Suchergebnisse

In the summer of 1991, population geneticists and evolutionary biologists proposed to archive human genetic diversity by collecting the genomes of ""isolated indigenous populations."" Their initiative, which became known as the Human Genome Diversity Project, generated early enthusiasm from those who believed it would enable huge advances in our understanding of human evolution. However, vocal criticism soon emerged. Physical anthropologists accused Project organizers of reimporting racist categories into science. Indigenous-rights leaders saw a ""Vampire Project"" that sought the blood of

In the last few years, justice has emerged as a matter of concern for the contemporary constitution of technoscience. Increasingly, both practicing scientists and engineers and scholars of science and technology cite justice as an organizing theme of their work. In this essay, I consider why "science and justice" might be arising now. I then ask after the opportunities, but also the dangers, of this formation. By way of example, I explore the openings and exclusions created by the recent conjugation of science and justice in the field of personal genomics. Finally, I conclude with reflections on what other forms "science and justice" might take, and what might be gained or lost in fostering them.

I want to commend the organizers of the Chacmool Conference panel. All too often attempts to discuss the broader social and cultural dimensions of genetic studies of ancient human migrations devolve into simplistic celebrations or condemnations. It is heartening to find here an example of a conference session that managed to avoid these dangerous poles, and to grapple instead with the hard task of discerning the issues raised and not raised by genomic studies of human migrations and history. I would like to devote my commentary to exploring what might be learned from the discussions at Chacmool.

jenny reardon is Assistant Research Professor of Women's Studies and Scholar in Genome Sciences and Policy at Duke University. In the academic year 2004-2005 she will be a Scholar in Residence at the Pembroke Center for Teaching and Research on Women at Brown University. Her book Race to the Finish: Identity and Governance in an Age of Genomics is forthcoming with Princeton University Press in December of 2004.

Since its inception in 1991, the design of the proposed Human Genome Diversity Project has shifted several times. However, one unchanging and central Project goal is to collect blood and other human tissue samples from `genetically distinct' indigenous groups around the globe. This goal has proved highly controversial, and the Diversity Project has thus far failed to move beyond the planning stage. In this paper I argue that the reason for the Project's inconclusive and open-ended character is that project organizers are attempting to stabilize and control a highly contested terrain structured by emotionally and politically charged discourses. These discourses inextricably entangle scientific and social issues - including North/South relations, colonization, intellectual property rights and the origins of human diversity. To move forward, as the paper demonstrates, project organizers would have to negotiate these entanglements, and `coproduce' a natural and social order that could accommodate their project. The paper explains why this process of coproduction proved to be so labour-intensive in the case of the Diversity Project, and why the Project's main responses to its critics to date have failed to provide the tools needed to do this work.

Biological samples collected from indigenous communities from the mid-20th century for scientific study and preserved in freezers of the Global North have been at the center of a number of controversies. This essay explores why the problem of indigenous biospecimens has returned to critical attention frequently over the past two decades, and why and how Science and Technology Studies should attend to this problem. We propose that mutation – the variously advantageous, deleterious, or neutral mechanism of biological change – can provide a conceptual and analogical resource for reckoning with unexpected problems created by the persistence of frozen indigenous biospecimens. Mutations transcend dichotomies of premodern/modern, pro-science/anti-science, and north/south, inviting us to focus on entanglements and interdependencies. Freezing biospecimens induces mutations in indigenous populations, in the scientists who collected and stored such specimens, and in the specimens themselves. The jumbling of timescales introduced by practices of freezing generates new ethical problems: problems that become ever more acute as the supposed immortality of frozen samples meets the mortality of the scientists who maintain them. More broadly, we propose that an 'abductive' approach to Science and Technology Studies theories of co-production can direct attention to the work of temporality in the ongoing alignment of social and technical orders. Attending to the unfolding and mutating vital legacies of indigenous body parts, collected in one time and place and reused in others, reveals the enduring colonial dimensions of scientific practice in our global age and demonstrates new openings for ethical action. Finally, we outline the articles in this special issue and their respective 'mutations' to postcolonial Science and Technology Studies, a field that, like genome science, is racked with ethical and temporal dilemmas of reckoning for the past in the present.

STS theories of biocapital conceptualize how biomedical knowledge and capital form together. Though these formations of biocapital often are located in large urban centers, few scholars have attended to how they are transforming urban spaces and places. In this paper we argue that the twinned technological development of cells and cities concentrates economic and symbolic capital and sets in motion contentious practices we name urban biopolitics. We draw on archival research and a nearly decade-long ethnography of the expansion of biomedical campuses in a major American city to show how the speculative logics of land development and biomedical innovation become bound together in a process we describe as speculative revitalization. We examine how the logics of speculative revitalization imagine a future in which cities and biomedicine produce wealth and health harmoniously together. However, in practice—as buildings of new biomedical urban campuses get built—the dreams of billionaire philanthrocapitalists to create global cities clash with the plans of biomedical researchers to create global health. We document the reproduction of stratified and racialized biomedical exclusions that result while also highlighting the unlikely opportunities for creating alliances committed to creating equitable biomedical research and healthcare in urban communities.

For decades, the field of bioethics has shaped the way we think about ethical problems in science, technology, and medicine. But its traditional emphasis on individual interests such as doctor-patient relationships, informed consent, and personal autonomy is minimally helpful in confronting the social and political challenges posed by new human biotechnologies such as assisted reproduction, human genetic modification, and DNA forensics. Beyond Bioethics addresses these provocative issues from an emerging standpoint that is attentive to race, gender, class, disability, privacy, and notions of democracy—a ";new biopolitics."; This authoritative volume provides an overview for those grappling with the profound dilemmas posed by these developments. It brings together the work of cutting-edge thinkers from diverse fields of study and public engagement, all of them committed to this new perspective grounded in social justice and public interest values