Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:14:27.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Telling Stories: Metaphors of the Human Genome Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Mary Rosner  and
T. R. Johnson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scientists of the Human Genome Project tend to rely on three metaphors to describe their work, each of which implicitly tells much the same story. Whether they claim to interpret the ultimate “book,” to fix a flawed “machine,” or to map a mysterious “wilderness,” they invariably cast the researcher as one who dominates and exploits the Other. This essay, which explores the ways such a story conflicts with feminist values, proposes an alternative.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , Fall 1995 , pp. 104 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by Hypatia, Inc.

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

Barton, Ben F. and Barton, Marthalee S. 1993. Ideology and the map: Toward a postmodern visual design practice. In Professional communication: The social perspective, ed. Blyler, Nancy Roundy, and Thralls, Charlotte. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bercovitch, Sacvan. 1975. The Puritan origins of the American self. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Booth, Wayne. 1988. The company we keep: An ethics of fiction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael S., et al. 1993. Roundtable: The Human Genome Project. Issues in Science and Technology 10(1): 43–48.Google Scholar
Bullard, Linda. 1987. Killing us softly: Toward a feminist analysis of genetic engineering.Made to order: The myth of reproductive and genetic progress. See Spallone and Steinberg, ed.Google Scholar
Campbell, Neil. 1986. Discoverer of the double helix. Bioscience 36(11): 728–31.Google Scholar
Caskey, C. Thomas, and Hughes, Mark. 1991. Medical genetics. JAMA 265(23): 3132–3134.Google Scholar
Christie, John. 1993. A tragedy for cyborgs. Configurations 1(1): 171–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Necia Grant ed., 1994. Classical linkage mapping. In The Human Genome Project: Deciphering the blueprint of heredity. Mill Valley, CA: University Science Books.Google Scholar
Crichton, Michael. 1990. Jurassic Park. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1974. Of grammatology. Trans. Spivak, Gayatri. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Goerlich, Annette, and Krannich, Margaret. 1989. The gene politics of the European Community. Journal of Reproductive and Genetic Engineering 2(3): 201–18.Google ScholarPubMed
Greenblatt, Stephen. 1991. Marvelous possessions: The wonder of the new world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1985. A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review 15(2): 65–108.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1989a. The biopolitics of postmodern bodies: Determinations of self in immune system discourse. Differences 1(1): 3–43.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1989b. Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1992. The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In Cultural Studies, ed. Grossberg, Lawrenceet al. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, J. B. 1988. Maps, knowledge, and power. In The Iconography of landscape: Essays on the symbolic representation, design, and use of past environments, ed. Denis, Cosgrove, and Daniels, Stephen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, J. B. 1989. Deconstructing the map. Cartographica 26(2): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth. 1990. The politics of women's biology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth and Wald, Elijah. 1993. Exploding the gene myth: How genetic information is produced and manipulated by scientists, physicians, employers, insurance companies, educators, and law enforcers. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1977. This sex which is not one. Trans. Porter, Catherine with Burke, Carolyn. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang. 1974. The reading process: A phenomenological approach. In The implied reader: Patterns of communication in prose fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jaroff, Leon. 1989. The gene hunt. Time, 20 March, 62–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1983. Afeeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Dynamic objectivity. In Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1988. Feminist perspectives on science studies. Science, Technology and Human Values 13(3–4): 235–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1992a. Introduction to Secrets of life/Secrets of death: Essays on language, gender, and science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1992b. Nature, nurture, and the Human Genome Project. In The code of codes: Scientific and social issues in the Human Genome Project, ed. Kevles, Daniel J., and Hood, Leroy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kollek, Regine. 1990. The limits of experimental knowledge: A feminist perspective on the ecological risks of genetic engineering. Journal of Reproductive and Genetic Engineering 3(2): 125–35.Google ScholarPubMed
Latour, Bruno. 1991. Technology is society made durable. In A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination, ed. Law, John. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Law, John, and Whittaker, John. 1988. On the art of representation: Notes on the politics of visualisation. In Picturing power: Visual depiction and social relations, ed. Gordon, Fyfe, and Law, John. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leiss, William. 1985. Technology and degeneration: The sublime machine. In Degeneration: The dark side of progress, ed. Chamberlin, J. Edward and Gilman, Sander. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, David Michael. 1987. Clinical stories: A modern self in the fury of being. In Pathologies of the modern self: Postmodern studies in narcissism, depression, and schizophrenia, ed. Levin, David Michael. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, David Michael. Psychopathology in the epoch of nihilism. In Pathologies of the modern self: Postmodern studies in narcissism, depression, and schizophrenia, ed. Levin, David Michael. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1993. Biology as ideology: The doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper/Perennial.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, Jerold. 1992. Whose genome is it, anyway? Discover (May): 28–31.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1985. Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science 15: 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mange, Arthur P. and Mange, Elaine Johansen. 1990. Genetics: Human aspects. 2d ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Marx, Leo. 1964. The machine in the garden: Technology and the pastoral ideal in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClintock, Barbara. 1984. The significance of responses of the genome to challenge. Science 226(November 16): 792–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mies, Maria. 1987. Why do we need all this? A call against genetic engineering and reproductive technology. In Mode to order: The myth of reproductive and genetic progress. See Spallone and Steinberg 1987.Google Scholar
, N. R. 1994. Gene tests: Who's minding the store? Science, 22 July, 465.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health (NIH). 1990. Understanding our genetic inheritance. The US Human Genome Project: The first five years, FY 1991–1995. Washington: NIH Publication.Google Scholar
Nelkin, Dorothy. 1993. The grandiose claims of geneticists. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 3 March, B1–B2.Google Scholar
Pratt, Mary L. 1992. Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Leslie. 1989. Genome project under way, at last. Science, 13 January, 167–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Roberts, Leslie. 1993a. Taking stock of the genome project. Science, 1 October, 20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Leslie. 1993b. Whither the ELSI program. Hastings Center Report 23 (November‐December): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Hilary. 1993. Rhetoric, feminism and scientific knowledge or from either/or to both/and. In The recovery of rhetoric: Persuasive discourse and disciplinarity in the human sciences, ed. Roberts, R. H., and Good, J. M. M.Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Rowland, Robyn. 1992. Living laboratories: Women and reproductive technologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karen. 1994. Meet genetics' master chefs. New Scientist, 23 April, 32–35.Google Scholar
Shuster, Evelyne. 1992. Determinism and reductionism: A greater threat because of the Human Genome Project. In Gene mapping: Using law and ethics as guides, ed. Annas, George J., and Elias, Sherman. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spallone, Patricia. 1989. Beyond conception: The new politics of reproduction. Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spallone, Patricia. Generation games. 1992. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Patricia, Spallone, and Steinberg, Deborah Lynn eds., 1987. Made To Order: Thy myth of reproductive technology and genetic progress. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Watson, James D. 1990. The Human Genome Project: Past, present, and future. Science, 6 April, 44–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, James D. 1992. A personal view of the project. In The code of codes: Scientific and social issues in the Human Genome Project, ed. Kevles, Daniel J., and Hood, Leroy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, James D. and Juengst, Eric J. 1992. Foreward: Doing science in the real world: The role of ethics, law, and the social sciences in the Human Genome Project. In Gene mapping: Using law and ethics as guides, ed. Annas, George J., and Elias, Sherman. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, David L. 1993. At the helm of the most important scientific enterprise of the century: The NIH's Human Genome Project. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 August, A8–A9.Google Scholar
Wilkie, Tom. 1993. Perilous knowledge: The Human Genome Project and its implications. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar