Abstract
It is often suggested in the mass media and popular academic literature that scientists promote a secular and reductionist understanding of the implications of the life sciences for the concept of being human. Is adhering to this view considered to be one of the components of the notion of being a good scientist? This paper explores responses of geneticists interviewed in the UK, the USA and Russia about the cultural meanings of their work. When discussing this question the interviewees distinguished between their ‘personal’ and ‘professional’ views. When talking as ‘lay people’ they demonstrated a wide range of opinions none of which was perceived as incompatible with scientific practice. When talking as ‘scientists’ the respondents stressed that the cultural implications of their research were not a matter of their professional concern. It is suggested that these two trends in their answers could be explained by scientists tending to relegate the implications of their work to the realm of the social which they construe as divorced from scientific practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baudrillard J (2000) The Vital Illusion. Columbia University Press, New York
Brodwin P (2002) Genetics, identity, and the anthropology of essentialism. Anthropological Quarterly 75 (2):323–30
Crick F (1988) What mad pursuit: a personal view of scientific discovery. Penguin, London
Derrida J (2002) The aforementioned so-called human genome. In: Rottenberg E (ed), Negotiations. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 199–215
Dijck Jose van (1998) Imagenation: popular images of genetics. New York University Press, New York
Egorova Y, Pattison S, Edgar A (2006) The meanings of genetics: accounts of biotechnology in the work of Habermas, Derrida and Baudrillard. Int J Hum 3(2):97–104
Franklin S (1993) Essentialism, which essentialism? Some implications of reproductive and genetic technoscience. In: Dececco J (ed) Issues in biological essentialism versus social constructionism in gay and lesbian identities. Harrington Park Press, London, pp 27–40
Fukuyama F (2002) Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. Profile, London
Gilbert M (2000) A vision of the grail. In: Kelves DJ, Hood L (eds), The code of codes: scientific and social issues in the human genome project. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, London pp 83–98
Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature. Polity, Oxford.
Haraway D (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_Oncomouse. Feminism and technoscience. Routledge, New York
Holmberg T (2005) Questioning ‘the number of the best’: constructions of humanness in a human genome project (HGP) narrative. Science as Culture 14 (1):23--37
Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S, Amos A (1997) The new genetics: professionals’ discursive boundaries. The Social Review 45(2):279–304
Lippman A (1993) Prenatal genetic testing and geneticization: mother matters for all. Fetal Diagn Ther 8: 175–188
Nelkin D, Lindee S (2004) The DNA Mystique. The gene as a cultural icon. Michigan University Press, Ann Arbor
Watson J (2003) DNA: the secret of life. Arrow Books, London
Acknowledgements
This paper is one of the outcomes of The Meanings of Genetics research programme funded by the Cardiff University Research Committee. The project that the paper is based on was sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation (ref: SGS/01092/G).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Egorova, Y. The Meanings of Science: Conversations with Geneticists. Health Care Anal 15, 51–58 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-006-0034-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-006-0034-4