From Trading Zones to Buffer Zones: Art and Metaphor in the Communication of Psychiatric Genetics to Publics

  • Jamie Lewis
  • Julia M. Thomas
Chapter

Abstract

Psychiatric genetics has an awkward relationship with the public given its unshakeable connection to eugenics. Drawing from a five-year public engagement programme that emerged from an internationally renowned psychiatric genetics centre, we propose the concept of the bufferzone to consider how an exchange of viewpoints between groups of people—including psychiatric geneticists and lay publics—who are often uneasy in one another’s company can be facilitated through the use of art and metaphor. The artwork at the exhibitions provided the necessary socio-cultural context for scientific endeavours, whilst also enabled public groups to be part of, and remain in, the conversation. Crucial to stress is that this mitigation was not to protect the science; it was to protect the discussion.

References

  1. Ahmad, K. 2006. Metaphors in the Languages of Science? In New Trends in Specialized Discourse Analysis, ed. M. Gotti and D.S. Giannoni, 197–220. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. 2004. Talking Whilst Walking: A Geographical Archaeology of Knowledge. Area 36 (3): 254–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J.M., P. Adey, and P. Bevan. 2010. Positioning Place: Polylogic Approaches to Research Methodology. Qualitative Research 10 (5): 589–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, S., and C. Gigliotti. 2006. We Have Always Been Transgenic. AI & Society 20: 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartlett, A. 2008. Accomplishing Sequencing the Human Genome. Dissertation, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, D.J., and R.C. Jennings. 2011. Successful Science Communication. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black, M. 1962. Models and Metaphors. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Braidotti, R. 2013. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bright, R. 2000. Uncertain Entanglements. In Strange and Charmed: Science and the Contemporary Visual Arts, ed. S. Ede, 120–143. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, T.L. 2003. Making Truth: Metaphor in Science. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burmeister, M., M.G. McInnis, and S. Zöllner. 2008. Psychiatric Genetics: Progress Amid Controversy. Nature Reviews Genetics 9 (7): 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calvert, J., and P. Schyfter. 2016. What Can Science and Technology Studies Learn from Art and Design? Reflections on ‘Synthetic Aesthetics’. Social Studies of Science. doi:10.1177/0306312716678488.
  13. Caspi, A., and T.E. Moffitt. 2006. Gene–Environment Interactions in Psychiatry: Joining Forces with Neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 7 (7): 583–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cole, S. 1983. The Hierarchy of the Sciences. American Journal of Sociology 89: 140–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collini, S. 1993. Introduction to C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Collins, H.M. 2011. Language and Practice. Social Studies of Science 41 (2): 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2014. Are We All Scientific Experts Now? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Collins, H.M., R. Evans, and M.E. Gorman. 2010. Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise. In Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration, ed. M.E. Gorman, 53–70. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Condit, C.M. 2009. Dynamic Feelings About Metaphors for Genes: Implications for Research and Genetic Policy. Genomics, Society and Policy 5 (3): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conrad, P., and K.K. Barker. 2010. The Social Construction of Illness: Key Insights and Policy Implications. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 51 (1 suppl): S67–S79.Google Scholar
  22. Costache, I.D. 2012. The Art of Understanding Art: A Behind the Scenes Story. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Davies, S.R. 2011. The Rules of Engagement: Power and Interaction in Dialogue Events. Public Understanding of Science 22 (1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davies, S., and M. Horst. 2017. Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Dreaper, J. 2010. New Study Claims ADHD has Genetic Link. British Broadcasting Company [BBC]. www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11437079. Accessed 10 October 2016.
  26. Duarte, T. 2013. Expertise and the Fractal Model: Communication and Collaboration Between Climate Change Scientists. Dissertation, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  27. Ede, S. 2005. Art and Science. London; New York: I. B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  28. Fleck, L. 1935. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, 1981 edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Foucault, M. 1986. The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Galison, P. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2010. Trading with the Enemy. In Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration, ed. M. Gorman, 25–52. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Galison, P., and D.J. Stump. 1996. The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Garneau, D. 2008. Art, Science and Aesthetic Ethics. In Imagining Science: Art, Science, and Social Change, ed. S. Caulfield and T. Caulfield, 27–29. Alberta: The University of Alberta Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gieryn, T.F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Glinkowski, P., and A. Bamford. 2009. Insight and Exchange: An Evaluation of the Wellcome Trust’s Sciart Programme. Wellcome Trust, London. www.wellcome.ac.uk/sciartevaluation. Accessed 19 June 2016.
  37. Gould, S.J. 2003. The Hedgehog, The Fox and the Magister’s Pox. New York: Harmony Books.Google Scholar
  38. Gregory, J., and S. Miller. 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: Basic Book.Google Scholar
  39. Hacking, I. 1994. Styles of Scientific Thinking or Reasoning: A New Analytical Tool for Historians and Philosophers of the Sciences. In Trends in the Historiography of Science, ed. K. Gavroglu, J. Christianidis, and E. Nicolaidis, 31–48. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ———. 2000. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hall, J.R. 1999. Cultures of Inquiry: From Epistemology to Discourse in Sociohistorical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hausman, C.R. 1989. Metaphor and Art: Interactionism and Reference in the Verbal and Nonverbal Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Helguera, P. 2011. Education for Socially Engaged Art: A Materials and Techniques Handbook. New York: Jorge Pinto Books.Google Scholar
  44. Hellsten, I. 2008. Popular Metaphors of Biosciences: Bridges Over Time? Configurations 16 (1): 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hilgartner, S. 2013. Constituting Large-Scale Biology: Building a Regime of Governance in the Early Years of the Human Genome Project. BioSocieties 8: 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hoffmann, R. 2002. On Poetry & the Language of Science. Daedalus 131 (2): 137–140.Google Scholar
  47. Holliman, R., E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, and J. Thomas, eds. 2009. Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Holmberg, T., and M. Ideland. 2016. Imagination Laboratory: Making Sense of Bio-objects in Contemporary Genetic Art. The Sociological Review 64 (3): 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Holmwood, J. 2010. Sociology’s Misfortune: Disciplines, Interdisciplinarity and the Impact of Audit Culture. The British Journal of Sociology 61 (4): 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Horlick-Jones, T., J. Walls, G. Rowe, N. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, G. Murdock, and T. O’Riordan. 2007. The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Horst, M. 2013. A Field of Expertise, the Organization, or Science Itself? Representing Research in Public Communication. Science Communication 35 (6): 758–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Irwin, A. 2014. From Deficit to Democracy (re-visited) Public. Understanding of Science 23 (1): 71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Misunderstanding Science? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Jasanoff, S. 2003. Breaking the Waves in Science Studies. Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Joseph, J. 2006. The Missing Gene: Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes. New York: Algora Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Kay, L.E. 2000. Who Wrote the Book of life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Keller, E.F. 1995. Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology. New York; Chichester: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Kerr, A., and T. Shakespeare. 2002. Genetic Politics: From Eugenics to Genome. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley, and R. Tutton. 2007. Shifting Subject Positions Experts and Lay People in Public Dialogue. Social Studies of Science 37 (3): 385–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kester, G.H. 2004. Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  61. Kinchy, A.J., and D.L. Kleinman. 2003. Discursive and Organisational Orthodoxy on the Borders of Ecology and Politics. Social Studies of Science 33 (6): 869–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony, 202–251. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 2003. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lechte, J. 2008. Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers: From Structuralism to Post-Humanism. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lewis, J., and A. Bartlett. 2015. How UK Psychiatric Geneticists Understand and Talk About Engaging the Public. New Genetics and Society 34 (1): 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lewis, J., A. Bartlett, and P. Atkinson. 2016. Hidden in the Middle: Culture, Value and Reward in Bioinformatics. Minerva 54 (4): 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lewis, J., S. Bisson, K. Swaden-Lewis, L. Reyes-Galindo, and A. Baldwin. 2017. Cardiff sciSCREEN: A Model for Using Film Screenings to Engage Publics in University Research. Research for All 1 (1): 106–120.Google Scholar
  70. Mauss, M. 1969/1925. The Gift. London: Routledge and Paul Kegan.Google Scholar
  71. Miller, S. 2001. Public Understanding of Science at the Crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10 (1): 115–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nisbet, M. 2009. Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51 (2): 12–23.Google Scholar
  73. O’Riordan, K. 2010. The Genome Incorporated: Constructing Biological Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. OED: Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. In Oxford English Dictionary Online, ed. Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Owen, M.J., and A.G. Cardno. 1999. Psychiatric Genetics: Progress, Problems, and Potential. The Lancet 354: S11–S14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Phillips, P.W.B. 2008. Art and the Governance of New Technologies. In Imagining Science: Art, Science, and Social Change, ed. S. Caulfield and T. Caulfield, 27–29. Alberta: University of Alberta Press.Google Scholar
  77. Pinar, W.F., W.M. Reynolds, P. Slattery, and P.M. Taubman. 2008. Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
  78. Plomin, R., M.J. Owen, and P. McGuffin. 1994. The Genetic Basis of Complex Human Behaviors. Science 264 (5166): 1733–1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Popper, K.R. 1994. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Propping, P. 2005. The Biography of Psychiatric Genetics: From Early Achievements to Historical Burden, from an Anxious Society to Critical Geneticists. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B (Neuropsychiatric Genetics) 136B (1): 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Revkin, A.C. 2011. Tackling the Climate Communication Challenge. In Successful Science Communication: Telling it Like It Is, ed. D.J. Bennett and R.C. Jennings, 137–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Reyes-Galindo, L. 2014. Linking the Subcultures of Physics: Virtual Empiricism and the Bonding Role of Trust. Social Studies of Science 44 (5): 736–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rheinberger, H.-J. 2016. Culture and Nature in the Prism of Knowledge. History of Humanities 1 (1): 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ricoeur, P. 2008. The Rule of Metaphor: The Creation of Meaning in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Roeser, S. 2012. Risk Communication, Public Engagement and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions. Risk Analysis 32 (6): 1033–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2005. A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values 30 (2): 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schmid, T. 2005. Promoting Health Through Creativity: For Professionals in Health, Arts and Education. London: Whurr.Google Scholar
  88. Science Gallery London. 2016. https://london.sciencegallery.com. Accessed 19 June 2016.
  89. Serres, M. 1982. The Apparition of Hermes. In Hermes-Literature, Science, Philosophy, ed. J.V. Harari and D.F. Bell. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Shaffer, E. 1998. The Third Culture: Literature and Science. New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shapin, S. 1984. Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology. Social Studies of Science 14: 481–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Shapin, S., and S. Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Smith, M.J. 2008. Public Psychiatry: A Neglected Professional Role? Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 14: 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Snow, C.P. 1959. Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. ———. 1963. Two Cultures: And a Second Look. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Star, S.L., and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stoltenberg, S.F., and M. Burmeister. 2000. Recent Progress in Psychiatric Genetics – Some Hope but no Hype. Human Molecular Genetics 9 (6): 927–935.Google Scholar
  98. Storer, N.W. 1967. The Hard Sciences and the Soft: Some Sociological Observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 55 (1): 75–84.Google Scholar
  99. Strathern, M. 2006. A Community of Critics? Thoughts on New Knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12 (1): 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. The Royal Society. 1985. The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  101. Thomas, J. 2012. The Art of Public Engagement. People & Science, 19.Google Scholar
  102. Webster, S. 2005. Art and Science Collaborations in the United Kingdom. Nature Reviews/Immunology 5: 965–969.Google Scholar
  103. Weingart, P., and N. Stehr, eds. 2000. Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  104. Weintraub, L. 2003. Making Contemporary Art: How Modern Artists Think and Work. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  105. Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: DEMOS.Google Scholar
  106. Wilson, S. 2010. Art + Science Now. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  107. Wolfe, A. 2001. Essay Review: ELSI’s Revenge. Journal of the History of Biology 34 (1): 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wynne, B. 1992a. Public Understanding of Science Research: New Horizons or Hall of Mirrors? Public Understanding of Science 1 (1): 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. ———. 1992b. Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Yearley, S. 2005. Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science. London: SAGE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamie Lewis
    • 1
  • Julia M. Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Social SciencesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations