Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:38:58.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transgenic Silences: The Rhetoric of Comparisons and Transgenic Mice as ‘Ordinary Treasures’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Tora Holmberg  and
Malin Ideland
Tora Holmberg
Affiliation:
Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Box 634, SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden E-mail: [email protected]
Malin Ideland
Affiliation:
School of Teacher Education, Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article addresses how people who handle transgenic animals in practice—laboratory workers and members of animal ethics committees—talk about and handle dilemmas with transgenic animals. It is shown how dilemmas associated with transgenic animals become back-grounded through rhetorical comparisons with ‘something else’. Through these comparisons, transgenic animals are framed as normal, ordinary and thereby unproblematic on the one hand, and as valuable treasures in which are embedded hopes and expectations of future medical treatments on the other. This tension builds up to a discourse on transgenic mice as ordinary treasures. Towards the end of the article we discuss how this discourse tends to exclude possibilities of discussing specific dilemmas of genetically modified animals. Instead the discourse is contributing to certain transgenic silences. This article is based on the project ‘Dilemmas with transgenic animals’, in which notions of culture and nature, risk and safety, innovation and organism, science and technology, are investigated in the scientific production, use and ethical evaluation of transgenic animals. The project builds on case studies in two different contexts: laboratories and animal ethics committees. The methods used are interviews and ethnographic fieldwork.

Keywords

AnimalDiscourse AnalysisEthicsRhetoricSilenceTransgenic
Type
Articles
Information
BioSocieties , Volume 4 , Issue 2-3 , September 2009 , pp. 165 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © London School of Economics and Political Science 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, S. (2002). Media, risk and science. Buckingham: Open UP.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (1999). Freudian repression: Conversation creating the unconscious. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birke, L., Arluke, A. & Michael, M. (2007). The sacrifice: How scientific experiments transform animals and people. West Lafayette, VA: Purdue UP.Google Scholar
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, N. (2003). Hope against hype—Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2)3–21.Google Scholar
Brown, N. (2006). The visual politics of animals in bioscience—Earmice in the public sphere. Xenotransplantation, 13, 501–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, N. & Michael, M. (2001). Switching between science and culture in transpecies transplantation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26, 3–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, N., & Webster, A. (2004). New medical technologies and society: Reordering life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brown, N., Faulkner, A., Kent, J., & Michael, M. (2006). Regulating hybrids: ‘Making a mess’ and ‘cleaning up’ in tissue engineering and transpecies transplantation. Social Theory & Health, 4, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cassidy, R., & Mullin, M. (2007). Where the wild things are now: Domestication reconsidered. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Forsman, B. (1993). Research ethics in practice: The animal ethics committees in Sweden 1979–1989. Göteborg: Centre for Research Ethics.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and The discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. (1998). Animal models: An anthropologist considers Dolly. URL (accessed October 2003): www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc022sf.htmlGoogle Scholar
Franklin, S. (2007). Dolly mixtures: The remaking of genealogy. Durham, NC: Duke UP.Google Scholar
Haraway, D.J. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D.J. (2004). The Haraway reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D.J. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: U Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, T. (2008). A feeling for the animal: On becoming an experimentalist. Society & Animals, 16, 316–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, T. (forthcoming). Tail tales: Handling transgenic dilemmas in practice.Google Scholar
Ideland, M. (2002a). Dagens Gennyheter: Hur massmedier berättar om genetik och genteknik. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ideland, M. (2002b). Det gäller livet—mediernas roll i stamcellsdebatten. (It is about life—the role of media in the stem cell debate). Stockholm: Institutet för mediestudier.Google Scholar
Ideland, M. (2009) Different views on ethics: How animal ethics is situated in a committee culture. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 258–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruse, C. (2006). The making of valid data: People and machines in genetic research practice. PhD thesis, Dept of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Kulick, D. (2005). The importance of what gets left out. Discourse Studies, 7, 615–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Marwin, C. (1988). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Michael, M. (2000). Futures of the present: From performativity to prehension. In Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (Eds), Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Michael, M. (2001). Technoscientific bespoking: Animals, publics and the new genetics. New Genetics and Society, 20: 205–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, D., & Lindee, S. (1995). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
Nordgren, A., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2005). Genetically modified animals in research: An analysis of applications submitted to ethics committees on animal experimentation in Sweden. Animal Welfare, 14, 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuffield Council of Bioethics (2005). The ethics of research involving animals. London: Nuffield Council of Bioethics.Google Scholar
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, W.M.S., & Burch, R.L. (1959). The principles of humane experimental technique. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Schuppli, C., Fraser, D., & McDonald, M. (2004). Expanding the three Rs to meet new challenges in humane animal experimentation. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 32, 525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1989). Leviathan and the air-pump—Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
Swedish Board of Agriculture (2008). [www] cited from http://www.sjv.se [cited 18th November 2008].Google Scholar
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1993). Mapping the language of racism. New York: Columbia UP.Google Scholar