Bulian 1
Briana Bulian
Professor Heidenreich
English 102
RP2 Paper
11 November 2021
Is it Unfavorable to Have Access to the Web for Reaching Out to Those With Same Ideas or Not?
Imagine not receiving credit towards an invention or project because multiple people came together to achieve something? It sounds harsh, but when it comes to innovations or projects that individuals come up with, most want to do it alone so they can get all the credit. If, for example, multiple people had the same idea and chose not to do it alone, they came together to create this project. Now, who gets the credit? Who came up with the idea? Eventually, those individuals will wonder and argue over who deserves the recognition and such. If the invention or project is so successful and nominated for a Nobel prize, there must be a primary inventor. It can be scary knowing that another person has the same idea and might achieve it before you, and they are the ones who get all the recognition and credit. For example, “consider how many times you have walked into a store or watched TV and seen a similar idea you had months or years ago now on the market?” (Brown). Then, when those mutual people reach out to each other, they can’t be worried about money and credibility if they want to achieve it together. That is why accessing the Web has its perks and might sound beneficial when those with the same idea come together but threaten others regarding credibility, finances, and status.
Moving on, with having access to the Web, individuals can post and share information almost anywhere. Once others read that information, they can email or contact that particular person if they want to. In this case, in the book “Smarter Than You Think” by Clive Thompson, the author mentions something interesting. In the chapter “Public Thinking,” Thompson shares the “birth of Ushahidi” and how it is an excellent example of the power of public thinking and multiples (Thompson 63). The creation arose when there was an “upheaval after the rigged Kenyan election of 2007; she began tracking incidents of government violence” (Thompson 61). The activist Ory Okoloh wished to have anyone report an incident to a shared map for all to see. So, she made a post asking if anyone techy was “willing to do a mashup of where the violence and destruction are occurring using google maps” (Thompson 62). Google Earth is an easy tool that individuals can access at any time to view a location and what appears. For example, before my family and I moved into our house two years ago, I did not get to see it in person, so instead, I searched the location up on Google Earth and was able to see the house and the neighborhood around it. The effect of having multiples happens soon after the number of people involved in this project was quite a few. For example, Hersman and Kobia helped create the shared map to upload incidents. Little did they know, their task became successful that “Ushahidi attracted two hundred thousand dollars in nonprofit funds and the trio began refining it to accept reports via everything from SMS to Twitter” (Thompson 63). The tool is globally used even after all these years. According to “Ethan Zuckerman, head of MIT’s Center for Civic Media, calls “one of the most globally significant technology projects” (Thompson 63).
Furthermore, the Web can threaten individuals whose goals are money, credit, and status. In short, those types of people only care about fame and money. Now, I understand that it sounds selfish to want all the credit for an idea and receive all the benefits and finances, but it can be “annoying and terrifying to learn that other people have the same idea” (Thompson 63). Now, Thompson mentions that scientists will “bicker for decades over who gets the credit” (63). The reason scientists fight for so long is because once they find out that another person has the same intention, they are both working hard to complete it so that that person can get the credit. There are a few examples of scientists who did not get their credit because there were multiples and possibly public thinking.
First, the most interesting example I have heard of so far is the penicillin discovery. An individual known as Duchesne discovered penicillin in the 19th century (Arseculeratne). Duchesne made this discovery three decades before anyone else found penicillin, and the reason Duchesne couldn’t do much was that in those times, they did not have the tools we do now and even in the late 1920s. A scientist known as Alexander Fleming thought he was the “sole researcher on penicillin” when In 1928, he “stumbled on it again when some mold accidentally fell into a petri dish and killed off the bacteria within” (Arseculeratne +Thompson 64). Then, Fleming didn’t think of the accident being capable of turning into a lifesaving medicine, so he never did any experiments and dropped the research entirely. Duchesne and Fleming were involved in the discovery; ten years after Fleming’s incident, two Britain scientists Ernest Chain and Howard Florey, became involved. They had “readout Fleming’s work, intuited that penicillin could be turned into a medicine, and quickly created an injectable drug that cured infected mice” (Thompson 64). So, overall, four names wondered who would get the credit for this discovery? Fleming read about what the British scientist did and panicked, so he reached out and wanted to meet them. Once they met, they were able to work together to make penicillin a mass-produced drug that “saved countless lives in World War II” (Thompson 64). Although they could work together to create such a success, they still argued for years after receiving a Nobel Prize on who ought to get the credit. The point is, regardless of how great it can be to come together to finish a project, it always trails back to who gets the glory and praise. The topic can relate to digital technology because Thompson states that he has spoken to numerous entrepreneurs who want to talk openly online about their ideas and what they are working on because multiple heads, of course, are better than one. But entrepreneur fears that “someone will take their idea and execute it more quickly than they can” (Thompson 65).
In addition, I am aware that the following example may not have to do with digital technology because of the era. Still, if it occurred during these times, it would have involved digital technology. A woman named Rosalind Franklin was “a chemist and x-ray crystallographer who was recruited to work at King’s College, London, on the structure of DNA” (Oxford Royale Academy). When she went to King’s College, she had a collaborator named Maurice Wilkins, and unfortunately, the two did not get along. I presume it could be a male vs. female sort of stereotype. According to Oxford Royale Academy, Franklin’s work was shared with Crick and Watson without her knowledge or permission. Oxford claims it was Wilkin who shared the information. “Though the exact details remain unclear—and the data and photographs that Franklin had gathered proved to be vital in Crick and Watson’s discovery of the double-helix shape of DNA.” Now, according to Weise, Franklin was doing her research with an X-ray crystallographic photograph of DNA, and that Crick saw her research and “that set off the light bulb that helped lead to the discovery” (Weise). Crick took in the information that the DNA molecule was spiral, and the thickness had suggested it was made up of two backbones. Once Crick and Watson had gathered their information on the shape of the double helix after learning about it from Franklin, they “published their work in 1953 and Franklin was given no credit for her contribution” (Oxford Royale Academy). Eventually, in 1962, “the pair, along with Wilkins, won the Nobel Prize” (Weise). The Nobel Prize that they won was in Physiology or Medicine. Franklin did not receive any credit when the pair finished their work in 1953, and to make the matter worse, she couldn’t even get the recognition for the Nobel Prize in 1962 because she passed away from ovarian cancer in 1958 (Oxford Royale Academy). The point of this example was to mention how digital technology would have applied to this scenario if the resources were available. I believe that Franklin would have shared her research, not even realizing that the pair of scientists would steal her idea and years later receive a Nobel Prize for it while she passed away earlier from cancer. Although she is getting the recognition now, it doesn’t beat the fact that she wasn’t included in the 1953 work.
Working in multiples has its ups and downs, but most people prefer to reach out to one another to see if they have the same ideas. For example, “Okolloh could have wandered around wishing such a tool existed. Kobia could have wandered around wishing he could use his skills to help Kenya. Okolloh was thinking out loud, and because she had an audience of like-minded people, luck happened” (Thompson 63). Most work on a project for years. Having help from other people who have the same outlook and are not “worried about owning ideas” should reach out and share their work (Thompson 63). Having the resources to contact other people causes “Everyday thinkers online to be thrilled to discover someone else with the same idea as them” (Thompson 65). In contrast, “the commercial imperative to “own” an idea explains why public thinking a boon has been primarily for everyday people pursuing their amateur passions” (Thompson 65).
In conclusion, it’s not such a great idea to share your inventions online, depending on your outcome goal. If an investor plans on working on a project with the idea of solving a problem or coming to an epiphany, then it can be a good idea to go to the Web to reach out for help and see if there are any other like-minded people. If your outcome is the money, status, and praise, then sharing information online or reaching out for help through the Web is not the best idea. It can be threatening to share your discoveries because people may steal your idea and make it their own, therefore getting all the credit that comes with money and status.
Works Cited
Arseculeratne, S. N., and G. Arseculeratne. “A Re-Appraisal of the Conventional History of Antibiosis and Penicillin.” Mycoses, vol. 60, no. 5, May 2017, pp. 343–347. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/myc.12599.
Brown, Roger, and Michelle. “Is It Possible That Someone Else Has the Same Idea?” Edison Nation Blog, 5 Jan. 2018 Accessed November 19
Cooper, Dan. “The Atom Bomb: Making it Possible.” American Heritage of Invention & Technology, Summer, 1995. SIRS Issues Researcher
Sternberg, Steve. “Double Helix Unlocked Key to Life, but DNA’s Secrets Remain a Mystery.” USA TODAY, Feb 2003. SIRS Issues Researcher
Thompson, Sir Clive. Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds.
“Who Is Credited with Inventing the Telephone?” The Library of Congress, Accessed November 19
Zurawik, David, and Christina Stoehr. “Money Changes Everything.” American Journalism Review, 04 1993. SIRS Issues Researcher
“9 Scientists Who Didn’t Get the Credit They Deserved.” Oxford Royale Academy, 16 Mar. 2021, Accessed November 19
Self-Reflective Exercise
The most challenging aspect of the paper was being able to relate the topic completely to digital technology, I am sorry if I did not do such a great job on that.
The most interesting part of the paper was being able to learn about the penicillin discovery and the DNA discovery
I learned from this process to make sure my topic meets all the requirements and not just randomly put ideas together
I am not so confident that I have the best complete draft and I wish that I did better
The topic is what needs the most work or having the ability to compare it to digital technology
I just want to say that I am sorry for not following the requirements and not putting things together organized.
The post Bulian 1 Briana Bulian Professor Heidenreich English 102 RP2 Paper 11 November appeared first on PapersSpot.
