The Bio-Future of Better Teaching

I cannot lie - at first, I had a difficult time understanding Sidler's assertion that "many computers and writing scholars are poised to lead discussions about access to - and ownership of - the genetic information uncovered by HGP and Celera" (133), (I still cringe at the arrogance of the word "ownership), but the more I thought about it, the more I began to understand the impact this technology will have on the field of teaching in general, let alone teaching composition (I contend that the full impact will even be imagined for many years to come).

If "biotechnological research is discovering the codes our bodies use to communicate" (130), what does that say about how we can understand the teaching-learning process and how much more effective we can be at guiding our students? That is the exciting part.

The, possibly, amusing part, is the confusion this might cause in the world of theory. It might, for instance, make McGee and Ericsson's "politics of the program" a mute point, because grammar-syntax rules could be "programmed" right into our minds (I'm thinking "Matrix" stuff here); of course, this would be bound to lead to a huge argument surrounding the specific theoretical approach which should be used for such a program. A comforting thought is that, maybe we will all be smarter then, realizing that arguing in circles through one line of reasoning at a time (instead of seeing the greater picture in which process and grammar must both play an intricate role) ultimately gets us nowhere.

It's important to remember, however, that like the computers Sidler wishes to "parallel" with this new biotechnology (132), technology and the science behind it have limitations; to think of either as magical is to fall prey to a scary delusion. We are not "creating" the genome, we are only learning (finally) to tap into the human potential that already exists.