What first struck me about this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/health/research/06dise.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin) from today’s New York Times was the similarity of the diagram of diseases organized by the genes that cause them to say any other network diagram we have studied in class. While the bulk of the article deals with the changing paradigm of how disease are thought of, classified and treated, the concepts learned in this class especially as it relates to network theory seem to be applicable. The notion that the treatment of a disease is not longer the binary “cause and effect” model, but more “rhizome” based is an interesting advance. The fact that the network model of genes can let alone be understood but used in this way is significant advancement in the field of human knowledge. These new links between seemingly different diseases can lead to new advances in medicine, but also illustrate the fragility of any given network. The fact that these disease which were before not considered to be related illustrates that the break down in any part of the network can lead to unexpected results. While this information will possibly lead to a complete reclassification of diseases and a new approach to how diseases are combated, what should not be overlooked is this notion of fragility. The fragility of the network and the way information is transmitted and effects other parts of the network that makes us up is so vast and still unknown, that given the fact that now we can act on this scale of the human body, is there any way to see what repercussions this might have on how we are formed? In other words, is there any way to know what the effects of manipulating the genetic foundation could have on the future of our species? This in now way means that this research is not valid in the discourse of medicine, but perhaps by applying the seemingly unrelated field of network theory, answers to these and other questions could be postulated.