


^ 


■       ° 


SURE,  BOiS!  NO  WOftLf  M.'  ^'f:: 


80V.' it  30UN0S  LIKE  I'D 
BETTER  TAKE  SOfA£ 

AceeLEMTo  FluS^'^! 


BOy  ACCELERATO  PLUS'*  REAUy  WORK- 
ED FOR  ME  I  FIN ISMfOIWAT  WORK  fbR 
THE  B0S5  AND  MAD  io  AflUCH  TIME  LBfT 
OVEP  THAT  S  LEARNED  A  F^dEi6N 
LAN6UA6E  AND  KEAO  1WE  ENTIRE 
EMCYC16PEDIA  8«ITTANICA  AND  NfliN 
XDOMT^NOWlNH^TJUDOMAyBESruOY 
8l?AlN5UR6EIM— 
IP 


WA(?NIN(J:  AC£CLE/?Aro  PLl/S^*  WIU  REPOCE 
YOUR  LiFE5PAr4  BY  50/  BUT  JUSTTWINK 
OF  HOW  MUCH  yoi/LL  tEf  OoNE  IN  THE. 
MEANTIME... 


•»fft<i><:i.ESSEo  wcL»R.t>i>  sa 


low  and  the  usual  benefits  were  ttiin,  but  in 
defense  of  ttie  management  at  Wheatsville, 
the  true  benefits  of  working  there  were  not 
monetary,  something  all  who  worked  there 
knew.  What  Wheatsville  does  offer  is  a 
fantastic  social  connection  to  many  people 
of  the  community  involved  in  social  alterna- 
tives and  counter-culture.  The  work  at 
Wheatsville  is  not  hard  or  stressful,  the 
atmosphere  is  one  of  acceptance  and  fun.  I 
honestly  don't  think  Robert  Ovetz  was  doing 
much  more  than  venting  his  acidic  spleen. 
-Janet  Blondeou,  S.F. 

i'  Nature  is  Amoral 

^  'By  Projecting  Your  Anger 

a       You  Will  Never  Examine 

5       Your  Ufe 

il  'Love  is  a  Process 

■-.  'Try  Plan  B 

•  No  God,  No  Master 

o  NoMore  If  Onlys  HQQ5 

^  #You  Are  Here  I02LV 

od    Collective  Stupidity  is  the 


Real  Conspiracy    ^/l  05 
#Ar1  Is  Infection        IfBRun 

Hope  for 
Happiness 

Freedom  is  Dangerous 
Stay  Awai<e 

#Habits  Kill 


9Q95      RflCCqRP/IRTS 

^W  TALK  kDMU>gO^Mtt«> 


Stoned  Socialism? 

Dear  Editors, 

In  port,  the  Institute  for  Stoned  Socialism  is 
continuing  the  work  of  Abbie  Hoffman.  In 
part,  we  take  radical  Christianity  in  Brazil  (in 
its  organized  forms  numbering  in  the  mil- 
lions) and  its  relationship  with  the  Workers' 
Party  as  a  model. 

Your  article  on  the  Green  Conference  (PW 
22)  was  interesting.  We  take  a  less  dim  view 
of  worker-ownership.  In  my  own  case,  work- 
ing on  my  gardening  business  is  a  VAST 
improvement  over  the  $4.75/hr.  moil  delivery 
job  I  hod  for  Crocker  Bank  in  the  Financial 
District.  "Tired  of  bosses?  Make  them  go 
away,"  (see  below]  was  written  from  my 
experience.  When  there  is  a  more  favorable 
"business  climate"  for  socialism,  my  skills 
can  be  applied  to  affordable  housing  co-ops 
and  neighborhood  parks.  I'm  also  going  to 
help  0  guy  I  met  start  a  catering  business,  so 
he  con  get  rid  of  his  $6/hr.  cook  job  (he's 
now  living  out  of  his  von). 

When  it  comes  to  worker-ownership,  I  con 
really  get  into  the  entrepreneurial  spirit.  This 
is  something  we  con  do  NOW  (though  it  is 
limited)  to  help  people  begin  freeing  them- 
selves from  exploitation.  It's  better  than 
whining  endlessly  and  waiting  for  the  Perfect 
Revolution  to  establish  Pure  Communism. 

At  the  Institute,  we  expect  radicalism  to  be  a 
major  "growth  industry"  in  the  coming 
period.  "At  the  Institute  for  the  Development 
of  Stoned  Socialism,  we're  bullish  on  the 
'90s." 

-Psychedelic  Socialism,  c/o  General  Paper, 
Box  162,  12250  San  Pablo  Avenue,  Rich- 
mond, California  94805 


TIRED  OF  BOSSES?  MAKE  THEM  GO  AWAY. 

(excerpt) 

Get  Out  of  the  needless  grind  of  life  under 
capitalism. 

Get  In  to  the  quietly  stoned  serenity  of 
WORKER-OWNERSHIP. 

•  Abolish  alarm  clocks  forever.  No  forced 
rush  in  the  morning.  Get  up  when  you  wont 
to,  start  work  when  you  wont  to,  end  work 
when  you  wont  to.  Take  lunch  when  you  wont 
to,  and  moke  it  long  and  languid  if  you  like. 

•  Cut  commute  time  by  75  percent,  by 
scheduling  work  around  the  Rush  (it's  no 
longer  just  on  hour),  and  avoiding  the 
Lemming  Parade  altogether. 

•  NO  exploiters  and  overpaid  executives 
taking  a  fat,  juicy  cut  of  the  wealth  your  labor 
creates. 

•  End  ass-kissing  and  ugly  office  politics. 
Office  politics  remain  under  worker- 
ownership  (unless  you  are  on  your  own)-but 
on  an  entirely  different  basis,  because  the 
people  doing  the  work  decide  democrati- 
cally how  it  is  done  and  who  gets  paid  what. 

•  Get  rid  of  obnoxious  clients  or  customers. 
If  your  product  is  good  and  reliable,  most 
people  will  be  decent. 

.  .  After  the  rude  pain  of  the  coming 
economic  downturn,  the  coming  left-wing 
period  will  open  up  unprecedented  oppor- 
tunities for  worker-ownership. 

.  .  .  EMANCIPATION  IS  WORTH  WORKING 
FOR. 

Institute  for  the  Development  of  Stoned 
Socialism 

"Where  we're  getting  Stoned  on  Reality." 


Humanism?!  Ctirlstianlty?!? 

Dear  Sir, 

Please  cancel  my  subscription  to  your 
"Processed  World."  Your  "Humanism"  is  out 
of  style  and  is  just  some  off-shoot  of 
Chhstianity.  Be  honest  with  yourselves  and 
join  the  Beast  in  you  like  I  did.  Narrow  self 
interest  is  the  nature  of  us  ALL.  Accept  it. 

Thank  you. 

M.P.,  prisoner-Stormville,  NY 


Later  tor  London 

Hi  Therel 

Good  to  hear  you're  still  going  strong.  I  dislike 
authority  anyway,  but  since  I  moved  to 
London  from  Scotland  I've  grown  to  detest  it 
with  an  almost  pathological  hatred.  The  fairly 
loose  squat  scene  I  was  involved  in  is  being 
hounded  now.  The  riots  lost  year  over  the  Poll 
Tax  hove  been  used  as  on  excuse  to 
persecute  "undesirables,"  i.e.  squatters,  an- 
archists, people  who  don't  conform  easily. 
London  is  not  a  place  to  get  too  excited 
about  just  now. 

Anywo,v,  I  hope  California  is  a  bit  better  -  of 
least  you've  got  the  weather  for  being 
unemployed  in. 

More  power  to  your  keyboards. 

Love,  lain 


Attitudes  Everywhere 

Dear  Processed  World, 

I  just  bought  the  "Bad  Attitude"  anthology.  I 
found  it  quite  humorous,  and  I'm  glad  to  see , 
0  leftist/anarchist  publication  that  folks 
about  such  things  as  you  do  from  a  working 
person's  standpoint.  Although  I  am  an  un- 
skilled blue  collar  worker,  I  could  sure  relate 
to  the  articles,  cartoons  and  tips  on  how 
subversion  con  start  in  the  workplace.  Not 
that  I  wasn't  doing  some  of  those  things 
(time  theft,  free  copying,  etc.)  already!  I  work 
in  a  somewhat  upscale  department  store  in 
Minneapolis,  but  not  (thankfully)  for  much 
longer.  After  I  quit  in  a  few  weeks,  I'll  take 
some  time  off,  and  then  resume  working,  but 
only  part-time.  Anyway,  the  department  store 
may  be  upscale,  but  my  job  sure  isn't. 
Inhaling  dust,  exhaust  fumes  from  nearby 
trucks,  and  on  overbeonng  boss  (What's 
that?  You  hove  one  too?  Naahhh!)  don't 
exactly  constitute  ideal  circumstances. 

Bye  for  now. 

D.S.-Minneapolis,  MN 

Postal  Gulag 

Dear  PW: 

You  don't  know  how  long  I've  wanted  both  to 
submit  something,  and  to  tell  you  how  much  I 
enjoy  PW.  For  a  long  time  I've  worked  for  the 
Postal  Service  as  a  letter  earner.  The  Postal 
Service  is  a  world  which  mokes  most 
government  gulogs  seem  like  vocation  day 
camp.  Freighted  with  a  two-century  legacy  of 
authoritarian,  type-X  management,  it  man- 
ages to  alienate  and  enrage  nearly  every 
once-human  who  walks  through  its  steel 
swinging  doors,  ready  for  the  big  bucks.  But 
a  year  later,  they've  either  turned  into 
voidoids  or  closet  moss-murderers.  Anyhow, 
I've  been  writing  down  the  notes,  making  the 
poems  and  stories  of  this  work  for  more  than 
thirteen  years.  I  still  haven't  been  able  to  gain 
the  distance  necessary  to  really  write  the 
story  down  the  way  it  should  be  told. 

PW's  article  a  few  years  bock  on  San 
Francisco's  bicycle  messengers  mode  me 
think  that  PW  might  be  interested  in  picking 
up  a  few  of  these  excerpts,  journal  entries, 
etc.  I  don't  know,  though,  because  more 
Marxist-leaning  folks  among  your  editorship 
might  go  along  with  the  majority  of  Amenco, 
who  think  that  the  mailman  is  overpaid.  If 
they  knew,  if  you  knew  just  how  dearly  and  in 
what  forms  we  pay,  I  suspect  they'd  change 
their  minds. 

Anyhow,  I'm  not  including  any  of  this  postal 
matenol,  yet,  only  querying.  But  the  stor- 
ies! .  .  . 

From  the  Gulag, 

Dr.  Bolivar  Shognosty,  Montpelier,  VT 

(Yes,  doctor,  send  in  your  postal  material.  We 
are  veerrry  interested-Ed.) 

The  Collar  of  Money  (A  Slaclter's  Lament) 

Dear  PW: 

I've  noticed  a  pattern  developing  over  the 
years.  It  seems  as  if  every  so  many  months  I 


»*R.<:i>CISSSSI>    >/VCI>R.4J>    213 


have  to  abandon  my  well-intended  Protestant 
work  ethic  for  the  sanctuary  of  unemploy- 
ment. I'm  what  the  human  resources  types 
derisively  call  "a  job  hopper."  I  get  a  job, 
buckle  down  and  perform  for  a  few  months, 
then  invariably  something  goes  stale  and 
have  it  out  with  someone,  or  business 
conveniently  "slacks  off "  and  out  the  door 

go. 

I've  hod  to  look  at  this  problem  from  all  sorts 
of  viewpoints  over  the  years.  Some  of  them 
paint  me  in  a  worse  light  than  others,  and 
they  usually  take  the  form  of  harsh  self- 
analysis  with  emphasis  on  what  is  clearly  my 
maladjustment  to  social  conformity.  And  by 
contrast,  of  course,  there  are  those  which 
herald  me  a  proud,  misunderstood  heroine, 
dignity  in  my  kerchief,  solemnly  trodding  the 
Road  Less  Travelled. 

Demogrophically  everything  should  work.  I'm 
white,  I'm  middle  class,  I'm  white,  and  I  like 
television.  Why  then,  don't  I  like  being  white 
collar?  Maybe  it  was  the  time  the  operations 
manager  at  the  ad  agency  where  I  was  a 
secretary/copywriter/coffee  mug  scrubber 
advised  me  to  grow  my  fingernails  longer 
and  hove  them  manicured,  and  while  I'm  at 
it,  learn  to  control  my  "gratuitous  remarks." 
Or  possibly  the  time,  while  working  as  a 
secretary  for  a  temp  agency,  I  enjoyed  the 
responsibility  of  "running""  down  to  the  deli 
and  picking  up  6  grown  men"s  lunches, 
bringing  them  bock  to  the  office  and  serving 
them  up  microwave-hot  on  real  tableware, 
with  sodas  in  ice-filled  tumblers.  Maybe  it 
was  that  time  I  got  fired  for  "not  closing  the 
door  properly,""  or  the  job  where  part  of  my 
daily  duties  included  walking  the  boss"s  dog 
and  picking  up  the  poop.  Oh  I  know!  It  had  to 
be  the  time  I  was  asked  to  work  overtime 
with  no  pay  as  an  "investment"  in  my 
future.  .  . 

I'm  no  company  joe,  never  have  been. 
Neither  was  my  father,  and  my  mother  used 
to  roil  at  him  about  his  lock  of  "initiative.""  It  is 
her  voice  I  hear  when  I  find  myself  griping 
about  "inappropriate  requests""  or  circum- 
stances which  "compromise"  my  "dignity."  I 
hear  her  telling  me  to  "grease  your  teeth  with 
Vaseline  in  the  morning  so  that  when  you 
grimace  your  lips  slide  up  and  they  think 
you"re  smiling.'"  I  hear  her  voice  on  the 
phone,  tittering  up  the  fiber  optic  cables  from 
Palm  Beach,  decrying  my  everlasting  "bod 
attitude."" 

I  used  to  think  it  was  my  low  status  around 
the  workplace  that  fostered  my  rebellious 
spirit.  I  reasoned  that  once  I  got  to  be  a  white 
collar  professional  I  would  suddenly  com- 
mand respect,  fairness,  and  personalized 
"from  the  desk  of"'  notepads.  Not  so,  I  found 
out.  When  I  finally  became  an  account 
executive  in  a  public  relations  firm,  I  found 
that  after  taxes  I  was  making  less  money 
than  I  was  as  a  secretary! 

I  quit  that  job  last  week.  I  lost  my  temper 
when  the  boss  refused  to  negotiate  a  more 
livable  hourly  rote.  I  seized  the  laundry  list  of 
"to  dos"  she"d  given  me  and  said,  "fine-you 


do  it!"" 

I"ve  decided  that  it"s  the  white  collar  world 
that  keeps  me  from  being  "a  success.""  I  just 
don"t  think  I  wont  to  "get  on  a  career  frock."' 
Nobody  I  know  con  appreciate  this,  because 
offer  oil,  I'm  bright,  college  educated,  articu- 
late, and  talented  to  boot.  Why  wouldn't  I 
wont  a  job  title  that  leads  to  a  better  job  title 
that  leads  to  a  mortgage,  a  car  phone,  a 
"check  your  stress  level"  paperweight,  a 
secretary  named  Bev? 

I  often  write  poems  at  work.  Once,  as  a  word 
processor  in  a  headhunting  firm,  I  processed 
this,  then  dashed  over  to  the  phnter  to  moke 
sure  nobody  got  to  it  before  me: 

Office  plants 

have  seen  the  advance 

Of  the  Information  Age. 

What  will  you  give  them  for  their  silence? 

When  I  am  in  an  office  I  am  mostly  like  a 
plant.  I  just  don't  get  the  point.  I  wonder  why 
everyone  else  around  me  appears  to.  Then  I 
wonder  if  maybe  they  don't  either.  I  don't 


think  anybody  does. 

But  like  everybody  else,  I  need  the  money. 
Only  now  ifs  really  getting  tough.  The 
recession  does  not  smile  upon  those  of  us 
who  are  still  sucking  wind  from  the  '80s.  I'm 
down  to  tempting  offers  of  "challenging, 
foot-in-the-door'"  opportunities  to  answer 
multiple  phone  lines,  xerox,  sort,  collate  and 
staple  important  documents,  and  "juggle 
many  diverse  and  interesting  people.""  Yeah 
right. . .  I  dont  have  to  translate,  do  I? 

Somethings  gone  bananas  with  this  world, 
and  I  think  the  baby  boom  generation  is 
responsible.  You  see,  in  the  sixties  we  got 
used  to  having  values  and  purpose,  and 
although  the  experiment  failed  we  are  still 
really  attached  to  the  idea  of  being  important 
somehow.  So  we've  gone  and  attributed 
emotions  formerly  of  personal  realms  to  our 
so-called  "professional"  lives.  We  are  now 
"committed"  to  our  career  goals,  and  we 
have  "drive,  enthusiasm  and  passion"  for  our 
work,  which  in  turn  "fulfills"  us.  Of  course, 


»»8«.0<:iESSEI>    WOfftl-O    2iS* 


photo:  D.S.  Black 


what  have  we  left?  In  the  sixties  our  politics 
failed  us,  and  in  the  seventies  our  "selves" 
did. 

I've  been  unemployed  for  3  days  now,  and  I 
hove  no  income  and  no  prospects  and  no 
"initiative"  and  I  don't  care.  I've  totally 
burned  out.  Maybe  like  the  loaves  and  fishes 
my  bonk  balance  will  forever  multiply  and  I'll 
never  have  to  revise  my  resume  again. 
Maybe  meaningful  work  will  manifest  itself  to 
me  in  a  brilliant,  life-shattering  flash.  Maybe 
I'll  wake  up  tomorrow  and  resolve  to  try  if 
again. 

Maybe  the  spaceship  will  come  by  soon  and 
pick  me  up. 

-Kathleen  Quinn 


The  Game  Is  The  Problem 

Dear  PW: 

I  recently  bought  my  first  copy  of  Pro- 
cessed World,  and  it  is  bringing  to  the  surface 
all  those  questions  I  hove  about  the  nature  of 
work,  what  is  happening  to  this  planet  -  and 
what  my  place  is  in  this.  For  8  1/2  years,  I 
worked  in  a  so-called  "helping  profession"  in 
New  York,  assistance  to  crime  victims.  The 
people  I  worked  with  were  often  victims  for 
life,  not  knowing  any  other  way  to  live.  They 
accepted  abuse  because  they  had  been 
raised  with  it  by  people  who  had  themselves 
been  abused,  ad  nauseum,  ad  infinitum. 
Occasionally,  I  felt  1  was  helping  someone; 
over  time,  however,  I  burned  out  on  the 
revolving  door  of  victimization,  on  the  cyni- 
cism of  those  for  whom  I  worked  (and  yes, 
on  my  own  cynicism),  and  on  the  fact  that 
the  criminal  justice  system  treated  no  one  as 
human,  not  even  those  who  worked  within  if. 
I  needed  a  change  of  venue,  and  in  April  of 
last  year,  I  moved  to  San  Francisco. 

Since  then,  I've  worked  in  various  jobs, 
mostly  temping.  I've  been  near  the  bottom  of 
the  employment  food  chain.  I've  also  seen 
how  abusive  and  self-destructive  the  top  of 
the  food  chain  is,  and  my  choice  is  "none  of 
the  above."  I've  seen  ulcers  and  heart 
attacks  in  the  making,  among  people  who 
are  basically  good,  and  all  for  the  sake  of 
selling  more  useless  crap  to  people  who 
don't  need  if,  so  that  the  people  who  ore 
selling  con  themselves  make  more  money  to 
buy  more  useless  crap,  sold  to  them  by 
people  who  wont  to  buy  more  useless  crap 
themselves. 

Early  on,  we  are  fought  how  little  power  we 
have  over  our  lives.  We  are  trained  to  give  in 
and  be  content  with  our  shore  of  the  pie.  We 
are  not  taught  how  to  be  happy;  that  is  not 
even  in  the  curriculum.  Today,  lip  service  is 
given  to  preserving  plonetarv  resources. 
United  Way  and  other  charities  collect  mon- 
ey for,  no  doubt,  worthy  causes.  But  we  live  in 
a  society  that  is,  of  heart,  a  deadly  and 
self-destructive  organism,  and  this  is  reflect- 
ed in  what  people  ore  trained  to  think  of  as 
good  work  habits.  Give  if  up  for  the  company, 
y'oll. 

The  major  factor  in  my  awakening  to  the 


ctecisiditcie 
iiitierte. 


nature  of  abuse  and  self-abuse  was  getting 
clean  and  sober  in  1981.  As  I  began  to  treat 
myself  and  others  better,  it  became  more 
obvious  how  badly  our  institutions,  private 
and  public,  treat  us.  As  my  eyes  began  to 
open,  this  societal  toxicity  became  clearer. 
These  institutions  are  managed  by  other 
people,  who  have  numbed  themselves  to  the 
consequences  of  their  actions,  and  who  ore 
therefore  less  than  human,  and  fry  to  bring 
the  rest  of  us  down  to  their  level. 

I  don't  hove  any  answers  for  anyone  else. 
As  a  veteran,  in  my  pre-teen  and  early  teen 
years,  of  the  antiwar  movement  of  the  '60s,  I 
don't  see  hope  within  the  left;  they  are 
playing  the  same  gome,  and  It  is  the  gome 
which  Is  the  problem,  not  who  Is  winning  It. . . 
The  thought  that  the  civil  rights  movement 
has  brought  us  a  Clarence  Thomas  is 
depressing;  gay  rights  activists,  feminists 
and  others  lose  me  when  their  aim  becomes 
not  to  transform  this  society,  but  to  be 
co-opted  into  it.  It  comes  down  to  how  I  treat 
myself,  how  I  treat  you,  how  I  treat  this 
planet.  And  that  includes  the  choices  I  make 
with  regards  to  the  way  I  earn  a  living  (what 
a  nauseating  phrase  that  is!).  Three  years 
ago,  I  chose  to  become  a  vegetarian  for  this 
very  reason-l  wanted  to  do  something  for 
myself  and  not  hove  to  kill  (physically  or 
psychically)  anything  by  doing  so.  This 
month,  I  begin  graduate  school  to  gain  entry 
to  the  kind  of  work  that  (a)  I  con  enjoy,  and 
(b)  won't  hurt  others,  and  might  even  help 
someone.  Yes,  I  wont  all  that  useless  crop, 
too,  but  I'm  not  willing  to  step  over  a  certain 
line  to  get  it. 

-Anonymous  by  fax  from  PG&E,  Son 
Francisco 

The  War  Comes  to  Zaplcho 

Notice  of  the  War  in  the  Persian  Gulf  was 
communicated  to  Santa  Cruz  Zapicho  on 
several  dozen  television  screens  that  the 
"comuneros"  (townspeople)  had  hauled  in 
over  the  newly-paved  road  from  the  "fayuco" 
(contraband  electronics)  markets  of  Zamoro 
or  Uruopan  or  else  hondcarried  home  from 
California  and  Texas,  where  the  young  men 
here  still  disappear  every  year  for  whole 
seasons  at  a  time.  What  Zopichans  were  told 
about  the  hostilities  in  the  Gulf  was  pretty 
much  the  some  mendacious  disinformation 
that  was  repeated  od  nauseum  to  U.S. 
audiences:  that  Saddam  Hussein  was  Hitler, 
that  the  Iraqi  military  was  an  even  match  for 
the  U.S.-led  Coalition's  Killing  Machine,  that 
the  Mother  of  All  Bottles  was  being  waged  to 
promote  peace,  democracy  and  economic 
well-being. 


These  boldfaced  lies  were  conveyed  into 
the  little  wooden  homes  that  Toroscon  Indian 
residents  of  the  Michoocon  highlands  call 
"trojes"  via  skeletal  antennas  that  received 
CNN  transmissions  as  tunneled  through 
Mexico's  bankrupt  state  government  net- 
work, "Imevision,"  or  the  Televiso  repeater 
[Channel  tuned  to  the  communications  giant's 
Iworldwide  ECO  system. 

"Are  the  oilwells  still  burning?"  Erasma 
Garcia  questioned  me,  glancing  up  from  her 
grinding  stone.  And  then,  "they  never 
bombed  New  York,  no?"  The  set  in  the  corner 
of  her  mother's  drafty  kitchen  was  dark 
now-it  had  finally  blown  a  tube  midway 
during  the  war,  she  said.  She  hod  been 
watching  the  morning  Pentagon  press  brief- 
ing when  it  died  and  blamed  the  Americans 
for  the  TV's  demise.  "They  bombed  the 
television  towers"  she  proclaimed,  con- 
vinced this  explained  the  breakdown  in 
communications,  and  gathered  the  tortilla 
moss  into  a  large,  floppy  ball.  Erasma  had 
trucked  her  12  inch  Zenith  1500  miles  from 
Tijuana  where  she  lives  and  works  several 
months  a  year  in  one  of  the  border  city's 
bursting  garbage  dumps. 

Dona  Tere  began  slapping  out  the  tortillas. 
She  told  me  how  she'd  picked  up  a  little  of 
the  war  in  Purepecha  from  the  National 
Indigenous  Institute  station  down  in  the 
municipal  seat  of  Cheran.  Had  I  been  in  Iraq 
since  she  lost  saw  me,  she  asked  politely.  I 
said  I'd  been  in  Son  Francisco,  frying  to 
convince  George  Bush  to  stop  bombing 
villages  in  Iraq  that  looked  a  lot  like  Zapicho. 
"The  Americans  killed  many  many  people 
over  there,"  Dona  Tere  said  gravely  to  her 
daughter.  They  began  slapping  the  tortillas 
together. 

I  described  how  we  had  blocked  a  bridge 
up  in  San  Francisco,  in  California.  Miguel 
Balfozor,  who  builds  whole  villages  inside 
empty  "charondo"  bottles  when  he's  not 
working  his  family's  cornfields,  claimed  that 
he  had  heard  the  protestors  on  the  little 
transistor  he  has  plugged  into  his  ear  these 
days. 

"They  killed  a  quarter  of  a  million  people 
probably,"  I  fold  Miguel,  "we'll  never  know 
how  many.  We  hod  to  do  something.  The 
Americans  were  bombing  the  schools  and 
the  marketplaces  and  the  air-raid  shelters." 

TPEC/AL 

storm  the  Reality  Asylum 

•The  Snakes  Are  Living  in  the  Most  Unbridled 
Technology 

•Keep  The  Sharks  From  Your  Heart 
•Labels  Limit  More  Than  Empower 
•Paradox  is  the  Threshold  of  Truth 

Mighty  Few  People  Think  What  They  Think 
They  Think 

•Perpetrators  Become  Victims  of  their  Dominance 
•Only  Drugs  Make  You  As  Happy  as  the  People  in  Ads 
•  Life  is  More  Important  Than  Literature 


Learn  By  Going  Where  To  Go 


000"" 


f»R.OClESSHI>    WOR-i-E*    2tSJ 


Goyo,  89,  and  Miguel  eyed  the  fragile  roof. 
"Hooch  kah"  Miguel  breathed  in  the  firelight, 
"that's  what  we  thought."  He  translated  what 
I  had  said  into  Purepecho  for  Tata  Goyo  who 
has  gone  stone  deaf  in  Spanish  and  can  only 
lip  read  his  own  language  now.  "Ho"  he 
nodded  vigorously  as  Miguel  ticked  off  my 
information  about  the  massacre.  The  word 
"paz"  come  up  often  in  their  interchange 
and  I  was  surphsed  the  Taroscans  do  not 
have  their  own  word  for  it.  "Hooch  kah, 
Juanito"  Goyo  muttered,  "that's  just  what  we 
thought  happened  over  there." 

"I  didn't  pay  much  attention  to  what  it  said 
on  the  television-all  the  news  broadcasts 
are  dominated  by  the  PR!  anyway,"  Santiago 
responded  when  asked  what  he'd  heard 
about  The  Other  War.  "Down  in  Cheron,  the 
Cardenistas  explained  that  Iraq  was  just 
defending  its  social  rights  when  it  took  over 
that  other  place  and  so  that  is  what  I  thought 
about  the  whole  time.  That  Saddam  was  just 
doing  what  we  were  doing  here  in  Zapicho, 
taking  bock  what  was  ours  from  the  rich  and 
powerful.  The  Imperialists  never  stop  trying  to 
enslave  the  poor ..."  Santiago  said  that  he 
had  wanted  to  write  Saddam  and  tell  him  all 
this  but  he  didn't  quite  know  where  to  send  a 
letter.  He  handed  me  a  schoolhouse  note- 
book and  I  wrote  out  an  address:  "Saddam 
Hussein,  Domicilio  Gonocido,  Baghdad,  Re- 
publico  de  Iraq."  "I  don't  know  that  their  mail 
system  is  any  better  than  Mexico's,"  I  joked, 
"The  Americans  bombed  all  the  post  of- 
fices ..." 

-John  Ross,  S.F.  &  Michoocan 


Sitting  In  Judgement? 

Dear  PW, 

Count  me  in  for  a  "livable  job,"  "a  vision  of 
a  twenly-one  hour  work  week  with  a  thirty 
percent  hike  in  pay  as  a  concrete  demand 
for  the  present."  (Frog's  review,  PW  25.)  I'm 
all  for  the  world  without  pain,  suffering, 
inequality,  wont.  Then  we  con  move  on  to  the 
real  questions:  How  much  is  enough?  Is 
death  intrinsically  evil?  Beauty,  Truth  or  Both? 
Why  Love? 

Many  of  the  work-related  "bad  attitude" 
pieces  in  PW  are  written  by  folks  who  don't 
want  to  work,  period,  which  is  great  work  if 
you  can  get  it.  But,  neither  successful 
unemployment  nor  finding  a  "good  situation" 
personally  is  a  social  solution.  Rather  they 
are  examples  of  finding  a  niche  of  mobility 
for  select  individuals,  as  preached  by  think- 


#^  ^  flh'^N^ 


EV#L 


ers  from  Bob  Hope  to  Arnold  Schwarzeneg- 
ger. 

While  we  live  in  the  here  and  now,  PW 
consistently  contrasts  this  world  with  a  vague 
alternative  that  never  existed,  laying  blame 
for  the  ills  on  this  earth  with  the  individuals 
who  live  upon  the  doorstep  of  capital. 
Surprise,  surprise,  money  changing  hands 
strains,  stains,  deforms,  destroys  relation- 
ships. .  . 

What  of  human  nature  and  non-monetary 
based  power  relationships?  Who  really  is 
shocked  that  progressive  jobs  can  be  exploi- 
tative, or  that  politically  correct  employers 
can  be  nasty  people?  Politics  is  abstract: 
where  we  live  is  in  our  bodies  and  in  our  daily 
lives.  Ifs  in  our  bodies  and  daily  lives  we  fail 
many  of  the  standards  we  set  for  others. 

Which  bhngs  me  to  Med-o's  contribution  to 
lost  issue's  Talking  Heads.  By  admission 
Med-o  has  a  "good  job,"  as  a  self-employed 
electrician  and  scam  artist. 

What  irks  most  about  Med-o's  high  right- 
eousness ore  his  paragraphs  on  the  war  in 
the  Middle  East,  which  take  abstraction  to 
new  depths.  He  smugly  labels  the  militorY  as 
a  "good  job,"  while  going  into  no  detail 
about  the  working  conditions  and  the  pay 
scale.  He  has  no  comment  on  the  loss  of 
personal  liberty  and  the  regimentation.  Med-o 
makes  no  distinction  between  the  enlisted 


and  officer  classes,  and  is  not  interested  in 
racial  make-up  and  discrimination.  In  sum- 
mation, he  offers  no  alternative  save  the 
generic  concept  of  resistance  and  offers  up 
his  solidarity  with  resistors  on  a  silver  platter. 

Does  Med-o  know  anybody  who  has 
considered  this  enticing  employment  oppor- 
tunity? I  don't,  but  then  I  suspect  like  most 
people  associated  with  the  PW  collective,  I 
was  brought  up  with  certain  expectations.  I 
have  family  and/or  friends  with  money 
and/or  resources  if  times  turn  bad.  Most 
members  of  the  collective  are  not  members 
of  racial  minorities,  and  seem  to  have  been 
raised  in  middle  class  surroundings. 

The  Republican  "blame  the  poor"  mentali- 
ty has  no  trouble  sitting  in  judgement.  Neither 
does  Med-o. 

If  we  blame  those  who  sell  out  to  the 
military,  lefs  also  blame  our  parents  and 
ourselves  for  paying  rent,  taxes,  or  eating  in 
restaurants  while  others  starve  outside. 

As  to  Mordicus,  I'm  all  for  dada,  agitprop, 
whatever  it  takes  to  get  people  to  think,  to 
woke  up.  Out  of  curiosity,  who  among  the  PW 
collective  has  been  compelled  to  go  home 
and  break  their  TV  after  reading  it?  It  doesn't 
apply  to  Us,  how  about  "scalping  journal- 
ists?" Well,  no  we're  not  really,  in  the 
conventional  sense  of  the  word,  journalists. 

-klipschutz 


f»«.<r><i:E! 


EO    W<I>B<1.0    2t€$ 


MY  S£ST  JOS 


®: 


he  best  job  I  ever  lucked  into  was  a  "work-study"  gig  as  the 
research  assistant  for  an  epidemiologist.  My  boss,  Joel,  was 
the  typical  absent-minded  professor.  In  retrospect,  I  can  see  that 
he  was  a  brilliant  bio-statistician,  but  at  the  time  I  was  more  aware 
of  his  comically  nerdy  appearance  and  laudably  relaxed  manage- 
ment style. 


Joel  was  the  junior  member  of  a  re- 
search duo  investigating  the  environ- 
mental causes  of  cancer.  The  senior 
member,  a  suave  and  famous  scientist, 
wrangled  grants  and  handled  PR.  Joel,  I 
suspect  now,  did  all  the  actual  research. 
He  was  an  assistant  professor  in  a  tiny, 
newly  formed  department— Environmen- 
tal and  Occupational  Health  Sciences — 
at  the  state  School  of  Public  Health. 

I  worked  half-time,  20  hours  a  week, 
on  a  pay  sheet  I  filled  out  myself  (very 
generously).  Joel  really  didn't  mind  how 
much  I  worked,  or  how  many  hours  I 
claimed.  He  would  give  me  a  list  of 
articles  to  hunt  up,  and  as  long  I 
produced  the  data  he  was  happy.  His  life 
was  so  disorganized  that  being  able  to 
delegate  this  arcane  but  vital  task  was  a 
relief  to  him. 

At  the  time  I  considered  myself  to  be 
getting  a  very  cushy  deal,  but  I  realize 
now  that  I  was,  in  fact,  giving  pretty 
good  value.  Tracking  down  medical 
research  data  is  a  tricky  task.  It's  not 
easy  to  find  someone  who  can  penetrate 
the  jargon  and  work  for  student  wages.  I 
enjoyed  hanging  out  in  the  library  and 
the  challenge  of  digging  up  an  obscure 
study  or  squeezing  raw  data  out  of  a 
reluctant  researcher. 

I  also  got  along  well  with  my  co- 
workers, not  easy  for  an  oddball  like  me. 
Everyone  in  EOHS  shared  two  charac- 
teristics: we  were  a)  radicals  and  b) 
underpaid. 

Any  serious  look  at  the  environmental 
causes  of  cancer  quickly  turns  up  a  fact 
so  obvious,  so  blatant,  so  patently  true 
that  it  seems  trite  to  pronounce  it: 
industrial  pollution  is  the  major  envi- 
ronmental cause  of  cancer.  The  huge 
corporations  producing  most  of  the 
carcinogenic  waste  pump  millions  into 
research    obscuring    this    fact.    However, 


Industry  is  rich  and  the  Public  is  not. 

There  was  not  a  single  person  working 
at  EOHS  who  couldn't  get  paid  at  least 
twice  as  much  (for  some,  ten  times  as 
much)  doing  the  identical  job  for  "the 
other  side."  Anyone  who  stayed  was 
either  an  idealist/radical/environmcn- 
talist,  not  very  serious  about  Advancing 
Their  Career,  or  too  weird  to  hold  a 
mainstream  job.  Most  were  all  three. 


Every  study  we  published 

was  immediately  chal- 
lenged by  literally  dozens 
of  hig  name  researchers. 
It  didn't  seem  to  matter 
that  they  were  directly 
funded  by  corporate 
polluters. 


Joel  was  focused  on  his  esoteric  re- 
search. He  wasn't  insensitive  to  Ad- 
vancing his  Career,  but  he  wasn't  one  of 
the  (far  more  typical)  academic  careerists 
who  research  only  what  will  get  them 
tenure  and  promotions.  He  seemed  con- 
tent to  let  Sam,  his  collaborator,  hog 
most  of  the  glory.  As  a  teacher  he  was 
unpopular.  His  stuff  (advanced  biostatis- 
tics)  was  far  too  arcane  for  most  students 
to  follow,  even  if  he  didn't  speak  in  an 
unintelligible  mumble,  and  he  had  no 
talent  for  intra-departmental  power 
struggles.  He  depended  on  Sam's  clout  to 
shield  him  from  hostile  administrators 
and  competitive  colleagues. 

Sam,  the  department  head,  was  the 
least    oddball,     most    mainstream,     and 


fastest-advancing  careerist  in  the  outfit. 
He  frequently  spoke  on  TV,  wrote 
environmental  books,  fished  for  the 
slippery  but  huge  federal  grants  so  vital 
to  research,  and  fought  the  inter-depart- 
mental battles.  EOHS  was  his  creation 
and  power-base.  His  famous  name  went 
on  the  top  of  all  the  research  proposals 
as  "principal  investigator."  This  meant 
he  got  a  personal  percentage  of  the  funds 
and  top  billing  on  any  published  studies. 

I  think  Sam  was  a  sincere  crusader,  but 
he  was  no  blind  idealist.  He  always 
managed  to  profit  personally  fi-om  his 
"selfless"  crusading.  When  one  of  Sam's 
lab  workers  complained  of  unsafe  work- 
ing conditions  (lack  of  adequate  ventila- 
tion in  a  carcinogen  lab),  he  was  swiftly 
fired  —  this  in  an  outfit  supposedly 
dedicated  to  defending  worker  safety! 

The  rank-and-file  ranged  from  mildly 
liberal  Sierra  Club  types  to  committed 
radicals  of  various  stripes.  I  ranked 
towards  the  bottom.  At  the  time  I  was 
an  openly  gay  revolutionary  socialist, 
showing  many  early  warning  signs  of 
Bad  Attitude  —  not  exactly  Fortune  500 
material.  Had  I  been  interested  in  any- 
thing other  than  sex,  drugs  and  the 
Revolution,  I  could  have  been  using  my 
position  as  a  good  "in"  to  a  lucrative 
career  in  biomedical  research.  But  I 
wasn't,  and  to  me  it  was  just  a  high- 
paying  ($6  an  hour— good  for  a  student 
in  1980)  low-hassle  job. 

So  we  were  a  pretty  counter-cultural 
crowd.  There  was  a  minimum  of  hierar- 
chical bullshit,  and  we  were  all  sincerely 
dedicated  to  the  cause.  Environmental- 
ism  was  a  popular  and  growing  issue, 
and  we  were  proud  to  be  at  its  cutting 
edge.  I  don't  think  any  of  us  ever 
dreamed,  12  years  ago,  that  our  work 
would  be  so  completely  ignored,  and 
that  Polluters  would  triumph  so  com- 
pletely over  Defenders  of  the  Environ- 
ment. 

That  we  were  out-numbered  and  out- 
gunned was  obvious.  Every  study  we 
published  was  immediately  challenged 
by  literally  dozens  of  big-name  re- 
searchers. It  didn't  seem  to  matter  that 


lO 


e»R.o<:isssEr>  wob*.*_c>  2t3 


2       ffii-Z 

"I  was  an  openly  gay  revolutionary 
socialist,  showing  many  early  warning 
signs  of  Bad  Attitude;  not  exactly  Fortune 
500  material." 


they  were  directly  funded  by  corporate 
polluters. 

Nor  was  the  playing  field  for  publishing 
level.  The  editors  of  the  major  journals 
were  all  members  of  the  medical  Good 
Old  Boy  network,  and  they  instinctively 
took  a  dim  view  of  radicals  and  environ- 
mentalists. We  had  a  much  harder  time 
getting  articles  published  than  the  in- 
dustry apologists  did. 

Finally,  our  work  had  little  potential 
to  "pay  off'  in  standard  academic  terms. 
Pleasing  a  major  industry  could  easily 
result  in  millions  of  research  dollars,  a 
lucrative  consulting  career,  and/or  a 
Chair  at  a  prestigious  university.  In  fact, 
entire  universities  have  been  created/ 
funded  by  Industry  (e.g.,  Carnegie  Insti- 
tute). 

Our  major  source  of  funds,  aside  from 
federal  grants,  was  unions.  They  were  a 
natural  counterbalance  to  business  in- 
terests, at  least  in  the  matter  of  occupa- 
tional risks.  But  they  had  nowhere  near 
the  money,  and  none  of  the  academic 
clout,  of  the  major  corporations.  They 
were  David  facing  Goliath,  and  we  were 
their  sling. 


Even  so,  I  naively  hoped  that  Truth 
Will  Out.  Our  case  was  so  strong,  our 
studies  so  clever,  that  I  didn't  see  how 
they  could  fail  to  triumph.  As  I  learned 
to  search  out  flaws  in  research,  I  found 
that  much  of  the  opposition's  work  was 
blatantly  faked  (see  "Sleazy  Research 
Tricks"). 

But  none  of  this  seemed  to  matter. 
"Everything  causes  cancer!"  people 
would  say,  disregarding  any  specific  lab 
report  on  carcinogens.  What  we  called 
"Lifestyle"  theories  of  cancer  were  be- 
coming increasingly  popular  —  studies 
"proving"  that  high-fat  diets,  or  smok- 
ing, or  Bad  Attitude  were  "responsible" 
for  cancer. 

And  these  lifestyle  theories  were 
quickly  picked  up  and  promoted  by 
secondary  interests  —  the  stop-smoking 
clinics,  the  weight-  and  stress-reduction 
programs,  and  various  Power-of-Positive- 
Thinking  scams. 

After  all,  our  studies  led  to  conclusions 
that  nobody  liked.  The  environment 
was  becoming  increasingly  toxic,  billions 
would  have  to  be  spent  to  clean  it  up, 
and  dozens  of  profitable  industries  pro- 
viding millions  of  jobs  would  have  to  be 
curtailed  (or  at  least  rendered  less  profit- 
able). Where  would  one  even  start  to 
remedy  the  situation?  It's  so  much  easier 
to  start  a  low-fat  diet  than  it  is  to  save 
the  environment! 


/1IC5 


"In  retrospect  I  can  see  he  was  a  brilliant 
bio-statistician,  but  at  the  time  I  was 
more  aware  of  his  comically  nerdy  ap- 
pearance. 


Ultimately,  we  depended  on  support, 
both  moral  and  financial,  from  federal 
environmentalism  to  maintain  this  une- 
qual stuggle.  When  Ronald  Reagan  was 
elected  we  were  doomed.  The  Reagan 
administration,  like  Bush's  after  it,  was 
slavishly  dedicated  to  "Business"  inter- 
ests. The  Environmental  Protection 
Agency  was  one  of  their  first  targets,  and 
it  was  soon  reduced  to  chaotic  impo- 
tence. Funding  for  projects  like  ours  was 
cut  off  as  fast  as  possible.  My  layoff 
(along  with  many  others)  was  an- 
nounced within  weeks  of  Reagan's  vic- 
tory. Within  a  year  the  entire  operation 
had  been  shut  down. 


AICB 


"The  editors  of  the  major  journals  were 
all  members  of  the  medical  Good  Old  Boy 
network,  and  they  instinctively  took  a 
dim  view  of  radical     environmentalists." 


Environmental  6t  Occupational 
Health  Sciences  was  soon  cannibalized 
by  its  jealous  sister  departments.  The 
rank-and-file  dispersed.  Some  of  the 
shrewder,  less  idealistic  researchers 
found  ways  to  market  "environmental" 
studies  so  they  fit  in  with  Lifestyle 
theories  —  for  example,  researching  the 
effects  of  "secondary"  cigarette  smoke  on 
non-smokers  in  the  same  room.  Joel  lost 
his  academic  appointment  and  moved  to 
another  state  and  I  soon  lost  track  of 
him.  Sam  alone  is  still  at  the  School  of 
Public  Health,  producing  well-reasoned 
critiques  of  the  ever-popular  Lifestyle 
theories  of  cancer. 

Much  of  what  made  my  job  at  EOHS 
so  good  was  that  I  was  working  for  a 
decent  boss  in  a  tolerant  workplace.  But 
the  cards  were  stacked  against  us,  Joel 
and  me  both.  Mere  competence  is  rarely 
enough.  The  Carter  years  were  an 
anomaly,  and  EOHS  a  heavily  protected 
environment,  a  kind  of  wildlife  preserve 
for  absent-minded  professors  and  radi- 
cals. I  only  wish  I'd  fully  appreciated  it  at 
the  time. 

—Kvoazte.  'babbit 


»»8«1><Z^ESSEC>    W«:i>R.l-I>    tits 


n 


'COMPETING  TOXICITY" 


According  to  the  rules,  ttieories  ottoin 
ttie  status  of  Facts  after  they  have  been 
rigorously  tested  by  reliable,  replicable, 
high-quality  research.  In  practice,  a  substan- 
tial body  of  published  studies  in  The  Best 
Journals  (e.g.  The  Big  Three:  The  New 
England  Journal  of  Medicine,  Science  and 
Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion) supporting  a  given  theory  establishes  it 
as  a  Fact. 

Often,  however,  the  harried  researcher, 
pressed  for  tinne  in  the  pursuit  of  lucrative 
grants,  or  frustrated  by  studies  that  refuse 
(for  unknown  reasons)  to  produce  the  de- 
sired results,  has  recourse  to  certain  short- 
cuts. 

Some  of  the  most  popular  time-savers  ore 
listed  below.  This  is  for  from  a  comprehen- 
sive listing,  but  it  gives  a  general  idea  of  what 
you  can  get  away  with.  Get  a  big-name 
scientist  as  co-author,  the  backing  of  a 
Prestigious  Research  Institute  or  University 
("backing,"  in  this  case,  can  be  as  minimal 
as  use  of  PRI's  letter-head  and  mailing 
address),  and  you're  in  business. 

Important  Note:  The  underlying  active 
ingredient  in  any  of  the  following  ploys  is 
usually  a  powerful  "Tell  us  what  we  want  to 
hear"  effect.  If  your  study  "proves"  some- 
thing the  prospective  funder  wants  to  believe, 
there  will  rarely  be  any  problem. 


'CIRCULAR  REFERENCING" 


CIRCULAR  REFERENCING:  Researcher  A 
mentions,  in  a  footnote,  that  Compound  X 
has  been  "proved"  completely  harmless. 
Researcher  B  quotes  A,  and  is  in  turn  quoted 
by  Researchers  C,  D  and  E.  The  next  time 
Researcher  A  discusses  the  topic,  he  cites 
the  papers  by  B,  0,  D  and  E  as  further  proof 
of  his  original  claim. 

If  someone  tries  to  pin  you  down  on  your 
original  footnote,  cite  a  "personal  communi- 
cation" (i.e.,  phone  call  or  unofficial  letter) 
with  another  scientist.  It's  best  if  your 
personal  communicant  lives  far  away,  is 
difficult  to  reach,  and  doesn't  speak  English; 
or,  better  still,  is  dead. 

STEP-WISE  EXAGGERATION:  Famous  Re- 
searcher A  publishes  a  study  proposing  that 
smoking  is  responsible  for  8  percent  of  all 
lung  cancer.  Researcher  B  cites  this  study, 
saying  that  smoking  is  responsible  for  "near- 
ly a  tenth "  of  all  lung  cancer.  Researcher  0 
translates  this  to  10  percent,  and  Researcher 
D  points  out  that  since  smokers  are  only  half 
the  population,  this  10  percent  is  really  20 
percent  (logically  this  makes  no  sense,  but 
on  a  tost  read'ng  it  SEEMS  to). 

Researcher  E  casually  refers  to  D's  paper, 
giving  the  statistic  as  ""almost  a  quarter"  of 
the  population  (having  forgotten  that  it  was 
only  smokers  that  D  was  talking  about). 
Finally,  Researcher  A,  upon  reading  E's 
report,  notes  that  current  studies  show  that 
smoking  is  responsible  for  three  times  as 
much  of  the  lung  cancer  as  he  originally 
thought  (i.e.,  25  percent  instead  of  8  per- 
cent). When  A's  statement  is  published  - 
prominently  in  several  major  daily  newspa- 
pers -  Researchers  B,  C,  D  and  E  all  triple 
their  previous  estimates,  citing  the  highly 
respected  A.  Thus,  the  original  8  percent  has 
ballooned  up,  in  E's  revised  estimate,  to  75 
percent. 

NAIVE  SUBTRACTION:  Dr.  Industry  decides 
to  estimate  the  environmental  causes  of 
cancer  by  taking  the  known  cancer  rote  and 
subtracting  all  "proven"  sources  of  cancer 
from  it.  By  using  generous  estimates  for 
these  causes  -  preferably  "lifestyle "  factors, 
like  smoking  and  diet  -  Dr.  Industry  finds  that 


only  2  or  3  percent  of  all  cancers  ore 
""unexplained." 

This  tiny,  residual  number  thus  becomes 
the  ceiling  figure  for  environmentally-caused 
cancers. 

DRY-LABBING:  To  ""dry-lob"  a  study  means 
to  fake  it;  to  moke  up  the  numbers  without 
actually  bothering  with  all  those  test-tubes 
and  things  (thus  leaving  your  laboratory  nice 
and  clean  -  i.e.,  "dry"). 

The  chances  that  anyone  will  ever  ask  you 
to  produce  your  original  lab  reports  and 
notebooks  are  pretty  slim.  Recent  experience 
shows  that  even  if  a  lab  worker  sells  out  and 
denounces  you,  they  are  unlikely  to  be 
believed.  Of  course,  someone  could  replicate 
your  study  and  foil  to  get  the  some  (i.e., 
faked)  results;  but  you  simply  accuse  them 
of  screwing  up  somewhere.  It  will  take,  at  the 
very  least,  several  years  for  anyone  to  sort  it 
all  out. 


M^E 


"DRY-LABBING' 


COMPETING  TOXICITY:  The  Fed  has  de- 
manded, OS  a  precondition  to  licensing,  that 
DeothCos  new  product.  Liquid  Death,  be 
tested  for  its  potential  to  cause  cancer.  So 
DeathCo  gives  Liquid  Death  to  17,000  mice 
-  but  at  a  dose  so  high  that  they  all  die  within 
weeks.  Since  it  usually  takes  several  months 
to  develop  a  tumor,  very  few  cancers  ore 
reported. 

Such  0  high  death-rate  could  be  some 
cause  for  concern;  however,  the  Fed  didn't 
ask  ""how  many  mice  will  drop  dead  in 
weeks?"  it  asked  ""how  many  will  develop 
cancer?"  DeathCo's  study  is  published  as 
"proof"  that  Liquid  Death  doesn't  cause 
cancer  -  "even  when  very  high  doses  ore 
administered."  This  proof  will  stand,  unchal- 
lenged, until  someone  with  17,000  spare 
mice  decides  to  replicate  the  study. 

-Kwazee  Wabbift 


t-k. 


f»8<c:><i:E! 


,EO   WOFtLO   2tSi 


the  quest  for 
MICROWaWABU  ?A\STA\ 

ANt»  OTHER  VITAL  NSSDS  .  .  . 


Iff 

vand  moi 


hen  the  agricultural  research  group  where  I  work  first 
formed,  it  was  looking  into  new  ways  to  produce  hardier 
more  productive  cereal  crops.  There  were  four  scientists,  all 
Ph.D.'s  in  their  mid-thirties.  Edgar,  a  chemist,  was  running  the 
show;  Pete,  a  biochemist;  Rob,  a  plant  physiologist;  and  Sergio,  an 
agronomist  from  Central  America.  I  was  hired  as  their  secretary 
and  bookkeeper.  Our  little  outfit  was  funded  by  a  large  industrial 
group  which  had  decided  to  diversify  its  operations  and  explore 
agriculture. 


We  had  a  couple  of  small  labs  and  a 
greenhouse  on  site.  Cereal  varieties  were 
analyzed  and  tested  in  the  greenhouse  by 
Rob.  Potentially  interesting  varieties  were 
crossed  to  make  superior  cereal  lines  using 
a  non-toxic  chemical  method  developed 
by  Pete.  Then  Sergio  would  supervise  test 
plots  out  in  the  Sacramento  Valley  to  see 
how  the  plants  actually  performed  in 
terms  of  added  yield. 

The  pace  of  the  work  was  moderated 
by  the  seasons.  In  November  they 
planted  in  the  fields,  while  during  the 
spring,  lab  and  greenhouse  work  contin- 
ued. In  June  we  would  go  out  to  the  hot 
valley  to  look  at  the  results  —  maybe  20 
acres  of  test  plots  of  old  and  new 
varieties  of  grain,  all  turning  green  to 
gold  under  the  strong  sun.  The  hybrid 
plants  showed  obvious  new  traits,  some 
very  short  and  close  to  the  ground,  some 
nearly  as  tall  as  us,  some  with  good  seed 
set,  some  with  poor  seed  set,  some 
beset  by  disease,  and  some  thriving. 
The  crops  were  harvested  and  taken 
back  to  the  labs  for  analysis.  In  autumn 
the  planting  cycle  began  again. 

The  program  continued  like  this  for 
several  years.  In  agriculture  they  call  it 
classical  breeding.  Desirable  traits  are 
developed  in  a  hit-or-miss  manner.  You 
take  one  plant  with  a  good  strong  trait, 
you  cross  it  with  another  plant  with 
other  good  traits,  and  you  hope  the 
resulting  offspring  will  combine  all  the 
desired  traits.  It's  a  long,  slow  process. 
The  produce  in  the  supermarket  repre- 
sents decades  of  development. 


f»R.O<ZESSE£>    V»X<I>R.1-C*    3 


Our  small  group  expanded  with  the 
hiring  of  a  few  more  associate  scientists 
for  the  chemistry  work  (one  from  Tai- 
wan and  one  an  immigrant  from  main- 
land China).  The  first  woman  scientist 
of  the  group  was  a  botanist  hired  to 
assist  with  lab  and  greenhouse  work. 

We  were  a  long  way  from  any  sort  of 
actual  product,  and  Edgar  was  getting 


Imagine  the  implications 

of  spraying  all  the  timber 

plantations  in  the  semi' 

wild  with  herbicides.  But 

there  is  no  research  into 

these  ecological 

consequences. 


nervous  about  continued  funding.  The 
parent  company  seemed  ambivalent, 
and  Edgar  thought  we  needed  a  hook  to 
keep  them  interested.  So  Edgar,  being  an 
enterprising  and  up-to-date  scientist, 
launched  a  huge  lobby  for  a  genetic 
engineering  program. 

Genetic  engineering  of  plants  really 
represents  a  quantum  leap  over  tradi- 
tional plant  breeding.  Instead  of  a  trial- 
and-error  procedure  that  lasts  a  decade, 
you  can  potentially  identify,  isolate  and 
introduce  a  new  gene  into  a  plant  in  a 
year.  The  parent  company,  after  some 
struggle,  was  won  over  to  the  wave  of  the 

218 


future — the  allure  of  reaping  profits  from 
the  newborn  science  of  plant  genetic 
engineering. 

During  the  next  couple  of  years  the 
tone  of  the  operation  took  on  a  totally 
new  dimension.  We  constructed  the 
latest  in  high  tech  labs  in  addition  to 
several  million  dollars  in  equipment 
purchases.  We  hired  a  whole  new  group 
of  credentialed  scientists  in  the  disci- 
plines of  cell  and  molecular  biology.  Men 
and  women  in  their  20's  and  early  30's, 
these  scientists  were  the  hotshots  from 
the  latest  university  genetics  programs. 

In  the  new  structure,  Edgar  became 
the  scientist  administrator.  Pete  and  Rob 
continued  the  original  work  in  bio- 
chemistry and  plant  physiology.  Sergio 
spent  all  his  time  at  the  field  station. 
Tim,  a  bright  and  driven  Asian- 
American,  was  the  Ph.D.  running  cellu- 
lar biology.  Stephanie,  an  intelligent 
Ph.D.  of  few  words,  was  running  mole- 
cular biology.  The  cell  and  molecular 
groups  each  had  a  retinue  of  young  new- 
breed  genetic  scientists,  mostly  Ameri- 
cans, three  more  Taiwanese,  one  east 
Indian  and  two  Europeans. 

The  workplace  became  a  lot  livelier. 
The  group  until  then  had  consisted  of 
your  basic  dedicated  bench  scientists, 
pretty  much  locked  into  their  fields, 
sports  being  their  main  outside  interest. 
The  newer  group  consisted  of  generally 
younger  singles  who  attended  concerts, 
liked  sports,  paid  some  attention  to  the 
media,  drove  new  sports  cars  and  met 
socially  outside  of  work.  A  few  of  the 
new  scientists  professed  interest  in  en- 
vironmental causes  and  set  up  in-house 
recycling  of  paper  and  cans. 

SPECIALIZATION  AND 
ITS  DISCONTENTS 

When  the  new  labs  opened,  a  rift 
developed  between  the  original  scientists 
and  the  new  group.  In  science  these 
days,  molecular  and  cell  biology  are  "in." 
Chemistry  and  biochemistry  still  play  a 

13 


basic  role,  but  biological  disciplines  such 
as  physiology,  which  considers  the  whole 
organism,  are  "out."  At  the  universities, 
all  the  aspiring  biologists  want  to  study 
genetics.  As  a  result,  their  overall  out- 
look tends  to  be  limited  to  the  microsco- 
pic level  at  best. 

For  the  first  few  years  of  the  genetic 
engineering  labs,  Rob,  the  plant  physi- 
ologist, was  down  in  the  dumps.  He  had 
been  counseled  that  his  specialty  —  the 
study  of  the  overall  plant  and  how  it 
reacted  with  the  surrounding  environ- 
ment —  was  no  longer  where  it  was  at. 
To  be  more  employable  he  needed  to  get 
into  molecules.  When  the  labs  developed 
plant  lines  that  had  to  move  into  the 
greenhouse,  and  then  outdoors  into  an 
actual  field,  it  became  apparent  that  the 
molecular  and  cell  people  didn't  know 
the  first  thing  about  whole  plants.  They 
didn't  consider,  for  example,  that  if  you 
move  a  gene  that  influences  a  certain 
stage  of  growth,  it  might  affect  the 
overall  maturation  of  the  plant.  At  that 
point  it  was  decided  that  the  plant 
physiologist  better  give  a  few  quick 
seminars  to  the  rest  of  the  group.  His 
dignity  was  partially  restored  until  the 
young  assistant  botanist  transferred  to 
the  cell  biology  lab  to  rev  up  her  skills. 
Now  Rob  can't  find  another  assistant  to 
hire.  He  told  me,  "They  don't  train 
people  like  me  anymore."  This  man  is  39 
years  old! 

A  QUICK  HISTORY 

Observing  this  episode  with  Rob,  and 
seeing  the  whirlwind  changes  brought  by 
genetic  engineering,  made  me  look  more 
closely  at  what  was  happening.  It's  been 
barely  20  years  since  the  first  gene  splice. 
The  field  of  molecular  biology,  initiated 


GENETIC  ENGINEERING  REVEALS 
THE  TRUTH... 


Stumus  vulgaris 

Common  Starling 


Muridus  urbanicis 

Common  Rat 


Columbidus  urbanicis 

Common  Pigeon 


...PIGEONS  REALLY  ARE 
FLYING  RATS! 


by  Rockefeller  Foundation  grants  in  the 
mid- 1930s,  has  finally  come  into  its  own 
during  this  past  decade  and  a  half.  It  has 
received  tremendous  research  and  devel- 
opment funding. 

1970s:  For  the  first  time  molecular 
biology  succeeded  in  controlled  manipu- 
lation of  genetic  material.  Pieces  of 
genetic  material  were  successfully  moved 
from  one  organism  to  another.  In  1975 
the  international  scientific  community, 
awed  by  the  magnitude  of  this  break- 
through, held  a  conference  at  Asilomar, 
California,  and  actually  declared  a  mor- 
atorium on  all  genetic  research  until 
enough  was  known  to  control  this 
emerging  technology. 

1980s:  The  business  element  in  the 
scientific  community  gained  enough  in- 
fluence to  reverse  the  scientists'  morato- 
rium. Huge  venture  capital  investments 


Thanks  Genetech!. . .  These  rice 
make  work  so  much  easier! 


plants  with  velcro®   roots 
GENETECH:  Because  we  care/ 


Graphic:  Trixie  T-Square 

were  made  as  genetic  engineering  re- 
search again  proceeded  at  full  speed.  The 
door  was  opened  wider  by  a  1980 
Supreme  Court  decision  granting  the 
first  patent  on  a  process  for  genetic 
manipulation  to  Stanford  and  UC 
Berkeley.  It  was  astonishing  in  two 
respects.  It  was  the  first  patent  on  a  life 
form,  and  it  was  the  first  time  academia 
formally  entered  the  business  world  with 
a  patent.  During  the  1980s,  investment 
poured  into  medicine  and  agriculture  to 
develop  applications. 

1990s:  After  ten  full  years  of  major 
investment  there  are  few  significant 
biotechnology  products  on  the  market. 
Research  takes  time  and  the  developing 
technologies  have  barely  matured.  Bio- 
medicine  is  a  little  closer  to  bringing 
products  to  market  than  is  bioagricul- 
ture.  The  venture  capitalists  are  getting 
very  anxious  and  are  pushing  hard  for 
products. 

Under  this  pressure,  there  could  be  a 
whole  series  of  useless  and/or  damaging 
genetic  technology  spin-off  applications, 
such  as  herbicide  tolerance.  Not  only  is 
industry  usurping  the  new  technology  to 
protect  its  earlier  investments  in  obsolete 
technology,  they  are  also  in  a  mad  rush 
to  commercialize  and  get  immediate 
returns  on  investment  before  the  tech- 
nology's potential  is  even  halfway  real- 
ized. 

In  an  infinite  range  of  possibilities,  the 
industrial  sponsors  are  having  a  bigger 
say  than  ever  before  in  what  science  is 
actually  developing.  The  universities  are 
busy  organizing  academic  biotechnology 
consortia  to  facilitate  the  flow  of  basic 
research  to  industry  (in  return  for  fund- 
ing and  a  piece  of  the  patent  action).  The 


14 


f»R.Cl><ZHSSEC*    >/»•<:> FtLO    2tS 


ties    between    academia    and    industry, 
always  present,  have  reached  unprece- 
dented levels  in  the  case  of  biotechnolo- 
gy- 
HERBICIDE  TOLERANCE 

Genetically  engineered  herbicide  tol- 
erance is  an  interesting  case  in  point, 
though  it's  not  a  project  at  the  labs 
where  I  work.  The  agrichemical  compa- 
nies became  the  biggest  backers  of 
genetic  engineering  of  plants  in  the  early 
1980s.  They  invested  early,  and  financed 
full  scale  in-house  research  labs.  Finding 
a  specific  gene  that  carries  a  specific  trait 
is  one  of  the  difficulties  of  genetic 
engineering. 

The  scientists  in  those  labs  isolated  the 
gene  for  herbicide  tolerance  during  their 
continuous  testing  and  studying  of  how 
herbicides  act  on  plants.  The  agrichemi- 
cal companies  now  have  an  "isolated 
herbicide  tolerant  gene"  that  they  can 
move  into  crops  that  are  plagued  by 
weeds,  like  cotton.  A  farmer  sprays  his 
cotton  crop  like  crazy,  the  cotton  thrives, 
the  weeds  don't  grow,  and  the  company 
sells  genetically  altered  crop  lines  and 
more  herbicide  than  ever. 

This  herbicide  tolerance  is  actually  one 
of  the  few  genes  currently  isolated, 
identified  and  in  the  stage  of  advanced 
product  development.  In  many  other 
agricultural  labs  the  rush  is  on  to  get  to 
market  with  a  similar  product  in  order  to 
stay  competitive.  It  is  very  likely  that 
some  of  the  first  genetically  engineered 
plants  will  be  herbicide  resistant  varie- 
ties, both  crop  plants  and  forest  timber 
trees. 

The  research  stops  here— the  skills  de- 
veloped toward  gene  isolation  and  ma- 
nipulation are  put  on  hold  while  the 
rush  to  product  development  takes  over. 
Imagine  the  implications  of  spraying  all 
the  timber  plantations  in  the  semi-wild 
with  herbicides.  But  there  is  no  research 
into  these  ecological  consequences- 
research  dollars  are  committed  to  bring- 
ing products  to  market  as  soon  as 
possible. 

YES,  BUT  HOW  DO  THEY  FEEL? 

Back  in  our  labs,  the  push  is  on.  I've 
asked  a  number  of  scientists  how  they 
feel  about  herbicide  tolerance  being  the 
pilot  product  of  genetic  engineering. 
How  do  they  feel  about  the  way  the 
technology  they  develop  is  actually  ap- 
plied? Stephanie  smiles,  and  though  she 
is  the  leader  of  the  molecular  biology 
group,  she  just  shakes  her  head  and  says 
she's  glad  herbicide  tolerance  isn't  one  of 


our  projects.  Rob  also  shakes  his  head, 
doesn't  say  anything.  He's  already  had 
the  funding  pulled  out  from  under 
projects  he's  worked  on  at  two  other 
labs,  losing  his  job  both  times.  He's  not 
too  anxious  to  make  any  statements. 
Pete,  busy  at  the  chemistry  bench, 
shrugs  his  shoulders  and  acknowledges 
that  funding  is  everything.  "You  work 
on  what  they  are  willing  to  fund." 

Steven,  one  of  the  younger  scientists, 
once  confided  to  me  that  the  herbicide 
tolerance  work  is  dangerous.  He  was 
labeled  a  liberal  by  the  rest  of  the  group 
for  being  against  the  attack  on  Iraq.  This 
relatively  mild  political  stance  made  his 
lab  mate  so  uncomfortable  she  stopped 
speaking  to  him.  He  recently  left  the 
labs  to  go  back  to  graduate  school  and 
study  environmental  law.  Two  years 
ago  another  young  cell  biologist  left  for 
law  school.  He,  however,  was  going  to  be 
a  patent  attorney. 

Stephanie,  Rob  and  Steven,  the  dedicat- 
ed bench  scientists,  are  not  the  driving 
forces  of  the  operation.  There  is  another 
career  track  in  the  labs,  the  scientist 
turned  businessman/manager.  Tim,  the 
cell  biology  leader,  is  competent  and 
professional,  and  definitely  a  candidate 
for    the    business    track,     although    he 


rather  ruefully  told  me  one  day,  "I  went 
to  graduate  school  in  the  '70s.  The 
structure  of  DNA  had  just  been  identi- 
fied. It  was  incredibly  exciting.  The 
scientists  in  those  years  had  a  say  in  the 
direction  the  discovery  could  take.  There 
was  a  tremendous  amount  of  debate  on 
the  responsible  application  of  the  sci- 
ence. I  never  would  have  believed  then 
that  I  would  end  up  working  in  indus- 
try." He  now  is  wholeheartedly  commit- 
ted to  the  projects  assigned  to  him. 

Edgar  has  been  sharpening  his  business 
and  management  skills,  and  has  teamed 
with  go-getter  Matt,  who  is  a  Ph.D.  in 
biochemistry  turned  MBA.  Together 
they  have  plans  to  take  our  group  to  the 
top,  to  be  first  in  both  technology  and 
business  development.  They  are  a  fair 
representation  of  what  science  is  these 
days:  competitive  and  very  business 
oriented.  Not  long  ago  I  heard  Matt 
comment,  "we've  got  the  solution,  now 
all  we  need  is  the  problem."  He  was 
talking  about  some  finding  on  altering 
the  starch  content  in  wheat  that  had  the 
potential  of  being  applied  to  pasta 
production.  It  turns  out  that  the  big  focxl 
processors  have  a  problem  with  pasta 
microwavability  —  the  pasta  gets  mushy. 
—Robin  Wheaxworth 


Separations  Cells  Can  Live  With 


Our  new  Elutriator  Rotor  not  only 
handily  separates  living  cells  from 
one  another,  it  brilliantly  separates 
developing  countries  from  precious 
hard  currency.  By  the  time  they 
realize  they  can't  properly  operate 
our  machines  outside  of  state-of- 
the-art  bioscience  labs  in  Europe, 
japan  or  the  U.S.  (with  constant 
technical  support),  their  multi-million 
dollar  downpayment  is  safely  in 
our  bank  account. 


Moreover,  our 

amazing  machine 

helps  separate  lab 

technicians  from 

dangerous  control  over 

vital  processes,  ensuring  greater 

control  for  management,  and  by 

extension,  for  the  all-powerful 

bottom  line  . 

Separations — 

Modern  Life  can't 

continue  without  them. 

Separation  of.  .  . 

concept  from  execution 

brain  from  brawn 

worker  from  product 

rich  from  poor 

producer  from  consumer 

We  are  extending  this 

vital  logic  to  the 

cellular  level,  for  you. 

BECKMAN 


f*R.<:i><i:sssso  wofftiLC*  a^a 


3R££M  WASH  I MG 


A\GRICUL"rURA\L  BIOTECHMOLOGY 


m 


hjk  specter  haunted  the  Third  National  Agricuhural  Biotech 
/^•^  V  nology  Conference  (NABC-3),  held  earlier  this  year 
^  Sacramento,  California — the  specter  of  ecology.  One  felt  its  pres- 
ence almost  immediately,  when  a  more-or-less  generic  industry 
hack,  Ralph  W.  Hardy,  president  of  Boyce  Thompson  Institute, 
gave  an  obviously  well-rehearsed  rant  against  radical  environ- 
mentalists. Nothing  special — just  your  standard  environmentalists- 
as-anti-technology-Luddites-who-want-us-to-freeze-to-death-in-the- 
dark  stuff— but  the  crowd  loved  it. 


As  the  day  wore  on,  though,  it  became 
obvious  that  Hardy's  old-school  ideology 
wasn't  the  only  item  on  the  menu.  This 
sterile  hotel  conference  center  was  host 
to  some  notably  up-to-date,  even  experi- 
mental, forms  of  greenwashing.  Bio- 
technology was  no  longer,  as  in  the  early 
1970s,  being  framed  in  Promethean, 
steal-god's-thunder,  engineering-of-life 
terms.  Now  it's  just  a  science  of  genetic 
"modification,"  not  so  very  different  from 
brewing  or  bread  making.  As  one  re- 
cent volume.  Agricultural  Biotechnology: 
Issues  and  Choices,  put  it:  "biotechnology 
is  around  us  every  day,  just  as  it  was  for 
our  ancestors."  Today's  techniques,  from 
gene  splicing  to  industrial  cloning,  are 
just  a  bit  more  precise,  but  this  is  only 
an  evolutionary— not  a  revolutionary- 
difference. 

Still  worried?  Better  get  used  to  it! 
There  were  lots  o{  midwestern  research 
homeboys  here  to  explain  that  in  a  time 
of  rising  population  and  famine,  produc- 
tivity is  the  only  important  fact  of 
agricultural  life.  The  world  needs  more 
food,  and  biotechnology  is  the  only 
practical  way  to  provide  it.  Ask  British 
multinational  ICI  Seeds,  which  has 
devoted  an  entire  publication.  Feeding 
the  World,  to  arguing  that  biotech  "will 
be  the  most  reliable  and  environmental- 
ly acceptable  way  to  secure  the  world's 
food  supplies."  Or  ask  Eli  Lilly,  a 
transnational  drug  company  that's 
diversifying  into  biotech:  "We  will  need 
dramatic  progress  in  the  productivity  of 
agriculture  to  limit  starvation  and  the 
social  chaos  which  overpopulation  will 
bring." 


Biotechnology  has  its  critics,  of  course, 
but  they  are  largely  naive  urban  dwellers 
who  don't  even  realize  they're  speaking 
for  starvation!  In  fact  —  and  this  is  the 
real  kicker — biotechnology  is  the  key  to 
making  the  "sustainable  agriculture"  we 
all  want  more  practical.  It'll  even  make  it 


Biotech  is  being  shaped 

not  by  the  aesthetic  joy  of 

fundamental  science,  or 

even  by  the  hard-headed 

practicalities  of  a  world 

on  the  edge  of  mass  star- 

vation,  but  by  ''the 

nature  of  its  being 

a  product/* 


possible  to  phase  out  dangerous  chemi- 
cal pesticides  and  herbicides  (in  favor  of 
new  "biopesticides")  without  suffering 
catastrophically  reduced  yields. 

Ecology  was,  in  other  words,  the 
theme  of  NABC-3.  We  were  even 
shown  a  slide  of  some  agricultural  re- 
search buildings  surrounded  by  high 
cyclone  fencing,  and  invited  to  bemoan 
the  precious  funds  wasted  protecting 
such  facilities  from  marauding  bands  of 
"technology-hating  Luddites."  Then  we 
got  a  report  on  progress  towards  "more 
efficient  cows"  able  to  produce  more 
protein  per  measure  of  fodder.  This  is  an 


especially  twisted  homage  to  ecology,  for 
the  realization  that  cows  are  "inefficient" 
producers  of  usable  protein,  and  that 
there  would  be  plenty  of  food  to  go 
around  if  people  ate  less  meat,  traces 
directly  back  to  Francis  Moore  Lappe's 
Diet  for  a  Small  Planet,  first  published  in 
1971  by  Friends  of  the  Earth. 

Welcome  to  the  future,  where  "sus- 
tainability"  —  the  vaguest  term  in  the 
environmental  lexicon  —  joins  "produc- 
tivity" as  the  basis  of  the  campaign  to 
once  again  equate  technology  and  hope. 
And  why  not?  Sustainability  is  like  apple 
pie  —  everyone  loves  it.  The  tough 
questions  concern  how  the  apples  are  to 
be  grown,  and  if  the  wheat  in  the  crust 
should  be  a  mix  of  native  varietals  or  a 
high-tech  hybrid.  The  answers  to  these 
questions  are  significant  both  as  propa- 
ganda and  as  agricultural  technique.  In 
fact,  it's  beginning  to  look  like  the 
biotechnology  industry  has,  to  some 
extent,  chosen  research  programs  suit- 
able for  backing  up  its  new  claims  to  be 
environmentally  friendly. 

If  you  doubt  these  claims,  don't  make 
the  mistake  of  assuming  that  others 
share  your  suspicions.  As  Walter  Truett 
Anderson  put  it  in  the  NABC-3  keynote 
address,  "Environmentalists  tend  to  be 
very  suspicious  of  technological  fixes, 
but  the  general  public  has  no  such 
reservations.  Technological  fixes  will  do 
fine.  They  will  not  only  be  tolerated, 
they'll  be  demanded." 

Anderson  as  keynote  speaker  is  itself 
notable.  Anderson  is  a  regular  at  the 
Pacific  News  Service,  a  left-liberal  outfit 
with  a  love  for  the  offbeat,  but  not 
necessarily  radical,  angle.  An  "environ- 
mentalist" with  career  ambitions  in 
apolitical  mainstream  futurism,  Ander- 
son is  the  author  of  To  Govern  Evolution: 
Further  Adventures  of  the  Political  Animal, 
a  book  in  which  he  steps  back  and  takes 
the  big  picture  of  biopolitics,  counting  it 
as  encompassing  everything  from  eco- 
systems restoration  to  genetic  engineer- 
ing, industrial  policy  to  the  dilemmas 
posed  by  emerging  medical  technologies. 


iC 


f»«.Cl>CIESSEIl»    WOR.t-0    :aSJ 


Anderson  was  speaking  at  NABC-3 
because  he  sees  biopolitics  in  a  way  that, 
if  not  altogether  flattering  to  the  bio- 
technology industry,  is  actively  hostile  to 
the  radical  green  culture,  which  he 
claims  makes  "a  religion  out  of  being 
frightened."  The  inevitable  reality,  ac- 
cording to  Anderson,  is  that  from  now 
on  nature  must  fall  explicitly  within  the 
ambit  of  politics.  Evolution  must  be 
managed,  whether  we  like  it  or  not!  It's 
an  abstract  assertion,  though  true 
enough  —  the  problem  is  that  Anderson 
was  clearly  speaking,  at  this  conclave  of 
industry  functionaries,  as  one  manager 
to  his  fellows. 

LUDDISM:  JUST  SAY  NO? 

In  1986,  a  group  of  radical  greens  stole 
onto  the  grounds  of  Advanced  Genetic 
Sciences,  near  Davis,  California,  and 
destroyed  a  strawberry  field  that  had 
been  sprayed  with  a  "genetically  mani- 
pulated organism"  named  Ice  Minus. 
TTie  media  attacked  them  as  "Luddites," 
but  they  were  hardly  offended.  I 
know  one  of  them,  and  he  wears 
the  label  "Luddite"  proudly.  Not  that 
my  buddy  (a  graduate  of  MIT)  is  the 
enemy  of  "technology"  in  general.  Better 
to  say  that  he  opposes  biotechnology 
because  he  sees  it  as  embodying  the 
interests  of  a  dangerous  and  perhaps 
insane  society.  In  fact,  the  real  difference 
between  him  and  all  the  millions  of 
others  who  harbor  fears  about  high-tech 
society  may  be  one  of  degree  —  and,  of 
course,  that  he  has  found  occasion  to 
express  his  feelings  on  a  few  benighted 
strawberries. 

Is  Anderson  wrong,  then,  to  claim 
that  most  members  of  the  "general 
public"  will  welcome  technological 
fixes  —  especially  if  things  get  much 
worse?  It's  impossible  to  say.  Techno- 
logical utopianism,  an  old  and  well- 
established  tradition  that  thrives  in 
apolitical  America,  endures  despite 
the  decidedly  bad  reputation  that 
science  and  technology  have  picked 
up  in  the  last  20  years.  The  spirit  of 
the  day  is  ambivalence,  composed  of 
equal  parts  of  dread  and  techno- 
fixism.  Terminator  2,  the  killing 
machine  as  good  guy  and  responsible 
father,  is  our  perfect  mascot. 

The  fog  of  fear  and  television  keeps 
most  of  us  from  getting  a  clear  fix  on  the 
core  institutions  of  society,  the  institu- 
tions that  shape  the  machines.  But  the 
machines  are  right  before  our  eyes  — 
easy  to  admire,  to  desire,  to  fear.  They 
promise  ease  and  comfort,  or  at  least 


FUTURE  SHOCKED?!? 


Scared?     Worried? 

PUT  PROGRESS  IN 
YOUR  POCKET! 

Soothe  away  your  cxjncems  about  our 
problematic  future  with  the 

PERFECT  POCKET  FUTURIST! 

Its  gentle  puffs  of  strawberry-scented 
IDEALIUM®  tranqullizes  while  the  "halo- 
graphic"  effects  d<izzle  your  subsconscious 
mind  with  sophistry  and  bland  promises. 
It  gently — but  irresistably — reassures  you 
that  the  people  in  charge  know  what  they're 
doing,  that  technology  will  make 
YOUR  life  better! 

Helps  you  cope  with: 
•  NEW  MEDICINES  •  NEW  MACHINES 

•  NEW  INFORMATION   •  NEW  IDEAS 

•  NEW  FOODS  •  NEW  CHEMICALS!! 


REASSURANCE  GUARANTEED! 


Special  snap-on  modules  to  combat  worries  about  Investments  &  the  Market;  Terrorism;  Family;  Ecology! 
Subversion  proof  and  toady  tested .  .  .  from  CONTEK,  PUTTING  THE  "SOCIAL"  BACK  INTO  SOCIETY,  for  you! 


images  of  ease  and  comfort.  Unfortu- 
nately they  seem  as  well  the  agents  of  a 
new  and  threatening  world.  ^X^at  better 
response  than  confusion  and  ambivalence? 

Among  environmentalists,  science 
and  technology  are  topics  of  daily 
conversation  in  a  way  that  would 
have  surprised  the  early  radical  critics 
of  technoscience  —  Lewis  Mumford, 
for  example,  or  Herbert  Marcuse.  The 
ideas  of  such  thinkers  find  an  un- 
precedented popularity  in  the  green 
movement,  though  their  precise  histories 
are  rarely  known.  The  odd  thing  is  that 
among  the  greens  these  ideas  find  a 
strange  company  of  fine,  strong  radical- 
ism, and  bucolic  simple-mindedness. 
Regrettably,  green  radicalism  seems  to 
somehow  depend  on  the  simple-minded- 
ness, to  lean  on  it  for  support  and 
fortitude. 

The  perfect  case  in  point  is  Jeremy 
Rifkin,  the  man  whose  inspired  fu- 
sion of  legal  activism  and  highfalutin' 
anti-biotech  proselytizing  has  virtual- 
ly defined  the  battle  against  genetic 
engineering  in  the  United  States.  A 
self-styled  "heretic"  who  has  made  it 
his  mission  to  lead  a  prohibitionist 
campaign  against  biotechnology,  Rif- 
kin has  worked  hard  to  find  solid 
theoretical  ground  for  his  politics  of 
almost  complete  refusal.  He  has 
found  it  in  a  theory  of  "species  integ- 
rity" and  the  morally  transgressive 
nature  of  biotechnology.  Not  coinci- 
dentally,  this  theory  has  been  widely 
influential  among  biotech's  deep-green 
foes. 


It's  difficult  to  criticize  Rifkin's 
ideas  without  seeming  to  fall  into 
league  with  an  industry  that  would 
happily  see  him  dead,  yet  it  is 
important  to  do  so.  Rifkin  has  come 
to  stand  for  the  politics  of  technologi- 
cal taboo,  and  has  defined  the  issues 
raised  by  biotechnology  in  an  over- 
blown way  that  —  though  catalyzing 
both  attention  and  opposition  —  has 
also  led  us  into  an  ideological  back- 
water from  which  it  will  be  hard  to 
escape. 

Rifkin's  attack  on  biotechnology  is 
—  to  use  the  jargon  of  the  day  — 
essentialist.  What  he  is  telling  us  is 
that  the  fundamental  techniques  of  the 
new  science,  those  that  mix  genetic 
materials  between  animals  and  between 
species,  are  irredeemable  expressions  of  a 
drive  to  subjugate  nature  and  of  a  mania 
for  "efficiency."  It  is  a  position  that  is 
close  to  the  truth,  but  not  close  enough 
to  make  real  sense  of  our  predicament. 

Rifkin,  like  almost  everyone  else  who 
has  tried  to  find  a  politics  of  technology 
that  is  both  radical  and  popular,  punts  on 
the  really  tough  question.  How  does  one 
simultaneously  focus  on  the  momentous 
macro  issues  raised  by  the  new  techno- 
logies, and  the  ail-too  prosaic  social 
institutions  that  shape  them?  Instead,  he 
draws  a  line  in  the  sand,  charging 
biotechnology  with  the  sin  of  reducing 
species  to  information  sequences,  and 
then  going  on  to  mix  these  sequences 
without  regard  to  their  "sanctity."  It  is 
true,  but  only  in  caricature  —  all  detail, 


••B«.<r><Z:ESSEI>    W<I>R.t.O    as 


17 


political  as  well  as  scientific,  has  been 
banished.  The  issue  becomes  simply 
"Should  we  play  God?"  Stephen 
Jay  Gould,  one  of  our  finest  evolution- 
ists, has  described  Rifkin's  Algeny  as  "a 
cleverly  constructed  piece  of  anti- 
intellectual  propaganda  masquerading  as 
scholarship."  In  fact,  his  work  is  so 
undermined  by  shoddy  overgeneraliza- 
tion  that  its  major  points  of  interest  may 
be  its  popularity  and  the  part  it  has 
played  in  mobilizing  a  campaign  against 
biotechnology. 

At  issue  here  are  the  politics  of  fear  and 
exaggeration.  The  larger  ecology  move- 
ment often  relies  on  campaigns  much 
like  those  that  Rifkin  uses  to  organize 
resistance  to  biotechnology.  Note 
that  while  Rifkinite  hyperbole  backs  an 


free  ^^»aAat  f>«,ii^/i^/^  6^U.^n^ 


agenda  most  of  us  would  probably 
support,  it  hasn't  actually  stopped,  or 
even    significantly    slowed,    the    overall 


development  of  biotechnology.  In  fact,  it 
has  helped  prompt  the  current  effort 
by  biotech's  boosters  to  position  it  as  a 
green  technology,  and  worse,  it  has 
theoretically  disarmed  environmental 
activists  in  the  bargain.  The  new  "we- 
feed-the-hungry"  line  is  a  strong  one, 
and  may  succeed  in  washing  most  of 
Rifkin's  accomplishments  off  the  map. 

All  of  which  is  to  say  that  a  shortcut 
politics  of  refusal  (Luddism)  was  never 
enough,  and  certainly  will  not  do  today. 
"No  nukes"  is  not  enough.  "No  bio- 
technology" is,  at  best,  a  sad  joke.  If  you 
don't  think  so,  ask  a  friend  with  AIDS. 
Consider  why  AIDS  activists  and  greens 
—who  would  seem  by  their  common  in- 
terest in  the  politics  of  science  to  be 
natural  allies — disagree  so  deeply  about 


The  facility  was  crude,  a  tacky  converted 
waretiouse  with  oftice  dividers,  ugly  carpets 
and  a  U.S.  map  displayed  to  give  the 
innpression  that  Biohell  was  larger  than  it 
was.  The  lab  area  was  a  converted  kitchen 
(linoleum  floors  intact)  with  lunch  tables 
covered  with  biotech  godgetry.  'This  is 
where  you'll  be  working,  Chudaman,"  Tony 
told  me.  "This  will  be  your  desk,  that  one  is 
mine.  That  is,  if  you  want  the  job." 

I  took  the  job  without  thinking  twice.  I'd  be 
getting  $16,000  a  year,  with  medical  and 
dental  insurance,  paid  sick  leave,  vocations 
and  holidays.  Because  it  was  a  young 
business,  I  would  be  able  to  "grow  with  the 
company, "  taking  on  responsibilities  usually 
reserved  tor  people  with  four  or  five  years 
experience  at  more  established  companies. 
There  was  even  the  possibility  that  I  would 
get  stock  options  when  they  went  public! 

I  didn't  realize  that  I  could  have  made 
much  more  money  elsewhere,  even  at  an 
academic  research  lab.  My  benefits  didn't 
include  disability  or  pension  and  the  stock 
options  were  just  a  scam.  The  "important 
responsibilities"  were  just  a  euphemism  for 
"working  even  harder,  for  longer  hours,  for 
the  same  low  pay." 

Initially,  the  job  was  enjoyable.  Tony 
treated  me  like  a  friend  and  equal.  We  would 
talk  and  goof  off  instead  of  working.  We 
shared  the  work  equally  when  we  did  work. 
Things  began  to  change,  however,  when 
Tony  moved  into  sales  to  try  to  make  more 
money.  He  was  moved  into  his  own  office 
where  he  "would  no  longer  have  any  distrac- 
tions." Soon  he  was  moved  to  Poughkeepsie 
to  be  a  district  representative  for  the  east 
coast.  After  several  months  of  low  sales,  he 
was  canned  and  left  to  rot  in  New  Jersey  with 
only  two  months  severance  pay. 

My  new  boss  was  Rajiv,  president  of  the 
company.  One  of  his  grand  plans  was  to 
market  chromatography  columns  to  the  oil 
companies  to  help  them  clean  up  spills  at 


sea.  The  most  likely  source  of  energy  for 
these  pumps  on  a  boat  would  be  oil  itself; 
perhaps  he  should  have  looked  into  a  pump 
that  powers  itself  with  the  crude  oil  it  sucks 
up,  a  perpetual  motion  machine. 

Rajiv  always  watched  me,  noting  what 
time  I  come  and  left  and  how  long  I  took  for 
lunch.  He  come  into  the  lab  every  hour  to 
check  up  on  me.  "You're  not  on  hourly 
worker,"  he  would  tell  me.  "We  have  no  time 
clocks  here  or  stnct  hours.  You're  paid  a 
salary  to  get  a  job  done.  If  it  means  working 
more  than  eight  hours  occasionally,  then 
you  work  more  than  eight  hours. 

This  attitude  prevails  in  the  life  sciences. 
Technicians  ore  expected  to  work  until  a  job 
is  completed,  often  within  a  rigid  schedule. 
Some  bosses  allow  their  technicians  to  leave 
early  if  on  experiment  is  completed,  knowing 
there  will  be  other  days  when  their  employ- 
ees will  work  late.  Others,  like  Rajiv,  soy  this 
is  their  policy  but  then  find  extra  work  on 
short  days.  This  policy  is  justified  on  the 
grounds  that  some  experiments  take  more 
than  eight  hours  to  set  up  and  run  to 
completion  and  that  it's  sometimes  impossi- 
ble to  stop  an  experiment  at  certain  steps 
without  ruining  the  results.  However,  virtually 
any  experiment  can  be  planned  so  that  there 
is  a  convenient  stopping  point  within  an  eight 
hour  day.  Bosses  in  the  biotech  industry 
overwork  their  technicians  because  they 
want  to  get  more  productivity  for  less  pay. 

Often  new  experiments  would  be  started 
late  in  the  day  rather  than  allowing  the 
employees  to  leave  early.  Work  is  given  us  to 
take  home  or  we  are  expected  to  come  in  on 
the  weekend.  Sadly,  most  workers  accept 
this  OS  0  normal  condition  of  their  employ- 
ment. Many  believe  they  ore  fulfilling  on 
obligation.  Others  see  a  50-60  hour  work 
week  as  justifiable  in  light  of  their  "high" 
salanes. 

At  some  point  duhng  my  employment  at 
Biohell,  I  was  informed  that  I  would  have  to 
work  on  production-in  addition  to  my  normal 


job  of  research  and  development.  Rajiv 
made  me  take  over  Tony's  old  job  of 
technical  service  as  well.  This  would  be 
short-term,  he  assured  me,  but  it  lasted  the 
rest  of  the  time  I  was  there. 

Technical  service  entailed  calling  up  the 
customers  and  checking  on  their  progress 
with  Biohell  products.  It  meant  dressing  up  in 
a  suit  and  tie  and  going  out  to  their  lobs  to  fix 
problems.  I  had  to  kiss  up  to  irate,  frustrated 
customers.  I  often  caught  a  plane  at  five 
o'clock  in  the  morning  and  hod  to  fight  traffic 
in  a  strange  city  in  a  cheap  rental  car,  not  to 
get  home  until  after  10  or  11  p.m.  Manage- 
ment considered  it  a  privilege  to  travel  for 
free,  as  if  I  was  on  an  all  expenses  paid 
vocation.  The  only  privilege  I  got  on  these 
business  trips  was  to  eat  out  on  the  company 
expense  account,  usually  at  a  greasy  truck 
stop  or  fast  food  joint  since  the  customers 
were  located  in  suburban  nowhere. 

Fed  up,  I  began  to  work  as  slow  as 
possible,  taking  care  of  personal  business  at 
work,  making  long  distance  colls  to  friends. 
During  my  technical  service  work,  I  would 
make  no  more  than  two  colls  a  day  and 
claim  the  lines  were  busy.  I  refused  to  pick 
up  the  phone  when  customers  called,  telling 
the  secretary,  through  the  intercom,  that  I 
was  in  the  middle  of  on  important  experi- 
ment. 

As  for  research  and  development,  I'd 
forget  to  order  basic  supplies,  chemicals, 
glassware,  etc.  I  could  delay  an  expenment 
for  weeks  this  way  and  create  "tree "  time.  I 
became  very  clumsy  around  expensive 
equipment. 

All  my  sabotage  brought  me  great  satis- 
faction and  gave  Rajiv  stress  and  frustration. 
Finally,  he  called  me  into  his  office  and  with 
0  -grim  expression,  explained  that  the  com- 
pany was  not  doing  well  financially.  "We  can 
no  longer  afford  to  poy  for  your  position, 
Chudaman."  I  ran  out  of  the  office  whooping 
it  up,  straight  to  the  unemployment  office. 

-Chudaman  Royals 


13 


»*B«I><:iHSiSSI>    WC:>R.l^r>    ^SJ 


Types 
75wpm 


Telemarkets! 


%    '^^^^cZ'^^'ffi 


^'"'m, 


^'f'^nsr 


E  "MORE  EFFICIENT  cow 


genetic  research. 

The  widespread  anti-biotech  politics  is 
not,  and  cannot,  be  coherent.  Better  to 
see  it  as  a  statement  of  purpose,  a  seeking 
after  a  radical  biopolitics  that  does  not 
yet  exist.  Radical  greens  call  for  a  revolt 
against  the  engineering  mentality  and 
the  domination  of  nature  by  an  exter- 
minist  industrial  capitalism.  Opposing 
biotechnology  seems  like  the  right  thing 
to  do. 

Radical  greens  are  trying  to  come  up 
with  a  politics  as  revolutionary  as  tech- 
noscience  itself.  And  why  not?  The  daily 
papers  are  heavy  with  articles  about 
synthetic  growth  hormone  extending 
human  lifespans,  and  even  about  plans 
for  increasing  the  efficiency  of  photo- 
synthesis. Meanwhile,  the  left  press  runs 
the  odd  piece  about  DNA  as  key  to  a 
new  generation  of  biological  weapons.  A 
certain  fear  is  appropriate,  and  only  the 
industry's  PR  flacks  think  we  should  stop 
worrying  and  love  the  clone. 

I  can  agree  with  Anderson's  big- 
picture  definition  of  the  biopolitical 
battleground,  if  not  the  false  impartiality 
in  which  it  is  framed.  Biopolitics  does 
include  everything  from  the  politics  of 
extinction  to  the  ethics  of  life  extension 
and  the  economics  of  artificial  growth 
hormones.  And,  as  Anderson  points 
out,  agriculture  —  where  biotechnology 
meets  ecology  —  is  on  the  front  lines  of 
the  battle. 

Shall  we  see  biotech  as  do  the  radical 
environmentalists,  the  ones  for  whom 
that  expensive  chain-link  fence  was 
built?  Is  there  any  alternative  in  a  debate 


defined  on  one  side  by  reductionists  like 
Rifkin  who  argue  that  biotech  violates 
some  essential  sanctity  of  life,  and  on  the 
other  by  an  industry  PR  apparatus  that 
seeks  to  frame  biotechnology  as  high- 
tech  beer  making? 

It  is  a  tough  question.  Biotechnology 
is  a  product  not  of  any  magical  in- 
spiration, but  of  a  long  process  of  grad- 
ual refinement  and  innovation.  Yet 
biotech  really  does  seem  to  be  revolu- 
tionary, more  evidence  for  Hegel's 
old  saw  about  quantitative  changes  add- 
ing up  to  qualitative  ones.  DNA  is,  at 
bottom,  a  script,  and  biotechnology  a 
writing  technology.  We  may  never  be 
able  to  equal  the  works  of  evolution, 
that  grand  playwright,  but  we  do  seem  to 
be  learning  to  read— and  to  plagiarize. 
It's  a  prospect  that  should  scare  us, 
especially  given  the  nature  of  the  institu- 
tions within  which  these  breakthroughs 
are  taking  place. 

BIOPOLITICS  ON  THE  GROUND 

The  biotechnology  revolution  is  over- 
whelming in  its  implications;  no  argu- 
ment here.  Still,  we  must  deal  with  the 
issues  it  raises  without  immediately  fall- 
ing back  on  abstractions  like  "the  sanc- 
tity of  nature"  and  "technology."  Such 
concepts  put  too  much  stress  on  the 
large  and  the  mythic  —  not  always  the 


wrong  thing  to  do,  but  dangerous  if 
specifics  get  pushed  into  the  back- 
ground. Who's  doing  what  to  whom?  — 
this  is  the  primal  question  of  politics, 
and  biopolitics  is  no  exception. 

In  the  case  of  agricultural  biotech,  the 
specifics  are  Bovine  Growth  Hormone 
(BGH),  pesticide-  and  herbicide-resistant 
crops  and  all  the  other  high-tech  farm 
products.  The  myths  of  the  biotech 
revolution  are  best  tested  by  examining 
such  specific  facts.  Is  BGH  a  violation  of 
the  metaphysical  integrity  of  the  cow,  or 
a  fancy  new  way  to  make  money? 
($250  million  has  been  spent  on  devel- 
opment alone,  and  some  estimates  peg 
annual  sales  at  $2.5  billion.)  The  answer 
makes  a  difference. 

In  The  End  of  'Nature,  Bill  McKibben  — 
who  hews  to  the  deep-green  line  — 
quotes  a  grotesque  British  work  named 
Future  Man,  in  which  future  genetically- 
engineered  farm  animals  are  celebrated 
for  their  efficiency  and  productivity.  The 
"battery  chickens"  of  the  future, 
"whether  they  are  being  used  to  produce 
eggs  or  meat,"  will  no  longer  look  like 
birds.  Biotech  will  allow  us  to  design 
chickens  without  the  "unnecessary" 
heads,  wings  and  tails.  "Nutrients  would 
be  pumped  in  and  wastes  pumped  out 
through  tubes  connected  to  the  body." 
Lamb  chops  will  be  even  better,  since 
they  will  be  grown  on  a  production  line 


JAWS  0'  DEATH 

STRENGTH  OF  SAMSON! 


.H"""' 


PITBULL 


«  DKISIOII  Of  GENERICO-COHTCK 

CALL  t-800-PIT-BULL! 


Graphic:  Mickey  D. 


»»B<0<:iESSEC>    WOFCt-C*    :a€J 


19 


"with  red  meat  and  fat  attached  to  an 
ever-elongating  spine  of  bone." 

The  more  one  knows  about  the  mar- 
riage of  biotech  research  and  corporate 
agriculture,  the  clearer  it  becomes  that  — 
despite  its  horror  —  such  a  system  of 
meat  production  would  most  likely  be 
put  into  practice  as  soon  as  it  was 
technologically  feasible.  Jonathan  J. 
MacQuinty,  the  president  of  GenPharm 
(which  has  developed  the  ability  to  alter 
cows  so  that  their  milk  contains  human 
proteins  like  lactoferrin,  useful  for  treat- 
ing both  cancer  and  AIDS),  recently  set 
us  straight  on  the  nature  of  farm  ani- 
mals: "We  think  of  them  as  cows,  but 
these  are  actually  self-feeding,  self- 
replicating  bioreactors." 

Some  environmentalists  are  soft  on 
biotechnology,  though  not  as  many  as 
Monsanto  would  have  us  believe.  To  be 
sure,  crops  altered  to  resist  pests  without 
chemical  pesticides  have  a  place  in  a 
green  future.  There  are  even  those  in  the 
environmental  movement  (more  of  An- 
derson's persuasion  than  of  McKibben's) 
who  have  begun  to  talk  about  a  biotech- 
nological  "soft  path."  Still,  the  real 
question  isn't  if  such  a  potential  is  there 
(it  almost  certainly  is)  but  if  there's  any 
good   reason   to   think   that   it   can   be 


realized  in  this  society.  It  is  a  very 
different  question  indeed. 

Even  herbicide-resistant  crops  could  be 
helpful,  depending  on  the  herbicides 
they're  resistant  to.  It  doesn't  take  much 
research,  though,  to  learn  that  real- 
world  product  development  is  running 
along  lines  altogether  askew  from  those 
implied  by  the  rhetoric  of  the  green- 
washers.  New  developments  in  herbicide 
tolerant  crops,  for  example,  are  not 
limited  to  developing  less  toxic  herbi- 
cides (the  "potential"  that  the  green 
critics  of  agricultural  biotech  are  forever 
being  reminded  of).  Rather,  agricultural 
biotechnology  is  being  developed  in 
ways  that  almost  guarantee  that  it'll 
become  just  another  escalation  in  the 
ecological  war  between  biochemicals  and 
insects. 

Margaret  G.  Mellon,  director  of  the 
National  Biotechnology  Policy  Center  of 
the  National  Wildlife  Federation,  also 
spoke  at  NABC-3  —  and  it  was  clear 
that  she  in  no  way  fit  Anderson's 
stereotype  of  the  emotional  green  Lud- 
dite.  Mellon  made  the  most  important 
point  of  the  day:  biotech  is  being  shaped 
not  by  the  aesthetic  joy  of  fundamental 
science,  or  even  by  the  hard-headed 
practicalities  of  a  world  on  the  edge  of 


mass  starvation,  but  by  "the  nature  of  its 
being  a  product."  That  is  about  as  close 
as  anyone  can  come,  these  days,  to 
publicly  saying  "by  its  nature  as  a 
commodity." 

That  it  is  shaped  by  its  "nature"  as  a 
"product,"  the  dirty  public  secret  of  bio- 
technology is  as  well  the  secret  of  infor- 
mation technology,  energy  technology  and 
just  about  any  other  kind  of  technology 
you  care  to  mention.  The  PR  flacks  may 
sputter  about  how  bioscientists  are 
hunched  in  their  labs,  working  hard  so 
that  little  Johnny  and  Juanita  will  have 
enough  to  eat  in  the  dark  days  ahead  — 
but  it's  bullshit  and  they  know  it 
themselves.  Agricultural  biotechnology 
is  being  shaped  by  the  corporate  farms 
and  the  academic/corporate  network 
that  stands  behind  them.  This  is  the 
world  of  chemical  monoculture,  of  fac- 
tory-floor farming  and  dying  rural 
towns,  of  mealy  apples  and  tasteless 
tomatoes  that  never  ripen.  Hundreds  of 
millions  of  dollars  have  been  spent 
developing  BGH  because  some  execu- 
tives somewhere  think  they'll  make  a 
killing.  End  of  story.  Sustainable  agri- 
culture is  only  a  convenient  lie. 

Margaret  Mellon  didn't  come  right  out 
and  say  all  this,  of  course.  Instead,  she 


20 


f*Ft<:i><z:£SSEo  wci>B<i.i:>  asj 


took  industry  rhetoric  at  face  value,  and 
argued  that  biotechnology  can't  lead  us 
to  a  new,  sustainable  agriculture,  and 
that  by  "siphoning  off  scientific  talent 
into  genetics  rather  than  ecology,  I  think 
it's  actually  going  to  make  it  harder  for 
us  to  get  to  where  we  ought  to  go."  She's 
right,  but  this  is  only  the  beginning  of 
what  could  be  said  if  there  really  were 
free  speech.  Her  plea  to  directly  pursue 
specific  goals  (like  sustainable  agricul- 
ture) rather  than  fixating  on  high-tech 
approaches  to  those  goals  (like  biotech- 
nology as  a  possible  contributor  to 
sustainable  agriculture)  is  a  soft,  safe  way 
of  saying  that  we  should  be  making 
social  choices  and  then  developing  tech- 
nologies to  help  us  along  the  road  to 
those  choices.  True,  of  course,  but  the 
matter  is  altogether  too  important  to  be 
left  in  such  abstract  terms. 

There's  little  hope  without  a  reversal 
of  the  ecological  crisis,  and  little  chance 
of  such  a  reversal  in  the  First  World 
alone.  Sustainability  means  nothing  un- 
less it  applies  to  the  Third  World,  where 
populations  are  booming  and  ecosystems 
ravaged  by  hungry  peasants  and  slum- 
dwellers  turned  pioneers.  And  in  the 
very  concrete  social  world  of  Third- 
World  poverty  there's  no  hope  for 
sustainability  without  land  reform  on  a 
grand  scale.  Massive  cash-crop  planta- 
tions must  be  broken  up  into  small 
holdings  where  peasants  can  safely  es- 
tablish themselves.  This  is  the  forbidden 
truth  behind  the  rhetoric  of  "sustain- 
ability," the  truth  that  will  never  be 
discovered  while  the  conversation  re- 
mains locked  in  technoscientific 
frameworks.  Here,  as  everywhere,  if  you 
want  the  truth  —  the  social  truth  that 
shapes  the  scientific  truth  more  deeply 
than  most  scientists  imagine  —  you  have 
to  follow  the  money. 

In  the  real  world,  controlled  by  the 
planetary  corporations  and  constantly 
reshaped  to  their  benefit,  biotechnology 
will  have  a  starkly  negative  effect  on 
Third  World  peasants  —  just  the  oppo- 
site of  a  radical  land-reform  program 
that  had  nothing  at  all  to  do  with 
biotechnology.  The  future  is  already 
visible  in  research  now  focused  on  coffee, 
chocolate,  sugar,  vanilla  and  other  "cash 
crops,"  research  aimed  at  developing 
bioengineered  substitutes  for  such  tradi- 
tional agricultural  products.  Most  such 
substitutes  are  still  very  experimental, 
but  even  in  the  short  term  biotech  can 
be  expected  to  accelerate  the  shift  from 
small  farms  to  large-scale  plantations  by 
promoting  techniques  that  smallholders 


Is  there  any  alternative 
in  a  debate  defined  on 

one  side  by  reductionists 

like  Rifkin  who  argue  that 
biotech  violates  some 

essential  sanctity  of  life, 
and  on  the  other  by  an 
industry  PR  apparatus 
that  seeks  to  frame  biO' 

technology  as  high-tech 
beer  making? 


cannot  afford  —  like  machine-harvesting 
techniques  based  on  bioengineered  hy- 
brids that  all  ripen  in  perfect,  machine- 
like unison.  In  this,  biotechnology's 
impact  in  the  Third  World  is  likely  to  be 
similar  to  the  effect  it  will  have  here  at 
home.  BGH,  for  example,  will  increase 
the  costs  of  doing  business  as  a  dairy 
farmer,  thereby  promoting  larger  herds 
and  concentration  of  ownership. 

The  "potential"  of  a  technology  must 
be  clearly  distinguished  from  its  likely 
applications,  and  science  cannot  be 
abstracted  from  either  social  context  or 
technological  form.  The  Human  Ge- 
nome Project  is  a  fine  example  —  it  is  a 
frightening  development,  but  not  be- 
cause it  reduces  life  to  "information,"  as 
a  die-hard  Rifkinite  might  argue.  It  is, 
rather,  frightening  in  its  promise  to 
further  increase  the  power  and  hege- 
mony of  today's  reductionist  medical 
establishment.  And  this  is  true  despite 
the  fact  that  real  improvements  in 
therapy  and  healing,  as  well  as  some 
amazing  science,  can  be  expected  to  flow 
from  it. 

TWENTY-FIRST  CENTURY 
LUDDISM 

The  original  Luddites  were  skilled 
artisans  who  smashed  the  automated 
looms  of  the  encroaching  factory  system 
—not  because  they  hated  machines,  but 
because  they  knew  no  better  way  to  fight 
for  their  way  of  life.  They  were  heroes, 
but  the  day  was  not  theirs.  They  were 
destroyed. 


learn,  and  as  soon  as  possible.  The 
passions  that  fuel  refusal  are  one  thing, 
but  the  conclusion  that  refusal  —  of 
compromise,  complexity  or  technology 
—  is  the  only  basis  for  radicalism  is  quite 
another.  There  is  no  future  in  a  politics 
defined  by  the  rejection  o(  advanced 
technology.  If  simple  living  is  the  only 
way,  then  there  is  no  hope  at  all.  The 
really  radical  Luddism  knows  this,  and 
sees  the  tragedies  of  our  time  as  results 
not  of  "technology  over  the  invisible  line" 
but  of  the  social  institutions  that  shape 
both  our  lives  and  our  machines.  A 
truly  radical  technopolitics  would  quick- 
ly put  "technology"  aside  in  favor  of 
more  immediate  social  notions  like 
"capitalism"  and  "democracy."  What  is 
needed  is  a  democracy  deep  enough  to 
function  even  at  the  level  at  which 
the  machines  are  shaped — from  the  uses 
to  which  those  machines  are  applied  to 
their  design  and  construction  and  use, 
all  the  way  down  the  pipeline. 

The  questions  are  legion.  Why  does 
technology  always  seem  to  betray  its 
promise?  Why  are  alternate  paths  so 
often  ignored?  Who,  to  ask  the  primal 
political  question,  decides?  These  are  the 
questions  that  define  a  truly  radical 
Luddism.  Who  decides  that  agricultural 
biotech  research  will  focus  on  the  devel- 
opment of  herbicide-resistant  crops? 
Who  decides  that  autos  are  to  be  the 
backbone  of  the  U.S.  transportation 
system?  Who  decides  if  RU-486,  the 
French  "abortion  pill,"  is  to  be  banned? 
Who  decides  that  nuclear  energy  is  the 
best  answer  to  greenhouse  warming? 
These  are  specific  questions,  and  they 
yield  specific  answers  —  the  best  kind. 

—Tom  Athanasiou 


Satanic  taU 


It  is  a  lesson  today's  Luddites  should 


^e-^ 


ENGINEERYOUROWN 
UNIQUE  PET! 


f*B<<I>C::ESSEl>    WOfftl-C*    2t€» 


21 


G  £  M  E  RAT  I O  M  X(cerpt) 


ECONOMY 

OF 

SCALE 

IS 

RUIIMING 

CHOICE 


VEAL-FATTENING  PEN: 

Small,  cramped  office 
workstations  built  of  fabric- 
covered  disassemblable  wall 
partitions  and  inhabited  by  junior 
staff  members.  Named  after 
the  small  preslaughter  cubicles 
used  by  the  cattle  industry. 


¥ 


I  AM  NOT  A  TARGET  MARKET 


eople  are  wary  of  Dag  when  meeting  him  for  the  first 
time,  in  the  same  visceral  way  prairie  folk  are  wary  of 
the  flavor  of  seawater  when  tasting  it  for  the  first  time  at  an 
ocean  beach.  "He  has  eyebrows,"  says  Claire  when  describing 
him  on  the  phone  to  one  of  her  many  sisters. 

Dag    used    to     work     in     advertising 


(marketing,  actually)  and  came  to  Cali- 
fornia from  Toronto,  Canada,  a  city 
that  when  I  once  visited  gave  the 
efficient,  ordered  feel  of  the  Yellow  Pages 
sprung  to  life  in  three  dimensions, 
peppered  with  trees  and  veined  with  cold 
water. 

"I  don't  think  I  was  a  likable  guy.  I  was 
actually  one  of  those  putzes  you  see 
driving  a  sports  car  down  to  the  financial 
district  every  morning  with  the  roof 
down  and  a  baseball  cap  on  his  head, 
cocksure  and  pleased  with  how  frisky 
and  complete  he  looks.  I  was  both  thrilled 
and  flattered  and  achieved  no  small 
thrill  of  power  to  think  that  most 
manufacturers  of  life-style  accessories  in 
the  Western  world  considered  me  their 
most  desirable  target  market.  But  at  the 
slightest  provocation  I'd  have  been  will- 
ing to  apologize  for  my  working  life- 
how  I  work  from  eight  till  five  in  front  of 
a  sperm-dissolving  VDT,  performing 
abstract  tasks  that  indirectly  enslave  the 
Third  World.  But  then,  hey!  Come  five 
o'clock,  I'd  go  nuts!  I'd  streak  my  hair 
and  drink  beer  brewed  in  Kenya.  I'd 
wear  bow  ties  and  listen  to  alternative 
rock  and  slum  in  the  arty  part  of  town." 

Anyhow,  the  story  of  why  Dag  came 
to  Palm  Springs  runs  through  my  brain 
at  the  moment,  so  I  will  continue  here 
with  a  reconstruction  built  of  Dag's  own 
words,  gleaned  over  the  past  year  of  slow 
nights  tending  bar.  I  begin  at  the  point 
where  he  once  told  me  how  he  was  at 
work  and  suffering  from  a  case  of  "Sick 
Building  Syndrome,"  saying,  "The  win- 
dows in  the  office  building  where  I 
worked  didn't  open  that  morning,  and  I 
was  sitting  in  my  cubicle,  affectionately 
named  the  veal-fattening  pen.  I  was 
getting  sicker  and  more  headachey  by 
the  minute  as  the  airborne  stew  of  office 
toxins  and  viruses  recirculated  —  around 
and  around  —  in  the  fans. 

"Of  course  these  poison  winds  were 
eddying  in  my  area  in  particular,  aided 


by  the  hum  of  the  white  noise  machine 
and  the  glow  of  the  VDT  screens.  I 
wasn't  getting  much  done,  and  was 
staring  at  my  IBM  clone  surrounded  by  a 
sea  of  Post-it  Notes,  rock  band  posters 
ripped  off  of  construction  site  hoarding 
boards,  and  a  small  sepia  photo  of  a 
wooden  whaling  ship,  crushed  in  the 
Antarctic  ice,  that  I  once  found  in  an  old 
'National  Geographic.  I  had  placed  this 
photo  behind  a  little  gold  frame  I  bought 
in  Chinatown.  I  would  stare  at  this 
picture  constantly,  never  quite  able  to 
imagine  the  cold,  lonely  despair  that 
people  who  are  genuinely  trapped  must 
feel— in  the  process  think  better  of  my 
own  plight  in  life. 


"I  just  don't  understand 

you  young  people.  No 

workplace  is  ever  okay 

enough.  And  you  mope 

and  complain  about  how 

uncreative  your  jobs  are .  ,  ." 


"Anyhow,  I  wasn't  going  to  produce 
much,  and  to  be  honest,  I  had  decided 
that  morning  that  it  was  very  hard  to  see 
myself  doing  the  same  job  two  years 
down  the  road.  The  thought  of  it  was 
laughable;  depressing.  So  I  was  being  a  bit 
more  lax  than  normal  in  my  behavior.  It 
felt  nice.  It  was  pre-quitting  elation.  I've 
had  it  a  few  times  now. 

"Karen  and  Jamie,  the  VDT  Vixens 
who  worked  in  the  veal-fattening  pens 
next  to  me  (we  called  our  area  the  junior 
stockyard  or  the  junior  ghetto,  alter- 
nately) weren't  feeling  well  or  producing 
much,  either.  As  I  remember,  Karen  was 
spooked  about  the  Sick  Building  busi- 
ness more  than  any  of  us.  She  had  her 


f»R.<:xz^ESSEo  >>v<:l»k.i-o  2ts 


sister,  who  worked  as  an  X-ray  techni- 
cian in  Montreal,  give  her  a  lead  apron, 
which  she  wore  to  protect  her  ovaries 
when  she  was  doing  her  keyboarding 
work.  She  was  going  to  quit  soon  to 
pii  k  lip  work  a^  a  temp:  'More  freedom 
that  way — easier  to  date  the  bicycle 
couriers.' 

"Anyway,  I  remember  I  was  working 
on  a  hamburger  franchise  campaign,  the 
big  goal  of  which,  according  to  my 
embittered  ex-hippie  boss,  Martin,  was 
to  'get  the  little  monsters  so  excited 
about  eating  a  burger  that  they  want  to 
vomit  with  excitement.'  Martin  was  a 
forty-year-old  man  saying  this.  Doubts 
I'd  been  having  about  my  work  for 
months  were  weighing  on  my  mind. 

"As  luck  would  have  it,  that  was  the 
morning  the  public  health  inspector 
came  around  in  response  to  a  phone  call 
I'd  made  earlier  that  week,  questioning 
the  quality  of  the  working  environment. 

"Martin  was  horrified  that  an  employ- 
ee had  called  the  inspectors,  and  I  mean 
really  freaked  out.  In  Toronto  they  can 
force  you  to  make  architectural  changes, 
and  alterations  are  ferociously  expen- 
sive— fresh  air  ducts  and  the  like — and 
health  of  the  office  workers  be  damned, 
cash  signs  were  dinging  up  in  Martin's 
eyes,  tens  of  thousands  of  dollars'  worth. 
He  called  me  into  his  office  and  started 
screaming  at  me,  his  teeny-weeny  salt 
and  pepper  ponytail  bobbing  up  and 
down,  'I  just  don't  understand  you 
young  people.  No  workplace  is  ever  okay 
enough.  And  you  mope  and  complain 
about  how  uncreative  your  jobs  are  and 
how  you're  getting  nowhere,  and  so 
when  we  finally  give  you  a  promotion 
you  leave  and  go  pick  grapes  in  Queens- 
land or  some  other  such  nonsense.' 

"Now,  Martin,  like  most  embittered 
ex-hippies,  is  a  yuppie,  and  I  have  no 
idea  how  you're  supposed  to  relate  to 
those  people.  And  before  you  start 
getting  shrill  and  saying  yuppies  don't 
exist,  let's  just  face  facts:  they  do. 
Dickoids  like  Martin  who  snap  like 
wolverines  on  speed  when  they  can't 
have  a  restaurant's  window  seat  in  the 
noiisniokini;  section  witli  tloth  napkins. 
Androids  who  never  get  jokes  and  who 
have  something  scared  and  mean  at  the 
core  of  their  existence,  like  an  underfed 
Chihuahua  baring  its  teeny  fangs  and 
waiting  to  have  its  face  kicked  in  or  like  a 
glass  of  milk  sloshed  on  top  of  the  violet 
filaments  of  a  bug-barbecue:  a  weird 
abuse  of  nature.  Yuppies  never  gamble, 
they  calculate.  They  have  no  aura:  ever 
been  to  a  yuppie  party?  It's  like  being  in 


an  empty  room:  empty  hologram  people 
walking  around  peeking  at  themselves  in 
mirrors  and  surreptitiously  misting  their 
tonsils  with  Binaca  spray,  just  in  case 
they  have  to  kiss  another  ghost  like 
themselves.  There's  just  nothing  there.. 

"So,  'Hey  Martin,'  I  asked  when  I  go  to 
his  office,  a  plus  James  Bond  number 
overlooking  the  downtown  core— he's 
sitting  there  wearing  a  computer- 
generated  purple  sweater  from  Korea — a 
shirt  with  lots  of  texture.  Martin  likes 
texture.  'Put  yourself  in  my  shoes.  Do 
you  really  think  we  enjoy  having  to  work 
in  that  toxic  waste  dump  in  there?' 

"Uncontrollable  urges  were  overtaking 
me. 

'".  .  .and  then  have  to  watch  you  chat 
with  your  yuppie  buddies  about  your 
gut-liposuction  all  day  while  you  secrete 
artificially  sweetened  royal  jelly  here  in 
Xanadu?' 

"Suddenly  I  was  into  this  tres  deeply. 
Well,  if  I'm  going  to  quit  anyway,  might 
as  well  get  a  thing  or  two  off  my  chest. 

"'I  beg  your  pardon,'  says  Martin,  the 
wind  taken  out  of  his  sails. 

"'Or  for  that  matter,  do  you  really 
think  we  enjoy  hearing  about  your  brand 
new  million-dollar  home  when  we  can 
barely  afford  to  eat  Kraft  Dinner  sand- 
wiches in  our  own  grimy  little  shoe  boxes 
and  we're  pushing  thirty?  A  home  you 
won  in  a  genetic  lottery,  I  might  add, 
sheerly  by  dint  of  your  having  been  born 
at  the  right  time  in  history?  You'd  last 
about  ten  minutes  if  you  were  my  age 
these  days,  Martin.  And  I  have  to 
endure  pinheads  like  you  rusting  above 
me  for  the  rest  of  my  life,  always 
grabbing  the  best  piece  of  cake  first  and 
then  putting  a  barbed-wire  fence  around 
the  rest.  You  really  make  me  sick.' 

"Unfortunately  the  phone  rang  then, 
so  I  missed  what  would  have  undoubt- 
cJI\'  Wx-n  a  feebk-  retort  .  .  sonu-  luL;hcT- 
up  Martin  was  m  tlu-  miLlJIc  of  a 
bum-kissing  campaign  with  and  who 
couldn't  be  shaken  off  the  line.  I  daw- 
dled off  into  the  staff  cafeteria.  There,  a 
salesman  from  the  copy  machine  com- 
pany was  pouring  a  styrofoam  cup  full  of 
scalding  hot  coffee  into  the  soil  around  a 
ficus  tree  which  really  hadn't  even 
recovered  yet  from  having  been  fed 
cocktails  and  cigarette  butts  from  the 
Christmas  party.  It  was  pissing  rain 
outside,  and  the  water  was  drizzling 
down  the  windows,  but  inside  the  air 
was  as  dry  as  the  Sahara  from  being 
recirculated.  The  staff  were  all  bitching 
about  commuting  time  and  making 
AIDS  jokes,  labeling  the  office's  fashion 


victims,  sneezing,  discussing  their  horos- 
copes, planning  their  time-share  in  San- 
to Domingo,  and  slagging  the  rich  and 
famous.  I  felt  cynical,  and  the  room 
matched  my  mood.  At  the  coffee  ma- 
chine next  to  the  sink,  I  grabbed  a  cup, 
while  Margaret,  who  worked  at  the 
other  end  of  the  office,  was  waiting  for 
her  herbal  tea  to  steep  and  informing  me 
ot  the  ramifications  of  mv  letting  off 
steam  a  few  minutes  earlier. 

"'What  did  you  just  say  to  Martin, 
Dag?'  she  says  to  me.  'He's  just  having 
kittens  in  his  office — cursing  your  name 
up  and  down.  Did  the  health  inspector 
declare  this  place  a  Bhopal  or  some- 
thing?'" 

—  ©  i99i  Douglas  Coupland 

Thanks  to  Doug  and  St.  Martin's  Press 
for  permission  to  print  this  excerpt  from  the 
1991  book  GENERATION  X.  See  the  re- 
vieu.1  on  page  53. 


EMOTIONAL  KETCHUP 
BURST:    The  bottling  up  of 
opinions  and  emotions  inside 
onself  so  that  they  explosively 
burst  forth  all  at  once,  shocking 
and  confusing  employers  and 
friends — most  of  whom  thought 
things  were  fine. 

BLEEDING  PONYTAIL: 

An  elderly  sold-out  baby  boomer 
who  pines  for  hippie  or  pre- 
sellout  days. 

BOOMER  ENVY:    Envy  of 
material  wealth  and  long-range 
material  security  accrued  by 
older  members  of  the  baby  boom 
generation  by  virtue  of 
fortunate  births. 

CLIQUE  MAINTENANCE: 

The  need  of  one  generation  to 
see  the  generation  following  it 
as  deficient  so  as  to  bolster 
its  own  collective  ego:  "Kids 
today  do  nothing.  They're  so 
apathetic.  We  used  to  go  out 
and  protest.  All  they  do  is  shop 
and  complain. " 

CONSENSU! 
TERRORISM:    The  process 

that  decides  in-of  fice  attitudes 
and  behavior. 


t»B<.n>CIESSEO   WOR.1.0    :^s 


Si3 


HON££R 


PW:  You  were  born  in  Brazil  and  went  to  Switzerland  in  1964, 
when  you  were  16.  How  old  were  you  when  you  got  interested  in 
genetics? 

MARCO  SCHWARZSTEIN:  Somehow,  I  was  never  interested  in 
genetics  [laughs].  1  always  wondered  what  natural  science  was  about, 
because  I  was  more  motivated  by  social  science  or  something  like  that. 
But  it  was  like  a  black  spot,  I  couldn't  understand  how  they  could  draw 
conclusions .  .  .  that  they  could  pretend  to  be  telling  How  Things  Are. 

After  the  '68  movement  there  came  MS:    No,    not    at    all!    I've    always 

quite  a  depression  among  militants.  We      mistrusted  this  thing;  I  never  had  the 


didn't  know  what  we  were  going  to  do.  I 
had  this  kind  of  nervous  breakdown. 
After  one  and  a  half  years,  I  could  finally 
walk  and  talk  again.  To  help  my  recovery, 
I  decided  on  a  lark  to  begin  studying  bio- 
chemistry because  it  had  something  to 
do  with  life,  and  I  was  fascinated  with 
this  double  helix,  this  DNA.  That  was 
my  main  motivation. 

I  studied  in  Zurich.  Around  1974  or 
'75  the  first  primitive  genetic  engineering 
work  was  being  done.  It  was  a  good 
moment  because  genetic  engineering 
breakthroughs  were  really  beginning. 
When  I  was  finishing  my  studies  in  1979, 
the  major  breakthrough  was  coming. 
Small  biotech  companies  began  to  de- 
velop. 

At  that  time  this  discussion  was  going 
on  about  ethical  issues,  which  was  quite 
exceptional.  A  lot  of  people  were  afraid 
of  what  they  were  doing.  With  time  they 
became  less  afraid.  At  the  [1975]  Asilo- 
mar  conference  there  was  some  concern 
that  these  experiments  could  be  danger- 
ous. What  would  happen  with  these  new 
bacteria  that  would  have  this  new 
genetic  information  in  them?  They  were 
using  what  they  called  "disabled"  bacte- 
ria, but  E.  coli  bacteria  live  in  human 
intestines,  so  there  was  concern.  Some 
scientists  were  warning  people,  but  hav- 
ing been  there  at  the  time,  I  realize  that 
this  concern  just  diminished.  It  seems 
that  nothing  very  serious  ever  happened, 
no  accident,  not  yet,  so  ethical  discus- 
sions almost  disappeared. 

PW:  Were  you  motivated  by  desires 
to  improve  humanity? 


feeling  that  science  would  solve  any  kind 
of  problems.  On  the  contrary— I  always 
had  the  feeling  that  it  was  creating  a  lot 
of  problems.  Scientific  ideology  never 
impressed  me  a  lot. 

The  work  itself  is  quite  fascinating.  In 
genetic  engineering  there  is  strong  pres- 
sure to  get  results,  and  molecular  biology 


It  sounds  fine  doing 

research  for  a  third 

world  country.  But  you 

are  fighting  against  the 

whole  structure  of  these 

state  companies,  which 

are  research  companies 

hut  also  political  entities. 


gives  you  results.  Everyday  I  would  get 
some  small  results.  The  experiments  run 
relatively  quickly.  The  whole  project  can 
go  on  for  years,  but  everyday  you  can 
reach  a  milestone. 

At  the  University  I  went  for  a  Master's 
Degree.  I  learned  DNA  sequencing.  It's 
just  a  technique.  Nowadays  they  have 
machines  to  do  that,  but  at  that  time 
you  had  to  do  it  manually.  It  was 
fascinating  just  to  be  able  to  read  this 
thing  with  very  small  amounts  of  mate- 
rial. What  I  didn't  like  very  much  was 
working  with  radioactivity.  I  had  some 
luck  because  the  lab  I  was  in  won  this 
race    to     produce     interferon     through 


cloning.  It  was  1980  and  there  were  some 
big  labs  trying  to  be  the  first .  .  . 

PW:  Were  you  getting  money  from 
pharmaceutical  companies? 

MS:  Biogene,  where  I  worked,  was 
basically  a  university  lab  moved  off 
campus.  We  had  some  investment  from 
Roche,  and  we  were  competing  with 
Genentech  to  clone  interferon  first. 
That  began  the  entrance  of  biotech 
capital  into  the  university  labs.  And 
when  they  got  the  clone,  they  needed  to 
sequence  it  very  quickly,  and  I  was  the 
one  person  there  who  could  do  it.  That's 
when  I  began  to  be  paid  by  Biogene.  It 
was  very  interesting  to  see  how  things 
were  organized  and  how  they  began  to 
use  our  work  for  propaganda,  for  raising 
the  image  of  this  biotech  company. 
Interferon  was  presented  as  a  cure  for 
cancer,  for  everything.  It's  strange  be- 
cause I  was  always  saying  that  this  stuff 
wouldn't  work,  it  would  be  no  good  at 
all.  [laughs]. 

I  was  deeply  mistrustful  about  these 
supposed  "marvelous  results,"  which 
turned  out  to  be  true  and  false.  It's  not  a 
special  breakthrough,  it's  a  drug  like  any 
other.  But  if  I  get  cancer,  I'm  gonna  have 
to  buy  it,  which  bothers  me. 

PW:  That's  the  perfect  picture: 
invent  something  in  your  youth  that 
saves  you  in  old  age! 

MS:  Yes,  after  working  in  the  lab  with 
radioactivity,  I  have  a  good  chance! 

Before  I  left  Europe  in  1984  I  did  some 
stints  at  a  European  plant's  molecular  bi- 
ology labs,  where  I  was  again  witness  to  a 
major  breakthrough.  This  was  the  first 
time  they  introduced  a  foreign  gene  into 
a  plant,  which  then  expressed  it.  That 
was  in  Belgium.  I  arrived  4  months  after 
that  happened,  and  it  was  still  going  on. 

Anyway,  I  wanted  to  go  back  to  Brazil. 
I  heard  about  a  Swiss  guy  who  was 
opening  a  molecular  biology  lab  there.  It 
was  a  way  of  going  back  and  having  a 
salary.  I  knew  I  would  need  some  time  to 
get  adapted  again.  I  worked  about  five 
years    in    this    lab.    That    was    quite    a 


24 


f»fft<:><i:E; 


iEI>   w« 


>K.I.E>    2tSJ 


Marco  Schwarzstein  (2nd  from  right)  celebrating  the  first  isolation  of  interferon  with 
his  lab  mates  (photo  from  LIFE  magazine.  May  1980,  vol.  3  #5). 


difficult  and  frustrating  experience,  both 
for  the  [scientific]  results,  but  also  on  a 
personal  level.  Not  because  I  couldn't 
adapt  to  Brazil,  but  I  couldn't  adapt  very 
well  to  the  conditions  under  which  they 
work,  which  are  quite  difficult.  You 
don't  have  [chemical]  reagents,  you  have 
to  fight  bureaucracy,  you  have  to  be  a 
good  politician.  You  are  surrounded  by 
people  who  know  very  little. 

It's  very  important  to  be  hopeful  in 
this  business,  especially  in  Brazil.  You 
really  have  to  be  a  believer.  You  are 
playing  against  all  odds,  but  that  doesn't 
matter.  They  believe  in  miracles.  To  be  a 
scientist  in  Brazil  you  have  to  be  quite 
idealistic.  I  have  some  friends  who  try 
and  fight  but  it's  very  harsh.  If  you  are 
trying  to  keep  pace  with  the  latest 
developments  in,  let's  say,  gene  technol- 
ogy, it's  almost  impossible.  At  the  same 
time  one  has  to  do  that  —  you  get  money 
for  that,  you  get  sustained  by  that.  I 
worked  at  a  Brazilian  state  research 
company. 

PW:  That  was  EMBRAPA? 

MS:  Yes,  the  agricultural  ministry. 
Somebody  in  the  bureaucracy  made  the 
decision  to  open  a  biotech  lab.  We  had 
this  funny,  strange  project  which  was  to 
put  the  gene  from  the  Brazil  nut,  which  is 
very  rich  in  sulfur,  into  Brazilian  beans. 
We  were  in  competition  with  an  Ameri- 
can company  that  was  also  trying  to 
isolate  this  Brazil  nut  gene.  It  was  as 
difficult  for  them  as  it  was  for  us. 

PW:  They  want  to  get  sulfur  into 
the  bean?  Why? 

MS:  Because  it  is  an  amino  acid  which 
is  "missing."  What's  wrong  with  the 
bean  not  having  sulfur?  [laughs]  It's  a 
strange  story  because  I  never  heard  of  a 
sulfur-deficiency  illness.  Nobody  is  get- 
ting ill  because  they  are  not  getting 
enough  sulfur.  I  thought  it  was  a  good 
idea,  because  you  got  money  for  doing  it, 
and  a  lab,  and  you  got  to  put  a  team 


together.  It  sounded  reasonable  that  in  a 
third  world  country  like  Brazil  we  should 
have  people  working  in  molecular  biolo- 
gy. After  all,  Brazil  is  going  to  be  a  big 
market  for  these  products.  So  if  nobody 
understands  this  shit,  people  are  going  to 
spend  money  on  the  wrong  things. 

For  example,  in  the  construction  of 
this  lab  a  lot  of  mistakes  were  made. 
Somebody  gets  one  or  two  million 
dollars  to  buy  machines,  like  an  amino 
acid  analyzer  or  a  protein  sequencing 
machine,  and  then  Beckman,  say,  sells 
machines  which  are  impossible  to  use. 
They  sell  them  for  60-70,000  bucks, 
machines  which  are  already  almost  ob- 
solete in  the  U.S.  We  got  two  or  three 
white  elephants  there  that  no  one  can 
use.  The  incompetence  of  the  people 
who  chose  the  machines  and  the  bad 
faith  by  Beckman  reinforced  each  other. 
Beckman  didn't  help  at  all  with  the 
problems  that  arose  with  their  machines. 
This  happens  all  the  time. 

There  are  machines  which  require  lots 
of  expensive  chemicals,  and  you  can't  get 
the  chemicals.  Without  technical  sup- 
port you  are  fucked  up.  They  had  a  guy 
there  who  tried  hard,  but  it  never 
worked  and  it  was  very  frustrating.  It 
seems  that  that's  the  way  one  must 
learn.  You  have  to  spend  lots  of  money 
on  the  wrong  things  to  learn  how  not  to 
do  it,  but  then  how  do  you  break  this 
dynamic? 

We  made  a  deal  with  this  Belgian 
company.  It  was  a  three  year  contract 
which  cost  our  Brazilian  company  about 
one  million  dollars.  To  get  reagents  we 
had  to  spend  much  more  than  they  cost. 
It  was  a  very  expensive  trick  to  avoid  the 
import  bureaucracy. 

It  sounds  fine  doing  research  for  a 
third  world  country,  fighting  to  keep  up. 
But  you  are  fighting  against  the  whole 
structure  of  these  state  companies.  They 
are  run  politically.  They  are  research 
companies  but   they   are   also   political 


entities.  That's  the  problem!  They  are 
not  profit-oriented.  Their  orientation  is 
just  to  survive  to  keep  power.  Now 
they're  just  living  on  taxes.  EMBRAPA 
is  very  prestigious  in  Brazil.  It's  known 
for  success  in  agricultural  research.  I 
doubt  that  they've  really  been  so  suc- 
cessful since  they've  mostly  been  sup- 
porting big  monoculture  techniques. 
There  are  always  some  islands,  some 
guys  working  on  alternative  techniques, 
but  the  main  thing  is  monoculture:  corn, 
soya,  oranges,  sugar.  They  are  fantastic 
on  public  relations,  so  they've  convinced 
me  they're  really  great!  [laughs] 

When  the  economic  crisis  came  they 
began  to  cut  expenses  and  personnel 
costs,  so  my  salary  went  down  to  a  third 
of  what  it  started  at.  It  was  absolutely 
ridiculous  to  go  on  working  like  that. 
Because  of  this  high  inflation  rate,  if 
salaries  are  not  readjusted  at  least  every 
three  months,  you  lose.  So  I  wasn't 
getting  readjusted,  and  neither  were  a  lot 
of  people  in  EMBRAPA.  During  the  last 
two  years  I  wasn't  showing  up  very 
often. 

PW:  Did  your  research  just  die  out? 

MS:  We  did  have  some  success.  We 
did  the  work  down  there  and  the  results 
were  published  by  the  Belgian  company, 
although  the  American  company  almost 
published  first.  It's  very  difficult  to 
transform  beans  [genetically].  So  the 
problem  was  not  getting  the  gene  (that 
took  about  four  or  five  years)  but  in 
transforming  beans  with  that  gene.  We 
could  put  it  in  tobacco,  but  no  one  is 
going  to  eat  tobacco! 

— interview  by  Chris  Carhson 


f*fftO<i:ESSEt>    W<I>8<1_I>    ^Q 


2S 


SAR    RA}»S 


"A 


re  you  waiting  for  me  to  tell 
>you  to  sit  down?"  The  shades 
shadow  lines  against  her  forearm.  Moon 
must  be  nearing  fullness.  "You're  still 
standing?" 

The  man  breathes  deeply  in,  loudly  out. 
His  breath  rises  above  and  over  the  air 
between  his  soles  and  the  barstool.  He 
could  take  off  at  this  second,  take  off 
back  over  the  boats  along  the  marina 
behind  the  restaurant.  He  could  start 
flapping  his  arms  with  that  breath  and 
sail  even  further.  But  he  doesn't.  He 
stiffens.  His  eyes  are  tired  and  brown. 


He  tells  us  about  the  dream:  elms  topped 
with  copper  hair  like  seahorses.  In  the 
background  are  mills.  Puffed  from  a 
millstack  are  slow  dancers  bending  ashy 
arms  out  of  sooty  silk  veils.  "They  were 
beautiful,"  he  confesses.  "Their  arms 
were  open,  aching."  "You  don't  like  that 
they  seemed  beautiful?"  I  ask.  "No!  Not 
the  elms,  the  dancer's  arms!"  "Oh!"  we 
sigh,  pretending  to  follow  his  story.  He 
thinks  we  lose  control  so  he  turns  from 
us,  bends  to  tie  a  shoe,  looks  back  so  far 
his  eyes  cross.  "1  have  to  go  now,"  he 
says.  "I'm  late  for  work."  His  barnap 
wraps  the  last  moist  chill  of  the  mug  in 
indentations  his  fingersize,  cradling  the 
oblong  glass,  slobbery,  slipping  from  its 
side. 

When  the  window  cleaner  raises  his  arm 
to  scrape  the  top  layer  of  dust,  his 
forearm  rubs  against  the  glass.  In  this 
bar,  there  are  nothing  but  windows  and 
men  with  beige  suits  holding  on  for  dear 
life. 


You  pour  and  a  voice  comes  from  the 
bottle,  impersonal  and  predictably 
sweet.  "What  can  I  get  for  you?  What 
can  I  do?"  And  you  say  to  the  voice, 
obviously  you:  "I  don't  think  I  want  to 
hear  this."  There's  a  distant  click  of 
glasses.  The  voice  says:  "There  will  be  a 
toast  in  your  honor  and  tips  for  you  and 
smiles  through  and  through."  And  you 
say  Yes  and  turn  your  back  away 
because  you  want  to  sleep.  The  waves  of 
a  lisped  voice  reaches  across  to  you:  "I'm 
sure  you've  heard  this  all  before." 

On  mornings  the  rain  came  and  stayed 
for  four  days,  the  kitchen  floor  filled  up 
with  food  resin  from  the  walk-in  box 
where  the  drain  would  overflow  and  lose 
control.  We'd  place  large  mayonnaise 
buckets  in  various  places  where  we 
thought  the  leaks  were.  It  never  worked. 
We  spent  more  time  pushing  around 
buckets  until  our  knees  were  stained 
from  crouching  down  to  scoop  up  slime. 
When  the  rain  came,  we  knew  one  of  us 
would,  by  the  end  of  the  night,  owe  the 


S:S;£1>   WCL»K.I.11»    ^3 


Reprimand  Jar  some  quarters.  Each 
check  on  the  Reprimand  Sheet  was 
worth  a  quarter.  It  was  created  to  keep 
us  all  on  top  of  our  employment  duties: 
proper  dress,  proper  conduct,  proper  use 
of  time.  At  the  end  of  a  month,  the 
money  would  go  to  a  staff  party,  and  the 
employee  who  paid  out  the  most  re- 
ceived a  series  of  warnings  eventually 
leading  to  his/her  dismissal.  This  meant 
that  every  time  someone  got  fired,  we 
had  a  party.  On  days  the  rain  comes,  the 
bar  fills  up  by  noon.  As  the  others 
prepare  the  buckets,  I  make  extra  Bloody 
Mary  mix  with  handfuls  of  celery  salt 
and  thyme.  Worcestershire  separates  to 
the  jug's  top  layer  and  twirls  into  brown 
spirals  before  anyone  even  orders  any. 

By  the  end  of  the  day,  we  throw  buckets 
of  water  on  the  bar  floor  to  loosen 
tomato  juice  from  down  under  cracks. 

"Ship's  in  tomorrow,  girls!"  The  mana- 
ger calls  the  staff  the  night  before  any 
ship  is  due  to  dock  after  months  in  the 
middle  of  an  ocean.  We  know  then  not 
to  wear  short  skirts  unless  we're  desper- 
ate for  money.  Once,  Sue  thought  she'd 
fake  them  out  and  wore  her  husband's 


painting  overalls,  a  spotted  white  jump- 
suit with  slabs  of  paint  dripped  unevenly 
down  the  front,  baggy  and  stretched  just 
above  the  back  of  her  knees.  It  didn't 
work.  The  boys  thought  it  was  cute. 
Thought  she  was  sexy,  trying  to  relate  to 
them  somehow.  She  made  $175  by 
midnight.  Her  shift  starts  at  eight. 

One  part  gin.  One  part  a  mixture  of  dark, 
light,  and  spiced  rum.  One  part  pineapple. 
One  part  soda  water.  A  dash  of  creme  de 
menthe.  A  dash  of  creme  de  cacao.  Mix 
vigorously.  Strain.  Top  with  151.  Garnish 
with  cherry  and  orange  slice. 

"Anything  in  a  green  bottle.  I  don't  care 
what  it  is.  Just  anything  in  a  green 
bottle.  And  nothing  foreign.  Got  it 
straight?  Nothing  foreign." 

Mary  likes  her  Bloodys  spicy  so  her 
tongue  and  inner  cheeks  numb.  Saves 
the  thin  red  cocktail  straw  for  trips  to 
the  bathroom.  She  ages  rapidly.  The 
lack  of  sleep  and  cigarettes  are  making 
marks  around  her  face.  Faint  lines  aim  to 
create  ovals  that  begin  from  her  nostrils 
veering  down  over  each  side  of  her 
mouth.  She's  got  secrets,  she  tells  the 
others  at  the  bar,  then  says  once  she 
slept  with   a  woman  in  her  youth   as 


though  she  robbed  a  bank  and  threw  the 
money  in  the  bay.  She  goes  to  the 
bathroom  every  twenty  minutes  or  so. 
Her  drink  dilutes,  grows  pink.  She 
returns  and  orders  another,  fresh. 

When  the  band's  on  break,  they  bring 
the  bartenders  to  the  walk-in  and  cut 
out  three  lines  for  each.  They  share  a  few 
beers,  then  mark  them  as  comps  on  the 
nightly  inventory  sheet.  They  check 
each  other's  noses  as  they  return  with 
six-packs  to  stock  the  cooler  for  the  rest 
of  the  night.  From  there  on,  the  clock 
moves. 

The  Last  Call  Bell  was  brass  and  two 
and  a  half  feet  tall.  It  hung,  always, 
above  my  left-side  head,  near  the  cash 
register  and  variously-flavored  schnapps. 

She's  one  of  those  people  who  pride 
themselves  on  their  ability  to  make  a 
decision  and  carry  it  out.  This  virtue, 
like  most  virtues,  is  ambiguity  itself. 
People  who  believe  that  they  are  strong- 
willed  and  the  masters  of  their  destiny 
can  only  continue  to  believe  this  by 
becoming  specialists  in  self-deception. 
Their  decisions  aren't  really  decisions.  A 
real  decision  makes  one  humble,  one 
knows  that  it  is  at  the  mercy  of  more 
things  than  can  be  named.  Decisions  are 
elaborate  systems  of  illusion  for  her, 
designed  to  make  her  and  the  world 
appear  to  be  what  she  and  the  world  are 
not. 


f»B«.CI>CIE£;SEC*    WOR.l_I>    2:3 


27 


He  was  an  old  man  who  drank  Stoli 
straight  up,  chilled,  with  a  twist  of 
lemon.  He  was  born  with  only  thumbs 
and  small  nubs  of  bone  where  the  fingers 
were  supposed  to  be;  his  hands  were  like 
tiny  tree  stumps.  His  lips  were  dry  and 
cankered,  his  eyes  blue  and  green  with 
brown-tan  outlines.  His  elephant  ears 
which  rubbed  up  against  wrestling  mats 
in  his  youth,  now  protruded  in  her 
peripheral  view.  He  watches  her  mix  his 
order.  Watches  her  arm  arch  bottle  over 
tumbler  with  ice  as  he  stares  at  her  as 
though  sketching  her  portrait.  She 
strains  the  chilled  brew  into  a  rocks  glass 
and  rubs  a  lemon  rind  around  the  lips 
before  dropping  it  into  the  liquid.  He 
rarely  talks  except  to  order,  explain  his 
ears,  or  tell  how  to  mix  the  martini. 
Watching  her  hands  and  fingers  master 
the  tilt  of  the  tumbler  and  the  twist  of 
the  rind,  he  pays  her  with  a  fifty  for  four, 
leaving  always  the  same  tip:  more  with 
the  ice,  and  less  with  the  hands. 

Sully  says  not  to  look  for  anything 
profound  in  my  daily  explorations 
through  mixology.  He  reaches  into  his 
back  pocket,  pulls  up  a  tiny  rubber  ball, 
and  begins  to  squeeze  it.  "It's  like  money. 
You  can't  think  about  it  too  much.  It 
can't  control  you,  or  it  loses  all  power  to 
benefit  you."  He  asks  me  to  smile  as  he 
stands  to  leave.  I  smile.  He  places  a  fifty 
beneath  his  barnap,  smiles  back,  turns, 
then  leaves. 

"Always  pay  attention  to  the  same  sex 
customer  when  waiting  on  a  couple.  If 
you're  a  woman,  talk  with  the  woman, 
and  a  waiter  should  address  the  man. 
Never  give  the  partner  reason  for  jealou- 
sy. Get  her/him  on  your  side  so  she/he 
persuades  their  partner  to  tip  you  nice- 
ly." "A  nice  tip  is  one  which  demon- 
strates to  the  waitperson  that  she/he  has 
demonstrated  to  the  customer(s)  that 
their  demonstration  of  service  satisfied 
their  palates,  their  stomachs,  and  their 
overall  idea  of  human  interaction." 

Each  time  he  sat  at  the  bar,  he  asked 
when  I  would  settle  down.  "Why  hasn't 
a  girl  like  you  become  hitched  yet?  When 
ya  gonna  settle  down?"  And  whenever 
he  said  that  I  saw  the  sediment  at  the 
bottom  of  a  stagnant  pond.  Every  time 
he  asked,  I  had  the  feeling  that  he  and 
his  buddies  were  taking  bets  on  me. 
They  were  like  priests  of  a  strange  holy 
order,  watching  me  to  discover  by  means 
of  gestures  I  made  (which  only  they 
could  read)  whether  or  not  I  had  a  true 
vocation. 


WORK  NIGHTMARE  #86:  One  night  I 
dream  the  bottles  are  not  just  covered  in 
dust,  but  full  of  black  soot  caused  by  the 
railroad  workers  from  the  night  shift.  I 
dream  they  each  carry  in  their  lung,  and 
place  it  on  the  bar  like  a  lover  or 
drinking  pal.  They  dust  them  off  be- 
tween sips.  I'm  confused.  I  don't  know 
who  to  pay  attention  to  this  time.  After 
a  few  rounds  of  bourbon  and  sevens  and 
Coors  Lites,  they  grow  attractive.  I  take 
one  home  with  me.  His  eyes  are  blue  like 
creeks  covered  over  by  dry  branches.  He 
brings  his  lung,  black  and  rough  with 
calloused  entrails.  He  places  it  on  the 
night  stand  next  to  us.  I  don't  come  for 
him — instead  vomit.  It's  what  he  wants 
me  to  do.  He  falls  asleep.  I  patient  the 
night  for  sunrise  with  wide  eyes  while  the 
lung  breathes  mucused  dreams  in  my 
right  ear. 

To  hold  small  objects  in  the  palm  of  the 
hand,  glass,  delicate  objects,  to  break 
and  listen.  Sharp  notes,  angelic  and  high 
as  if  the  greens  of  the  leaves  soar  toward 
the  sky  in  an  effort  for  redness. 

I  drop  glasses  easily.  They  demand 
drinks  so  quickly  I  can't  concentrate  on 
the  money  flow,  so  I  concentrate  on  the 
demand.  My  hips  can't  move  to  the 
music  anymore.  I  just  move  automati- 
cally, until  I  rinse  some  glasses  and  hang 
them  above  my  head  in  haste.  They 
collide  together,  they  shake  then  break 
over  a  row  of  heads.  No  one  is  hurt.  $85 
is  taken  from  my  pay  for  a  case  of  glasses. 
My  tips  decrease  for  two  weeks  until  the 
regulars  realize  I  don't  shatter  glass  on 
purpose. 

Now  it's  time  to  move,  I  think,  and  I 
move.  I'm  being  paid  for  this.  They've 
raised  me  to  crave  such  redundancy. 

Such  are  my  bodily  needs:  each  thought 
goes  into  my  clothes.  My  sixth  pair  of 
black  pants  are  ironed,  the  white  button 
down  shirt  cleansed  of  ketchup  stains. 
Everything  goes  into  my  clothes  al- 
though it  isn't  noticeable  to  others.  I 
could  be  fired  for  not  getting  out  that 
stain  from  the  ninth  white  shirt  in  my 
wooden  closet.  They  could  fire  me  for 
not  standing  over  my  sink  all  day 
rubbing  the  stain  from  the  cloth.  They 
could  fire  me  if  they  read  my  thoughts  as 
my  hands  go  up  and  down  over  the  spot 
until  only  a  faint  outline  of  pale  pink  is 
visible  up  close.  I  have  thoughts  of 
pushing  the  clock  forward,  and  I  do, 
push  the  clock  forward,  but  still  last  call 
rarely  comes  soon  enough.  They  could 
fire  me  if  they  knew  I  was  thinking  off 
the  job. 


I'm  too  serious  and  not  serious  enough 
to  take  this  seriousness  seriously  enough. 

He  doesn't  like  me,  that  new  manager. 
Thinks  I  laugh  too  much. 

Sully  says  you  can't  take  them  all  so 
seriously.  He  reaches  into  his  side  pocket 
and  brings  up  a  sack  of  tobacco,  rolls  a 
cigarette,  bites  the  end,  and  lights  it.  "It's 
like  sex,  ya  know.  You  can't  think  about 
it  too  much,  it  can't  be  regulated,  or  it 
loses  all  power  to  dissolve  your  being 
into  complete  breakdown  and  orgasm." 

Mash  cherry  with  sugar  in  rocks  glass.  Add 
ce.  In  separate  tumbler,  mix  scotch  and 
iweet  vermouth.  Shake.  Drain  contents  over 
ice  with  cherry  and  sugar.  Garnish  with 
orange  or  lime  and  cherry  with  toothpick. 

We  are  as  the  next  person  to  leave  us.  A 
religion  that  allows  us  only  sense  enough 
to  understand  the  last  word  in  any 
conversation.  Is  there  some  glory  in 
adapting  the  brain  to  a  national  idiocy: 
to  replace  the  eyes  with  masks?  To  paint 
on  smiles  or  expressions  of  interest?  But 
when  one  isn't  looking  for  glory  in  life 
can  the  face  easily  be  splashed  with  cool 
water?  (Too  many  questions,  girl,  too 
many  questions.  Just  smile.  I  am  smiling, 
on  the  inside.  Just  drink  your  beer,  man, 
and  mind  your  own  business.  Can't  you 
see  I'm  thinking?) 

The  color  of  my  hair  as  I  ring  the  black 
out  to  go  white.  Here,  I  float  along  in 
moods  behind  bars,  back  there  where 
my  legs  don't  matter,  where  my  arms 
perform  mimical  utterances  of  stifled 
thought.  Where  the  smoke  comforts 
corners.  Where  the  mirrors  behind  me 
reflect  no  one  but  myself,  and  when  I 
take  second  looks,  I'm  gone.  It  is  land- 
scape lacking  here.  Depth  and  the  open 
security  of  nothingness,  and  everything's 
in  front  of  me,  constantly.  But  eyes 
themselves  do  something  different.  They 
ask  for  pleasing  things  inside  the  bottle, 
inside  the  habitual  faces.  They  can't 
detect  the  life. 

To  the  beauty  of  the  drunk  at  my  feet;  to 
the  cry  of  the  cat  at  my  feet  as  I  walk  on 
top  of  him.  (What  are  we  toasting  to 
now?  To  anything,  girl.  Just  keep  toast- 
ing.) To  shy  and  strong  friends.  To  three 
more  hours  in  a  day.  To  the  imagina- 
tion. To  the  cry  of  the  tires  sound  and 
the  word  we  give  to  rubber,  outside  the 
valley  where  the  Mack  trucks  strut  from 
lane  to  lane.  To  the  CB  vocals  adrift 
above  the  car  roof  out  over  the  highway. 
Come  in  Big  Buddy.  Come  in  Big 
Buddy.  Come  in.  10-4.  We  need  another 
language.  I  need  a  new  job. 

—Marina  Lazzara 


^3 


f*R.OCIESSEl>    W<=>R.U:>    2tSJ 


PEOHrS 
AMBUUXMa  CHA\S£R 


® 


he  ad  offered  a  job  as  an  entry-level  paralegal  starting  at 
$7.50  an  hour  for  a  "P.l."  I  immediately  began  imagining 
myself  accepting  the  low  wage  in  exchange  for  being  able  to  per- 
form  socially  beneficial  work.  Then,  too,  I  desperately  needed 
some  income,  having  recently  returned  from  a  mandatory  vacation 
in  the  Los  Angeles  County  Jail  only  to  go  through  two  months  of 
near  homelessness.  But  I  soon  learned  that  "P.I."  stood  for  personal 
injury — a  practice  quite  antagonistic  to  my  notion  of  the  public 
interest. 


Once  the  boss,  James  M.  Rogers,  Esq., 
reviewed  my  answers  to  some  sample 
questions  for  the  LSAT  test  and  decided 
to  hire  me  on  the  spot,  and  once  I  had 
calculated  that  the  pay  was  barely  ade- 
quate for  food  and  shelter  in  the  rat- 
infested  warehouse  I  called  home,  there 
was  no  looking  back. 

It  was  not  what  I  expected  from  a  job 
in  the  legal  profession.  During  the 
interview  Jim  went  over  an  employment 
agreement  that  detailed  the  paralegal 
compensation  system  he  hoped  to  im- 
plement. I  could  tell  from  the  contract 
that  "pay-per-client"  was  an  incredibly 
complicated  piecework  system  incom- 
prehensible to  anyone  without  consider- 
able experience  working  in  Jim's  office. 
Jim  admitted  that  his  paralegals  had 
reservations  about  the  plan,  and  he 
invited  me  to  hear  their  side  before 
accepting  the  position. 

I  was  introduced  to  Phyllis,  a  fairly 
senior  paralegal,  who  cornered  me  at  the 
first  possible  moment  with  a  blunt 
"Don't  sign  it."  But  because  I  needed 
money  badly,  I  agreed  to  accept  the 
position  provisionally  for  $7.50  an  hour 
(out  of  which  I  was  required  to  pay  $100 
per  month  for  health  insurance)  until  I 
became  familiar  enough  with  my  job  to 
understand  the  new  system. 

I  started  work  the  next  morning, 
meeting  Kelli,  my  supervisor,  and  short- 
ly thereafter,  Aryah,  the  president  of  the 
firm's  new  paralegal  union.  This  aston- 
ishing revelation  immediately  signaled 
something  was  amiss  in  paradise:  parale- 
gals are  generally  a  fairly  well-paid  and 


respected  group  whose  loyalty  and  dili- 
gence are  ensured  by  good  pay,  benefits, 
advancement,  and  prestige.  But  here 
they  had  chosen  to  band  together  like 
coal  miners. 

Equally  striking  was  having  to  punch  a 
time  clock,  something  I  had  never  even 
heard  of  in  a  world  where  disciplined 
attendance  is  presumed  to  follow  from 
the  sheer  pleasure  of  working  in  such  a 
genteel  and  rarefied  atmosphere. 


Jim  seemed  reluctant  to 

represent  minorsy  because 

his  fees  were  limited  to 

25  percent  by  law,  and 

because  minors  usually 

healed  quickly  and  with' 

out  the  orthopedic  com^ 

plications  that  justify 

prolonged,  expensive 

treatments. 


Despite  nagging  reservations  fueled  by 
the  continuous  griping  of  my  new  co- 
wqrkers  and  Aryah  ("After  taxes  your 
pay  comes  to  $900  a  month.  Can  you 
live  on  that?"),  I  plunged  into  my  job 
with  the  help  of  a  xeroxed  manual  and  a 
few  dozen  case  files  Jim  handed  me.  To 
my  surprise,  there  was  virtually  no 
training.  Suddenly  I  was  responsible  for 
handling  forty  or  fifty  personal   injury 


lawsuits.  I  didn't  panic,  for  I  had  learned 
that  nothing  happens  very  quickly  in  the 
law,  but  I  was  bewildered  about  where  to 
start. 

My  supervisor  flagged  the  case  folders 
that  needed  prompt  attention,  but 
didn't  mention  that  these  instructions 
were  for  me  rather  than  my  predecessor. 
So  I  engrossed  myself  in  absorbing  some 
of  the  seventy-plus  single-spaced  pages  in 
the  manual.  Fortunately,  if  you  ignore 
personal  injury  cases  long  enough, 
someone  will  get  in  touch  with  you  and 
clue  you  in  on  how  to  proceed,  particu- 
larly the  clients,  who  are  endlessly 
curious  and  impatient  for  settlement 
money. 

As  I  learned  more  about  the  incredibly 
complicated  and  stressful  task  I  had 
assumed,  I  also  got  an  education  in  the 
incredible  insensitivity  and  avarice  un- 
derlying a  business  that  converts  peo- 
ple's misfortune,  ignorance,  and  help- 
lessness into  easy  and  plentiful  cash. 

Mr.  Rogers'  firm  advertises  extensively 
as  the  "People's  Lawyer,"  generating  a 
large  volume  of  clients.  A  people's 
paralegal  conducts  an  initial  interview 
over  the  phone  to  get  the  basic  facts  of 
the  case,  which  boil  down  to  whether 
the  law  firm  can  easily  settle  it  for 
substantial  money.  The  contingency  fee 
requested  is  based  on  the  effort  required 
to  bring  the  defendant's  insurer  to 
settlement:  33%  for  the  easiest  cases, 
45%  for  those  requiring  arbitration,  a 
fast,  out-of-court  forum  mutually  agreed 
upon  by  the  parties  to  avoid  a  trial's 
expense.  Then  Jim  is  notified  so  he  can 
track  who's  working  on  what  for  how 
much. 

Problem  cases  are  invariably  turned 
down.  Tough  questions  of  liability,  no 
insurance  coverage,  or  a  potential  settle- 
ment too  small  to  bother  with  are  all 
disqualifications.  Any  case  requiring  an 
actual  jury  trial  is  rejected  by  policy.  If 
insurance  "burns  out"  or  the  client 
doesn't  generate  enough  in  medical  bills, 
the  case  is  "dumped"  as  soon  as  possible 
to  avoid  further  expense  and  hassle.  The 


f»R.OCIESSEI>    WOfftl-O    :aQ 


29 


result  is  that  the  law  firm  never  takes  any 
case  that  doesn't  practically  guarantee  a 
high  return. 

This  pursuit  of  sure  pay-off  leads  to 
some  embarrassing  moments  for  the 
conscientious,  who  must  inform  clients 
that  the  People's  Lawyer  doesn't  help 
uninsured  people  hit  by  uninsured  driv- 
ers or  people  pitting  their  word  against 
that  of  the  wealthy  or  powerful. 

I  received  one  call  from  a  young  black 
woman,  who,  along  with  her  sister  and 
infant  daughter,  was  injured  when  a 
speeding  Oakland  Police  car  in  hot 
pursuit  of  a  suspect  hit  their  car.  The 
woman  had  changed  lanes  to  allow  one 
police  car  to  pass  when  a  second  police 
car  came  speeding  around  a  corner  and 
struck  her  car  from  behind.  A  poor 
underdog  wronged  by  the  careless  power 
of  the  arrogant  state — and  the  police  so 
obviously  at  fault!  I  could  barely  contain 
my  excitement.  But  when  I  shared  my 
good    fortune    with   Jim,    he    was    very 


concerned  that  the  potential  client 
lacked  insurance  and  felt  that  the  police 
would  fabricate  their  report  to  exculpate 
themselves.  He  refused  to  let  me  send  the 
woman  a  contract  until  we  reviewed  the 
police  report.  I  sent  the  woman  an 
authorization  form  for  the  report,  but 
she  never  sent  it  back,  so  the  file 
languished. 

Months  later,  Jim  wrote  a  note  on  the 
case  folder  asking  why  the  contract 
hadn't  been  sent.  I  attributed  his  poor 
memory  to  indifference  to  the  people 
involved  in  his  cases  beyond  their  po- 
tential to  generate  a  fee. 

Reinforcing  this  suspicion,  Jim  seemed 
reluctant  to  represent  minors,  because 
his  fees  for  taking  their  cases  were  limited 
to  25%  by  law,  and  because  minors 
usually  healed  quickly  and  without  the 
orthopedic  complications  that  justify 
prolonged,  expensive  treatments. 

Once  another  woman  called  regarding 
her  mother  and  daughter,  who  had  both 


been  struck  by  a  car  while  crossing  the 
street  in  front  of  City  Hall.  Jim  wanted 
to  take  the  grandma's  case  but  not  the 
kid's.  I  was  expected  to  explain  to  this 
woman  that  her  parent  had  a  good  case 
but  her  child  didn't,  although  they  were 
both  injured  at  the  same  time  in  the 
same  place  in  the  same  manner.  Fortu- 
nately, the  woman  never  called  back. 

Despite  Jim's  reluctance  to  send  con- 
tracts to  the  poor,  oppressed,  and  unin- 
sured, he  did  put  a  number  of  doctors 
and  chiropractors  under  contract  to 
treat  clients  at  no  charge  until  the 
settlement  came  through.  It  was  a  mu- 
tually beneficial  arrangement,  guar- 
anteeing them  a  steady  stream  of  pa- 
tients and  helping  us  make  good  cases. 

Jim  also  arranged  for  reduction  of 
clients'  bills  in  case  a  settlement  was 
smaller  than  expected,  "so  the  client 
could  at  least  recover  something."  In- 
stead, this  fee  reduction  was  used  to 
recover    attorneys'    fees    (usually    one- 


30 


•»«.0C:ESSE1>   >#V08«.*.0    2t3 


Processed  World's  Attitude  Adjustment  Seminar^  August  31,  1991 

held  at  Klub  Komotion,  San  Francisco 


third)  from  medical  insurance  settle- 
ments. 

Such  "med  pay"  comes  from  the 
client's  own  insurance  company,  and  is 
intended  to  cover  the  client's  medical 
expenses  for  the  accident  regardless  of 
liability.  It  is  usually  paid  promptly  upon 
documentation.  True  to  its  name,  med 
pay  is  expected  to  cover  doctors'  bills, 
while  payment  of  the  claim  against  the 
person  liable  for  the  accident  usually 
takes  care  of  the  lawyers'  bills. 

1  But  I  once  found  myself  trying  to  get  a 

doctor  to  take  a  50%  cut  so  Jim  could 
collect  one-third  of  a  med  pay  check 
(some  $1,100  or  so)  already  promised  to 
the  client  to  pay  still  more  medical  bills. 
The  doctor  couldn't  understand  why  the 
client  needed  more  money,  since  the 
poor  unfortunate  had  just  won  a  $10,500 
liability  settlement  (and  the  law  firm  had 

I  already  pocketed  a  third  of  it).  Jim  had 
me  dickering  so  the  firm  could  get  paid 
twice.  Jim's  policy  put  especially  heavy 
emphasis  on  med  pay.  Eventually  the 
doctor  read  between  the  lines  and  had  to 
swallow  Jim's  cupidity  or  lose  future 
clients. 

Once  a  client  dropped  us  after  I  had 
helped  him  get  $8,700  in  property  dam- 
ages by  browbeating  the  insurance  ad- 
juster. This  money  couldn't  even  gener- 
ate fees  for  us,  since  the  client  settled  his 


own  property  damage  claim  (according 
to  the  firm's  policy),  although  I  had  to 
pave  the  way  by  out-arguing  the  adjuster 
first.  I  therefore  expected  the  client's 
gratitude. 

However,  when  I  called  the  client  to 
initiate  a  med  pay  claim  from  his  auto 
insurance,  he  told  me  he  hadn't  filed  an 
accident  claim  with  his  carrier  and  didn't 
want  to  because  he  was  afraid  of  higher 
premiums. 

I  was  at  a  loss  for  words  and  told  him 
I'd  get  back  to  him.  I  found  out  later  that 
the  manual  instructs  us  to  reassure  the 
client  that  Proposition  103,  California's 
Insurance  Reform  Initiative,  outlawed 
such  increases. 

This  struck  me  as  a  little  hollow, 
considering  the  problems  the  state  has 
had  enforcing  the  most  basic  provisions 
of  that  law.  The  client  never  heard  the 
rationale,  however,  since  the  next  week  I 
received  a  letter  from  his  new  attorney. 

I  find  it  very  difficult  to  betray  my 
strong  instinct  that  money  shouldn't 
govern  one's  sense  of  justice.  So  the 
longer  I  had  to  participate  in  this  game, 
the  less  enthusiasm  I  had  for  my  work. 

This  was  matched  by  my  growing 
sense  of  oppression  when  faced  with  the 
insufficiency  of  my  reward:  rock-bottom 
pay,  no  paid  holidays,  no  sick  leave. 

Furthermore,  my  cases  were  always 
ridiculously  screwed  up.  I  attribute  this 


to  the  incompetence  or  indifference  of 
the  previous  paralegal  and  the  chaos 
that  reigned  in  an  office  full  of  surly 
intellectual  drones  lashed  on  by  the  whip 
of  their  employer's  calculating  greed. 

Employee  morale  was  generally  abys- 
mal, despite  Jim's  on-the-clock  volleyball 
matches  and  the  microwave  popcorn, 
licorice,  and  English  Toffees  in  the  office 
kitchen.  Jim  allowed  us  to  set  our  own 
hours,  but  time  clock  cheating  was 
rampant.  Also,  there  was  virtually  no 
dress  code. 

I  figured  that  such  enlightened  office 
policies  were  the  carrot  that  kept  many 
of  us  on  the  treadmill.  I  rarely  had 
enough  money  to  do  my  laundry,  often 
going  to  work  in  what  amounted  to 
stinking  rags  compared  to  the  attire  of 
office  workers  in  orthodox  law  firms  a 
block  away.  One  co-worker  confided  in 
me  that  she  hoarded  the  microwave 
popcorn  for  emergency  calories  she  oth- 
erwise couldn't  afford,  because  for  her 
the  "pay  per  client"  system  amounted  to 
subminimal  wage — a  situation  she  was 
forced  to  endure  for  free  medical  cover- 
age for  a  long-term  health  problem. 

The  media  has  praised  Jim  Rogers  for 
his  contribution  to  his  profession, 
and  he's  purported  to  spend  all  the 
surplus  cash  he  can  squeeze  on  some 
progressive  political  agenda.  Jim  certain- 
ly didn't  spend  the  money  on  himself, 
often  wearing  cutoffs  in  the  office  and 
driving  a  battered  little  economy  car. 

I  do  know  of  one  employee  who 
started  after  I  did,  opted  for  the  much 
maligned  "pay  per  client"  system,  and 
was  making  enough  per  hour  to  almost 
justify  the  stress  of  playing  lawyer.  I  quit 
after  four  months.  Aryah,  the  union 
president,  quit  the  same  week.  Deborah, 
who  made  $13  an  hour,  a  wage  negotiat- 
ed before  the  onset  of  pay  per  client,  got 
laid  off,  with  low  costs  winning  out  over 
worker  skill  and  loyalty  by  a  mile  in  the 
race  among  Jim's  priorities. 

—  R.L.  Tripp 


s*e<« 


•<i:hss;ei>  v»y<i>B<*.o  2t3 


31 


THE  DEATH  OF  TONGUES 


YOUR  BODY  IS  YOU 


Radio  tunes  scrape  scales 

with  cleaver  pitches.  There  is 

a  feeling  which  has  no  body 

and  murmurs  in  front  of  me. 

I  don't  want  to  live  in  a  cave. 

The  most  sluggish,  lazy 

fish  in  the  world 

is  the  monkeyfaced  prickleback 

active  five  minutes 

a  day  when  tide  comes  in. 

It  gulps  seaweed  and  digests 

fifty  hours.  Frustration 

defines  patience. 

I  am  the  sculptor 

who  pulled  lead  from  old  bathroom 

floors,  pounded  it  around  himself 

and  became  too  heavy  to  move. 

—  Nathan  Whiting 


which  is  the 
house  of  pain? 
I  finally  see 
where  the 
fanged  crazy 
man  lives 
his  teeth  a 
mess  of 
wolf  poking 
over  his  upper 
lip,  jawing  now 
with  the 
Chinese  retarded  woman 
as  I  go  downtown 
hunting  for  work 
past  the 

mansion  of 
haunted 
eyes  — 
damaged  minds 
staring  blankly 
while  my 
own  mind 
races  w/ 
the  fear  of 
no  job 


THIS  IS  A  WARNING  A  FIVE  MINUTE  WARNING 
SILICON  SATAN  SUCKLES  OVALTINE  NIPPLE 
PLASTIC  SURGE  MIGRATING  BREAST 

THIS  IS  A  WARNING  A  FOUR  MINUTE  WARNING 
TRIPLE-COOKED  MEAT  MICROWAVE  BYE-BYE 
MUTAGENIC  ZAP  OZONE  DELIGHT 

THIS  IS  A  WARNING  A  THREE  MINUTE  WARNING 
SHINSPLINT  FEVER  PIGSKIN  PARADE 
TATTOO  CORTISONE  IMPLANT  FANNY 

THIS  IS  A  WARNING  A  TWO  MINUTE  WARNING 
TOXIC  PATTYCAKE  CHEVRON  INCITE 
CATALYTIC  CRAB  COBALT  NIGHT 

THIS  IS  A  WARNING  A  LAST  MINUTE  WARNING 
YOUR  BODY  IS  YOU  IT  IS  ALL  YOU  WILL  GET 
YOUR  BODY  IS  YOU  IT  IS  ALL  YOU  WILL  GET 

—  Alan  Mendoza 


''I  I  P  MVLf/^NW©       \ 


32» 


f»R.O<l:HSSSO    >/»•<!> B<1_I>    2fc3 


COMING  DISTRACTION 

A  lethal  screen 

unbearable  whiteness  of  war 

brings  color  to  the  cheeks 

we  turn  to  the  sun 

loading  the  clean  magazine 

in  desert  scroll 

War  Perfect  cursors  the  new 

queer  days  brisk 

as  the  bureaucrat  behind 

in  his  projections 

just  signs 

the  times  are  all  there 

between  incision  and  ecstasy 

falls  the  scythe 

harvesting  a  new  generation 

desaparecidos 

lost  in  a  slip  of  the  tongue 

a  slim  disease 

the  papercut  eyes 

glare  at  the  gas  plasma 

skyline  warming 

this  world  may  end  in  a  flicker 

or  a  breeze 

attraction  receding 

— D..S.  Black 


photo:  D.S.  Black 


OCCUPATIONAL  HAZARD 


Our  first  life 

Not  entirely  an  accident 

Served  to  focus  our  intent. 

Seeing  through  opaque  aquarium  walls 

Our  luminous  frailty  after  all. 

No  possibility  exists  of  affecting 

What  already  transpires  on  the  other  side. 

All  that  remains 

Is  to  close  with  the  night-rhythms 

To  recall  each  secret  breath 

To  return  to  the  womb  of  work 

Facing  time  as  it  comes,  a  reliable  ally. 

—  Blair  Ewing 


PREOCCUPATION 

Chaff  is  in  my  eye, 

A  crocodile  has  me  by  the  leg, 

A  goat  is  in  my  garden, 

A  porcupine  is  cooking  in  the  pot, 

Meal  is  drying  on  the  pounding  rock. 

The  King  has  summoned  me  to  court. 

And  I  must  go  to  the  funeral  of  my  mother-in-law: 

In  short,  I  am  busy. 


—  Mbundu  origin  (Africa) 
(translated  by  Merlin  Ennis) 


THURSDAY  AT  THE  OFFICE 

The  sidewalk  stiffly  moans  as  it  is  force-marched  down  a 
path  it  never  chose.  The  streetlamps  hiss  and  whine  hollow 
hymns  as  sodium  and  halogen  are  pumped  through  their 
veins,  and  thus  these  prisoners  birth  a  yellow  light,  a  cold 
light  which  later  will  deprive  the  city  of  its  night. 
Skyscrapers  carve  a  wide  sky  into  cubes  which  even  a 
wakeful  eye  could  miss.  There  is  no  solace  in  this  sky  as 
narrow,  close,  it  makes  of  the  soaring  bird  a  homing  gone 
awry,  a  rock  with  wings,  and  thus,  designed  for  you.  The 
bird,  ahh,  but  the  bird,  the  same  one  pardon  me 
kamikazing  toward  your  office  window,  not  on  the 
twenty-four  or  thirty-six-month  plan,  but  at  this  very 
instant,  and  though  you  are  at  your  phone,  your  picture 
window — panoramic  consecration  to  all  you  have  un- 
done— has  been  awaiting  this  bird's  intent  since  its  days  of 
sand.  The  music  of  exploding  glass  announces  this 
harbinger  of  shrill  tidings,  the  unutterable  anagram  which 
despite  your  gritting  teeth,  reveals  the  musical  murmur 
below  the  tarmac  you  have  clogged.  From  this  point 
onwards,  your  golden  tomorrows  will  refuse  to  flower.  Go 
ahead.  Pick  it  up  from  the  rug.  Heft  this  still-warm 
half-pound  of  integrity.  Observe  the  splayed  wings,  the 
flattened  beak,  the  fully  rotating  ball  and  socket  head.  But 
can  you  feel  its  heat,  hear  the  ticking,  see  the  red  light  in  its 
eyes  which  will  not  fade,  the  memory,  yes  the  memory,  of 
your  song. 

— Art  Tishman 


f»R.<:i><:iESSEi:>  w<i>r.i.i>  2t3 


33 


HSSING  IM 


Tfl£  G£N£  VOOl 


yj^A  dvocates  of  biotechnology  and  genetic  screening  por- 
^^^  V  tray  their  task  as  a  humanitarian  endeavor — curing 
^inherited  disease.  The  images  they  present  are  diverse  and 
compelling:  slow  death  from  cystic  fibrosis,  the  frightening 
symptoms  of  Huntington's  disease,  the  worries  of  would-be 
parents.  Scientists  and  researchers  are  portrayed  as  hard- 
working saviors  of  suffering  humanity.  We  are  promised  that 
more  corpses  will  be  identified,  and  that  more  criminals  will 
be  captured,  as  a  result  of  genetic  "fingerprinting."  Yet  these 
promises  are  a  molester's  lollipop — desirable  trinkets  to  lure 
us  into  a  trap.  The  intent  may  not  be  criminal,  but  the  results 
can  be  just  as  dangerous. 

"Public  debate"  about  genetic  screen- 


ing is  based  on  vague  promises  of  future 
possibilities  and  ignores  present  realities. 
Despite  promises  about  "the  alleviation 
of  human  suffering,"  detectable  genetic 
disorders  constitute  a  minute  fraction  of 
the  ailments  of  the  species.  Potentially 
curable  disorders  are  basically  limited  to 
those  in  which  a  single  gene  is  the 
problem.  While  a  number  of  genetic 
disorders  can  be  reliably  detected,  there 
are  treatments  for  only  a  few.  Some 
problems  are  susceptible  to  treatment  if 
caught  early  enough  (phenylketonuria, 
for  example);  most  cannot  be  cured. 
Knowledge  of  such  a  condition  may 
disincline  people  to  have  children,  and 
prenatal  testing  may  lead  to  considera- 
tion of  an  abortion.  This  same  capability 
can  also  lead  to  more  sinister  possibili- 
ties. 

Proponents  argue  that  testing  merely 
increases  choices  for  individuals.  The 
knowledge  provided  by  genetic  screens 
may  lead  to  prevention  of  some  prob- 
lems (e.g.,  detection  of  the  gene  for 
familial  polyposis  may  "prevent"  colon 
cancer  by  removing  the  colon),  but  often 
the  practical  use  of  such  knowledge  is 
limited.  Testing,  even  with  volunteers, 
raises  problems  about  implicitly  inform- 
ing others  (e.g.,  relatives)  who  may  not 
want  to  know.'  And  what  about  people 
psychologically  incapable  of  dealing  with 
the  knowledge?  Knowledge  is  a  slippery 

34 


slope:  today's  mysteries  are  tomorrow's 
disorders.  As  we  identify  the  function  of 
more  and  more  genes,  the  same  impera- 
tive that  compels  us  to  analyze  will  lead 
us  to  classify  and  stratify.  As  social 
values  evolve,  incorporating  new  genetic 
concepts,  how  many  people  would  not 
think  it  bizarre  to  terminate  a  pregnancy 
for  genetically  identified  manic- 
depressive  tendencies?  Future  artists  may 

Knowledge  is  a  slippery 

slope;  today *s  mysteries 

are  tomorrow*s  disorders. 

. .  .The  media  will  gladly 

repeat  (and  inflate)  the 

more  exotic  claims . . . 

Who  benefits  and  who 

suffers,  are  social 

questions,  not  technical 

ones. 


well  have  to  arrive  at  their  moments  of 
creative  passion  by  other  means. 

Sickle-Cell  &  Tay-Sachs 

Detection  of  a  gene-related  malady  is 
no  guarantee  that  treatment  will  be 
rapidly  developed.  The  classic  example 


—  illustrative  of 
both  the  promises  and 
pitfalls  of  genetics  —  is  sickle-cell  anemia, 
which  has  been  an  object  of  intense 
scrutiny  since  the  1940s.  Despite  a 
detailed  knowledge  of  its  biochemistry, 
treatment  has  not  advanced  significant- 
ly, unless  one  argues  that  the  elimination 
of  certain  possibilities  constitutes  pro- 
gress towards  an  ultimate  cure. 

The  Tay-Sachs  disorder,  a  severely 
disabling  —  and  fatal  —  malady  of  the 
nervous  system,  is  also  a  recessive  genetic 
disorder.  It  is  found  most  commonly  in 
northern  European  Jews,  in  whom  about 
1  out  of  3000  is  afflicted  (1  out  of  30 
being  carriers),  versus  1  out  of  600,000 
for  other  northern  Europeans.  It  can  be 
detected  by  prenatal  tests,  giving  parents 
an  option  to  abort  the  fetus.  It  can  also 
be  detected  in  adults,  who,  having  been 
born  without  it,  are  not  at  any  personal 
risk.  The  rationale  for  screening  is  to 
allow  people  to  decide  if  they  want  to 
risk  having  children.  In  the  early  1970s, 
publicity  and  voluntary  screening  pro- 
grams were  started.  By  the  mid-1980s 
some  310,000  people  had  been  tested 
worldwide,  finding  only  268  couples  in 
which  both  partners  were  carriers.^ 

One  of  the  few  objections  raised  was 
that  not  everybody  in  the  Jewish  popu- 
lation was  equally  at  risk,  and  that  a 
careful  examination  of  family  histories 
would  have  identified  those  most  in 
danger.  The  widespread  screening  and 
publicity  may  thus  have  aroused  unnec- 
essary fears  for  many  people. 

Sickle-cell  anemia  is  a  geographically 
widespread,  but  relatively  rare,  malady 
that  affects  the  blood's  ability  to  trans- 
port oxygen.  This  can  cause  weakness, 
severe  pain  in  the  joints,  damage  to 
internal  organs  and  a  shortened  life 
span.  While  the  disease  has  long  been 
recognized  in  Africa  —  where  it  is  most 
prevalent  —  it  was  only  identified  by 
"Western"  medicine  in  1910.  Only  peo- 
ple with  a  copy  of  the  sickle-cell  gene 


f*S<XZ><ZS.l 


from  each  parent  show  symptoms  of  the 
disease;  those  with  only  one  affected 
gene  ("carriers")  may  have  a  somewhat 
higher  percentage  of  the  sickled  hemo- 
globin cells  which  give  the  disease  its 
name,  but  evidence  that  they  are  more 
susceptible  to  health  problems  than 
people  without  the  gene  is  sketchy  (there 
may  be  a  slightly  higher  risk  of  kidney 
and  spleen  problems). 

In  1968  and  1969,  four  apparently 
healthy  black  recruits  with  no  history  of 
anemia  died  during  basic  training  at  an 
army  camp  located  about  4000  feet 
above  sea  level.  Post-mortems  revealed 
severe  sickling  of  the  blood;  this  could, 
however,  have  been  a  result  of  death, 
rather  than  the  cause.  Following  a  1970 
report  in  the  Neu'  England  Journal  of 
Medicine,  the  National  Academy  of 
Sciences'  National  Research  Council 
created  a  committee  to  study  the  issue. 
Despite  a  lack  of  conclusive  data,  they 
called  for  testing  of  all  recruits  for 
sickle-cell.  The  Air  Force  went  even 
farther,  disqualifying  carriers  from  the 
Academy,  as  well  as  barring  them  from 
co-piloting  aircraft  and  all  combat  avia- 
tion duties.  Moreover,  despite  the  con- 
clusions of  scientific  studies  that  there 
were  no  significant  differences  between 
carriers  and  non-carriers,  in  the  1970s 
most  major  airlines  fired  or  grounded 
personnel  who  were  carriers.  In  1979, 
Stephen  Pullen  —  an  excellent  athlete,  a 
mountain  climber,  and  a  carrier  of 
sickle-cell  anemia  —  was  forced  to  resign 
from  the  Air  Force.  He  sued,  and 
eventually  the  Air  Force  changed  its 
policy.^ 

This  is  an  excellent  example  of  irra- 
tional discrimination  because  of  a  ge- 
netic trait.  None  of  the  carriers  looked  or 
acted  any  differently  than  anyone  else: 
there  was  no  performance-related  reason 
for  the  limitations.  Indeed,  a  study  of  the 
National  Football  League  showed  that 
its  members  had  a  significantly  higher 
percentage  of  carriers  of  sickle-cell  ane- 
mia than  the  population  at  large  (al- 
though average  for  the  African  Ameri- 
can population  as  a  whole),  yet  there 
were  no  sickle-cell  related  problems  for 
these  athletes  who  exercised  hard,  for 
years,  in  difficult  circumstances  in  snow 
or  at  high  altitude. 

Despite  being  a  far  less  dangerous 
disorder  than  Tay-Sachs,  sickle-cell 
screening  programs  have  mostly  been 
involuntary  and  administered  by  an 
outside    agency.    The    Tay-Sachs    pro- 


grams, in  contrast,  are  relatively  decen- 
tralized and  are  run  and  staffed  largely 
by  Jews.  Given  a  history  of  medical 
discrimination,  including  the  infamous 
1932  Tuskegee  syphilis  "study,"  in  which 
medical  treatment  was  withheld  from 
Black  men  with  the  disease  for  40  years, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  the  sickle-cell 
programs  were  bitterly  opposed  by  many 
Blacks.  Such  programs  were  ultimately 
unsuccessful,  and  many  have  now  been 
ended,  although  a  few  states  still  require 
sickle-cell  tests. 

Regardless  of  how  well  intentioned, 
genetic  screening  does  not  take  place  in 
isolation  from  the  rest  of  society.  Even  in 
a  non-racist  context,  possession  of  a 
genetic  disorder  can  result  in  discrimina- 
tion, as  Troy  Duster  illustrates  in  an 
account  of  Orchomenos,  an  area  in 
Greece  where  sickle-cell  anemia  is  preva- 
lent: twenty-three  percent  of  the  popula- 
tion are  carriers."*  The  people  who  tested 
positive  were  stigmatized,  even  though 
they  were  not  discernibly  different  from 
anyone  else.  The  Orchomenos  experi- 
ence also  shows  that  people  don't  reject 
genetic  screening  because  of  ignorance  of 


possible  benefits.  In  point  of  fact,  the 
African  American  population  subjected 
to  screening  is  better  educated,  more 
literate  and  more  urbanized  than  the 
villagers  of  Orchomenos  —  yet  the 
Greeks  endorsed  screening.  As  Duster 
says,  "The  level  of  trust,  not  the  level  of 
education,  better  explains  such  compli- 
ance." 

Consider  this  1968  statement  by  Nobel 
prize  winner  Linus  Pauling:  "I  have 
suggested  that  there  should  be  tattooed 
on  every  young  person  a  symbol  show- 
ing possession  of  the  sickle-cell  gene  or 
whatever  similar  gene  ...  in  a  single 
dose.  If  this  were  done,  two  young 
people  carrying  the  same  seriously  defec- 
tive gene  in  single  dose  would  recognize 
this  situation  at  first  sight,  and  would 
refrain  from  falling  in  love 
[LJegislation  along  this  line,  compulsory 
testing  for  defective  genes  before  mar- 
riage, and  some  form  of  semi-public 
display  of  this  possession,  should  be 
adopted."^ 

Beyond  the  absurd  proposition  that 
such  a  "scarlet  letter"  would  preclude 
falling  in  love,  Orchomenos  shows  that 


Your  finest 
hour. . . 


was  the  moment 
you  decided  to 
have  a  genetic 
stopwatch  surgi- 
cally implanted 
in  every  cell. 
Not  only  will 
you  never  be 
late  again,  you 
won't  be  able 


•  Alarm  Clocks! 
You'll  be 


to  lose  track  of  time! 
Feeling  each  pico- 
second passing  will 
open  up  new  fron- 
tiers of  personal 
time  and  space! 
And  to  top  that, 
the  U.S.  Associa- 
tion of  Industrial 
Manufacturers  has 
announced  preferential 
employment  consider- 
ation for  all 
CellClockers . . . 

Forget 

•  Clock  Radios!  •  Punching  In! 
PUNCHED  IN  for  LIFE! 


CE  LLC  L  OCKE  RS  * 

Not  Just  Another  Bio-Implant— A  Way  of  Life! 

works  with  our  new  micro-manager  implant  to  reduce  annoying  behavior  patterns! 

A  DIVISION  OF  CENERICO-CONTEK 

People  Like  You  Helping  People  Like  Us  Help  Ourselves 


»*B«:i><ZESSEO    >/>•<!> B<.*-C>    ^Q 


35 


"actual  carrier  status  .  .  .  did  not  play  a 
decisive  role  in  avoidance  of  mates."*  At 
best  Pauling's  statement  is  naive  and 
hopelessly  ignorant  of  the  real  world;  at 
worst,  it  is  first  cousin  to  compelling  Jews 
to  wear  yellow  stars  to  warn  the  public  of 
the  "menace."  The  Nuremburg  War 
Crimes  trials  specifically  condemned  leg- 
islation targeting  ethnic  and  racial 
groups;  legislation  that  calls  for  compul- 
sory testing  for  racially  linked  genetic 
traits  does  precisely  that. 

Technical  difficulties  aside,  more  peo- 
ple will  be  faced  with  discrimination  as 
genetic  screening  becomes  common. 
Some  already  more-or-less  clearly  identi- 
fied groups  (e.g.,  African  Americans, 
Ashkenazi  Jews)  may  find  some  solidari- 
ty in  facing  such  problems,  but  overall 
this  new  "knowledge"  is  unlikely  to  help 
them  —  rather,  it  will  isolate  them  even 


more.  Others,  not  benefiting  from  any 
existing  solidarity,  will  face  even  greater 
isolation. 

Looming  behind  prospects  of  frag- 
mentation and  stratification  is  a  more 
sinister  possibility  —  control.  A  clinical 
genetic  counselor  can  subtly  manipulate 
a  client's  decision  by  shading  the  presen- 
tation of  statistics  (for  instance,  1  chance 
in  200  of  something  bad  happening 
doesn't  seem  so  bad,  unless  you  compare 
it  to  1  chance  in  5000). 

A  grimmer  type  of  control  is  becoming 
increasingly  common:  the  intervention 
of  a  third  party  in  the  traditional 
doctor-patient  relationship.  As  an  ex- 
ample, consider  a  woman  who  is  carry- 
ing a  fetus  with  a  major  defect  and 
decides  not  to  have  an  abortion.  Her 
insurance  company,  which  may  have 
paid  for  the  test  in  the  first  place,  states 


PARENTS!  IS  YOUR  BABY 


ALIVE  WITH 
PLEASURE?'.? 

Well  then  it's  time  to  begin  channeling  that  pleasure  into  useful  consumption  habits 

that  will  become  the  backbone  of  American  Commerce.  Forget  about  a  SuperBaby — 

Sign  up  your  newborn  to  be  a 


BUTT  BABY! 


A  consortium  of  U.S.  tobacco  companies  is  offering  new  parents  a  special  deal: 

Sign  your  child  up  before  they're  two  years  old  and  s/he  will  qualify  for  a  special 

drawing  to  win  HUGE  SCHOLARSHIPS!!  And  they  will  get  free  cigarettes  while 

in  college,  the  military,  or  incarcerated  (forever!).  A  free  signing  bonus  is  yours: 

a  rubber-lined,  specially  designed  oversized  ashtray/crib 


that  it  will  not  cover  medical  services  for 
that  child.  The  woman's  financial  op- 
tions thus  narrowed,  she  "chooses"  an 
abortion.  In  an  analysis  of  clinical 
counseling  sessions  for  people  at  risk  for 
Down's  syndrome.  Duster  shows  how 
even  subtle  comments  can  have  a  large 
impact.'  In  more  callous  hands  such 
"counseling"  would  be  far  more  manipu- 
lative. 

DNA  Fingerprinting 

In  addition  to  manipulative  uses  of 
genetic  screening,  biotech  also  claims  it 
can  "fingerprint"  people.  The  Pentagon 
is  investigating  its  use  in  identifying 
corpse  fragments.  It  is  also  used  to 
convict  people  by  linking  bits  of  their 
DNA  to  crimes. 

This  methodology  employs  what  are 
known  as  "Variable  Number  Tandem 
Repeat"  genes  [VNTTls],  which  vary 
greatly  from  one  person  to  another. 
They  supposedly  identify  individuals 
based  on  samples  of  DNA  —  usually  less 
than  half  a  dozen  —  that  are  extracted 
from  tissues  and  compared  with  traces 
from  a  crime  scene.  Proponents  claim 
that  there  is  "less  than  one  chance  in  a 
trillion"  that  two  genetic  samples  are 
identical  by  chance.  This  argument 
depends  on  some  basic  assumptions 
about  population  genetics  and  the  dis- 
tribution of  these  genes.  As  Laurence 
Mueller  explains:  "All  the  major  forensic 
labs  calculate  the  frequency  of  these 
patterns  by  the  product  rule.  This  rule 
assumes  that  the  copies  of  a  gene  you 
inherit  from  each  parent  are  indepen- 
dent and  that  these  pairs  .  .  .  are 
independent  of  [any  other]  pairs... 
both  assumptions  of  independence  will 
be  violated  if  populations  are  structured. 
.  . .  The  possible  errors  .  .  .  are  potenti- 
ally enormous.  ...  A  publication  . . . 
from  the  FBI  laboratory  actually  presents 
a  statistical  analysis  . .  .  which  shows 
these  independence  assumptions  are  vi- 
olated."^ The  FBI  argues  that  the  as- 
sumptions are  valid  anyway.  Erroneous 
statements  of  identity  may  also  result 
from  laboratory  errors.  A  false  positive 
occurs  when  two  samples  are  identified 
as  being  the  same  even  though  they  are 
not.  Mueller  cites  a  proficiency  test  given 
to  Cellmark,  a  private  testing  laboratory, 
in  which  the  lab  made  two  false  posi- 
tives out  of  a  sample  of  100.  At  best,, 
then,  Cellmark  can  claim  a  chance  of  1 
in  50  that  there  is  a  mistaken  identifica- 
tion of  two  samples  of  DNA.  The 
problem,  however,  doesn't  lie  with  the 
professional  competence   of  any   given 


36 


f»R.<I>ClESSEI>    WOK.I-.0    313 


lab,  but  rather  with  the  inadequately 
tested  application  itself. 

EUGENICS  - 
From  IQ  to  Sterilization 

Genetic  screening,  intertwined  with 
race  and  social  power,  is  also  affected  by 
history.  For  many,  genetics  has  the 
immediate  connotation  of  eugenics,  a 
word  coined  by  Francis  Galton  from  the 
Greek  words  for  "well-born."  He  argued 
for  "judicious  matings  ...  to  give  the 
more  suitable  races  or  strains  of  blood  a 
better  chance  of  prevailing  speedily  over 
the  less  suitable."'  It  should  be  noted 
that  reactionaries  aren't  alone  in  prais- 
ing such  ideas  —  George  Bernard  Shaw 
and  H.G.  Wells,  among  others,  were 
proponents  of  eugenics.  As  a  rule  of 
thumb,  genetics  will  be  used  to  explain 
the  lower  classes'  "failings;"  positive 
attributes  will  be  explained  by  "culture." 

In  Germany  eugenics  combined  with 
mystical  concepts  of  a  "pure"  Aryan  race 
and  led  to  Nazi  barbarism  —  the  deliber- 
ate killing  of  the  "medically  unfit,"  and 
the  extermination  and  enslavement  of 
"inferior"  races  to  allow  the  "pure  Ar- 
yans" of  the  S.S.  to  repopulate  western 
Russia. 

In  the  United  States  the  popular  (but 
less  deadly)  eugenics  movement  pushed 
for  prohibitions  on  immigration  of  "in- 
ferior races,"  and  for  sterilization  of 
"defectives."  In  1905  Alfred  Binet  de- 
vised an  "Intelligence  Quotient"  test  to 
help  teachers  with  students  who  weren't 
responding  to  standard  methods  (Binet 
did  not  believe  in  innate  stupidity).  As 
with  other  well-intentioned  inventions, 
however,  the  IQ  test  soon  came  to  be  a 
tool  for  ranking  people  in  a  divisive  — 
and  derisive  —  manner.  By  1912  it  was 
being  used  at  Ellis  Island  to  screen  out 
"feeble-minded"  persons;  forty  percent 
of  Jewish  immigrants  were  so  categor- 
ized.'° 

In  1917  the  Army  began  testing  large 
numbers  of  recruits  and  used  the  results 
to  screen  for  officer  training.  This  data 
was  used  in  the  '20s  by  eugenicists  to 
argue  that  immigrants  from  southern 
and  eastern  Europe  were  less  intelligent 
than  their  northern  European  counter- 
parts. It  was  partly  on  this  "evidence" 
that  the  Immigration  Act  of  1924  was 
passed,  which  drastically  reduced  the 
flow  of  southern  and  eastern  Europeans 
(and  thereby  Jews). 

Sterilization  laws  were  passed  in  some 
30  states.  By  1935  some  25,000  people 
had  been  sterilized  (most  of  them  in 
California);  by  1956  the  number  had 
reached   58,000."   The  Supreme  Court 


upheld  the  sterilization  of  imbeciles  in 
the  1927  Buck  v.  Bell  decision.  An 
institutionalized  Virginia  woman,  Carrie 
Buck,  was  ordered  sterilized  on  the 
grounds  that  not  only  were  she  and  her 
mother  imbeciles,  but  she  had  given 
birth  to  a  girl  also  claimed  —  at  one 
month  old  —  to  be  feeble-minded.  (It 
was  in  this  case  that  Justice  Oliver 
Wendell  Holmes  stated  that  "three  gen- 
erations of  imbeciles  is  enough.")  Al- 
though Carrie  Buck's  daughter  was  later 
tested  at  a  more  reasonable  age  and  was 
found  to  be  of  above-average  intelli- 
gence, the  decision  was  never  over- 
turned.'^ 


DESIGNER  GENES 


religiosity - 
trotskyism- 
voting- 


—  Co-dependency 
Utopian  dream 

fondness  for 

shiny  things    Low  self-esteem- 
Coupon  clipping        Uses  Public 
ingrown  toenails 

A  marked 


Z' 


Transit 
Republicani 


proclivity  for 
Winnebagos 

—  common  sense 
(atrophied) 


,  can  taste 


hormones  in  beef 

■  writes/buys 
foo  many  books 

—  distaste  for 
stupid  questions 

—  ability  to  think 
for  oneself 


gaps  in  — 
work  history 


Likely  to^ — _ 
return  merchan- 
dise (choosy 
shopper) 


Supervisor-  — 
like  behavior 


Asks  too  — 
many  stupid 
questions 

shops  instead- 
of  psychotherapy 


■  Poet  Videotapes-.^ 

>  Lies  on  Resume     Coors  lite  ads 

Accumulates  propensity  for-..^ 

t)arking  tickets         living  in  cold, 
wet  environments 


-turned  on  by 
stiletto  heels 


Worships  dead- 
musicians 


Oprah  fan  Superbowl- 

SaniCene  Lid.       watcher 


graphic:  PW  collective 

Seven  years  later,  in  Skinner  v.  Oklaho- 
ma, the  Court  overturned  a  law  that 
ordered  the  sterilization  of  persons  con- 
victed of  three  separate  felonies  —  not 
because  it  was  morally  wrong,  but  be- 
cause the  law  excluded  certain  kinds  of 
"white-collar"  crime,  violating  the  14th 
Amendment's  guarantees  of  equal  pro- 
tection. The  validity  of  sterilization  to 
"treat"  antisocial  behavior  was  not 
questioned. 

Because  of  the  unhealthy  aroma  of  the 


Nazi  nightmare,  eugenicist  ideas  retreat- 
ed temporarily  after  1945.  In  the  late 
1960s  these  theories  began  to  reappear. 
Borrowing  some  of  the  lustre  of  molecu- 
lar genetics  and  its  (limited)  successes, 
they  crept  back,  addressing  precisely  the 
same  complex  behaviors  —  intelligence, 
insanity  and  criminality. 

Criminal  Genes,  Stupid  Genes 

In  1965  the  British  magazine  Lancet 
published  an  article  on  197  patients  at  a 
high-security  mental  hospital  in  Scot- 
land. They  had  been  chosen  because 
they  were  "mentally  subnormal  male 
patients  with  dangerous,  violent,  or 
criminal  propensities."'^  The  researchers 
found  that  seven  (3.5  percent)  of  the 
men  had  an  unusual  genetic  abnormal- 
ity. Instead  of  the  usual  pair  of  XY 
chromosomes  (one  from  each  parent;  the 
mother  always  contributing  an  X,  the 
father  contributing  either  another  X  or  a 
Y),  they  had  an  XYY  configuration  —  an 
extra  copy  of  the  chromosome  that 
determines  the  development  of  males. 
Could  that  extra  Y  chromosome  pre- 
destine a  child  to  a  life  of  crime  and 
violence?  Could  it  shed  light  on  geneti- 
cally normal  males  and  aggression? 
Studies  showed  a  disproportionately 
high  ratio  of  XYY  males  in  prisons  and 
mental  hospitals,  which  the  media  sen- 
sationalized. Prenatal  screening  was  pro- 
posed, with  abortion  being  the  implied 
"treatment."  In  1968,  Walzer  and  Gerald 
at  Harvard  began  a  long-term  study  that 
screened  male  infants  born  at  the  Boston 
Hospital  for  Women.  Although  there 
wasn't  any  "therapy,"  the  researchers 
proposed  counseling  sessions  with  "an- 
ticipatory guidance." 

By  1974,  however,  the  study  was  being 
challenged.  Geneticists  Jonathan  Beck- 
with  at  Harvard  and  Jonathan  King  at 
MIT  published  a  paper  in  New  Scientist 
that  attacked  the  studies  of  the  XYY 
condition  on  several  grounds.  "They 
had  been  poorly  designed,  filled  with 
logical  inconsistencies  and  crippled  by 
inadequate  comparisons  with  matched, 
normally  functioning  XYY  males  as 
controls.  .  .  .  At  the  core  of  their  critique 
[were]  serious  ethical  questions 
..."'■'  Perhaps  most  important,  Beck- 
with  and  King  objected  to  labeling  an 
innocent  child  "as  genetically  prone  to 
aggression  and  violence.  This  label  could 
also  contribute  to  a  childhood  setting  in 
which  a  level  of  anger  quite  acceptable  in 
a  normal  XY  boy  would  be  treated  with 
undue  concern  by  fearful  parents  .  .  . 
This  distortion  could  generate  new  be- 
havioral problems."'^ 


f»8«I><Z.ESSHO    WOFtl^O    ^3 


37 


While  the  Harvard  research  review 
committee  did  not  halt  the  study,  Walzer 
announced  in  1975  that  he  was  ending 
it.  Within  a  couple  of  years  most  XYY 
studies  had  folded.  A  1979  review  con- 
cluded that  there  were  no  consistent 
differences  between  XYY  males  and 
"normal"  XY  males  other  than  the 
chromosome  difference  itself,  almost  all 
XYY  males  lead  quite  normal  lives.  In 
addition  to  the  methodological  problems 
of  trying  to  generalize  from  a  narrow 
sample  (people  in  prisons)  to  the  popula- 
tion at  large,  the  XYY  studies  showed  a 
certain  callousness  to  the  subjects.  The 
debate  was  also  clouded  by  those  who 
wanted  to  show  that  males  are  genetical- 
ly prone  to  violence.  It  was  further 
confused  by  people  with  little  under- 
standing of  genetics,  such  as  those  who 
wished  to  "weed  out"  the  condition, 
which  is  impossible,  as  it  is  not  a 
hereditary  problem.  It  can  occur  during 
the  creation  of  germ  cells  during  each 
and  every  generation.  The  XYY  studies, 
like  other  eugenicist  work,  presented  a 
simple  answer  for  complex  issues,  and 
did  so  by  focusing  on  "problems." 

Mental  abilities  have  also  been  subject 
to  simplistic  explanations.  Intelligence 
undoubtedly  has  a  polygenic  compo- 
nent, and  is  clearly  affected  by  very 
complex  environmental  factors.  This  is 
virtually  ignored  by  those  positing  a 
genetic  (and  usually  racial)  basis  for 
intelligence. 

Duster  points  out  that  in  the  early 
part  of  the  century,  various  universities 
and  schools  implemented  standardized 
testing  in  order  to  exclude  Jews,  who  had 
low  IQ  scores  as  immigrants.  By  the 
1960s,  however,  this  supposed  genetic 
"problem"  seemed  to  have  vanished 
from  the  Jewish  population,  whose 
scores  on  standardized  tests  were  above 
average.  A  study  in  Scotland  compared 
Jewish  school  children  with  their  peers 
and  found  that  the  Jews  on  the  average 
were  scoring  117.8  on  IQ  tests,  while 
their  schoolmates  were  averaging  —  as 
expected  —  100.  Duster  compares  this 
with  Arthur  Jensen's  racist  studies  on 
IQ,  which  found  comparable  differences 
with  the  Scottish  study:  "The  difference 
in  means  is  statistically  significant  at  a 
level  remarkably  comparable  to  mean 
differences  between  blacks  and  whites  in 
America  that  Jensen  .  .  .  reported.  The 
author  of  the  Scottish  report  [unlike 
Jensen]  chose  to  interpret  the  results  as 
explainable  by  cultural  not  genetic  fac- 
tors."'* 


Although  genetic  explanations  of  be- 
havior have  taken  the  molecular  genetics 
mantle  as  their  own,  proponents  are 
unwilling  to  heed  studies  that  discredit 
their  position.  Despite  repeated  studies 
that  cast  doubt  on  simple  genetic  ex- 
planations of  mental  traits,  the  same  old 
lies  are  repeated.  Jensen,  for  instance, 
based  part  of  his  work  on  Cyril  Burt,  a 
leading  proponent  of  innate  mental 
differences  between  classes.  Burt  was 
discredited  for  forging  data  in  his  studies 
of  twins,  which  helped  justify  the  class- 
based  IQ  tracking  in  British  schools.  In 
the  study  of  heredity  and  insanity  many 
papers  continue  to  cite  the  long- 
discredited  work  of  Franz  Kallman,  a 
student  of  Ernst  Rudin,  who  advocated 
sterilizing  schizophrenics  in  Nazi  Ger- 
many. Bad  science  has  a  way  of  living 


on,  especially  when  it  is  politically  useful. 
While  the  "old  eugenics"  will  not  return 
in  its  original  form,  the  political  agenda 
that  drives  the  implementation  of  ge- 
netic technology  hasn't  changed. 

Genetic  Values 

Just  as  our  cultural  values  influence 
what  science  studies,  science's  views 
shape  our  own  world.  Common  risks  in 
any  new  field  are  simplification  and  the 
attempt  to  explain  too  much.  While 
most  molecular  geneticists  are  unwilling 
to  make  grandiose  claims,  others  in 
kindred  fields  are  not.  The  media  will 
gladly  repeat  (and  inflate)  the  more 
exotic  claims.  Beyond  the  obvious  issues 
of  racism  and  prejudice,  a  simple  reading 
of  genetics  encourages  a  deterministic 
view  of  the  world;  this  gene  says  thus- 


THIS  M«»fclU  W«ILB 


by  TOM  TOMORROW 


tHt   HOURLY  8B€P\H6  Of  BOB'S  DKilTAL  WATcH  ALWAYS  CMStS  THE. 
GANG  AT  THE  Off\C£  TO  PAOSe  Fbft  A  gEFUCfiVE  MOWEMT... 


33 


f»R.<:>Cl£SSSI>    W<I>B<*_I>    3t3 


DANGER! 

IN  CASE  OF  ENEMY  ATTACK  THIS  IS  A 

CHEMICAL  &  BIOLOGICAL 
HAZARD  ZONE 


For  the  Convenience  of  Future  Patrons,  Please  Record  Below 
the  Date  of  Attack  and  Number  and  Type  of  Casualties: 


Dead 

Poisoned 

Thrilled 


Maimed 
Very  Piqued 
Mildly  Annoyed. 


Amputees 

Bemused 

Indifferent 


This  neighborly  warning  brought  to  you  by  your  tax  dollars  and 

THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  DEFENSE 


and-such,  and  so  it  will  be.  In  fact,  most 
phenotypes  —  the  expression  of  geno- 
types —  are  strongly  influenced  by  envi- 
ronment. But  such  explanations  are  not 
as  popular  as  they  were  a  quarter  century 
ago,  and  have  never  held  much  appeal 
for  those  in  power.  Genetic  heritage  is  a 
ready  explanation  for  failure  and  success. 
Given  the  American  predilection  for 
avoiding  personal  responsibility,  such  an 
easy  explanation  is  bound  to  find  adher- 
ents. As  Gregory  Kavka  points  out, 
"Old  aristocracies  of  birth,  or  color,  or 
gender  may  dissipate,  only  to  be  replaced 
by  a  new  genetic  aristocracy."'''  Society 
may  come  to  view  parents  as  being  more 
responsible  for  their  children,  while 
parents  may  see  their  children  more  as  a 


product  line.  Society  may  further  reduce 
its  already  meager  tolerance  for  diversity. 
Modern  genetics  is,  for  the  most  part, 
limited  to  studying  "problems,"  not  only 
out  of  cultural  bias  (and  human  sympa- 
thy), but  because  such  obvious  genetic 
"errors"  as  Tay-Sachs  and  phenylketo- 
nuria are  (relatively)  clear  expressions  of 
single  genes.  While  such  small  advances 
are  pleasing,  they  feed  the  idea  that 
scientific  progress  takes  place  in  cumula- 
tive increments.  With  (relatively)  primi- 
tive tools  it's  certainly  easier  to  study 
simple  problems;  but  polygenic  condi- 
tions may  not  be  susceptible  to  the  same 
methodologies.  In  this  case  a  quantita- 
tive increase  may  well  lead  to  a  qualita- 
tive change  in  the  problem. 


One  of  Western  science's  advantages 
has  been  its  ability  to  study  single  events, 
isolated  from  the  complexities  of  real  life. 
It  is  not  clear  how  well  our  current 
theories  and  tools  will  deal  with  the 
extraordinary  complexity  of  human 
genetics,  despite  the  fond  dreams  moti- 
vating mega-research  projects  such  as  the 
Human  Genome  Project.  Furthermore, 
the  real  —  if  limited  —  success  of  the  field 
feeds  an  unhealthy  tendency  towards  a 
manipulative  and  instrumental  view  of 
humans  and  nature.  As  geneticists  be- 
come more  adept,  and  as  society  be- 
comes more  technologically  jaded,  ex- 
periments that  would  not  be  given 
serious  consideration  now  may  well 
become  the  norm. 

Complexities:  "Useful  Diseases" 
and  "Junk  Information" 

Sickle-cell  anemia  illustrates  a  thorny 
question:  When  is  a  disorder  bad?  Sick- 
le-cell can  be  debilitating  for  some  of  the 
afflicted,  but  most  people  with  the 
disease  lead  normal  lives,  and  carriers 
aren't  affected  at  all.  Indeed,  the  sickle- 
cell  trait  helps  to  prevent  malaria  in 
carriers,  which  accounts  for  the  relative- 
ly high  frequency  of  this  genetic  "disor- 
der." One  book  on  modern  genetics 
manages  to  discuss  sickle-cell  anemia  for 
many  pages  without  ever  mentioning 
thisl'8 

Genetic  variations  may  have  hidden 
benefits,  which  makes  naive  genetic 
manipulation  in  whole  populations  a 
very  scary  concept.  Science  simply  does 
not  know  enough  about  the  body's 
chemistry,  or  about  the  subtle  interac- 
tions of  different  genes,  to  state  with 
confidence  the  likely  consequences  of 
eliminating  (or  changing)  a  given  gene. 

Neurofibromatosis  (NF),  an  autosomal 
recessive  disorder  (meaning  that  a  "dose" 
of  the  gene  from  both  parents  is  needed 
to  cause  the  problem),  affects  about  1  out 
of  4000  people  worldwide,  making  it  a 
relatively  common  malady.  It  is  expres- 
sed in  a  wide  variety  of  symptoms,  which 
makes  diagnosis  difficult.  This  complexi- 
ty is  mirrored  at  the  genetic  level  as 
researchers  have  realized  "that  identifi- 
cation of  the  large  NF  gene  had  been 
elusive  because  three  other  genes  are 
embedded  within  it  .  .  .  [and]  the  func- 
tions of  the  embedded  genes  are  not 
known  .  .  ."''^  Such  intervening  sections 
of  genetic  material  {introns)  are  some- 
times referred  to  as  "junk  information," 
but  such  segments  of  DNA  are  not 
necessarily  unused.  A  genetic  problem 
can  have  more  that  one  genetic  expres- 
sion. "Importantly,  the  particular  gene- 


t»R.<I><ZESSEO    W<I>fi<l_t>    StSJ 


39 


tic  change  .  .  .  found  in  a  particular  CF 
[cystic  fibrosis]  patient  is  not  constant 
among  all  individuals  with  CF.  The  most 
common  CF  mutation  occurs  in  about 
70  percent  of  the  cases  .  .  .  practically  50 
other  much  less  common  CF-causing 
mutations  are  known  .  .  .  "^°  Such  com- 
plexity makes  mapping  the  gene  (i.e., 
identifying  known  pieces  of  DNA  that 
are  found  in  afflicted  people,  and  not 
found  in  others)  much  more  difficult, 
and  makes  accurate  sequencing  (listing 
precisely  all  of  a  gene's  constituent  bases) 
even  more  difficult.  The  challenges  of 
genetic  therapy  are  yet  more  daunting. 

And  Now? 

Science's  ability  to  produce  a  technical 
solution  to  every  problem  is  fundamen- 
tally a  question  of  scientistic  self- 
promotion.  Promises  of  gene  therapy,  for 
example,  are  not  credible.  The  indeter- 
minate nature  of  genetic  manipulations 
and  individual  variability  promises  that 
such  ventures  will  be  tentative  at  best. 
One  recent  trial  involved  a  transfusion 
of  white  blood  cells  carrying  a  gene  for  a 
substance  a  patient  was  deficient  in.^' 
There  was  no  attempt  to  change  the  cells 
that  manufactured  the  patient's  white 
blood  cells  so  they  would  have  the 
correct  gene;  the  billion  engineered  cells 
in  the  transfusion  all  died  relatively 
quickly.  Even  the  most  ardent  advocates 
of  gene  therapy  are  not  planning  to 
tamper  (yet)  with  the  germ  cells  that 
control  reproduction.  The  tinkering  is 
limited  to  somatic  cells  —  those  that 
constitute  our  bodies.  Any  plan  to 
"eliminate"  a  disorder  such  as  Hunting- 
ton's disease  by  tailoring  sperm/egg  cells 
so  that  they  do  not  have  the  defective 
gene  belongs  to  the  remote  future. ^^ 

But  we  shouldn't  ignore  problems 
closer  to  hand.  Diane  Paul  has  argued 
that  eugenics  —  as  a  code-word  for 
coercion  —  is  the  "approved"  anxiety  of 
the  Human  Genome  Project."  We 
shouldn't  be  blind  to  the  repressive  uses 
of  genetics,  but  we  should  not  ignore 
issues  of  personal  choice  and  freedom 
that  genetic  medicine  raises.  Virtually 
any  screening  can  determine  a  fetus'  sex 
long  before  birth.  What  shall  we  do  with 
this  new  power?  In  Bombay  in  the  early 
'80s  there  were  7,997  female  fetuses  from 
8,000  abortions.^''  At  least  some  of  the 
problems  are  clear,  and  are  not  limited 
to  the  "Third  World."  Solutions,  how- 
ever, are  not  so  apparent.  Pass  laws? 
Depend  upon  "the  marketplace"  to  allo- 
cate the  benefits?  Do  we  envision  a  world 


in  which  individuals  have  more  freedom 
because  of  genetic  knowledge,  or  one  in 
which  healthy  people  are  diagnosed  as 
being  diseased,  and  the  results  broadcast 
to  the  world  like  a  bad  credit  rating? 

In  this  country  different  legal  remedies 
have  been  proposed  to  deal  with  the 
spread  of  such  information,  but  there  is 
opposition  to  controls.  The  Health  In- 
surance Association  of  America's  Jude 
Payne,  criticizing  legislation  barring  in- 
surance companies  from  access  to  indi- 
viduals' genetic  information,  said  "We 
need  to  know  what  they  know.  .  .  .  Why 
is  genetic  information  more  confidential 
than  other  medical  information?"^^  Den- 
mark's parliament  recently  resolved  to 
introduce  legislation  to  ban  the  use  of 
genetic  testing  for  insurance,  pension 
and  employment  purposes.  This  nar- 
rowly passed  bill  (61-60),  introduced  by 
the  Socialist  Party,  speaks  of  intervening 
in  the  use  of  DNA  analysis  "before  it  is 
too  late." 

As   Evelyn   Fox   Keller   put    it:    "you 

FOOTNOTES 

1)  Lois  Wingerson,  "Mapping  Our  Genes  —  The 
Genome  Project  and  the  Future  of  Medicine,"  1990, 
Penguin,  New  York,  NY,  Chapter  10,  "Frances,"  pages 
255-280. 

2)  Troy  Duster,  "Backdoor  to  Eugenics,"  1990,  Rout- 
ledge,  Chapman  6j.  Hall,  New  York,  NY,  page  26. 

3)  Duster,  op.  cit.,  pages  43-45. 

4)  Duster,  op.  cit.,  pages  88-92. 

5)  cited  in  Duster,  page  46. 

6)  Duster,  op.  cit.,  page  89. 

7)  Duster,  op.  cit..  Appendix  B,  pages  137-159, 

8)  Laurence  D.  Mueller,  "Population  Genetics  of  DNA 
Typing,"  paper  presented  at  University  of  California 
Humanities  Research  Institute  conference  (UCHRI),  May, 
1991. 

9)  David  Suzuki  &.  Peter  Knudson,  "Genethics  —  The 
Clash  Between  the  New  Genetics  and  Human  Values," 
1990,  Harvard  University  Press,  Cambridge,  MA,  page  21. 

10)  Duster,  op.  cit.,  page  13. 

11)  Duster,  op.  cit.,  page  30. 

12)  Duster,  op.  cit.,  pg  29. 

13)  Suzuki  &.  Knudson,  op.  cit.,  page  127.  See  Chapter 
6,  pages  123-141  for  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  XYY  issue. 

14)  Suzuki  &  Knudson,  op.  cit.,  page  136. 


One  of  a  series  of  4  post- 
cards, each  of  which  are 
different  anagrams  of  "The 
United  States  of  America." 
Another  image  is  of  the 
Statue  of  Liberty  with  the 
caption  "Statue  in  search 
of  a  meat  diet."  They're  by 
Max  Handley  (1945-1990), 
and  can  be  obtained  from 
Tony  Allen  c/o  Knockabout 
Gallery,  10  Acklam  Rd., 
London  W10  5QZ,  England. 


don't  have  a  new  eugenics  without 
genetic  screening.  .  .  .  [T]o  intervene 
effectively  you  have  to  be  able  to  be 
critical,  to  know  what  the  limitations  of 
the  information  that  is  being  transmitted 
are  .  .  .  You  have  to  be  aware  of  the  ways 
in  which  that  information  —  even  with 
qualifications  —  will  be  heard  in  differ- 
ent ways  by  different  groups  of  people."^* 
Certainly  an  emphasis  on  education  is 
important,  although  Keller  points  out 
that  "there  are  many  people  who  are 
genuinely  concerned  and  eager  to  pursue 
these  questions  [of  ethics].  What  you 
find  is  that  they  don't  have  the  terms, 
they  don't  have  the  vocabulary  with 
which  to  do  it." 

Who  benefits,  and  who  suffers,  are 
social  questions,  not  technical  ones.  In  a 
society  in  which  these  questions  are 
ignored,  or  the  province  solely  of  ex- 
perts, we  have  neither  a  language  nor  a 
forum  for  such  a  discussion.  Does  silence 
indeed  imply  consent? 

—  Primitivo  Morales 


15)  Suzuki  and  Knudson,  op.  cit.,  page  136-137. 

16)  Duster,  op.  cit.,  page  10.  See  pages  9-12  for  a 
discussion  of  IQ  and  race. 

17)  Gregory  S.  Kavka,  "Upside  Risks;  Social  Conse- 
quences of  Beneficial  Biotechnology,"  paper  presented  at 
UCHRI  conference.  May,  1991. 

18)  Lo.s  Wingerson,  op.  cit.,  pages  62-75,  70-75,  289-291. 

19)  Jeffrey  L.  Fox  &.  Jennifer  Van  Brunt,  "Towards 
Understanding  Human  Genetic  Diseases,"  Bio /technology, 
October,  1990,  page  909. 

20)  Fox  Sc  Brunt,  page  906. 

21)  "Gene  Therapy  Protocol  Begins,"  Bio /Technology, 
October,  1990,  page  889. 

22)  See  Suzuki  and  Knudson,  "Gene  Therapy",  Chapter 
8,  pages  163-191  for  a  discussion. 

23)  Diane  B.  Paul,  "Eugenic  Anxieties,  Social  Realities, 
and  the  Genome  Initiative,"  paper  presented  at  UCHRI 
conference.  May,  1991. 

24)  Duster,  op.  cit.,  page  33. 

25)  John  Hodgson,  "Denmark  Bans  Use  of  Testing 
Info,"  Bio/techno!og\,  June,  1991,  page  508. 

26)  Evelyn  Fox  Keller,  "Decoding  the  Human  Genome 
Project,"  interview  by  Larry  Casalino,  Socialist  Review, 
91/2,  page  127. 


40 


f»R.<IXIlESSSIl»    WCL>R.*.I>    2i3 


A.STRO*S 


G£M£S 


e've  all  heard  stories  about  Cuba's  embedded  bureaucracy, 
centralized  planning,  restricted  freedoms  and  undemo- 
cratic decision  making.  Yet  Cuba  has  made  some  remarkable  ad- 
vances since  the  revolution.  Living  conditions  have  improved 
considerably,  particularly  public  health.  Life  expectancy  (75  years) 
and  infant  mortality  (10  per  1000)  are  comparable  to  Western 
Europe.  Cubans  have  access  to  one  of  the  best  health  care  systems 
in  the  world  for  free. 


Intrigued,  I  went  to  see  the  island  my- 
self. I  travelled  as  a  researcher,  one  of  the 
few  legal  ways  to  bypass  the  travel  ban. 
As  a  medical  worker,  I  wanted  to  get  a 
first  hand  look  at  Cuba's  health  care  sys- 
tem and  biotechnology  industry. 

FIRST  WORLD  TECHNOLOGY, 
THIRD  WORLD  ECONOMY 

Health  care  has  been  a  high  priority  of 
the  Cuban  government  (15  percent  of 
total  GNP)  since  the  early  days  of  the 
revolution.  Considerable  resources  have 
been  invested  in  new  technology,  drugs, 
doctors,  and  increased  access,  especially 
for  rural  dwellers.  The  fledgling  biotech- 
nology industry  provides  the  medical 
system  with  both  drugs  and  diagnostic 
tools. 

Cuba's  biotechnology  industry  began 
in  1981  when  a  group  of  scientists  began 
producing  human  leukocyte  alpha  inter- 
feron to  treat  outbreaks  of  dengue  fever 
virus  and  acute  hemorrhagic  conjunc- 
tivitis ostensibly  caused  by  CIA  biologi- 
cal weapons.  A  decision  was  then  made 
to  create  an  institution  for  the  produc- 
tion of  interferon  on  a  larger  scale  and  to 
promote  the  development  of  molecular 
biology  in  general.  In  January  1982,  the 
CIB  (Centre  de  Invt^ligaciomi  ^iologicos, 
or  Center  for  Biological  Research)  was 
inaugurated. 

Between  1982  and  1986  the  govern- 
ment invested  heavily  in  the  CIB,  sent 
scientists  to  Europe  and  Japan  for  train- 
ing, and  succeeded  in  building  Cuba's 
biotechnology  industry  to  a  technologi- 
cal level  approaching  that  of  industrial- 
ized nations.   By  1986  Cuba  was  hosting 


international  seminars  on  biotechnology, 
attended  by  hundreds  of  delegates  from 
dozens  of  countries. 

In  1986,  the  new  CIGB  (Centre  de 
Ingemeria  Gtmixca  Y  ^xoieaxologia,  or 
Center  for  Genetic  Engineering  and 
Biotechnology)  was  inaugurated  on  the 
outskirts  of  Havana,  replacing  the  out- 


Quha^s  hioiecYinoXogy 
industry  began  in  1981 
vo\ien  a  group  of  scientists 
began  producing  inter' 
feron  to  treat  outbreaks 
of  dengue  fever  virus  and 
acute  hemorrhagic  con- 
junctivitis, ostensibly 

caused  by  CIA 
biological  weapons. 


dated  CIB  facility.  The  Center  is  a 
complex  of  research,  production,  and 
quality  control  units  similar  in  layout  to 
U.S.  biotech  facilities.  The  complex  has 
modern  equipment,  mostly  imported 
from  Europe  and  Japan,  some  of  which  is 
identical  to  that  used  by  biotech  compa- 
nies and  universities  in  the  U.S.  (e.g. 
Pharmacia-LKB  brand  chromatography 
equipment,  made  in  Sweden). 

In  spite  of  this  technological  growth, 
Cuba   is  in  no  way  self-sufficient.  The 


U.S.  embargo,  the  fall  of  communism  in 
Eastern  Europe  and  the  collapse  of  the 
Soviet  economy  have  led  to  a  severe 
fiscal  crisis  called  the  "special  period." 
There  are  long  lines  for  basic  supplies, 
including  food.  Also  in  short  supply  are 
many  essential  medicines,  a  problem 
that  the  CIGB  hopes  to  alleviate  by 
producing  drugs  domestically. 

CIGB  officials  claim  to  have  produced 
an  extraordinary  amount  of  drugs,  in- 
cluding four  types  of  interferon,  human 
transfer  factor,  recombinant  epidermal 
growth  factor,  recombinant  streptokin- 
ase, and  recombinant  Hepatitis  B  vac- 
cine. They  also  claim  that  CIGB  pro- 
duces chromatographic  media,  mono- 
clonal antibodies,  an  HIV  diagnostic 
system,  enzymes,  restriction  endonu- 
cleases,  nucleic  acid  modification  en- 
zymes, plasmids,  and  phages.  Some  of 
this  I  was  able  to  corroborate,  such  as 
the  HIV  diagnostic  system,  while  Cuba's 
production  and  use  of  interferon  is 
described  in  scientific  journals. 

HUMAN  NEEDS  vs. 
FLASHY  TECHNOLOGY 

The  stated  goal  of  Cuban  biotechno- 
logy is  to  meet  human  needs  and 
promote  self-sufficiency.  A  CIGB  official 
told  me  that  only  "sure  things"  are 
funded.  If  an  AIDS  drug  is  being 
produced  successfully  elsewhere,  for  ex- 
ample, and  is  known  to  work,  then  "we 
will  invest  the  time  and  money  produc- 
ing it.  We  are  not  likely,  however,  to 
receive  funding  to  look  for  a  cure  for 
AIDS  because  it  is  an  expensive,  long- 
term  project,  requiring  considerably 
more  resources  than  we  have  readily 
available,  and  it  is  unlikely  to  lead  to  any 
immediate  benefits  to  the  public." 

Cuba's  production  of  interferon  con- 
tradicts this  policy  of  focusing  on  proven 
medications.  It  is  strikingly  similar  to 
one  of  the  primary  problems  of  capitalist 
biotechnology:  overemphasis  on  the  new 
and  exotic.  One  implication  of  this,  in 


»»s<.n>«iiESSiEO  w<i>B<i-0  :^€i 


41 


New  from  CheGene 


(Sperm  and  Ovum  Bank) 


Revolutionary  World  Leaders  and  Martyrs! 


Thanks  to  socialist  biotechnology 
and  generous  contributions  of 
genetic  material  by  our 
greatest  leaders,  CheGene 
can  produce  clones  ready 
for  election  to  your  Central 
Committee  within  18  months! 


Custom  Gene  Combo! 
Your  child  can  inherit: 

•  The  cultural  acumen  of 

Jiang  Oing  (Mme.  Mao) 

•  The  tactical  genius  of 

Che  Guevara 

•  The  ethics  of 

JVinnie  Mandela 


rq\ 


f 

f 

7 

•  Mengistu  Haile  Meriam 
if  BobAvakian! 

•  Enver  Hoxha! 

•  Felix  Dzerzhinski! 
ir  Kimll-Sung! 

ir  Angela  Davis! 
ir  Andrea  Dworkin! 

•  Pol  Pot! 

.  .  .and,  of  course, 
el  Lider  Maximo, 
ir  Fidel! 

All  sales  final— No  Returns. 


both  Cuba  and  the  U.S.,  is  neglect  of 
more  urgent  public  health  needs. 

When  Cuba  began  work  on  interferon 
back  in  1981,  it  was  thought  to  be  a 
wonder  drug  for  the  treatment  of  cancer 
and  viral  infections.  In  the  laboratory  it 
has  been  shown  to  inhibit  viral  replica- 
tion and  tumor  growth  and  to  improve 
immune  response,  indicating  a  wide 
variety  of  potential  uses.  Ten  years  later, 
however,  interferon  has  not  been  the 
panacea  proponents  had  hoped.  While  it 
is  generally  considered  effective  for  treat- 
ing Kaposi's  Sarcoma  and  chronic  hepa- 
titis B,  interferon  has  not  yet  found 
widespread  therapeutic  use  in  the  major- 
ity of  cases  and  has  made  surprisingly 
little  progress  in  clinical  tests  on  hu- 
mans. 

Other  drugs  being  produced  at  CIGB 
are  potentially  more  useful  than  inter- 
feron   due    to    proven    clinical    success. 


Streptokinase,  an  inexpensive  drug  that 
dissolves  blood  clots  in  the  heart,  is  an 
important  medication  in  Cuba,  where 
heart  disease  is  one  of  the  primary  causes 
of  death.  Domestic  production  of  the 
vaccine  for  Hepatitis  B  (which  is  very 
expensive  to  import)  could  save  money 
and  lives,  given  its  prevalence  in  the 
tropics. 

Cuban  biotech  is  also  working  on 
improving  agricultural  diversity  and 
productivity.  Cuba  has  a  large  and  fertile 
base  for  agriculture,  but  in  the  past  it  has 
been  used  primarily  for  monocultures 
like  sugar  and  tobacco.  After  disastrous 
results,  the  government  is  again  diversi- 
fying crops.  The  CIGB  hopes  to  improve 
output  through  the  use  of  biofertilizers 
(micro-organisms  able  to  convert  raw 
materials  in  soil  into  organic  materials). 
This  could  reduce  imports  of  expensive 
and  dangerous  chemical  fertilizers  and 


produce  more  food  at  lower  cost.  They 
are  also  working  on  developing  resistant 
strains  of  tobacco,  coffee  and  citrus, 
which  could  decrease  the  need  for  pest- 
icides, though  they  did  not  indicate  if 
similar  attempts  were  being  made  to 
improve  the  resistance  and  resiliency  of 
staples  such  as  rice  and  beans. 

NEW  AGE  CASTROISM? 

Cuba  is  directing  some  research  into 
"green"  medicine,  in  which  researchers 
examine  the  usefulness  of  herbs  already 
known  to  folk  healers  as  effective  medi- 
cines. Use  of  herbal  remedies  was  once 
widespread  in  Cuba,  and  continues 
among  Cuba's  Chinese  community,  but 
declined  as  modern  medicine  became 
more  accessible.  In  the  late  70s  and  early 
80s,  however,  Cuban  clinicians  realized 
that  these  medicines  were  not  only 
expensive,  but  have  many  side  effects. 
Herbs  currently  being  examined  include: 
Yerba  Buena  (mint),  which  can  be  used 
as  a  topical  antiseptic  and  cough  sup- 
pressant; Cona  Santa,  for  its  effective- 
ness as  a  sedative;  and  oregano,  for  its 
diuretic  and  hypotension  effects. 

The  fact  that  medicines  reach  the 
Cuban  people  for  little  or  no  cost  may 
contribute  to  the  optimism  and  enthusi- 
asm I  noticed  among  Cuban  biotech 
workers.  Researchers  felt  they  were  con- 
tributing to  the  revolution  by  providing 
an  essential  medical  service.  Biotech 
workers  in  the  U.S.  also  believe  they  are 
providing  a  useful  service  to  the  public, 
but  seem  more  cynical  about  their  role. 

The  Cuban  public  appears  to  be  very 
proud  of  their  health  care  system,  yet 
barriers  exist  to  the  continued  improve- 
ment of  public  health.  AIDS  prevention, 
for  example,  attempts  to  popularize  con- 
dom use  through  radio  and  T.V.,  but 
does  not  target  culturally  distinct  groups. 
Despite  a  large  number  of  Afro-Cuban 
and  women  doctors,  all  the  health 
officials  I  saw  in  Cuba  were  heterosexual 
white  males.  Denial  by  health  care 
bureaucrats  that  a  gay  community  exists 
in  Cuba  hinders  adequate  prevention 
efforts. 

The  Cuban  health  and  biotechnology 
industries  provide  essential,  beneficial 
services  to  the  Cuban  public  with  mod- 
ern technology.  Yet  Cuba's  paternalistic 
socio-political  system  gets  in  the  way, 
lending  to  an  abuse  of  power  and  pti- 
tcntial  social  catastrophe.  Nevertheless, 
as  a  low  inct^me,  uninsured  U.S.  citizen, 
I  believe  health  care  in  Cuba  is  un- 
questionably superior. 

—  Michael  Dunn 


42 


i*K.<:i>dEssEiL»  >>v<i:>R.i.o  ^a 


fric 


It  t>  <:»/*•  l>l  T I  iV\E 


GO  WITH  THE  FLOW: 

MUTATE  NOW,  AVOID  THE 

RUSH! 

The  Department  of  Health  Services 
(DHS)  is  presently  trying  to  license  a 
low-level  radioactive  waste  (LLRW) 
dump  in  the  East  Mojave  Desert's  Ward 
Valley  near  Needles,  California.  After  a 
couple  of  legal  snags  are  ironed  out,  the 
dump  can  theoretically  begin  operating 
by  year's  end. 

According  to  federal  law,  states  will 
have  to  dispose  of  their  own  nuclear 
waste  by  1993.  This  clears  the  federal 
government  of  liability,  and  virtually 
mandates  nuclear  waste  dumping.  The 
theory  is:  out  of  sight,  out  of  mind.  Still, 
every  state  except  California  has  slowed 
down  or  stopped  their  dump  licensing 
process,  taking  their  cue  from  states  with 
leaky  dumps  that  had  to  be  closed.  So  far 
every  LLRW  dump  in  this  country  has 
leaked;  the  only  three  still  in  operation 
want  to  restrict  intake  by  1993.  Since  no 
new  LLRW  dump  has  been  created  in 
the  United  States  in  20  years,  the  nuke 
industry  is  getting  desperate  and  Needles 
could  easily  become  a  national  dump. 
Eighteen  states  have  already  expressed 
interest  in  dumping  there.  In  the  future, 
the  70-acre  dump  license  application 
could  easily  be  expanded  since  no  one's 
watching:  the  land  transfer  for  the  site  is 

1.000  acres, 


The  pro-nuclear  Department  of  Ener- 
gy (DOE)  estimates  80  percent  of  ra- 
dioactive waste  nationally  comes  from 
nuclear  power  plants.  The  industry 
needs  dumps  to  handle  the  enormous 
increase  in  waste  from  a  planned  new 
generation  of  plants.  California's  site  is 
central  to  the  agenda,  as  California  is 
supposed  to  lead  the  way  and  encourage 
other  states  to  build  their  own  dumps.  In 
the  industry's  favor,  California  is  known 
as  environmentally  aware,  which  helps 
project  a  safe  image.  In  the  meantime. 
Needles  will  be  open  game,  as  California 
cannot  legally  refuse  waste  from  other 
states  if  federal  officials  declare  an  "emer- 
gency." 

In  many  ways  the  Mojave  Desert,  arid 
and  remote,  represents  an  ideal  dump 
site  for  the  nation's  nuclear  industry. 
The  press  covers  up  disasters  such  as 
Hanford  and  Rancho  Seco,  reporting  on 
these  "accidents"  only  years  later.  Why 
not  have  them  someplace  far  removed? 
What's  in  the  Mojave  besides  a  few  cacti 
and  desert  tortoises? 

In  any  case,  with  the  nation's  fifth 
largest  nuclear  industry,  California  has 
more  than  2,200  licensed  nuclear  opera- 
tors who  are  paying  the  state  to  build  a 
dump.  Often  located  on  faultlines,  these 
companies  cannot  safely  store  on-site. 
As  an  incentive,  the  state  will  have  to 
start  paying  liability  fees  if  a  dump  isn't 
created  by  1993.  And  why  limit  nuclear 
waste?  It  can  be  profitable  since  the  DOE 
will  pay  for  waste  by-products  such  as 
radioactive  cesium  and  cobalt.  Waste 
can  be  used  in  food  processing  too. 

The  DOE  says  only  6  percent  of  waste 
by  volume,  and  0.5  percent  by  radioac- 
tivity comes  from  medical  sources.  But 
U.S.  Ecology  (USE),  the  dump  contract- 
or chosen  by  the  Department  of  Health 
Services,  lied  about  this,  saying  that 
percent  of  LLRW  is  medical.  In  the 
discussion  of  medical  waste,  the  industry 
typically  manipulates  statistics  by  dis- 
cussing LLRW  in  terms  of  volume  as 


opposed  to  radioactivity.  Industry  PR 
men  exploit  the  public's  ignorance  about 
radiation  by  failing  to  mention  that 
radiation  is  harmful  in  trillionths  of 
curies. 

"Low-level  radioactive  waste"  is  a 
misleading  term,  for  low-level  wastes  can 
be  even  more  toxic  than  high-level 
wastes,  remaining  deadly  for  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  years.  Legal  definitions  are 
also  manipulated,  with  wastes  from  de- 
commissioned nuclear  power  plants. 
Highly  radioactive  fuel  cores  are  defined 
neither  as  high-level  nor  low-level 
wastes;  because  of  this  uncertainty,  they 
could  someday  end  up  in  LLRW  dumps. 
The  nuclear  industry  uses  a  variety  of 
jargon,  scientific  and  legal,  to  promote 
confusion  and  further  its  interests. 

USE  was  chosen  by  the  DHS  to  op- 
erate Ward  Valley  despite  a  history  of 
legal  and  environmental  misconduct. 
Currently  involved  in  litigation  over 
several  toxic  waste  dumps  and  a  LLRW 
dump  in  Kentucky,  USE  tried  to  flee 
Illinois  when  sued  for  $100  million  over 
its  badly  leaking  LLRW  dump.  In  part, 
Illinois'  experience  is  delaying  Califor- 
nia's licensing  process,  as  the  state 
controller.  Gray  Davis,  wants  evidence 
that  USE  would  be  liable  for  its  own 
mess.  But  insurance  companies  won't 
cover  cleanup  costs  for  migratory  con- 
tamination: townspeople  in  Illinois 
wanted  their  dump  entirely  removed  and 
got  only  $8  million.  When  it  comes  to 
nuclear  matters,  the  public  eats  the 
industry's  mistakes. 

USE  tried  to  escape  its  bad  reputation 
by  changing  its  name  from  Nuclear 
Engineering  and  went  into  isolated, 
economically-depressed  Needles  promis- 
ing jobs.  The  possibility  of  employment 
won  local  support  until  residents  learned 
only  a  few  jobs  would  be  created,  as  USE 
monitors  its  sites  as  little  as  possible. 

What  worries  people  is  that  USE's 
plans  for  the  Mojave  —  digging  shallow, 
unlined  trenches  as  receptacles  for 
LLRW,  which  could  be  packaged  in 
plastic  bags  or  cardboard  boxes  —  led  to 
disaster  in  other  states.  Then  Bechtel 
entered  the  picture,  hired  by  USE  to 
study  the  Mojave's  waterways  and  de- 
termine if  the  desert  would  be  safe  from 
contamination.  Since  Bechtel  happens 
to  be  a  huge  nuclear  producer,  the 
corporation  not  surprisingly  decided 
Ward  Valley  is  a  "closed  system"  and 
would  not  endanger  any  water  sources. 


»»b«i><i:essec*  WC1>R.1-0  2t€$ 


43 


Yet  the  area  is  known  for  its  flash  floods 
and  the  Colorado  River,  which  supplies 
LA  and  much  of  the  southwest  with 
water,  is  just  13  miles  away.  The  dump 
site  also  sits  right  above  a  huge  un- 
derground lake. 

Native  Americans  say  the  Mojave's 
waterways  are  beyond  our  understand- 
ing, and  their  ancestral  lands  will  be 
endangered  by  USE's  dump.  But  in 
Sacramento,  the  claims  of  indigenous 
peoples  count  about  as  much  as  desert 
tortoises  (which  USE  plans  to  make  safe 
by  building  fences  to  keep  them  off-site). 
The  same  with  Needles:  only  a  few 
thousand  people  live  there;  their  vote 
hardly  counts.  If  the  DHS  plays  its  cards 
right,  the  dump  will  be  licensed  before 
the  rest  of  California  knows  about  it. 

At  the  moment  a  state-wide  coalition, 
Don't  Waste  California,  is  working  to 
stop  the  dump,  using  legal  means.  But  if 
legal  efforts  fail  —  and  the  coalition  is 
having  trouble  recruiting  "pro  bono" 
lawyers  to  work  on  the  case  —  then 
direct  action  will  be  the  next  step. 

For  info  on  hovj  to  stop  the  dump,  contact 
Abalone  Alliance:  (415)  861-0592  or  Seeds 
of  Peace:  (415)420-1799. 

—  Lili  Ledbetter 


ENVIRONMENTAL 
ACTIVISTS 
IN  BRAZIL  SPEAK  OUT! 

After  the  First  Gathering  of  the  In- 
digenous Peoples  of  the  Xingu  River 
Basin  in  Altamira  (Feb.  1989),  we  re- 
solved to  create  and  register  the  Ecology 
Group  of  Xingu  (Grupo  Ecologico  do 
Xingu),  for  the  preservation  of  the  entire 
ecosystem  in  the  northern  area  of  the 
Xingu  River  Basin.  This  work  involves: 
Indians  living  in  the  area,  and  other 
people  of  the  forest  (rubbertappers,  set- 
tlers, fishermen,  goldminers,  etc.).  We 
are  involved  in  educational  work 
through  the  schools  in  first  and  second 


grades,  and  lectures  in  communities  and 
neighborhoods  of  the  city. 

We  face  a  lack  of  resources  and 
materials.  We  don't  get  any  support,  as 
the  municipalities  of  this  region  don't 
support  environmentalism,  all  the  local 
politicians  and  powerful  people  are 
members  of  the  UDR  (Rural  Democratic 
Union  —  sponsors  of  right-wing  pistol- 
eiros  who  murder  labor  and  church 
leaders  in  the  region),  and  are  also  huge 
landowners. 

We  conducted  an  arduous  study  on 
the  question  of  mercury  pollution  in  our 
rivers  here  in  Amazonia,  fruit  of  the 
uncontrolled  gold  mining.  From  this 
experience,  we  wrote  a  cautionary  little 
book  in  a  popular  style  (Oxente  Bichinl 
Mercurio?  'Nao!!'.),  denouncing  what  is 
happening. 

Recently  another  union  leader  was 
killed  in  the  town  of  Rio  Maria,  over  a 
land  struggle.  They  caught  the  assassin, 
but  the  instigator  remains  untouched, 
and  worse  is  that  the  Public  Defender  is  a 
UDR  leader  in  the  south  of  Para. 

In  1992,  there  will  be  a  big  United 
Nations  meeting  on  environmental  is- 
sues in  Rio  de  Janeiro.  We  are  thinking 
of  holding  a  parallel  convention,  since  it 
is  assumed  that  the  UN  will  fail  to 
address  either  our  expectations  or  our 
necessities. 

—  Joao  de  Castro  Ribeiro 

Caixa  Postal  676,  Agencia  Centro, 
Belem,  Para,  66,000,  Brazil 


POPULAR  VIDEO  IN 
THE  WAKE  OF  THE 
PERSIAN  GULF  WAR 

The  most  far-reaching  aspect  of  popu- 
lar video  use  in  the  United  States  has 
been  the  growth  of  the  public  access 
movement.  Access  to  channels  and 
studio  space  and  equipment  is  part  of  the 
cable  franchising  process  in  cities  and 
towns  across  the  nation.  This  movement 
has  been  under-reported  and  misunder- 
stood by  both  main-stream  press  and 
media  critics.  It  is  a  grass-roots  move- 
ment of  tremendous  potential,  although 
it  varies  a  great  deal  in  details  from  city 
to  city. 

In  1981  I  was  one  of  the  founders  of 
the  public  access  TV  series.  Paper  Tiger 
Television.  These  programs  have  been 
developed  not  only  as  programming  on 
Manhattan  Cable  (and  several  other 
systems  around  the  country)  but  as  a 
model  series  for  creative  low-budget  use 
of  studio,  small  format  cameras  and  local 
resources.   The   Paper  Tiger   Collective 


People  around  the  country  make  shows. . . 

has  now  produced  almost  200  programs 
of  media  criticism. 

Paper  Tiger  drew  a  number  of  enthusi- 
asts from  around  the  country  and  we 
were  able  to  make  contact  with  other 
progressive  public  access  users,  many  of 
whom  expressed  the  desire  to  exchange 
programming.  It  was  out  of  these  discus- 
sions that  we  were  able  to  form  the  Deep 
Dish  Satellite  Network,  a  collaborative 
organization  of  access  activists  and  pro- 
ducers, to  share  our  programming  via 
the  commercial  satellites.  The  programs 
are  picked  up  by  public  access  stations 
across  the  country  and  shown  "live"  or 
re-broadcast  on  local  channels. 

Most  of  the  programs  have  been 
magazine-type  shows,  each  tackling  one 
specific  social  issue.  For  example,  one 
program  is  called  Home  Sweet  Homefront. 
Produced  by  Louis  Messiah,  it  combines 
footage  on  the  struggles  for  housing  from 
many  different  communities,  from  Phil- 
adelphia, NYC's  Lower  East  Side  and 
Minneapolis,  among  others.  The  com- 
munity video  footage  is  ironically  framed 
with  Mumford-esque  clips  from  housing 
films  from  the  New  Deal.  The  program 
neatly  juxtaposes  the  homeless  activists 
with  the  liberal  rhetoric  from  a  bygone 
era.  In  direct  contrast  to  the  decontex- 
tualized  and  atomized  way  these  issues 
are  portrayed  in  the  nightly  network 
news,  the  local  struggles  are  re- 
contextualized  in  this  program,  and 
given  an  additional  historical  frame  of 
reference.  Other  Deep  Dish  shows  focus 
on  the  farm  foreclosure  crisis,  pesticides, 
women's  issues  and  racism. 

The  shows  have  been  popular  on  local 
channels,  especially  with  over-worked 
and  under-appreciated  access  volunteers 
who  see  the  series  as  a  valorization  of  the 
work  they  do  in  their  communities. 
Often  these  groups  are  isolated  and 
alienated  from  their  local  communities. 
Deep  Dish  uses  the  technology  to  create 
communities  of  interest  that  prove  to  the 
video  producers  and  the  organizing 
groups  that  their  work  is  part  of  a  larger 


44 


f»R.c:>ciEs;sEo  woftLc*  :as 


movement.  Letters  of  support  to  Deep 
Dish  have  one  phrase  that  is  most  often 
repeated:  "Now  we  know  we  are  not 
alone." 

Deep  Dish  has  also  received  letters 
from  home  satellite  owners,  a  potential 
audience  which  now  numbers  over  four 
million.  The  majority  of  dish  owners  are 
in  isolated  rural  areas  without  any  other 
source  of  television  signals.  This  individ- 
ual satellite  audience  has  been  fully 
appreciated  by  Christian  broadcasters, 
who  use  them  for  fundraising  and  for 
proselytizing  to  other  viewers. 


We  take  'em  to  an  "Uplink"  which 
beams  the  program  up  to  a  satellite— 

The  right  wing  in  this  country  has 
proved  effective  in  their  creation, 
through  media  technology  of  an  audi- 
ence and  a  community  that  transcends 
geographic  boundaries  with  technology. 
Their  early  use  of  direct  mail  and 
computer  lists  was  only  tardily  replicated 
by  environmental  and  anti-militarist 
groups.  However,  in  recent  years  we 
have  seen  the  successful  development  of 
Peacenet,  a  progressive  computer  net- 
work. Peacenet  provides  electronic  mail 
and  computer  data  bases  in  such  fields  as 
environmental  research,  media  analysis, 
Latin  American  refugee  assistance,  and 
anti-nuclear  organizing.  Many  individu- 
als and  groups  have  come  to  rely  on  the 
circuits  of  data  and  exchange  thereby 
provided.  This  network  will  be  an  im- 
portant resource  for  any  future  network- 
ing possibilities  in  the  video  community. 


Anyone  with  a  satellite  dish  can  receive 
the  Deep  Dish  programs— 

In  the  process  of  raising  money  for  the 
Deep  Dish  series,  I  have  had  to  address 
the  question  of  why  the  left  in  the 
United  States  has  not  made  use  of 
potentially  powerful  tools  for  organizing 
and  distribution  of  alternative  media. 
Although  in  recent  years  there  has  been 
increasing  willingness  to  critique  main- 
stream media  (The  Institute  for  Media 
Analysis,  and  Fairness  and  Accuracy  in 
Reporting  [FAIR]  are  two  organizations 
dedicated  to  this  purpose.),  there  has 
been  relatively  little  activity  in  the  realm 
of  creating  alternatives  to  the  official 
media.  Issue  after  issue  has  been  covered 
by  individual  films  and  videos,  but  there 
has  been  a  reluctance  to  tackle  broader 
distribution  schemes. 


The  satellite  beams  the  program  back  to 
earth  in  a  pattern  called  a  "Footprint." 


Public  Access  Cable  Systems  send  it  out 
to  all  the  subscribers  in  town- 
Deep  Dish  TV  has  been  working  with 
several  other  groups  to  initiate  discus- 
sions about  creating  an  authentic  alter- 
native network:  a  24-hour  transponder 
that  will  be  a  source  for  progressive 
programs  and  news.  It  is  an  uphill 
struggle.  The  resistance  is  not  techno- 
logical, but  more  ideological  and  finan- 
cial. It  is  easier  to  get  funds  for  a  film 
about  a  coal  strike  than  a  film  about  the 
lies  the  media  are  telling  about  the  coal 
company.  It  is  easier  to  organize  a 
speaking  tour  than  the  circulation  of  a 
television  series.  Unfortunately  the  right 
in  this  country  doesn't  have  these  inhib- 
itions. 


One  of  the  most  interesting  uses  of 
video  is  as  self-defense  against  the  police. 
For  years  African  Americans  and  Latin- 
os have  been  victimized  by  excessive 
police  force.  Every  year  several  hundred 
young  men  die  in  police  custody  or  in 
street  struggles  with  undercover  cops. 
Camcorder  video  has  enabled  commu- 
nities to  document  these  incidents.  For 
years  police  have  video-taped  demon- 
strations and  community  organizations. 
But  as  mass  sales  of  video  recorders  have 
increased,  harassed  communities  have 
taken  to  watching  the  police. 

The  creative  use  of  technology  that 
Mumford  dreamed  of  is  alive  in 
hundreds  of  small  studios,  in  trailer 
parks,  in  community-controlled  mobile 
TV  vans  and  in  high  school  rec  rooms. 
It's  called  public  access. 

—  Dee  Dee  Halleck 


which  is  how  Deep  Dish  gets  to  your 
home— tune  in  to  Deep  Dish  T.V.— 
Fearless  T.V.! 

Deep  Dish  TV  is  looking  for  tapes  for  its 
1992  series  which  will  focus  on  critical  and 
grassroots  responses  to  the  Quincentennial 
celebrations  of  Columbus'  encounter  with 
the  Americas.  We  are  looking  for:  Indigenous 
perspectives  on  the  Quincentenary  and  con- 
temporary struggles  for  self-determination; 
protection  of  land  and  natural  resources; 
official  vs.  unofficial  histories;  local  and  in- 
ternational perspectives  on  the  relationship 
between  North  and  South;  strategies  for 
survival;  performances,  teach-ins,  direct  c- 
tions,  etc.  For  more  information  please 
contact:  Deep  Dish  TV 
attn:  Programming  Director 
339  Lafayette  St. 
New  York,  NY  10012 


,.«**  S 


THE  FIRST  NATIONAL  GRASSROOTS  SATELUTE  NETWORK 


f»8<CL><Z^ESiE;EC>    >/V05<t-C>    2tQ 


AS 


WE  DOM7  GOTTAX  SHOW  YOU 
MO  STIMKIN'  GEMS  SCREEMS 


This  interview  with  Dr.  Paul  Billings,  a  specialist  in  clinical  genetics  with  a 
Ph.D.  in  immunology,  was  conducted  in  ]uly,  1990  at  his  office  in  the  Cali- 
fomia  Pacific  Hospital  in  San  Francisco  by  Shelley  Diamond  and  Greg 
Williamson. 

PB:  Modern  genetics  is  about  20  years  old.  We  can  test  now  for  about 
500  medically  related  disorders  that  have  a  genetic  component.  We  have 
mapped  about  2000  human  genes  on  specific  chromosomes  within  each 
of  our  cells.  We  don't  really  know  how  many  human  genes  there  are, 
probably  about  100,000.  So  we've  mapped  about  2%,  and  in  a  very 
short  period  of  time.  The  curve  is  growing  at  an  unbelievably  quick 
rate.  We'll  probably  have  a  very  high-quality  map  of  most  human  genes 
within  about  5  years. 


I  was  a  member  of  a  group  called 
"Science  for  the  People,"  which  had  a 
sub-group,  "The  Genetic  Screening  Study 
Group."  We  were  studying  sociobiology, 
the  XYY  controversy,  and  intelligence 
testing  issues.  We  wondered  if  there  was 
any  evidence  that  genetic  testing  was 
being  used  in  a  discriminatory  fashion, 
but  there  wasn't.  That  was  1987,  and  I 
advertised  in  1988  to  see  if  people  would 
write  me  about  discrimination. 

SD:  Could  you  give  us  some  history 
of  how  insurance  companies,  govern- 
ment and  employers  have  used  genetic 
test  results? 

PB:  Well,  each  has  a  different  type  of 
history.  Insurance  companies  historically 
factored  out  costs  over  large  groups,  and 
the  healthy  people  paid  for  the  sick  people. 
That  was  the  principle  of  insurance- 
spreading  the  risk.  A  variety  of  influ- 
ences, including  better  testing,  certain 
laws  and  taxes,  and  competition,  made  it 
fashionable  to  begin  insuring  smaller  and 
smaller  groups,  looking  at  that  group's 
experience  over  a  period  of  time  in  terms 
of  how  many  medical  costs  they  were 
incurring,  and  then,  if  it  was  high,  rating 
them  as  higher  risks.  That's  called  "ex- 
perience rating,"  rather  than  "community 
rating."  And  that  led  towards  medical 
assessment  of  people  as  they  were  coming 
up  for  insurance. 
At  about  the  same  time,  most  people  in 


the  United  States  started  getting  their 
insurance  through  their  workplace.  So 
these  forces  coalesced  to  make  small 
businesses  and  individuals  the  object  of 
medical  underwriting,  which  is  the  as- 
sessment of  health  prior  to  the  delivery 


If  databases  contain 

genetic  material^  people 

could  learn  virtually 

everything  about  your 

genetic  make-up.  Now 

that  wouldn't  tell  them 

much  about  you,  but  they 

may  think  that  they 

know  something  about 

you,  and  certainly  might 

use  that  in  some  way 

against  you. 


of  health  insurance.  Insurers  solicited 
doctors'  records  and  began  asking  people 
to  undergo  testing  for  things  like  high 
blood  pressure  and  cholesterol,  and 
HIV.  They  would  also  solicit  genetic 
information,  even  a  detailed  family  his- 
tory. 
TTie  insurance  industry  has  invested  in 


genetic  testing  laboratories  and  com- 
panies that  assess  one's  genetic  health. 
Insurers  would  like  more  genetic  infor- 
mation about  their  clients,  because  they 
could  rate  people  with  bad  genes  higher, 
and  they  could  "lower"  the  rates  for 
people  with  good  genes,  whatever  they 
might  be.  They  have  been  kind  of  cagey 
about  the  whole  business,  but  genetic 
testing  suits  insurers  because  they  can 
stratify  the  population  more. 

But  there  is  no  epidemic  of  genetic 
disorders.  The  number  of  genetic  diseas- 
es and  the  number  of  people  affected 
with  genetic  disease  is  roughly  the  same 
as  it  was  a  hundred  years  ago.  What 
we've  been  able  to  do  over  the  last  20 
years  is  to  detect  these  disorders  much 
earlier.  In  fact,  we  can  detect  them 
maybe  even  years  before  they  become  a 
disorder,  so  insurers  are  stratifying  peo- 
ple genetically  even  though  their  actual 
genetic  disease-related  costs  have  only 
grown  like  other  medical  costs. 

SD:  So  everything  that  the  insur- 
ance companies  do,  as  far  as  requirii^ 
tests  or  getting  access  to  the  test  in- 
formation, all  of  that  is  legal? 

PB:  Yeah,  because  they  make  your 
ability  to  get  insurance  contingent  upon 
consenting  to  their  seeing  that  informa- 
tion. Employers  are  not  covered  by  the 
same  rules  as  insurers.  There's  virtually 
no  control  over  what  they  can  do  in  the 
pre-employment  setting. 

Unions  have  been  a  strong  force  in 
trying  to  get  employers  to  act  in  a 
reasonable  fashion.  The  1990  Americans 
with  Disabilities  Act  says  that  employers 
have  to  offer  a  job  to  anyone  who's 
qualified  to  take  that  job  as  long  as  they 
don't  have  a  disability  which  will  pre- 
vent them  from  doing  the  job  properly. 
That  could  force  employers  not  to  do 
medical  underwriting,  which  they  often 
do  for  the  insurers. 

GW:  Do  you  think  the  recent  deci- 
sion on  Johnson  Controls  in  the 
Supreme  Court  might  have  any  bear- 
ing on  this?  I  mean,  this  idea  that 


46 


f»B<C:><i:ESSEl>    WOFtLO    2tSJ 


women  who  were  supposedly  more  at 
risk  couldn't  get  some  jobs  without 
being  sterilized? 

PB:  I  would  like  people  to  have  as 
much  of  their  own  genetic  information 
as  they  wish,  but  I  would  like  to  see  them 
retain  complete  control  of  it  so  that  they 
can't  be  coerced  into  sharing  it.  In  order 
to  get  jobs,  in  order  to  get  certain  kinds 
of  entitlements,  people  will  give  up  a  lot. 
I  would  like  to  see  that  minimized. 

The  Johnson  Controls  Case  is  in  the 
same  ballpark  as  what  we've  been 
talking  about.  People  should  make  up 
their  own  mind  if  this  is  an  appropriate 
risk  assessment.  Employers  don't  need 
this  information,  and  shouldn't  have  it. 
Employers  should  be  concerned  with 
risks  in  their  workplace  —  that  is,  risks 
that  they're  creating  by  exposing  workers 
to  toxins,  to  unsafe  practices  and  equip- 
ment— and  let  the  individual  decide 
whether  they're  at  high  risk  or  low  risk. 

If  employers  start  saying  "Everybody 
with  this  kind  of  history  —  or  this  kind 
of  genetic  test  —  can't  work  here,"  that 
will  be  discrimination.  Some  people  in 
that  group  can  and  should  be  there,  and 
might  be  the  best  for  that  particular  job. 
So  it  should  be  an  individual  decision. 

GW:  Why  do  we  test  for  things  that 
tend  to  affect  blue-collar  workers 
rather  than  management? 

PB:  There's  another  way  of  looking  at 
that.  Companies  might  be  interested  in 


THIS  M^BfclH  W«ILB 


by  TOM  TOMORROW 


flTMOS-FERR 


Psychological   Experiments  on  Women  Prisoners 
Lexington.  Kentuclw.  USA.  19fl7 


Shut  Domi  Lgxinpon Control  Unir! 


CITIZENS  WHO  WORK  FOB  LARGE  CORfljRATlONS  GEK- 
eRAllY  PONT  HAVE  TO  GIVE  THE  If?  MfALTH  iN" 
SOfiMCE  MUCH  THOUGHT... 


...1  HAD  A  H£hPACHE...^01  WfNT  IKJ  FOR] 
fM\ON£TlC  BESONMCE  IMA6/N6/ 


THE  SEli=-ElflPlOYED  AND  UNEMPIOVED  tAViT  E-ITHER 
DO  WITHOUT  |HSO(?ANCE  £MT/fi£LY  OR  FACE  THE 
PAUNTiHG  SEARCH  ToR  INDIVIDUAL  COVERAGE... 


Jmt  vou  mn  SICK  lu  fwz  iajt  five  YE»R5?  I 

I 


IWEU.I  riAt)  A  COtO  LAST  WINTER 


IN\  50RRV--WE  PON  T  INJURE- 
JPEDPIE  WITH  A  HI  ^TOl?V  Of  ILLNESS 


? 


doing  genetic  testing  to  identify  those 
people  who  they  might  promote  to  an 
executive  job,  but  who  might  cost  them 
too  much  in  health  or  life  insurance. 
Someone  told  me  about  a  vice-president 
discovered  to  have  a  genetic  disorder 
which  didn't  actually  have  any  impact 
on  his  longevity  or  ability  to  be  produc- 
tive, who  was  denied  promotion  on  that 
basis.  But  you're  right  —  we  see  genetic 
testing  used  to  promote  labor-force  stra- 
tification to  reduce  the  power  of  blue- 
collar  workers. 

SD:  One  problem  is  limiting  ac- 
cess to  employer  databases.  How  do 
we  get  a  handle  on  that? 

PB:  Once  you  have  a  database,  it's 
almost  impossible  to  make  it  secure.  The 
point  of  attack  is  to  say:  'Why?  What 
right  do  they  have  to  keep  that  data  in 
the  first  place?"  Or  from  the  federal 
government  point  of  view,  "What  is  the 
public  interest  in  saving  this  data?," 
which  is,  according  to  law  enforcement 
bureaucracies,  detecting  crime.  If  data- 
bases contain  genetic  material,  people 
could  learn  virtually  everything  about 
your  genetic  make-up.  Now  that 
wouldn't  tell  them  much  about  you,  but 
they  may  think  that  they  know  some- 
thing about  you,  and  certainly  might  use 
that  in  some  way  against  you. 


THOSE  WHO  mW  fop.  SMALLER  EMP/i>YER5 
PROBABLY  HAVE  AN  HMO  PLAN  THAT  CAN  BE 
SOMEWHAT  MORE  JNCON\/£NI£NT.. 


THE  LUCKY  FEW  WHO  DO  FiWD  M  IM50RANCE 
COMPANY  WILLING  TO  VVRITE  THEM  A  POLJCT 
MOST  TriE^J  FIND  A  WAY  TO  PAY  FOR  iT... 


WELL...X  MAY  HAVE  To  CUT  BACK  OM   ■:  : 
A  FEW  THIM65...LIKE  FOOD...m/i£HT...  I  :• 

..  BOT  AT  L£A6T  ILL  HAVE  INSORANCE-  i 
IN  CASE  ANYTHING  BI^D  HAPPEfJS  To  NlEf    I: 


SD:  Could  you  give  us  some  exam- 
ples of  discrimination?  I'm  particu- 
larly interested  in  people  who  were 
discriminated  against  for  just  being  at 
risk  versus  actually  having  a  disease. 

PB:  One  is  the  couple  who  were  at  risk 
for  having  Huntington's  disease.  And 
they  decided  to  forego  undergoing  the 
DNA  test,  instead  deciding  to  adopt. 
They  were  very  nice,  made  a  nice 
income,  a  perfect  adoption  family.  When 
the  adoption  people  asked  about  family 
illnesses,  they  told  them  about  the 
Huntington's.  And  that  excluded  them 
from  the  adoption  process! 

It's  classic  in  clinical  genetics  to  advise 
people  that  adoption  is  a  way  to  avoid 
transmitting  a  genetic  trait.  The  wife  was 
in  her  thirties,  and  statistical  analysis 
indicates  her  risk  of  having  the  gene  for 
Huntington's   when   she   was   born   was 

50%.  But  as  time  goes  on  and  she's 
unaffected,  her  risk  goes  down.  If  she's 
passing  through  her  thirties  without 
showing  it,  there's  less  chance  it's  there. 
So  her  risk  is  less  than  50%.  That's  the 
same  as  people  with  family  histories  of 
diabetes  or  cancer,  yet  they  don't  ex- 
clude people  for  those. 

Then  there  are  neuromuscular  disor- 
ders, which  are  highly  variable  in  the 
people  who  have  it.  Some  people  in  the 


f»R.<I><lESiSEC*    WOfftt-O    ^SJ 


47 


family  might  be  wheelchair-bound,  while 
others  wouldn't  even  be  affected,  and 
you'd  need  a  DNA  test  to  detect  it. 
There  was  one  case  in  which  someone 
went  in  with  a  parent  who  showed  it. 
Specialized  testing  revealed  that  the 
child  had  it,  too.  The  child  applied  for  a 
job  and  was  turned  down  because  she 
admitted  to  a  positive  test  for  the 
disorder.  But  she  was  perfectly  fine,  and 
in  fact,  a  severe  case  wouldn't  even  affect 
her  ability  to  do  the  job. 

Or  take  the  case  of  the  salesman  who 
had  been  driving  for  20  years  with  a 
neuromuscular  disease  without  an  acci- 
dent, a  ticket,  or  any  change  in  his 
illness.  This  guy  had  the  gene,  and  a 
mild  physical  manifestation,  but  he 
u/asn't  ill.  He  wasn't  complaining,  he 
wasn't  using  extra  medical  care,  he 
wasn't  taking  medicine  for  it.  His  car 
insurance  agent  found  out  about  it 
through  an  application  for  life  insurance, 
and  canceled  his  auto  insurance,  so  he 
couldn't  make  his  living.  The  man's 
doctor  sent  a  letter  to  the  insurance 
agent,  saying  this  guy  is  perfectly  health- 
y,  a  perfectly  good  driver,  but  it  had  no 
effect. 

Then  there  are  cases  in  which  some- 
one is  identified  as  a  carrier  for  a 
recessive  disorder  through  the  diagnosis 
of  the  full-blown  condition  (say,  cystic 
fibrosis),  in  a  nephew  or  a  relative,  and 
their  carrier  status  is  used  as  a  reason  not 
to  insure  them. 

SD:  So  what  is  someone's  alterna- 
tive   when    they    feel    they've    been 


CORPORATE 

corporate    (cflr'porjle)  ad;    from  Ihe  french  coeur.  hear)  (  sour 
like  cur-  mongrel  dog,  base  person  I  porate,  from  the  Latin,  flow 
excrement  (pour-rate)  through  the  Roman  aqueduct  system. 
corporate:  Heart  of  flowing  shit. 


dby* 


discriminated  against?  Is  a  lawsuit  the 
only  answer? 

PB:  It  depends.  If  it's  an  insurance 
issue,  people  who  have  persisted  have 
sometimes  gotten  satisfaction  from  the 
appeal  process.  TTiey  go  many  months 
without  insurance  during  this  process, 
but  people  can  win.  You  have  to  be  a 
very  good  self-advocate,  speak  English, 
and  have  enough  money  to  persist.  You 
can't  be  afraid  to  embarrass  yourself  at 
work,  or  worse,  risk  your  job.  If  you're 
able  to  do  all  that  you'll  probably  get 
satisfaction  from  the  system.  And,  of 
course,  there  are  lawyers  who'd  like  to 
argue  these  issues  in  court.  The  system  is 
stacked  against  you,  and  you  have  to 
be  able  to  fight  it,  and  that's  hard. 

SD:  Do  you  anticipate  a  precedent- 
setting  case  in  the  courts? 

PB:  I  don't  know.  I  don't  think  there's 
any  evidence  that  that's  how  things 
change  in  our  society  [laughs].  You  have 
to  change  people's  attitudes  through 
education. 

I  think  the  health  insurance  issue  is 
clear-cut.  I  don't  think  we  need  to 
research  the  idea  that  people  should  have 
access  to  health  care  in  this  country,  and 
they  should  be  able  to  stay  financially 
solvent  while  getting  it.  You  may  need  to 
research  the  best  way  of  changing  this 
inequitable  system  into  an  equitable  one. 
I  would  rather  have  people  know  that 
genetics  doesn't  tell  you  very  much 
about  how  someone  is  going  to  use  the 
medical  care  system,  or  how  good  an 
employee  they're  going  to  be. 

SD:  Is  it  the  job  of  the  human  geneti- 
cists to  take  on  this  kind  of  educational 
role?  Should  business  be  required  to 
consult  with  human  geneticists  before 


they  make  policy? 

PB:  Yes,  and  I've  actually  heard  about 
a  number  of  wonderful  new  programs 
where  clinical  geneticists,  even  those 
with  disabilities,  are  conducting  corpo- 
rate programs,  demystifying  genetic  dis- 
orders as  employment  criteria  or  indi- 
cators of  high  insurance  risk. 

That  also  presupposes  that  human 
geneticists  can  give  a  responsible  account 
of  their  own  discipline's  history,  both  its 
applications  and  its  limitations.  Many 
genetic  scientists  don't  know  the  history. 
These  guys  —  like  me  —  are  lab  rats  who 
never  see  the  light  of  day,  and  really 
don't  know  what  the  problems  are.  They 
just  do  their  experiments  and  write  their 
grants,  which  are  hyped  versions  of  their 
work's  importance  and  how  it's  going  to 
transform  society.  Look  at  the  rhetoric 
around  the  Human  Genome  Project  — 
"the  holy  grail,  the  essence  of  humanity, 
every  illness  is  genetic."  It's  a  skewed  and 
narrow  way  of  looking  at  the  problems. 

We  have  to  re-educate  the  human 
geneticists  —  or  at  least  historically  edu- 
cate the  human  geneticists,  as  well  as  the 
public  at  large.  Human  geneticists  have 
to  be  in  the  vanguard  of  teaching  the 
limited  applicability  of  human  genetic 
information  in  making  social  decisions. 

SD:  What  about  eugenics? 

PB:  Ideas  about  genetics  start  out 
positive  and  hopeful  —  liberation  from 
the  curse  of  one's  parents,  new  treat- 
ments for  disorders,  new  freedom  to 
make  choices.  But  then  questions  of 
control  and  determinism  appear.  What 
are  we  going  to  pass  on  to  our  children? 

The  history  of  genetics  in  the  U.S.  is 
just  full  of  eugenics  —  from  forced 
sterilizations  and  the  Immigration  Acts, 
to  sickle-cell  screening  programs,  to  new 
calls  for  population  and  immigration 
controls. 

GW:  Issues  of  crime  and  heredity? 

PB:  Crime  and  heredity  is  a  very  good 
example  of  applying  genetic  explanations 
to  social  problems.  If  the  link  is  accepted, 
it  implies  the  elimination  of  the  people 
who  are  genetically  susceptible  to  one 
thing  or  another  —  and  that's  eugenics. 

If  you  look  at  other  cultures,  it's  even 
more  profound.  I  don't  think  that 
genetics  necessarily  has  to  be  that  way.  It 
has  to  do  with  the  way  people  learn 
about  genetics,  with  psychology,  with 
inherently  racist  societies.  Popular  gene- 
tic science  tends  to  reinforce  ethnic  and 
racial  stereotyping.  My  hypothesis  is 
that  if  we  could  find  societies  which  are 
relatively   free   from   racism   and   sexism 


43 


••R-OdESSEIl*    WCL>fftt_!:>    2t3 


and  other  forms  of  stereotyping,  they 
may  be  less  likely  to  abuse  and  more 
likely  to  intelligently  use  genetic  infor- 
mation. 

GW:  In  Backdoor  to  Eugenics,  Troy 
Duster  compares  what's  seen  as  a  legiti- 
mate genetic  question  in  Denmark  or 
Scotland — which  are  very  racially  ho- 
mogeneous— and  what's  seen  as  a  legiti- 
mate question  in  more  racially-mixed 
countries,  like  the  U.S. 

PB:  Yeah,  well,  I  think  it  can  run 
either  way,  right?  I  just  took  care  of  a 
Vietnamese  kid  who  has  Down's  Syn- 
drome, and  his  family  had  never  noticed! 
I  attribute  that  to  fairly  homogeneous 
societies  —  it  either  has  to  be  so  shocking, 
so  different  that  they  just  say  "it's 
different"  (and  probably  discriminate 
against  it),  or  they  assume  it's  part  of  the 
homogeneity  of  the  group.  Our  society  is 


economically  and  politically  stratified. 
The  genes  of  the  lower  ranks  are  thought 
to  be  less  desirable  than  genes  of  the 
higher  ranks. 

SD:  How  are  people  reacting  to 
possible  and  real  discrimination?  Are 
people  lying  or  refusing  to  be  tested? 

PB:  I'm  to  some  extent  pleased  that 
many  people  who  would  potentially 
"benefit"  from  a  new  test  are  declining  it. 
One  of  the  reasons  is  that  they  have  a 
sense  that  discrimination  will  follow. 
TTiey  also  don't  want  the  information 
for  other  personal  reasons;  that's  their 
business.  Many  people  will  decline  to 
have  the  test  for  Huntington's  or  cystic 
fibrosis  if  they're  given  the  option. 

Other  people  who  have  genetic  infor- 
mation about  themselves  will  lie  about 
it.  Some  insurance  agents  will  encourage 
people  to  lie  because  they  know  honesty 


will  lead  to  denial  of  coverage.  Physicians 
will  obfriscate  this  material  in  medical 
records  and  billing  so  that  insurance 
companies  don't  get  it,  because  many 
physicians  —  quite  correctly  —  want  to 
protect  their  patients. 

SD:  Would  that  impair  later  treat- 
ment? 

PB:  If  that  information  weren't  readily 
available  and  the  patient  were  having  an 
acute  something-or-other,  yes,  that 
could  be  a  problem. 

SD:  Have  you  heard  of  people  who 
are  forced  to  stay  in  jobs  for  insur- 
ance? 

PB:  Well,  not  exactly.  I've  heard  many 
people  take  it  into  consideration,  and  I'd 
encourage  that.  If  you're  considering 
undergoing  genetic  testing  for  anything, 
you  should  take  care  of  any  job  and 
insurance  issues  before  you  do  it.  And 
you  should  be  aware  that  insurance 
companies  may  not  want  to  pay  for  it,  or 
they'll  make  insurance  contingent  upon 
you  paying  for  it. 

SD:  What  do  you  know  about  the 
bill  introduced  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives? 

PB:  The  Genome  Privacy  Act  protects 
one's    right    to    find    out    what    genetic 
information  is  being  held  by  an  agency, 
to   rectify    it,    and   to   sue    if  it's   being 
abused.  It's  an  interesting  starting  point. 
I  like  the  civil  rights  model  better  than 
the  consumer  credit  model,  which  doesn't 
get    at    the    issue    of    why    companies 
should    have    any    right    to    store    the 
information  in  the  first  place.  I  was  listed 
as  one  of  the  act's  sponsors,  but  I  think 
it's  flawed.   I  hope  that  the  discussion 
heads  more  towards  "rights." 

GW:  Do  you  see  any  roadblocks  to 
a  darker  use  of  genetics — forcing 
people's  decisions  rather  than  inform- 
ing them? 

PB:  There'll  be  a  group  that'll  say  we 


f*8«:><i:ssissi>  wor-LC*  2t3 


A9 


should  look  at  high  susceptibility  and 
low  susceptibility  individuals,  and  people 
who  are  highly  susceptible  and  act 
irresponsibly  should  not  have  access  to 
care  or  should  pay  more  for  it.  It's  like, 
"if  you  smoke,  you  can't  have  health 
insurance"  —  or  if  you  have  a  "bad  gene" 
and  you  act  irresponsibly,  you  should  be 
punished.  I  don't  think  it's  right,  but  I 
can  see  that  happening. 

GW:  There  seems  to  be  an  un- 
healthy fascination  with  technique, 
and  Httle  consideration  of  the  im- 
pUcations.  Or  is  that  just  a  reflec- 
tion of  what  gets  published? 

PB:  No,  I  think  you're  quite  right.  I 
think  genetics  is  a  "gee  whiz"  kind  of 
science.  No  one  anticipated  that  it  would 
get  so  detailed,  sophisticated,  and  mirac- 
ulous so  quickly.  People  just  don't  talk 
about  the  limitations.  No  one  ever  said 
that  basic  scientists  could  understand 
the  problems  of  society.  These  are  nar- 
row, focused,  ambitious  guys.  There's  no 
reason  to  want  them  to  be  leading  our 
society. 

GW:  The  people  who  are  pushing 
for  a  genetic  explanation  of  complex 
behaviors  —  alcoholism,  mental  re- 
tardation, crime  —  are  often  people 
who  aren't  geneticists. 

PB:  Yeah  that's  true.  Troy  Duster 
actually  has  some  nice  data  on  that. 

GW:  What  would  you  be  doing  if 
you  had  control  over,  say,  National 
Science  Foundation  funding? 

PB:  That's  a  good  question.  Well,  I 
would  apply  it  to  the  common  disorders. 
That's  a  reasonable  application  of  genet- 
ics, because  we  don't  have  a  clue  about 
the  etiology  of  many  common  disorders. 
We  know  that  environmental  factors  are 


©I .  B.  NELSOH 

involved,  but  I  think  that  that  should  be 
equally  —  or  more  —  funded,  since  we 
already  know  certain  risk  factors. 
I  don't  think  it's  inappropriate  to 
apply  genetics  to  any  and  all  questions. 
At  the  same  time  you  have  to  acknowl- 
edge the  limitations  of  the  insight  that 
you're  going  to  get.  And  if  you  find  a 
genetic  link  to  cancer,  or  a  genetic  link 


to  heart  disease,  or  even  to  mental 
disorders,  it's  only  the  first  step  in  trying 
to  describe  a  system  which  is  extremely 
complex.  Genetic  information  may  be 
an  important  step,  or  it  may  he  a  totally 
irrelevant  step.  It's  right  to  study  things 
that  affect  a  lot  of  people  and  cause  a  lot 
of  misery.  So  that's  what  I'd  do. 

GW:  Our  last  issue  looked  at 
"The  Good  Job,"  and  we  had  a  lot 
of  people  who  were  leftists,  or  at 
least  liberals,  who  drifted  into 
jobs  that  had  pretensions  in  that 
direction  —  the  ACLU,  labor  un- 
ions, co-operatives,  etc.  Do  you 
have  a  good  job?  And  if  so,  why? 

PB:  The  only  good  part  about  my  job 
is  that  I  teach.  Education  is  a  very  big 
part  of  this.  I  sit  around  with  people  like 
you,  and  do  a  lot  of  TV  and  other  stuff, 
because  I  think  it's  a  modern  form  of 
public  education.  And  I  do  research, 
which  has  a  "morally  redeemable"  side 
to  it.  But  I  work  in  the  private  medical 
world,  and  my  salary  is  paid  out  of  the 
profits  of  a  private  medical  institution,  so 
in  that  case  I  suppose  I  am  a  representa- 
tive of  a  system  which  is  in  fact  disor- 
dered, and  causing  people  problems. 


If  you  feel  you've  been  genetically  discriminated  against,  please  contact: 

Dr.  Paul  Billings.,  M.D.,  Ph.D.,  Dept.  of  Medicine,  California  Pacific  Medical  Center 

P.O.  Box  7999,  San  Francisco,  CA  94120,  or  call  (415)  923-3575. 


THIS  WPUM  WILP 

|HEr,  Citizens/  ifs  tiwe  pory£t  mother  editiom  qf  -how  7ms  mws  wof>Ks:. 


by   TOM   TOMORROW 


STLPONE.^^t  PRESIDENT  DE- 
SCRIBE*, IN  VA&OE  AND  6ENEC- 
AL  TERMS,  THE  BENEFITS  OF  A 
FREE  TR/U>f  A6flCfAlf Vr 
VNlTH>M£X'/CC3. 


GROWTH.'  BLAM! 
5iMi.  &LAH.' 


sr£P  rwo:  m  economist  6 

TROTTED  OUT  To  EXPtAIN  HOW 
THI20WIN&  THOUSANDS  OF 
PEOPLE  OJT  OF  WOCK  WILL 
|3E  6O0P  For  THE  ECOl^OMf- 


H0U5EE-.0NCE  BOSI- 
N£5<.es  ARE  F1«EE  To 
MOVE  OPERATIONS  To 

/M/x/ro... 


Tf 


...THEY  WILL  NO  L0N6ER 
BE  FORCEO  tb  PAT  iWof.- 
Bn?\NT  WAOEiTO  AMEC- 
jCAN  WOtKtf-i .'  CoRfbi- 
ATE  PRoFl^i.  WILL  SOA^.' 
THE  ECONOMY  WILL  TuM 
GROUND'. -XAl  RfCEiVON 
WiU  £hJC>; 


STEFTHRE£:  POS&ISlt--  JUST 
POiSIBLY'-h  KZ^O^TZi.  WILL 

ASK  THE'  OBV10U5  iJuEsTioM... 


...BUT--WHAT  WIL'.  HAPftN 
To  ALL  THE  weRXE^S  WI^.O 
LOSE  THEIR  ylOBS? 


STEP  Four:  DOUBTi  THUS 
A5SUA6ED  BY  &LIB  gEAiSl^R" 
AMC£S,  TrtE  MAlNSTREAfA  NEWi 
MEDIA  FAai  DuTiFULlY  \mv 
LINE... 


•  -AND  AFTER-  ALL"  WrtAT5 
&00D  roiZ  BUilN£ii  1^ 
600D  FOR  AfAEmcA  ! 


ST£P  Five:  THE  PgEiiDeNT 

EvENTfAuY  e-er^.  his  way. 

P/5.PLAceD  tVoR<££$  ARE  CE' 
TRAlNEb  AND  SETTLE  iNFo 
Fi;iFlU/NS  MEW   CAREER. 


\  VOU  WANT  Fli\V>\ 
JwiTH  THAT? 


SO 


••fftCXI^SSSSO    >/♦•<!>  FtLO    :5t3 


TMS 


FUTURE 


T \\  ^^^^  Salquist  is  a  model  of  the  enlightened  manager  of  the 
^■^  V  new  "clean"  industries  clustered  around  California's  uni- 
v_versity  towns.  In  a  meeting  with  activists,  he  and  his  staff  dress  in 
jeans  and  sneakers.  They  look  more  like  environmentalists  than 
the  environmentalists,  who  show  up  in  suits  and  ties.  Salquist,  a 
former  nuclear  submiarine  engineer  who  once  ran  a  solar  energy 
company,  is  president  and  owner  of  Calgene,  a  Davis,  California- 
based  biotechnology  company.  Avoiding  the  inflated  claims  of  a 
new  industrial  revolution,  he  comments  that  "[o]ur  influence  will 
be  fairly  opaque  to  the  customer.  .  .It's  not  a  revolution,  but  an 
evolution." 


This  slow  entry  into  the  economy  may 
well  be  a  major  obstacle  to  mobilizing 
interest  in  biotechnology.  Proponents 
promise  the  public  cures  for  cancer  and 
a  solution  to  hazardous  waste,  while 
critics  focus  on  the  potential  for  major 
disasters.  Neither  has  come  to  pass.  The 
increasing  use  of  biotech  products  will 
accelerate  existing  patterns;  the  develop- 
ment of  herbicide  tolerant  plants  will 
probably  increase  the  use  of  dangerous 
agricultural  chemicals.  Biosynthetic  human 
growth  hormone  may  help  people  af- 
flicted with  dwarfism,  but  the  product  is 
being  increasingly  used  on  children  whose 
parents  would  like  them  taller,  or  by  ath- 
letes looking  for  an  untraceable  alter- 
native to  steroids. 


The  University-Industrial  Complex 

Most  biotech  firms  settle  near  univer- 
sities because  both  the  means  of  produc- 
tion and  the  end  product  (the  informa- 
tion on  the  sequence  of  bases  in  genes) 
originates  there.  Grad  students'  training 
is  publicly  funded,  and  they  work  cheap. 

Significant  work  in  university  labs  is 
done  under  contract  with  private  inter- 
ests. Calgene  was  founded  when  a 
professor  at  UC  Davis  received  a  re- 
search grant  from  a  chemical  company 
which  was  also  an  investor.  As  tenure 
becomes  harder  to  obtain  at  strapped 
public  universities,  students  are  realizing 
that  biotechnology  is  the  field  to  get  into 
and  Calgene  is  the  place  to  work. 

In  the  race  for  the  golden  double  helix, 


knowledge  is  a  commodity,  patentable 
and  ownable  by  the  giant  multination- 
als. The  courts  recently  held  that  UC 
had  the  right  to  license  and  sell  the 
reproduced  cells  of  a  former  patient 
without    compensating    him.     Already 


Yet  to  he  discovered  is 
what  happens  when  hio' 

engineered  lifeforms 
reach  the  market  and  get 

dumped  into  the  air, 
water  and  soil  in  massive 
quantities.  Unlike  toxics, 

some  of  them  will  he 

capahle  of  reproducing 

and  spreading. 


breakthroughs  and  developments  that 
might  have  been  publicly  shared  in  a 
collegial  spirit  are  being  disclosed  to 
stockholders  first,  if  at  all. 

Yet  there  is  still  little  campus  debate 
about  the  direction  of  biotech  research 
and  ownership  of  the  fruits  of  years  of 
publicly  subsidized  brain-work.  A  nota- 
ble exception  is  Farmers  for  Alternative 
Agricultural  Research,  a  fledgling  coali- 
tion of  farm  reform  groups  pressuring 
UC  over  research  priorities  that  favor 
pesticide  companies. 


How  do  Critics  Organize? 

Organizing  around  obvious  disasters 
like  Love  Canal  or  Chernobyl  left  social 
critics  of  technology  without  clear-cut 
ways  to  address  emerging  issues  and  the 
public  numb  to  subtle  shifts  whose 
impacts  are  still  years  away. 

Based  on  50  years'  experience  with  the 
chemical  industry,  our  record  of  predict- 
ing the  effects  of  new  technologies  is  not 
very  good.  Chemical  processes  are  so 
ingrained  in  our  economic  life  that  we 
no  longer  depend  on  mechanical  force  and 
the  application  of  heat  to  produce  goods. 
Many  suggest  that  the  next  production 
mode  will  rely  on  biological  forces. 

This  shift  is  already  under  way.  Cali- 
fornia is  home  to  almost  a  third  of  the 
world's  new  microbiology  and  genetic 
industries,  and  most  of  them  are  still 
developing  and  testing  —  manufacturing 
is  still  in  the  future.  As  a  result,  biotech 
may  be  one  of  the  first  technologies  we 
can  examine  before  it  takes  hold  in  the 
market. 

We've  already  witnessed  the  mobiliza- 
tion of  public  opinion  against  Advanced 
Genetic  Sciences'  (AGS)  proposed  re- 
lease of  a  bacteria  edited  to  prevent  frost 
blight  when  sprayed  on  crops.  The 
bacteria  promised  to  save  farmers  mil- 
lions in  crop  losses,  but  its  greatest 
consequence  would  be  to  allow  cold- 
sensitive  crops  to  grow  in  colder  cli- 
mates, possibly  placing  untrammeled 
habitat  (read  "unproductive  wasteland") 
under  the  plow. 

The  Foundation  on  Environmental 
Trends  led  a  lengthy  battle  against 
researchers'  plans  to  test  the  engineered 
bug's  field  performance.  The  Foundation 
raised  a  variety  of  concerns  and  argued 
in  court  and  the  press  for  an  Environ- 
mental Impact  Report  (EIR).  Some 
scientific  critics  even  suggested  that  the 
bug's  genetic  changes  might  be  shared 
with  wild  relatives,  disrupting  global 
weather.  Most  focused  on  micro-impacts 
which  are  hard  to  prove  or  disprove. 
The  press  was  fascinated  by  the  conflict 
between  scientists  and  critics,  and  the 
potential  for  extreme  disaster. 


f»B«:L»<iiESSEC>  w«::>R.i.i>  :^q 


SI 


The  initial  test  site  was  in  Monterey 
County,  with  subsequent  tests  slated  for 
remote  Modoc  County,  near  the  Oregon 
border.  Local  farmers  mobilized  in  op- 
position to  the  release  at  the  original  site, 
and  Monterey  County  adopted  ordi- 
nances that  required  a  permit  and  a  full 
EIR.  The  delay  and  public  review  dis- 
couraged testing,  and  AGS  shifted  to  a 
more  politically  apathetic  area  in  the 
agricultural  San  Joaquin  Valley.  Bay 
Area  green  advocates  failed  to  develop 
the  grassroots  support  they  had  around 
the  coastal  test  site,  and  the  company, 
with  the  support  of  UC,  organized  its 
own  outreach.  There  were  more  delays 
as  legal  wrangles  continued,  and  when 
those  failed,  vandals  ravaged  the  site. 
The  test  was  conducted  anyway,  the 
AGS  product  turned  out  to  be  worth- 
less, and  global  weather  patterns  have 
remained  stable  (well,  it  has  been  hot 
lately  in  Sacramento).  [See  also  letter  in 
PW  20  from  anonymous  group  uiho  attacked 
similar  test  in  1987.] 

The  number  of  these  tests  is  increasing 
daily.  Yet  to  be  discovered  is  what 
happens  when  bioengineered  lifeforms 
reach  the  market  and  get  dumped  into 
the  air,  water  and  soil  in  massive 
quantities?  Unlike  toxics,  some  of  them 
will  be  capable  of  reproducing  and 
spreading. 

Several  neighborhoods  have  waged 
fights  against  biotech  facilities.  In  San 
Francisco,  residents  near  the  UCSF 
medical  school  have  successfully  chal- 
lenged plans  to  expand  biotech  labs 
which,  according  to  the  opposition, 
would  have  housed  Navy  bio-warfare 
research.  In  New  York,  Harlemites  have 
fought  Columbia  University's  plan  to 
tear  down  the  Avalon  Ballroom  (scene 
of  Malcolm  X's  assassination)  for  a  new 
biological  research  and  development 
complex. 

Crack  For  Cows 

Another  major  projected  product  of 
the  biotech  industry  is  a  pharmaceutical 
drug  for  dairy  cattle  called  bovine 
growth  hormone  (BGH  —  also  known  as 
BST).  Cows  produce  the  hormone 
themselves  to  regulate  milk  production. 
More  BGH,  more  milk.  So  Dow-Elanco, 
American  Cynamid,  Upjohn  and  Mon- 
santo engineered  a  bacterium  to  create 
it. 

The  problem  is  that  there's  already  too 
much  milk.  Increased  milk  production 
through  a  costly  input  that  demands 
additional  management  would  drive 
smaller    producers    out    of   an    already 


marginal  industry,  and  encourage  larger 
herds  and  concentration  in  ownership. 
And  consumers  are  leery  of  food  tamper- 
ing. 

The  campaign  against  BGH  has  fo- 
cused on  these  constituencies.  Regional 
coalitions  have  asked  major  dairy  proc- 
essors to  pledge  they  won't  purchase 
BGH  milk.  While  the  biosynthetic  hor- 
mone is  not  licensed  for  general  use,  milk 
from  test  herds  is  sold  in  secret.  In 
California,  where  distributors  required 
dairies  to  certify  that  no  milk  from  test 
cows  was  entering  the  food  supply,  milk 
was  sold  instead  to  federal  food  giveaway 
programs.  Since  40%  of  all  dairy  cows 
eventually  end  up  as  hamburger,  it  is 
possible  that  some  meat  from  experi- 
mental animals  also  ended  up  as 
McBGH  burgers. 


Memibi 


j_^i^^^ 


We  have  perfected  the  anti-monarchical 

genetic  buijet.  A  small  pellet  dissolved 

in  bovine-growth-hormone-rich  milk 

before  bed,  and  that's  it! 

KINGS  &  QUEENS 

PRINCES  &  PRINCESSES 

DUKES,  EARLS,  COUNTS 

PRETENDERS  &  POSEURS 

GONE 

FOR 

GOOD! 

Ask  about  our  other  products  for 

Popes,  Presidents,  and 

Corporate  CEOs! 


Graphic:  C.C. 


The  manufacturers  of  the  drug  have 
reportedly  spent  almost  $250  million  just 
in  development.  Some  sources  have 
estimated  that  annual  sales  could  reach 
$2.5  billion.  Given  these  stakes,  the  fight 
to  bring  the  product  to  market  will  be 
fierce.  The  federal  Food  &.  Drug  Admini- 
stration (FDA),  which  favors  wide  use  of 
the  hormone,  has  been  charged  with 
covering  up  documented  increases  in 
rates  of  illness  in  BGH  test  animals.  Op- 
ponents of  BGH  organized  a  national 
consumer  boycott,  complete  with  tele- 
vision spots  (one  featured  a  hypoder- 
mic syringe  in  a  glass  of  milk).  A  com- 
prehensive report  detailing  the  economic, 
animal,  and  human  health  issues  was 
released  by  Consumers  Union,  and  the 
FDA  postponed  its  decision  on  the  drug 
for  another  year. 

Although  the  product  has  been  a 
black  eye  for  the  industry,  BGH  has  not 
slowed  another  biosynthetic  product 
from  widespread  use  in  the  dairy  indus- 
try. Chymosin,  a  synthetic  form  of 
rennet,  used  in  cheesemaking,  had  a 
35%  market  share  by  mid- 1990. 


Antebellum  Redux 

Despite  the  need  to  challenge  this  new 
industry,  movement  building  will  be 
difficult.  Many  effects  of  biotech  will  be 
economic,  and  the  labor  movement  has, 
for  the  most  part,  lost  the  ability  to 
organize  around  economic  issues.  The 
victims  of  biotech  are  isolated  and 
frequently  unaware  of  the  sources  of 
their  injury.  The  industry  is  a  phantom, 
still  more  talk  than  product.  The  few 
pharmaceutical  products  produced  by 
bioengineering  are  expensive  and  limited 
in  their  use. 

The  nature  of  the  industry's  intentions 
are  clear.  When  asked  about  his  vision 
for  agriculture,  Roger  Salquist  argues 
that  saving  family  farms  is  irrational. 
"Nobody  did  anything  to  save  inde- 
pendent record  stores  or  groceries  or 
service  stations  or  all  the  other  extinct 
vestiges  of  post-Industrial  Revolution 
America."  Despite  years  of  rhetoric 
about  preserving  America's  rural  base, 
biotech  policy  ensures  that  smallholders 
in  the  US  will  go  the  way  of  the  formerly 
self-reliant  victims  of  Dole  and  United 
Fruit  in  the  Philippines  and  Central 
America.  The  corporate  biotech  vision 
of  enormous  plantations  growing  pat- 
ented seeds  may  soon  spring  to  life. 

— Sam  Bulova 


52 


f»R.O<::ESSEO    W<I>K.t_Il>    1^3 


GENERATION  OF  SLACKERS 

Generation  X:  tales  for  an 
accelerated  culture 

by  Douglas  Coupland 

St.  Martin's  Press,  1991.  $12.95 

with  some  additional  comments  on  the 

films  of  Hal  Hartley,  and  others 

As  a  soon-to-be  post-twentynothing,  I 
read  Generation  X  with  a  great  deal  of 
interest.  I'm  tired  of  people  telling  me 
what  I'm  supposed  to  be,  or  more  often 
these  days,  what  I  am  not.  I've  lived  for 
years  in  the  taciturn  shadows  of  the 
sixties,  being  a  sort  of  Type  A  "slacker," 
with  thinly  concealed  disrespect  and 
distaste  for  the  world  I've  inherited, 
lacking  faith,  hope,  and  yes,  charity 
towards  my  elders,  who  by  virtue  of  the 
temporal  roulette,  expect  my  obeisance. 

Age  is  relative.  "If  you  remember  the 
sixties,  you  weren't  there,"  runs  a  cur- 
rent refrain.  I  remember  them  only  too 
well,  even  if  I  had  little  to  say  at  the 
time— who  would  listen? 

Suffering  the  terminal  wanderlust  of 
the  first  jet-set  generation,  with  beat/ 
hippie  forebears,  we're  always  looking 
for  that  virgin  runway  to  escape  the 
soul-jangling  chords  of  expatriate  solips- 
ism. In  moments  of  incendiary  madness, 
I'd  just  as  soon  we  burn  the  whole 
shooting  match  of  this  modern  world 
(not  you,  Tom!)  down  to  the  ground, 
and  start  over  with  a  charred  slate.  Is  it 
an  atavistic  memory,  a  sympathy  for  the 
dinosaurs,  that  feeds  our  fascination  for 
their  catastrophic  extinction? 

We  have  been  an  invisible  generation. 
Time  Magazine  calls  us  "freshly  minted 
grownups."  Coming  at  the  tail-end  of 
the  baby  boom— sometimes  we  call  our- 
selves the  "baby  doomers" — now,  turn- 
ing thirty,  we  reveal  ourselves  in  movies 
like  Slacker,  any  of  Atom  Egoyan's  films 
(Speaking  Parts,  Family  Viewing),  or  Hal 
Hartley's  {Trust,  The  Unbelievable  Truth). 
Now  we've  found  a  literary  voice  in 
Douglas  Coupland's  Generation  X— a 
book  that  says  something  about  who  we 
are.  It  plunges  into  the  desert  of  our  age, 
and  comes  back  with  a  searing  portrait 
of  the  mirror  at  midnight,  melting  in  the 
nuclear  shadows. 

Its  author  is  tersely  described  as  "from 
British  Columbia,  Canada."  Just  finding 
his  book  in  a  bookstore  can  be  a 
challenge.  It  measures  8  by  9  inches,  and, 
defying  categorization,  is  as  likely  to  be 
shelved  in  the  aging,  art  or  anthropology 
sections,  as  it  is  in  fiction. 


Generation  X  concerns  three  twenty- 
something  opt-outs  who  live  in  adjacent 
bungalows  in  Palm  Springs,  California. 
They  each  work  "Mcjobs"  in  various 
service  industries,  having  abandoned  the 
"veal-fattening  pens"  of  their  home- 
towns of  L.A.,  Portland  and  Toronto. 

"Where  you're  from  feels  sort  of  irrele- 
vant these  days,"  muses  the  narrator, 
"since  everyone  has  the  same  stores  in 
their  mini-malls." 

Claire,  Dag,  and  Andrew  instead 
choose  to  "live  small  lives  on  the 
periphery;  we  are  marginalized  and 
there's  a  great  deal  in  which  we  choose 
not  to  participate.  We  wanted  silence 
and  we  have  that  silence  now .  .  .  Our 
systems  had  stopped  working,  jammed 
with  the  odor  of  copy  machines,  white 
out,  the  smell  of  bond  paper,  and  the 
endless  stress  of  pointless  jobs  done 
grudgingly  to  little  applause." 

On  the  surface,  they  treat  each  other 
antiseptically— it  is,  after  all,  a  desert 
they're  in.  Their  intimacy  is  a  common 
exile  in  the  "platonic  shadow"  in  which 
they  spin  parables  around  nuclear  epi- 
phanies, musical  hairsplitting,  telling 
each  other  urban  folktales  late  into  their 
TV-dead  nights. 

These  are  the  notes  of  a  "Basement 
People"  who  just  can't  shake  the  sense  of 
being  marginalized  by  the  Boomers  who 
came  before  them.  Their  fears  and 
observations  are  reflected  in  chapter 
headings:  The  Sun  is  Your  Ene- 
my .  .  .  Our  Parents  Had  More ...  I  Am 
Not  a  Target  Market .  .  .  Dead  at  30 
Buried  at  70.  .  .New  Zealand  Gets 
Nuked,  Too...  Don't  Eat  Your- 
self. ..Eat  Your  Parents ...  Purchased 
Experiences  Don't  Count. 


One  of  the  pleasures  of  this  book  is  the 
hyper  au  courant  wordsmithing  and 
phrasemaking  the  author  highlights  in 
the  left  and  right  columns,  quels  bons 
fucking  mots  which  I  use  to  pepper  this 
review.  It's  a  Devil's  Dictionary  for  the 
nineties,  with  terms  like  decade  blend- 
ing, bread  and  circuits,  rebellion  post- 
ponement, consensus  terrorism  and  ter- 
minal wanderlust  to  explain  our  restless- 
ness. Some  who  are  condemned  to  sweat 
out  most  if  not  all  of  their  adult  lives  in 
the  years  after  1984,  are  going  to  suffer 
from  option  paralysis  ("the  tendency, 
when  given  unlimited  choices,  to  make 
none").  They're  not  alone. 

The  book  flashes  forward  to  the  year 
2000,  to  a  blinking  high  contrast  spin 
through  "America's  Winter  Garden" 
wher%  a  "cocaine  white  egret"  soars  over 
the  carbonized  dry  silk  of  a  slash-and- 
burned  field.  The  reader  is  left  with  a 
persuasive  though  glib  effluvium  of 
numbers  for  endnotes,  a  sort  of  Harper's 
Index  for  the  Vexed  with  citations  from 
the  Time  article,  and  other  reputable 
purveyors  of  high  precision  factoids. 

Close  to  sixty  percent  of  the  twenty- 
somethings  Time  talked  to  believe 
"There  is  no  point  in  staying  at  a  job 
unless  you  are  completely  satisfied." 
Even  more  assume  that  "Given  the  way 
things  are,  it  will  be  much  harder  for 
people  in  my  generation  to  live  as 
comfortably  as  previous  generations." 
Suburban  angst,  maybe. 

But  after  nearly  a  decade  of  Bratpack 
writers  like  Bret  Easton  Ellis  and  Tama 
Janowitz  giving  North  American  letters 
a  fetid  air  of  mediocrity,  it's  refreshing  to 
find  a  young  writer  who  does  not 
substitute  designer  names  for  imagina- 


f*B<.0<l:ESSEO    W<I>B<Lt>    :^3 


53 


tion.  Rather  than  mouthing  inanities 
through  a  crash-dive  of  delirium,  eyes 
locked  on  a  myopic  monitor,  we  see 
characters  many  of  us  might  recognize  as 
the  TV-emprismed  latchkey  kids  of  the 
suburban  living  room,  grown  up  now 
and  groping  for  ways  and  means  out  of 
this  nightmare  known  as  the  New  World 
Order. 

Of  course,  we  still  face  terra  incognita 
— the  X-niks  are  only  now  starting  to 
define  themselves,  to  express  their  post- 
modern if  premillennial  malaise.  "The 
world  is  a  dangerous  and  uncertain 
place,"  says  the  protagonist  of  Hal 
Hartley's  short  film  Ambition.  In  Trust, 
Martin  Donovan  groans,  "I  gotta  go  see 
this  jerk  about  a  job."  Or,  in  Theory  of 
Achievement,  Bob  Gosse  quips,  "I'm 
bad  at  my  job  on  purpose.  If  I  was  any 
better  at  it,  I  might  become  what  I  do  for 
a  living." 

Diagnosing  ills  has  always  been  easier 
than  prescribing  a  cure,  yet  to  ignore 
today  is  to  blindside  tomorrow.  If  hind- 
sight is  20/20,  the  future  may  be  catar- 
acts. Reading  books  like  Generation  X  is  a 
good  way  to  go  before  the  sky  dims. 

-D.S.  Black 

The  City,  Not  Long  After 

by  Pat  Murphy 

Bantam  Spectra  Books,  1990.  $4.50 

This  surrealist  speculative  fiction  novel 
struck  my  fancy  because  its  premise  is  a 
radically  depopulated  city  of  San  Fran- 
cisco sometime  in  the  not  too  distant 
future.  The  people  have  been  killed;  in 
fact,  most  people  in  the  developed  world 
have  died  from  an  airborne  virus  carried 
by  Peace  Monkeys  imported  from  the 
mountains  of  Nepal. 

This  epidemic  is  the  ironic  result  of  a 
worldwide  campaign  by  peace  activists  to 
put  an  old  prophecy  to  the  test,  to  see  if 
the  monkeys  could  truly  bring  peace. 
They  got  more  than  they  bargained  for 
when  within  a  few  short  months 
hundreds  of  millions  perished  from  the 
new  plague,  passed  from  one  primate  to 
another. 

San  Francisco's  survivors  are  a  hardy 
150  or  so,  mostly  poets,  conceptual 
artists,  and  peculiarly  innocent  people, 
along  with  a  cast  of  unknown  dozens  of 
ghosts,  spirits  and  the  city  of  San 
Francisco  itself.  The  City  manages  to 
direct  its  inhabitants  where  they  need  to 
go  through  its  ever-shifting  layout. 

This  arty  collection  of  slackers  and 
survivors  is  menaced  by  the  imminent 
invasion  of  a  loony  right-wing  America 
First  militarist  who  has  already  built  a 


BREAD  AND  CIRCUITS: 

The  electronic  era  tendency  to 
view  party  politics  as  corny — no 
longer  relevant  or  meaningful  or 
useful  to  modern  societal 
issues,  and  in  many  cases 
dangerous. 

CRYPTOTECHNO- 
PHOBIA:    The  secret  belief 
that  technology  is  more  of  a 
menace  than  a  boon. 

TERMINAL 

WANDERLUST:    A  condition 
common  to  people  of  transient 
middle-class  upbringings.  Unable 
to  feel  rooted  in  any  one 
environment,  they  move 
continually  in  the  hopes  of 
finding  an  idealized  sense  of 
community  in  the  next  location. 

VIRGIN  RUNWAY:    A 

travel  destination  chosen  in  the 
hopes  that  no  one  else  has 
chosen  it. 

small  empire  and  subjugated  most  of 
California's  Central  Valley.  He  is  intent 
on  bringing  San  Francisco  into  his  fold 
of  upright  Americanism.  The  surrealists, 
iconoclasts,  traders,  and  doodlers  of  SF 
embark  on  a  house  of  mirrors  (and 
ghosts)  defense  of  their  beloved  City. 

Pat  Murphy  does  a  nice  job  of  evoking 
an  empty  city,  the  scavenging  lifestyle 
available  to  the  few  survivors,  and 
weaves  in  various  magical  realist  ele- 
ments as  well.  What  I  found  disappoint- 
ing, in  spite  of  my  basic  enjoyment  of  the 
book,  was  that  once  again  an  interesting 
premise  of  a  radically  different  society  is 
constrained  by  its  arrival  through  un- 
precedented catastrophe.  The  essential 
questions  of  work  and  wealth  are  avoid- 
ed by  having  a  very  few  people  living  in 
perpetuity  from  the  rubble  of  the  old 
world.  I  want  to  read  books  about  a  new 
world  where  exciting  urban  living  is 
combined  with  a  radically  changed  or- 
ganization of  life.  Oh  well.  Maybe  the 
next  one! 

—Chris  Carlsson 

MONDO  REALITY  HIGH 

Mondo  2000  ^  Reality  Hackers  ^ 
High  Frontiers 

P.O.  Box  10171,  Berkeley,  CA  94709 
$24/5  issues;  $5.95  single  issue 

Let's  get  virtual,  baby.  Snap  on  your 
DataSuit;  put  your  clips  on.  .  .my  ear- 
lobe.  What,  you're  not  in  the  mood  for 
some  teledildonics?  Then  let's  get  meta- 


physical. With  Brian  Eno!  Timothy 
Leary!  Kathy  Acker!  William  S.  Bur- 
roughs! Robert  Anton  Wilson!  Come 
ride  the  electronic  frontier!  Gather 
round  the  cathode  ray  campfire  for  some 
High  Definition  weenies.  The  penumbral 
haloes  you  see  are  a  harmless  side  effect 
of  the  smart  drugs— breakfast  of  reality 
hackers! 

If  this  tachycardiac  intro  betrays  a 
certain  breathlessness,  then  you  can 
imagine  the  excitement  I  feel  with  the 
arrival  of  each  new  issue  of  Mondo  2000, 
hotbed  for  these  and  other  screaming 
memes  aflame  in  the  neuroelectric  fire- 
storm of  these  neophilic  nineties.  Mondo 
is  a  feast  of  up-to-the-nanosecond  intel- 
ligence— the  news  from  the  crackling  syn- 
aptic bonfire  of  late  20th  century  tech- 
novanities. 

When  I  want  to  know  more  about 
"cyberpunk  .  .  .  the  attitude  .  .  .  where 
to  get  it,"  I  reach  for  Mondo.  When  the 
urge  hits  me  to  hook  a  MIDI  innerface  to 
the  old  PC,  or  to  check  out  the  latest  in 
pornographic  software  ("The  Carpal 
Tunnel  of  Love"),  this  is  the  place  for  all 
the  down  and  dirty,  the  sacred  and 
profane  in  this  age  of  silicon  and  cellular 
automata. 

What  I  like  about  Mondo  is  its  funki- 
ness.  For  look  and  feel,  Mondo  (or  M2,  as 
it  tags  itself)  has  some  of  the  busiest,  and 
if  you're  into  that  MacClutter  of  graphic 
devices,  some  of  the  bitchinest  bytes  to 
come  down  the  digital  pike.  It  should 
only  be  a  matter  of  time  before  a 
mindblowing  blipvert  edition  of  this  mag 
is  available,  or  maybe  even  some  daring 
new  optical  blotter  format  for  the  real 
wireheads.  As  writer  (and  Grateful  Dead 
lyricist)  John  Perry  Barlow  remarks  on 
virtual  reality  in  the  summer  1990  issue 
(no. 2),  "cyberspace  is  already  crawling 
with  delighted  acid  heads." 

Riffling  through  some  old  issues,  its 
earlier  incarnations,  one  flashes  back  to 
panegyrics  to  MDMA  (Ecstasy)  and 
other  stylish  designer  drugs  of  the  mid- 
eighties.  For  my  taste,  there  have  been  a 
few  too  many  cloying,  credulous  and 
seemingly  unedited  interviews  with  Ti- 
mothy Leary,  John  Lilly,  Ram  Dass,  and 
other  eminences  grises  of  the  psychedelic 
frontier.  One  can  turn  to  the  new  issue 
of  M2  (no. 4)  and  find .  . .  yet  another 
cloying,  sycophantic  interview  with  Tim- 
othy Leary  and  William  Burroughs  ("A 
Couple  of  Bohos  Shooting  the  Breeze"). 

There  is  the  occasional  serious,  pro- 
vocative, and  informational  piece,  how- 
ever—as in  issue  3's  "Civilizing  the 
Electronic  Frontier,"  which  describes  the 


54 


••fftdXIlSSiSEO   WOR.1_0    2tS 


assault  on  civil  liberties  now  being 
mounted  by  the  State  on  computer 
users  (and  yes,  the  occasional  abuser). 

But  for  every  one  of  these  hard-hitting 
features,  there  are  several  which  are 
charitably  described  as  fluff— 
Domineditrix  Queen  Mu's  exculpation 
of  Jim  Morrison  comes  readily  to  mind. 
Here  she  raises  shield  and  sword  to 
defend  him  against  the  depredations  to 
his  legend  by  Oliver  Stone's  movie  The 
Doors.  Although  I  like  Baudelaire  and 
Lautrfemont— both  of  whom  Queen  Mu 
brings  into  the  discussion— and  will  only 
too  willingly  concede  the  Doors'  singer's 
role  as  an  orphic  character,  it's  still  hard 
not  to  smile  at  Mu's  drooling  decon- 
structive  expos^,  the  tarantula  venom 
irony  of  Jim  Morrison's  penile  karma. 

This  article  might  not  have  been  so 
embarrassing  if  it  hadn't  covered  seven 
pages  of  the  new  issue.  Must  be  hard  to 
edit  a  Domineditrix. 

That's  not  the  only  lapse.  Rudy  Ruck- 
er's  incoherent  review  of  The  Difference 
Engine  (William  Gibson  and  Bruce  Ster- 
ling's new  novel),  and  Barbara  Leary's 
star-fucking  necrophiliac  piece  on  Andy 
Warhol  give  M2  its  soft-centeredness,  or 
high  squish  quotient.  For  fringe  science 
watchers,  there  is  even  an  article  on 
slime — an  important  substance  for  our 
time. 

If  it's  not  the  Interview  Magazine,  then 
perhaps  Mondo  is  a  hybrid  of  Whole 
Earth  Review  and  Rolling  Stone  for  the 
cyberscene.  I  remember  its  first  issue  as 
High  Frontiers,  when  it  appeared  in  1984: 
a  folded-over  tabloid,  nominally  going 
for  a  dollar,  though  it  was  on  the  freebie 
tables  of  most  stores  that  carried  it  in  the 
Bay  Area.  That  was  the  nice  price. 

This  "Space  Age  Newspaper  of  Psy- 
chedelics.  Science,  Human  Potential  &. 
Modern  Art"  was  part  of  a  quasi-New 
Age  Utopian  movement  which  promised 
to  blaze  a  way  for  those  of  us  afflicted  by 
the  "outward  urge"  to  slip  the  bonds  of 
gravity,  whether  astrally  or  through 
psychedelia. 

Soon,  to  reflect  the  conscious  evolu- 
tion towards  new  outlaw  technologies, 
High  Frontiers  became  Reality  Hackers, 
which  later  begat  Mondo  2000.  Along  the 
way,  it  has  remained  hip  and  compul- 
sively readable — it's  always  interesting  to 
check  in  with  Brian  Eno,  and  some 
other  people  like  Avital  Ronell  (author 
of  The  Phone  Book)  who  receive  notice. 

Ian  Shoales  contributes  a  characteris- 
tically amusing,  acerbic  commentary 
"War  is  Hell,  Peace  is  Heck"  to  the  new 
issue.    By    way    of   contrast,    the    lead 


editorial  by  the  aptly  named  R.U.  Sirius 
describes  how  the  "New  World  Disor- 
der... starts  within  yourself.  .  .when 
you  realize  that  safe  sex  is  boring  sex, 
cheap  thrills  are  fun  and  you're  as 
atavistic  as  they  are.  .  .  .This  ain't  no 
reasoned  debate.  This  is  Jehova  against 
Dionysus.  Let's  drink  that  tired  old 
self-righteous  motherfucker  under  the 
table."  Again,  shades  of  Baudelaire 
("Get  Drunk!"),  only  that  was 
then .  .  .  this  is  now;  I'm  surprised  Sirius 
doesn't  urge  all  cybersamurai  to  take 
their  grievances  to  the  street,  or  where  it 
would  really  hurt,  the  Net. 

Indeed,  times  like  these  are  screwy 
enough  to  drive  any  thinking  or  feeling 
person  to  extremes.  For  every  new 
paradigm,  there  ought  to  be  a  new 
panacea.  But  I  can't  help  wondering  if  all 
the  hype  over  virtual  reality  and  other 
technology-based  alternate  universes 
that  Mondo  touts  for  their  emancipatory 
potential  aren't  just,  in  the  final  analysis, 
a  marketing  ploy  for  the  wetdream 
consumer  goodies  that  will  surely  follow. 
The  ads  they  publish  do  nothing  to  allay 
this  concern— "Get  High  on  Oxygen! 
Take  a  Quantum  Leap  into  Higher 
Consciousness  with  Activated  Oxygen 
—The  Ultimate  Smart  Pill." 

In  the  case  of  virtual  reality  (VR),  it 
certainly  would  be  useful  to  have  RISC- 
based  access  to  computer-simulated  en- 
vironments where  the  interface  is  dis- 
crete, if  not  transparent,  and  bandwidth 
(i.e.  range)  is  constrained  only  by  the 
imagination.  Impulses  in  this  electronic 
realm  could  be  seamlessly  melded  with 
one's  perceptual  apparatus,  opening  a 
new  romantic  frontier — in  the  mold  of 
William  Gibson's  seminal  novel,  hJeuro- 
mancer.  VR  creates  an  alternate  reality 
that  is  like  television,  only  potentially 
more  rewarding  as  it  is  interactive,  with 
full  user  immersion.  The  possibilities  are 
immense:  in  issue  2  (Summer  1990),  the 
laundry  list  of  applications  includes 
"working  bodies  for  the  damaged," 
"datacondoms"  and  "travel  to  alien  worlds." 

On  the  other  hand,  those  of  us 
plugged  in,  in  the  early  part  of  this  year, 
had  the  grim  spectacle  of  smartweapon 
pyrotechnics  in  the  war  with  Iraq. 
Turning  to  the  glass  oracle  of  television, 
viewers  found  themselves  in  a  virtual 
cockpit  over  Baghdad.  Ian  Shoales,  in 
his  sarcastic  piece,  talks  about  some 
"Lessons  from  the  Mother  of  All  Post- 
war Periods" — how  it  would  have  been 
cheaper  to  throw  money  at  Iraq  to  end 
the  war  rather  than  all  those  expensive 
hi-tech  weapons. 


Yet  Mondo  is  so  enamored  of  the 
gee-whizbang  neatness,  the  goshwow 
sense  of  wonder  inspired  by  such  techni- 
cal "innovations"  as  virtual  reality — the 
understandable  dream  of  finding  a  uni- 
verse in  a  grain  of  silicon— that  I  often 
wonder  if  they're  not  showing  just  a  little 
unseemly  haste  to  leave  this  stinkin' 
cesspit  of  a  world  behind  their  television 
snow  and  mirror  shades. 

-D.S.  Black 


^JTw 


LEADED  GAS" 


Science  as  Culture 

Free  Association  Books, 

26  FreegroveRd., 

London,  N7  9RQ,  England 

20  pounds  sterling/4  issues;  $5.95  each 

Science  As  Culture,  formerly  Radical 
Science  journal,  examines  the  role  of 
science  in  society.  In  the  past  they  have 
dealt  with  topics  as  diverse  as  labor 
relations  ("Post-Fordism"  in  issue  #8); 
women's  issues — female  infanticide  in  In- 
dia (pilot  issue)  and  women  as  scientists 
(#4);  and  science  fiction  (#2  and  #5).  The 
articles  are  for  the  most  part  well 
grounded,  only  occasionally  lapsing  into 
academese. 

A  recent  issue  (#9)  has  an  article  that  is 
particularly  germane  to  this  issue  of  PW: 
"The  Double  Helix  as  Icon,"  by  Greg 
Myers.  The  topic  is  not  the  science  of 
genetics,  but  rather  its  representation. 
The  reason  for  wanting  to  analyze  this 
imagery  "...  is  not  that  the  images  carry 
cultural  significances  into  science;  histo- 
rians have  often  shown  that  science  is 
already  built  on  culturally  given  models. 
The  problem  is  that  they  superimpose 
various  significances  in  a  way  that  makes 
them  seem  naturally  related,  so  that  we 
come  to  trace  social  values  and  struc- 


f»fftO<I.ESSEC>    WOfftt-O    2ta 


ss 


tures  to  nature,  rather  than  tracing  the 
metaphors  of  nature  to  their  social 
origin." 

Among  the  meanings  that  he  exa- 
mines are:  creation-images  of  the  origin 
of  life,  etc.;  individual  identity  and 
genetic  determinism — "am  I  just  my 
genes?";  and  biotechnology  as  a  com- 
modity. He  gives  examples  by  both 
picture  and  description,  mostly  from 
magazines  that  cover  scientific  issues  for 
the  non-specialist. 

To  better  study  the  imagery  of  science 
he  identifies  three  aspects  of  representa- 
tion: the  icon,  in  which  there  is  some 
resemblance  between  the  object  and  the 
representation  (the  sun  represented  as  a 
circle  with  rays);  the  index,  in  which  the 
representation  is  produced  indirectly  by 
the  thing  represented  (such  as  a  sha- 
dow); and  the  symbol,  in  which  the 
relation  between  the  signifier  and  the 
object  is  strictly  arbitrary  (such  as  the 
letter  "A"  representing  the  amino  acid 
Adenine).  He  looks  at  other  aspects  of 
imagery  which  affect  response,  such  as 
gratuitous  detail,  which  may  serve  to 
make  an  image  seem  more  real,  or  allow 
it  to  convey  other  meanings  (such  as 
using  images  to  confirm  the  complexity 
of  science,  etc.).  The  use  of  several 
images  together  serves  to  amplify  the 
effect  of  presenting  an  indisputable  reali- 
ty, and  each  image  borrows  from  an 
existing  cultural  context  which  provides 
an  "emotional"  flavor  (e.g.,  use  of  bibli- 
cal imagery— trees  and  snakes,  for  in- 
stance, or  the  imagery  of  Frankenstein). 

One  section  examines  the  "cross- 
breeding" of  images  pertaining  to  sci- 
ence. In  a  discussion  on  the  astronautic 
metaphors  invoked  in  articles  and  ad- 
vertisements, he  makes  an  excellent 
point:  "...  all  this  spaceship  imag- 
ery. .  .makes  science  a  matter  of  tech- 
nique, not  a  matter  of  changing  con- 
cepts, of  research  styles  and  collabora- 
tion, or  interaction  between  specialties. 
As  often  happens  in  popularizations, 
technology  stands  in  for  science,  partly 
because  technology  is  more  photogenic." 

He  also  looks  at  the  "genetics  as  a 
book"  metaphor,  which  comes  complete 
with  the  implication  that  we  find  mean- 
ing, rather  than  make  it.  He  closes  by 
pointing  out  that  people  do  make  their 
own  meanings  from  this  imagery.  For 
some,  the  imagery  that  sells  genetic 
material  as  an  assembly-line  product 
may  be  repulsive;  far  from  convincing 
them  that  this  is  a  good  idea,  it  may 
galvanize  them  into  action  against  the 
process.  "[W]e  have  little  control  over 


the  images  of  science  that  enter  popular 
culture,  but  we  may  be  able  to  rewrite 
the  captions." 

— Primitivo  Morales 

Woman  Sitting  At  The  Machine, 
Thinking 

by  Karen  Brodine 

Seattle:  Red  Letter  Press,  1990.  $8.95 

/  know  that  typesetters 
grow  more  capillaries 
in  our  fingertips 
from  all  that  use. 

here's  a  test:  cut  my  fingers 
and  see  if  I  bleed  more. 

Woman  Sitting  at  the  Machine,  Think- 
ing, is  Karen  Brodine's  fourth  and  last 
book  of  poetry,  published  posthumously 
by  Red  Letter  Press.  Karen  was  an  active 
social  feminist  who  worked  for  many 
years  as  a  typesetter.  Most  of  the  poems 
encompass  her  political  views  not  only 
on  larger,  social  issues,  but  attempt  also 
to  gain  poetic  insight  into  the  "minute- 
ness" of  her  everyday  life.  Other  poems 
reflect  her  experiences  as  a  daughter  and 
granddaughter,  a  lesbian,  and  a  victim  of 
cancer. 

The  title  poem  (quoted  above)  is  a 
series  of  work  pieces  which  analyze  the 
internal  exploitation  of  the  workplace. 
From  management-labor  conflicts  to 
work  nightmares  to  stream-of-conscious- 
ness  raptures  while  daydreaming  on  the 
job,  the  poem  tracks  the  woman's 
thoughts  while  performing  repetitive  tasks. 
Her  observations  are  witty,  a  testament 
to  individual  involvement. 


we  are  their  allergy,  their  bad  dream, 
they  need  us  too  much,  with  their  talk 

of 
"carrying  us"  on  the  payroll, 
we  carry  them,  loads  of  heavy,  dull 

metal, 
outmoded  and  dusty, 
they  try  to  control  us,  building 

partitions, 
and  taking  the  faces  off  the  phones, 
they  talk  to  us  slow  and  loud, 
HOW  ARE  YOU  TODAY?  HERE'S 

A  CHECK  FOR  YOU. 
As  if  it  were  a  gift. 

we  say  even  if  they  stretched  tape 
across  our  mouths 
we  could  still  speak  to  one  another 
with  our  eyebrows. 

She   protests    against    a    system    that 
allows  workers  to  be  treated  as  commod- 


Karen  Brodine 


ities,  where  it  is  somehow  considered 
normal  to  "toss  the  body  out  on  the 
sidewalk  at  noon  and  at  five,  then  they 
spit  the  body  out  the  door  at  sixty -five." 
Through  her  protests  and  rants,  she  sees 
some  hope  for  a  better  way  of  living: 
"remember  that  fish/that  lives  so  deep/ 
it  has  grown  its  own  light/energy  glaring 
out  of  the  bulbs  of  its  eyes." 

The  second  and  third  sections,  "Fire- 
weed"  and  "Here,  Take  My  Words,"  are 
snapshots  and  reflections  of  her  child- 
hood, with  eulogies  dedicated  to  her 
musician  mother  and  activist  grand- 
mother, who  was  confined  to  a  conva- 
lescent home  during  the  latter  part  of  her 
life.  These  sections  illustrate  the  principles 
Karen  dedicated  her  life  work  to. 

The  final  section,  "Left  Feather,"  deals 
with  censorship  on  various  levels:  the 
silencing  of  her  grandmother  through  a 
series  of  job  discharges  during  the 
McCarthy  years,  the  censoring  of  sex- 
uality, or  the  struggle  to  allow  herself 
expression  and  acceptance  of  a  life  with 
cancer.  These  poems  demonstrate  her 
lyrical  abilities  more  so  than  in  any  other 
place  in  the  book.  At  times,  they  dive 
into  the  images  of  surrealism,  yet  always 
stay  in  the  language  of  the  everyday. 

The  primary  strength  in  these  poems  is 
the  content.  They  are  aggressive,  but 
often  fall  flat  on  the  page.  At  their  best, 
they  are  political  manifestos  calling  for 
an  interaction  between  bodies  and 
minds.  "All  my  life,"  she  writes,  "the 
urgency  to  speak,  the  pull  towards 
silence." 

—Marina  Lazzara 


56 


»»r.<:>c::esssi>  >/v<:i>R.t_£>  2*3 


R£PRODUCnV£  RIGMTS  RA\MT 


^  I  tried  to  stop  what  happened  that  day,  but  it  wasn't  going 
\if  to  be  stopped.  A  woman  died.  It  was  reported  as  a  car 
accident,  a  not  terribly  unusual  event.  But  it  didn't  have  to 
happen.  On  some  level,  the  clinic  escort  team  failed  miserably. 
I  was  co-coordinating  our  efforts  with  a  woman  considered  a 
warm,  nurturing  escort,  a  self-avowed  Christian-for-choice.  I 
didn't  trust  her  as  far  as  1  could  throw  her  (which  in  retro- 
spect is  what  1  should've  done). 

But  what  happened  to  a  woman  I'll 
call  "Ana"  occurred  after  she  got  into 
the  clinic.  Someone  got  to  her  boyfriend, 
perhaps  between  the  clinic  and  his  car 
after  he  dropped  her  off.  He  decided  she 
didn't  have  any  right  to  get  the  abortion. 

Either  these  old  guys 

HAVE  the  right  to  tell 

me  what  Vm  gonna  do 

with  my  uterus,  with  the 

next  one  to  twenty  years 

of  my  LIFE,  or  else  their 

campaign  has  as  much 

moral  legitimacy  as  a 

fucking  Marlboro  adl 

First  he  got  loaded.  Then  he  came  into 
the  clinic.  He  started  yelling  in  the 
waiting  room  about  how  she  couldn't 
kill  his  baby.  The  clinic  staff  ejected  him, 
warning  the  escorts  not  to  let  him  back 
in.  But  meanwhile  he'd  gotten  her  purse. 
He  demanded  to  see  Ana  after  she  was 
already  being  prepared  for  surgery.  If 
only  we  had  been  strong;  if  only  I  had 
gotten  some  of  the  women  together  and 
just  taken  back  the  purse  (the  men  on 
the  escort  team  that  morning  were  all 
very  uncomfortable  with  this  idea!). 

My  Christian  co-coordinator  instead 
chose  to  call  in  the  police.  It  seemed 
opposed  to  what  we  stood  for,  but  she 
insisted.  Something  was  already  terribly 
wrong,  and  it  got  worse  when  the  cop 
hung  out  with  the  kid,  just  talking  like 
brothers.  I  still  thought  I  could  save  the 


In  most  respects  the  morning  had 
seemed  successful.  We'd  deployed 
enough  people  around  the  clinic  that  the 
Operation  Rescue  (OR)  scouts,  checking 
all  the  clinics  open  that  morning, 
wouldn't  be  likely  to  advise  a  hit  against 
ours.  We'd  avoided  the  ORs'  attempts  to 
bump  or  trip  us  so  they  could  tell  the 
police  we  were  assaulting  them.  We'd 
brought  women  smoothly  through  a 
particularly  skilled  cohort  of  OR  "side- 
walk counselors,"  a  quartet  of  young 
women  in  their  late  teens  and  early 
twenties. 

These  "counselors"  looked.  .  .meek; 
they  stood  apart  from  the  contingent  of 
fetus-porn  sign  carriers  yelling  about 
babykilling,  and  from  the  vicious  old 
men  fondling  their  beards  (tough  old 
coots  with  military  backgrounds  written 
all  over  them).  The  "counselors" 
pounced  like  piranhas  on  any  woman 
from  fourteen  to  sixty  that  passed  near 
the  clinic.  One  of  them,  during  a 
previous  action,  had  looked  me  straight 
in  the  eye  as  I  escorted  a  client  into  a 
clinic  and,  hearing  people  use  the  famili- 
ar chant  "Pro-life,  that's  a  lie,  you  don't 
care  if  women  die,"  responded  in  an 
emphatic  whisper,  "That's  right!" 

By  the  second  time  they  messed  with  a 
client  we  were  ready.  We  blocked  their 
sign-carriers  before  they  blocked  us,  and 
formed  corridors  to  give  the  client  and 
the  escort  smooth  passage.  We  even 
dampened  the  "sidewalk  counselors'" 
piercing  cries  of  "Don't  go  in  there! 
They'll  hurt  you  and  kill  your  baby!"  by 
holding  up  our  placards  ("This  Clinic  Is 
Open"  and  "Defend  Our  Abortion 
Rights")  and  singing  "Row,  Row,  Row 
Your  Boat." 


situation.  I'd  get  him  to  leave,  then  we 
could  handle  it.  The  cops  always  claimed 
they  didn't  want  to  be  there  anyway, 
that  they  had  more  important  things  to 
do. 

I  told  the  cop  that  things  were  pretty 
much  over  for  the  morning,  that  we  had 
everything  under  control  —  gave  the 
whole  rap,  none  of  it  false.  But  now  that 
this  cop  had  been  invited  in,  like  a 
vampire,  he  wasn't  about  to  let  go.  He 
threatened  and  lez-baited  me,  obsessed 
with  getting  to  talk  to  Ana.  He  pled  the 
kid's  case.  He  lied  to  me  and  to  the  clinic 
director  in  his  efforts  to  get  her  to  bring 
Ana  out  of  recovery  to  him. 

Ana  had  said  to  me  that  she  was  never 
going  to  see  her  "boyfriend"  again,  and 
that  she  didn't  even  know  if  he  was  the 
sperm  donor  for  today's  problem.  She 
thought  he  was  pretty  crazy.  But  if  he 
had  her  purse,  how  was  she  going  to  call 
her  brother-in-law  (who,  like  most  of  her 
family,  lived  over  an  hour  from  San 
Francisco  in  a  lower-income  commuter 
town)  to  come  and  get  her?  While  she 
was  trying  to  work  out  getting  home 
without  her  purse  and  without  this 
creep,  the  policeman  was  working  to 
undermine  her  decision,  put  her  back 
into  the  intoxicated  young  man's  custo- 
dy. Finally,  he  simply  ordered  the  clinic 
to  surrender  the  patient  to  him,  and 
then  proceeded  to  badger  her  until  she 
agreed  to  go  home  with  the  drugged-out 
anti-abortion  ex-boyfriend  who'd  seized 
her  purse.  The  cop,  with  the  tacit 
support  of  the  Christian  escort  coordi- 
nator, pulled  out  all  the  emotional 
stops— He  just  wants  another  chance,  he  just 
wants  you  to  know  how  much  he  loves  you. 
(Subtext:  he's  got  a  right  to  you.  )  How 
much  did  he  love  her?  I  guess  she  found 
out.  I  hopelessly  watched  as  she  got  into 
his  flashy  car  and  drove  away. 

I  let  a  woman  be  murdered;  I  watched 
her  get  sucked  down  the  drain  by  a 
desperately  sweaty  blond  cop  who  had 
entirely  too  much  emotional  investment 
in  getting  her  to  ride  with  the  purse- 
thief.  I  learned  once  again  what  a  crock 


••fftCXHSSSEt*    WOB<t-I>    2tSi 


S7 


/In^ela. 


MqjNe  OPTME  LOOtHesx  SimEMENTS 


THERE'S  "me  ifAPUCATiON  THAT  GoOPfV\HttfTf^i&CAU  COME  OKIT  OF 

f=ORC£P  MOTWeKHOOD.  ■^rS,oF   COUf^Se,  iS   lA^SOUT/Vd  AS  HEU,  TO  AU, 

TWEMoMMiES  WHO  6iv^  iTAUWt'\/E  GOT^MOf?e  TO  RA lSC  OUfZ  KiP5  wiTH 
itmts^iTYMQsJOY,  CHOSEM  CHilVKeiJ  STiU  P*?iv/E  OmE  SAMARAS-  CWJi-PPei^ 


'^S&" 


TUB  WCi£AK  FAMILY  HAS  8EEJ^  THE  Sir^l£  MOST  PMGEf^OVS  FLACB  FOK 
UTO^  OfJE^-TRVrKJUBiOttf/  NOT  WAT  <it7S,0P  M0A(5,Fat/)?e  iMTH£ 

''^ietm'Tbufef^"'f^L Ae^e^^m.  a tki/e sc&je  whem i iv'/^s  <i, MoAfiw^ ] 


:z^ 


^'J.. 


-THAT'S  rr/   ^ 

'the  R4i/gM6Mr-/ 


'O'h.YEAH, 
AH'  StiB  PUSHBP ) 

i^e,  TOO-' 


/a  woMAM  ((Vro  -TH6  CijfJiC  PAsr " 
LAU<aH/M<2j , 

uor7 
sy6wa7t>.PN;T^ 


!■■■    KTO^-^"TT77iiii .nrnu-    ■WiJMM^  I -    '  -T '^  ^ 


/^NPAM0N6TH£M05T 
COMPfaiNO  RfiASONS 
P3(?  MOMS  TO  5e-  f*^0-^ 

oice'AK^VAii9^' 


graphic:  Angela  Socage 


of  shit  being  nice  is,  and  Ana  learned 
how  much  love  and  protection  there  was 
for  her  in  this  world.  Later  we  read 
about  a  freak  crash  on  the  freeway 
heading  to  her  small  town,  involving  a 
rare  and  flashy  vehicle  and  two  Hispanic 
teenagers. 

All  in  One  Day: 
Mainstreaming  the  End  of  Choice 

Shortly  after  columnist  George  Will 
suggested  that  rather  than  focus  the 
anti-abortion  battle  on  electoral  races 
(where  it  tends  to  be  lost),  enemies  of 
abortion  rights  re-animate  the  doctrine 
of  abortion-as-sin  by  "stigmatizing"  the 
woman  involved,  examples  of  his  strate- 
gy began  popping  up  everywhere.  Wom- 
en, already  urged  to  be  anxious  about 
everything  from  exercise  to  eyebags, 
were  now  invited  to  forget  20-plus  years 
of  the  tenuous  right  to  make  choices 
about  the  uses  of  our  uteri,  and  instead 
wring  our  hands  over  the  "moral  crisis" 
(whose?)  of  abortion. 

It  may  have  started  with  Will  and  his 
ilk,  but  our  own  willingness  to  be  such 
self-doubting  wimps  doesn't  help.  I  re- 
member a  sensitive,  oh-so-ethically- 
tortured  cover  piece  in  the  Village  Voice 


by  a  woman  who  had  apparently  had  a 
few  bad  experiences  with  feminists  (hey, 
who  hasn't?),  decrying  the  frequency  of 
abortions.  Instead  of  reaching  the  obvi- 
ous conclusion — that  current  contracep- 
tive technologies  just  aren't  good 
enough — she  joins  the  Will  chorus  and 
blames  the  women.  Her  delicate  soul  was 
tormented  by  wondering  if  women  were 
seeking  abortions  as  rites  of  passage?  New 
Age  Crap  like  this  implies  that  we 
should  instead  be  crowning  our  pubes- 
cent lasses  with  spring  blossoms  on 
windblown  beaches  while  singing  men- 
strual chants.  It's  also  callous  stupidity, 
losing  sight  of  the  fact  that  when  women 
come  of  age,  we  can  get  pregnant,  with 
or  without  chants,  garlands,  and  beach 
(which,  come  to  think  of  it,  would  be  a 
lot  nicer  than  looking  at  the  sappy 
posters  in  a  clinic  recovery  room).  So  we 
need  the  option  to  end  unwanted  preg- 
nancies, just  as  we  need  affordable 
effective  prenatal  care. 

If  we  want  to  do  anything  other  than 
begin  the  mom  life  at  fourteen  or  fifteen, 
the  sane,  smart,  even  courageous  choice 
for  a  young  woman  as  well  as  for  the 
children  she  may  one  day  raise,  is 
abortion.  The  Voice  writer  aside,  very 
few  women  that  I  know  experience  any 


physical  or  emotional  malaise  post-op. 
It's  just  like  having  a  period,  or  should 
be.  The  influence  of  "stigmatization" 
erodes  the  self-esteem  which  promotes 
physical  resilience:  some  clinic  workers 
have  told  me  they  see  more  depression, 
discomfort,  anxiety,  and  over-justifica- 
tion among  women  who  were  got  at  by 
anti-choice  family  members  or  acquaint- 
ances. Who  knows?  With  the  prolifera- 
tion of  New  Age  Crap  riding  on  the 
coattails  of  feminism  and  hippie- 
nostalgia,  we'll  probably  soon  be  prod- 
ded to  agonize  over  fetuses'  past  lives. 

My  best  friend,  the  Red  Diaper  Baby, 
has  noted  that  in  olden  times  good 
commies  simply  said,  "Beware  the  mass 
media,  they're  a  bunch  of  pigs,"  while 
today  scads  of  would-be  dissenting  voices 
buttress  their  yen  for  a  Front  Page  career 
by  producing  reams  of  analysis  of  the 
beast.  One  day  of  S.F.  Examiner  reading 
and  I'm  wondering  how  much  my 
buddy's  kidding  when  he  sighs  for  the 
straightforward  caveat  of  the  good  old 
days.  First,  the  liberal  Christopher  Mat- 
thews column  suggests  without  irony 
that  the  $5+  million  war  chest  the 
Conference  of  Catholic  Bishops  is  pre- 
paring for  a  sin-based  anti-choice  multi- 
media ad  campaign  is  modest,  even  frugal, 


53 


f*R.CI><Z:ESSEI>    WOR.t.0    3t3 


and  perhaps  does  a  service  to  "us  all." 
You  see,  it  brings  "the  debate"  out  of 
"the  cold,  clinical,  medical  realm"  where 
findings  on  brain  function  and  viability 
just  happen  to  consistently  support  call- 
ing a  fetus  a  fetus  and  a  baby  a  baby. 
Chris,  Chris,  I  wanna  cry  from  the  heart, 
there's  no  "debate"  here!  Either  these  old 
guys  have  the  right  to  tell  me  what  I'm 
gonna  do  with  my  uterus,  with  the  next 
one  to  twenty  years  of  my  life,  or  else 
their  campaign  has  as  much  moral  legitima- 
cy as  a  fucking  Marlboro  ad!  However 
ascetic  you  may  find  a  $5  million  P.R. 
budget. 

In  my  experience,  tolerance  of  apolo- 
getic, morally  sensitive  attitudes  about 
abortion  plays  into  the  same  hands 
which  the  women  and  men  who  want  to 
censor  pornography  are  tickling:  the 
Religious  Right. 

Former  car  salesman  Randall  Terry, 
the  troubled  son  of  a  violent  father  and  a 
mother  whose  family  has  a  tradition  of 
feminist  activism,  including  reproductive 
rights  work,  founded  Operation  Rescue 
in  the  mid-80s  after  an  intense  on-the- 
road  conversion  experience  whose  de- 
tails change  depending  on  whose  version 
you  hear.  OR  has  a  slick  magazine, 
state-of-the-art  computerized  fundrais- 
ing,  savvy  body-mobilizing  campaigns 
through  sympathetic  Catholic  and  fun- 
damentalist churches,  and  tenacity.  Its 
assets  have  been  seized,  its  activities 
enjoined,  but  at  this  writing,  it  seems  to 
have  returned  from  the  brink  once 
again. 

Its  Wichita  extravaganza  has  given 
George  Bush  a  chance  to  look  moderate 
as  the  Justice  Department  abets  OR's 
new  strategy— taking  the  fight  to  wom- 
en's clinics  in  the  Bible  belt  to  avoid  the 
more  aware  urban  areas  where  there  has 
been  quick  response  from  civil  liberties, 
women's,  and  gay  organizations  (as 
well  as  the  new  network  of  militant 
pro-choice  groups  which  has  arisen  all 
over  the  country,  but  mostly  in  metro- 
politan areas,  in  response  to  OR  itselO. 

Operation  Rescue  unites  groups  of 
people  who  sincerely  believe  all  the  other 
groups  are  going  to  burn  in  hell,  devout 
Roman  Catholics,  Bible-believing  Bap- 
tists and  Spirit-filled  Pentecostals,  in 
rather  authoritarian  public  displays  of 
passive  aggression:  mass  sing-,  lie-,  and 
kneel-ins  to  shut  down  medical  facilities 
where  abortion  is  offered.  With  less 
media  presence  OR  members  mount 
more  violent  attacks  against  clinics,  their 
clients    and    escorts    (calling    the    latter 


"death  squads"  is  one  of  their  more 
absurd  attempts  to  ape  activist-speak). 
The  clinic  attackers  I've  spoken  with  are 
quick  to  point  out  that  there  has  never 
been  an  OR  member  convicted  of  actual 
clinic  arson  or  bombing,  but  member- 
ship is  fluid,  and  their  training  literature 
advises  outright  deception  (key  OR  lead- 
ers in  the  Bay  Area  disavow  all  know- 
ledge of  the  organization!)  as  well  as 
vagueness  about  OR  activities  beyond 
the  orchestrated  media  events. 

A  trendy  piece  on  contemporary  Civil 
Disobedience  activism,  also  in  the  Ex- 
aminer, centers  on  one  Colonel  Ron 
Maxson,  painting  the  Nam  vet  in  rose- 
soft  hues.  This,  we're  told,  is  a  gentle, 
simple  man,  a  man  of  conviction,  fight- 
ing for  what  he  believes  despite  police 
brutality  and  a  world  that  won't  under- 
stand. What  Colonel  Ron  does  to 
express  his  great  soul  is  physically  block 
women  from  entering  medical  facilities; 
this  "activist  in  the  tradition  of  Gandhi 
and  King"  is  a  member  of  OR. 

A  fifteen-year-old  girl-child  is  left 
standing  in  the  street  waiting  for  police 
to  remove  Maxson  and  crew.  (//  they  do; 
without  strong  pressure  from  pro-choice 
groups,  police  response  is  typically  to 
order  the  clinic  closed.  At  one  OR 
action,  I  even  saw  the  officer  in  charge 
ask  the  OR  in  charge  if  there  were  any 
pro-choicers  he  wanted  arrested,  and 
proceeded  to  arrest  them.)  The  Holy 
Spirit  might  speak  in  her  heart,  Maxson 
reasons,  telling  her  not  to  go  through 
with  her  abortion.  That  these  hours 
might  also  mean  hemorrhaging  from 
laminaria  insertion,  shock,  needless 
pain,  infection,  perhaps  even  returning 
home  for  a  desperate  and  ignorant 
attempt  to  self-induce  and  possible 
death,  doesn't  bother  a  man  with  the 
guts  to  stand  by  his  convictions. 

After  all,  OR  mentor  Joe  Scheidler, 
author  of  Closed:  99  Ways  to  Stop 
Abortion,  Chicago  Pro-Life  Action 
League  founder,  and  suspected  clinic 
bombing  participant,  declared  "a  war  of 
fear  and  pain"  on  women  seeking  abor- 
tions. I've  seen  ORs  gleefully  cite  the 
(fabricated)  Closed  passage  claiming  that 
infections,  perforated  uteri,  shock,  hem- 
orrhage and  death  rates  rise  by  5-12 
percent  at  a  clinic  that  was  targeted  by 
OR.  To  Maxson,  confrontations  with 
"death  squads,"  which  have  resulted  in 
concussions,  internal  injuries,  cuts, 
sprains,  bruises,  and  at  least  one  miscar- 
riage for  clinic  escorts  to  date,  represent 
"a  spiritual  confrontation  between  good 


This  is  a  pro-choice  poem 

"Are  you  sure  you  want  to  do  this?" 

she  said  doubled  over  crying  silk 

flower  pants  drop  to  the  floor 

twenty  milligrams  of  valium  I  am 

down  but  not  out  I 

reach  for  your  hand  it  is 

doughy,  wet 

where  are  the  big-strong-mans-hands 

when  I  need  them 

WHERE  ARE  YOU? 

I  DON'T  EVEN  SEE  YOU  HERE! 

Screaming  white  all  around  me 

I  am  black 

I  am  blind 

I  can't  stand  this 

three  page  list  of  details  to  sign 

complications 

possibilities 

legal  implications 

I  don't  want  to  know 

I  cant  read  English  anymore 

I've  lost  the  power  of  language 

LANGUAGE  IS  FOR  PEOPLE 

WHO  HAVE  CHOICES! 

Your  spectacles  are  suddenly 

madman's  spectacles 

don't  tell  me  this  will  hurt  when 

you  can't  know  how  much 

knives  in  my  belly 

knives  I  say 

are  you  almost  through 

black  nurse  looks  at  me  she  thinks 

I  am  weak  her  hair  is 

braided  it  is  beautiful  I  think 

IT  IS  OVER. 

Heating  pad  on  my  belly 

oatmeal  cookies 

chamomile  tea 

sunshine  outside  your  car 

cutting  through  the  streets 

like  a  silent  brown 

jaguar 

NOTHING  TO  SAY. 

— Paula  Orlando 


f»R.O<:iESSiEO    WOR.1.0    ^3 


sy 


and  evil."  It's  hard  for  me  not  to  agree. 

Raw  Good  and  Evil,  or, 
Background  on  Us  and  Them 

It's  not  fashionable,  probably  not  PC, 
and  worlds  away  from  New  Ageism,  but 
I  do  see  Operation  Rescue  and  its  fellow 
travellers  as  my  enemies,  as  "Them." 

It's  my  experience  as  an  escort  ccxir- 
dinator  that  has  inspired  this  rant. 
There's  a  clinic  in  an  old  building,  on  an 
incredibly  chilly  corner  of  San  Francisco, 
redolent  of  eucalyptus,  where  voodoo 
Priestess,  underground  railroad  station- 
mistress.  Madam,  and  probably  herb- 
wise  woman  abortionist  Mammy  Pleas- 
ant had  her  establishment.  Here  she 
planted  the  fragrant  messy  trees  with 
her  own  hands.  Today  it's  the  site  of  a 
low-cost  clinic.  This  privately-owned 
facility  is  OR's  most-targeted  site  in  San 
Francisco,  possibly  because  of  proximity 


to  OR-sympathetic  churches  like  St. 
Dominic's  and  St.  Mary's  (aka  St.  Dom- 
ino's and  St.  Maytag's),  serving  a 
cross-section  of  Bay  Area  women,  the 
majority  being  younger  women  of  color. 

Somehow  my  partner  and  I  managed 
to  get  up  early  enough  every  Saturday 
morning  for  almost  a  year  —  until  our 
own  demanding  daughter  arrived  one 
November  dawn  —  to  work  with  the  Bay 
Area's  direct  action,  pro-choice  coalition 
defending  the  clinic.  We  escorted  clients 
past  "pro-lifers"  who  shoved,  shouted, 
and  waved  huge  color  blow-ups  of  dead 
newborns  purported  to  be  aborted  fetus- 
es in  the  clients'  faces.  They  tried  to 
photograph  clients'  license  plates  and 
faces.  They  used  the  heavy  plywood 
backing  their  fetal  porn  to  bash  pro- 
choicers,  and  the  substantial  size  and 
weight  of  their  bodies  to  threaten.  They 
cunningly  used  the  police  to  present 
their    actions    as    simple,    First-Amend- 


ment rights-like  picketing.  The  surreality 
was  perhaps  enhanced  by  the  colors  and 
shadows  of  pre-sunrise,  but  it  was  con- 
firmed by  the  fact  that  all  this  went  on 
with  almost  no  mention  in  the  news. 
The  biggest  attacks  would  get  at  best  a 
fact-garbled  paragraph  or  two  buried 
deep  in  one  of  the  papers. 

It  never  ceased  feeling  strange  to  go 
about  my  weekend  after  clinic  mornings. 
In  the  normal  world,  traffic  whooshed 
by  the  corner,  at  most  honking  an 
encouraging  honk  at  the  sight  of  the 
pro-choice  placards,  and  most  men 
weren't  poised  to  hit  or  trip  me;  most 
cops  and  old  ladies  weren't  threatening 
me,  and  most  people  either  didn't  know 
or  didn't  care  that  women's  basic  pri- 
vacy, basic  dignity,  basic  rights  to  choose 
and  receive  medical  care,  were  being 
routinely  shit  on. 

—Angela  Bocage 


graphic:  Angela  Bocage 


€»0 


»»B<Cl><Z.SSSSO   WC:>8<1-I>    :5t€J 


TEMPORARY  CODIM 


fM  I  always  worked  as  a  temp,  usually  doing  light  industrial  work, 
^fj  but  it  wasn't  until  I  moved  to  San  Francisco  that  I  got  a  job  in 
.a  law  firm.  I  had  no  relevant  experience  or  interest  in  law;  my  last 
job  before  moving  here  was  cleaning  up  rat  feces  in  a  Lipton  ware- 
house. I  got  my  first  job  interview  through  a  "clerical"  help  wanted 
ad.  When  I  showed  up  for  my  interview,  I  was  an  hour  late,  I  had 
holes  in  my  shoes,  and  I  flunked  the  office  competency  test.  Much 
to  my  surprise,  I  was  working  right  away  at  one  of  the  biggest  law 
firms  in  California.  Later  I  realized  that  the  only  worthwhile  advice 
rd  been  given  about  job  interviews — lie  through  your  teeth — had 
paid  off:  I  told  them  I  was  "thinking  about"  law  school.  Truth  was, 
I  was  thinking  about  the  least  painful  way  to  make  a  buck,  and 
working  in  a  posh  office  seemed  better  than  crawling  around  with 
a  Dust  Buster  in  a  damp  gloomy  warehouse  looking  for  piles  of  rat 
shit. 


Having  stood  for_  hours  at  photo- 
copiers, my  eyes  nuked  by  the  rolling 
strobe  light,  I've  had  plenty  of  time  to 
contemplate  my  naivete.  I  always  get  stuck 
where  no  one  else  will  work,  so  I  either 
fry  in  direct  sunlight  behind  a  plate  glass 
window  or  freeze  in  a  room  with  out-of- 
control  air-conditioning.  I  once  worked 
in  an  office  that  every  day  at  1 1:30  filled 
with  a  mysterious  noxious-smelling  gas 
from  a  vent;  despite  my  numerous  com- 
plaints, nobody  ever  responded. 

So  instead  of  screwing  caps  on  deo- 
dorant cans  one  after  another,  I'm 
turning  pages  of  paper.  At  least  I  have 
some  energy  left  at  the  end  of  the  day  to 
pursue  other  things.  A  short  stint  as  a 
furniture  mover  cured  me  of  any  fond 
illusions  about  manual  labor  (something 
I  often  hear  among  male  office  workers). 
As  a  temp,  there's  always  the  hope  that 
you  might  land  an  easy  job  where  you 
can  get  away  with  a  lot  of  fucking  off; 
I've  had  a  few. 

For  the  last  four  years,  off  and  on,  I've 
temped  in  about  twenty  big  law  firms  in 
the  San  Francisco  financial  district. 
Assignments  have  varied  in  length  of 
time  from  nine  months  to  nine  minutes, 
but  the  introduction  is  always  the  same: 
you  are  under  suspicion,  a  likely  pick- 
pocket or  information  thief. 

You  forfeit  your  rights  when  you  start 


work  as  a  temp  in  a  law  firm.  You're 
asked  to  sign  a  statement  that  looks  like 
a  confession,  swearing  you  will  divulge 
absolutely  nothing  about  the  case  you're 
working  on  to  any  person  for  any 
reason.  According  to  the  warning,  if  you 


At  my  last  job,  I  was 
getting  paid  $10  an  hour. 

The  temp  agency  was 

hilling  the  law  firm  $20 

an  hour.  The  law  firm, 

in  turn,  was  hilling  their 

client  $40  an  hour.  Other 

than  what  I  earned  hourly, 

1  got  zilch. 


so  much  as  mention  the  case  to  anybody, 
the  full  weight  of  the  law  will  descend 
upon  you.  "You  might  be  able  to  plead 
spousal  immunity,"  flecked  one  supervi- 
sor after  threatening  us  with  merciless 
fines  and  jail  time. 

Law  firms  "hire"  temps,  when  need 
arises,  to  do  what  they  haven't  got 
machines  to  do  yet,  or  what  they  can't 


get  their  other  employees  to  do:  the  most 
monotonous,  labor-intensive  tasks  in- 
volved in  labeling,  indexing,  storing  and 
retrieving  vast  quantities  of  documents. 

Whole  weeks  of  my  life  have  been 
consumed  by  "bates  stamping,"  a  task  in 
which  a  small  numbered  sticker  is  trans- 
ferred by  hand  from  a  computer- 
generated  sheet  onto  another  piece  of 
paper,  thus  making  it  a  "document." 
Repeated  thousands  of  times  eight  hours 
a  day,  five  days  a  week,  this  would  give 
anybody  repetitive  stress  injury  as  well  as 
brain  damage.  I  recently  did  this  seven 
days  a  week,  twelve  hours  a  day,  while  a 
berserk  legal  assistant  badgered  me  to 
"Go  faster!  Go  faster!"  so  that  I  wouldn't 
"cost  the  client  (Cetus  Corporation,  a 
biotech  giant)  so  much  money." 

A  common  task  I  perform  is  called 
"coding."  That  means  reading  each 
document  (usually  something  like  an 
invoice)  for  information  (date,  names, 
subject)  and  entering  it  onto  a  form.  It's 
then  sent  to  a  word  processor,  who  puts 
it  into  a  tidy  data  base  which  the  lawyers 
can  access  with  the  stroke  of  a  finger. 

The  emphasis  on  secrecy  is  absurd.  I'm 
kept  in  the  dark  beyond  what's  necessa- 
ry for  the  job;  I  have  no  idea  to  what 
ultimate  purpose  my  labor  contributes 
except  the  meaningless  perpetuation  of 
bureaucracy. 

Occasionally  while  coding^  I'll  see  an 
internal  memo  which  reveals  the  prepu- 
bescent  character  of  your  typical  lawyer 
or  executive,  giving  me  a  bitter  laugh.  I 
remember  one  top  honcho  drawing 
analogies  between  the  services  his  com- 
pany provides  and  the  superhuman 
qualities  of  his  favorite  toy.  Action  Man, 
which  he  proceeded  to  describe  in 
admiring  detail,  as  advertised  on  one  of 
his  favorite  Saturday  morning  cartoons. 

My  experience  at  one  law  firm  (appro- 
priately named  "Cooley"),  coding  on  a 
Genentech  case,  was  not  an  easy  job.  We 
were  segregated  from  the  main  office  in  a 
gloomy  warehouse  down  the  block,  over 
a  hundred  of  us,  working  at  crowded 
tables  in  two  six-hour  shifts,  six  days  a 
week.  It  was  explained  to  us  that  six 


f»B<OdESSHI>    W0fftt_0    :a€i 


61 


game,  my  fictitious  labor  time  contrib-      bother  them  is  that  I  found  the  loop-      loopholes, 
utes  to  enriching  the  parasites  who  suck      holes  in  the  rules  governing  their  office, 
me    dry    day    after    day.    What    would      Drinking  a  beer  in  the  park,  I  toasted  the 


—Mickey  D. 


Flying  in  the  face  of  the  economics  of  magazine  publishing,  Processed  World 
depends  on  subscriptions  for  75%  +  of  its  operating  budget. 

SUBSCRIBE! 


We'll  be  publishing  two  64-page  issues  of  Processed  World  each  calendar  year  (next  issue  by 
May  1 992,  latest).  We'd  lil<e  to  come  out  more  often,  but  can't  afford  to.  Your  $  1 5  regular  sub- 
scription continues  to  get  you  4  issues  (for  the  newstand  price  of  three)  over  two  years. 
If  you  received  this  as  a  subscription  copy  and  your  label  says  28  or  less,  you  have  expired!  Please  renew! 


Get  PROCESSED  WORLD  into  your  local  bookstore/newsstand.  PW  is  distributed  by: 

Last  Gasp  (San  Francisco)  •  Armadillo  (Los  Angeles)  •  Ubiquity  (New  York)  •  Daybreak  (Boston)  •  Don  Olson  (Minneapolis)  •  Small  Changes  (Seattle) 
Fine  Print  (Austin,  TX)  •  Ingram  (Knoxville,  TN)  •  Marginal  Distribution  (Toronto)  •  AK  Distribution  (Stirling,  Scotland)  •  A  Distribution  (London) 


Name  _ 
Address 
City 


RATES  (for  4  issues) 

D  $    15  Regular 

D  $    1 0  Low  Income 

D  $    18  Libraries 

D  $  25  Out  of  US  surface  State    

n  $  35  Out  of  US  air/libs.  Zip  

□  $  1 50  Lifetime  sub  Country 

D  $250  Corps.  &  Gov't.     Start  my  subscription  with  Processed  World  #    

D  $     5  BACK  ISSUES         Send  back  issues  #   

D   $125     Full  Set 

PW  1-28  Checks  payable  to  "Processed  World,"  U.S.  dollars  only  please! 


(some  early  issues  are  photocopies) 


PROCESSED  WORLD,  41  Sutter  St.  #1829,  San  Francisco,  CA  94104.  USA 


CO  3 


"X  c 


en  0) 


OO 


o)     :r:     fc     CO    CD 


^  V  .-»r  oj  -"  o  F  0) 

_g«g.2-2gS£oO 

D 


G  ^       '^  o 
0)  .3    .g        2  -C  - 

o  S  «.2  S  >>« 
H     .  aj  c  c  ^  a 

o  £2  -^  2  -s  I  ^ 

•^  ^    £  c  ^  ^  .2 

>>  *;  >.^^  s" 

c/5  -o  -5  -^  'r  i  3 


H 


Is  Mil 

H   t»  o  -a  .a  -"  a) 
ee  v  z;  B  CO  «  Q. 

n 


,0  0  ^ . 

o  ^  ^  S  E  (< 

"25    ■  >;  <«  03  a* 

^  2  -a  g  .s  §  s  2 

.   ^>  a  a  73  c  a;    ■' 
a>     .  2  o  1)  ^  13  .b" 

X)  -g  •§  -s  .a  « ;H  ^ 


.a  «  0)  bp_g  E 

a 


•a  -f^  -S  o 


^«?^^eI 


D 


00 


00 


03 


o  i  9,0 
c^  i  E  > 


O  CO 

=        2  S  c 


— <*       '^ 


5:2    D. 

Jii  . 

O  2    CO  op 

>  g  g  05 

O    C8J5    « 

£    >.  «iS 

-^  ^  r    CU 

C8    Ih       .    . 

-   as   2   >- 
a   O 


f^    f->    in   E   ^  -^ 

D 


6^ 


6 

« 

uq 

.£ 

h 

a 

rt 

« 

S  fe 

■to 
0 

a  s 

c*5 

be  e 
1^ 

3^ 

a 


o 

a. 

u, 
O 
JD 

Ji 
be 

g  is 

-H  >*; 
o  "^ 
®  S. 


g  s>i 

So 


«  s 
"  S 

00     fl 
•n    « 

•o  ce 


£ 

US 

a> 

u 

es 

M 

5 

0 
a 

§ 

0 

§ 

-H 

CV| 

H 

CA 

< 

U 

9 

< 

CQ 

D 


D 


GET  THE  BEST  OF  PROCESSED  WORLD'S 
FIRST  20  ISSUES  ALL  IN  ONE  BOOK! 


D  BAD  ATTITUDE 


'Otve 


ot  our  ^^yiilage  vo 


SupP^' 


fUp. 


^^^f!Xf^^s 


*°l";-«SvV'»'"°' 


e%- 


''--^"^?^-r^*i^''Sit«de„,^e 


to 


Vom'^j-v^^ddesttx.vo^^' 


l^rHtng^^^-^c,.: 


.Y^cs^^:;j;serv^<^^^oTtv 


dia'^ 


itucl« 


is  stto^' 


icVo^if  j;  ^^os- 


'^^"^'sto^ 


« t\ve  ^^®^' 


catv 
taiTC^" 


ta\co«^;f^d« 


'**'     A  a  v\v<*»  ;^  act  ail"      „ 


Meu) 


States 


rna^ 


T:\veSP 


liX^^  °   _SVve^^ 


BACAT'S  UNABASHED  FBEE  ENTEHPHISE  ZONE!!! 


D  Processed  World  poster 
17"  X  22"  glossy  — $5 

D  Processed  World  Radio  Magazine 
Episode  1:  "Attitude  Adjustment 
Seminar"  30  mins.— $6.00 

D  Processed  World  Index 

1st  25  issues  $2 

POETRY  CHAPBOOKS 

from  End  of  the  Century  Books 

D  Things  I  Don't  Remember 

by  Barbara  Schaffer  $4 

D  CalUng  In  Sick 

by  William  Talcott  $5 

D  The  Good  Neighbor  PoUcy 

by  klipschutz  $5.95 


VIDEOTAPES 

D  Brazilian  Dreams:  Visiting  Points 
of  Resistance,  VHS,  54  mins.  $45 
Winner:  Best  Documentary/1991 
Humboldt  State  University  Festival. 
A  hybrid  narration  exploring  cultures  of 
opposition  in  present-day  Brazil,  combines 
travelogue,  political  reportage  and  personal 
reflection.  Graffiti  counter-culture  in  Sao 
Paulo,  working-class  feminists  in  Sao 
Paulo's  slums,  Black  Pride  in  Bahia,  an 
Indian  protest  against  dams  in  the  Amazon, 
and  the  rubber  tappers'  struggle  for  a 
sustainable  way  of  life  in  the  rainforest. 

D  Across  From  City  Hall,  VHS 

30  mins.  $25 

This  half-hour  video  documents  the  extra- 
ordinarily articulate  residents  of  "Camp 
Agnos,"  a  homeless  camp-in  in  SF's  Civic 
Center  Plaza,  1988-89. 


D  Deutschemarks  Uber  AUes:  The 
Failure  of  East  Germany's  "Silent" 
Revolution,  VHS,  57  mins.  _$30 
An  intimate  look  at  several  generations  of 
East  German  activists.  Older  anti-Hitler 
resistance  members  to  the  current  genera- 
tion that  brought  down  the  Wall,  they  now 
struggle  to  build  a  new  opposition  in  the 
"greater"  Germany. 

D  San  Francisco  Says  NO  To  The 
New  World  Order,  VHS,  30  mins. 
$30  The  remarkably  creative  and  inde- 
pendent movement  in  San  Francisco 
against  the  Persian  Gulf  War  in  early  1991. 
Features  material  from  the  weekly  V2  hour 
Paper  Tiger  TV  "Gulf  Crisis  Update." 

D  Stripped  Bare:  A  Look  at  Erotic 
Entertainers,  VHS,  60  mins.   $60 

"An  especially  challenging  example  of 
straight-ahead  documentary .     Without 
mythologizing  the  sex  industry,  these 
testimonials  challenge  one's  preconceived 
notions  of  its  female  workers  as  victims." 
-Andrew  O'Hehir,  S.F.  Sentinel,  &17-88 


Check  off  items  desired,  add  $2-5  for  postage,  Calif,  residents  add  S'/i  %  sales  tax,  make  check  to  "BACAT"  and  mail  to 
BACAT,  1095  Market  Street,  Suite  209,  San  Francisco,  CA  94103,  U.S.A. 


^i 


PROCESSED  WORLD  =  $S,  $6  Canada 


WE 


CARE! 


Announcing  a  unique  new  partnership  between  America's  biomedical  science  leaders,  retailing 
giants,  and  the  Fillup  Morse  Company  &  Arjay  Rennilds: 


U.S.  Citizens 
over  1 2  can 
establish  an  account 
with  our  new  consortium 

FreshStart  Inc.  We'll 
send  you  a  "FreshStart  Card^"" 

with  your  own  personal  identification 

and  record.  Every  time  you  buy  a  pack 

of  cigarettes,  simply  present  your  card  to  the 

cashier  and  your  purchase  will  be  recorded  on 

your  card.  After  10,000  packs,  you'll  receive  an 

ABSOLUTELY 
HEART  &  LUNG 
TRANSPLANT* 


Fresh  Start 

A  Compassionate  Corporate  Consortium 

Expanding  Freedom  of  Choice  for  Americans 


All  diseased  tissue  (and  any  products  derived  from  it) 
become  the  property  of  FreshStart  Inc.