Science, Design and Tech panel at the CCA
Steve did a rad job of mapping the discussion.
Does technology help communication? Signal vs. noise.
Technology about maximizing output. Western, scientific vs. Eastern.
Hugh: Software watches already-existent behaviours to make something easier without changing how they function.
Bunny guy: Important to see what relevant cultural aspects already exist. (Points for cultural relativism)
Michael: Looking at each other’s books as an great way to check out each other’s interests • Univeristy in the Streets • collaboration between physical space and virtual counterparts • coming to table with different methodologies, not different knowledge
Miriam: Knowledge is a value system (!)
Michael: collaborating on deciding what to do vs. collaborating to do it = two very different things • social networking theory: Concordia’s placement of engineering and arts buildings next to each other
Mother-Child Health Network
Steph: conversation with Hugh = no hello’s anymore, just one long conversation
modern communications technology • IRC
Dr. Hamilton: Poor countries bear 90% of global disease burden, but only 10% of global health research focused on poor. Productive scientific research requires multidisciplinary teams. How can we use modern communications technologies to change this? And please, not just have smart people in Canada telling stupid people in other countries what/how to do. • Example of new, more effective oral cure to diarrheal disease developed in Bangladesh exactly because barred from access to more “advanced” and less effective Western intravenous cure — took 10 years for the Western world to learn from the knowledge of the non-developed.
Michael: Should frameworks determine what happens, create collaboration or seek new things?
Hugh: open source is successful; Internet’s original purpose was to enable collaboration between researchers.
Internet seen through Marx’s social conflict theory: Who is connected? Who is not? Is this related to who already has power? Does this connection create power? If so, also denies power to those who don’t/cannot have it.
Innovation can be so innovative that is makes us stupid. Going back to indigenous knowledge not considered innovative.
Miriam: We must meet needs of doctors (or whomever) with flexibility of tech, not the other way around.
Bunch of web/tech geeks sitting around talking about how to get researchers in developing countries need to communicate, to share better. Wtf do we know? Impetus must come from them; imposing a solution to a problem that they don’t see won’t help.