By Julius Mugwagwa
Spending a week in Uganda and taking part in the agrobiotech, biosafety and seed systems conference second week of March brought me head-on with a number of persistent realities facing the development and deployment of modern agricultural biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa. I’ve trailed biotech debates in Sub-Saharan Africa for a decade now, and consider myself well-equipped to understand the twists and turns in the terrain. Ten years is a long time, but for me it has brought persistent feelings of paramnesia … feelings of certainty that what is being said has to a large extent been said before. However, if you ask me, that in itself is not the problem, but the underlying reasons for that stagnant debate are.
For a start, and as has long been confirmed, the dynamics behind this technology go beyond what the science can churn out. It’s to a much bigger extent about the technology-transcending politics of governing the technology to gain a balance among the contending interests of many stakeholders dotted around the value chain. Many players have entered the fray over the years to try and unblock the many grid-locks that lie in the path of successful introduction of biotech products in the region. For example, a number of NGOs and other non-state players specialising in ‘biotechnology communication’ have emerged in the region and taken over the role of educating the public on the pros and cons of modern biotechnology.
While it appears like scientists have taken a back seat to allow the specialised organisations to find and deliver suitable messages, the reality is that the majority of the people running these organisations are established scientists in their own right. They have fought the science communication battle from different fronts, starting as laboratory scientists occasionally invited to give talks at workshops or speaking their messages through others. Now they say they see the need to fight their own battles, with a little help from colleagues who specialise in communication.
Meanwhile, for the ordinary member of the public, it’s the lack of a firm middle ground which is worrying. When the debate started several years ago now, there were a number of organisations championing a neutral, balanced-information agenda, but gradually they have all moved either to the left or to the right, a trend which mirrors the funding opportunities available. The messages and the messengers seem to be following the money. Putting all this together, one cannot help sparing a moment to ponder over what one of the delegates at the Uganda conference said … that in this biotech debate the truth shall not set you free! What will? Food for thought!
Friday, 19 March 2010
Friday, 26 February 2010
Press coverage for Innogen's Economics Director, Prof Mariana Mazzucato
Find out more about Mariana's work in the following media outlets:
Television
Academic expert in 'Inside Story', 22 minute TV programme on Toyota Recall and its impact. Presented by Mike Hanna. Produced by Al Jazeera English, first aired prime time on Al Jazeera English TV, 7 February 2010
Key role in the design and development of the film 'Rules of the Game', 30 minute TV film on innovation and the industry life-cycle, Featuring work and interviews by academic experts: Mariana Mazzucato, Paul David, and Clive Sinclair. Presented by PY Gerbeau. Produced by BBC, first aired prime time on BBC2, June 2002.
News
'Is R&D spending worth it?' (forthcoming Spring 2010) - contribution to the 'Excellence in Leadership', the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants business publication
'Economic Insight' column (Jan 2010) - opinion piece on 'to what extent throwing money at funding innovation helps keep a country ahead in the knowledge economy' in the Business XL publication
'Fixing the Broken Innovation Model' (Dec 2009) - opinion piece for Pharmaceutical Executive Europe
'Innovate to Stimulate' (Jan 2010) - article on Prof Mazzucato's inaugural address (25 March 2009): 'Do the best firms always win?' featured in Sesame magazine.
'Economic Recovery is a Slow and Painful Process' (Nov 2009) - Peter Bartram from the Financial Director quoting Professor Mazzucato on the economic growth rate in 2010.
'Winning Advantage Through Innovation' (Nov 2009) - Brett Matthews from the Business Today quoting Professor Mazzucato on why people are not investing and a discussion piece on the relationship between innovation and company growth.
'Study Probes Role of Finance in the Economy' (July 2009) - Market Research Industry Online highlights FINNOV, the OU grant awarded by the European Commission (http://www.finnov-fp7.eu/), led by Mariana Mazzucato
Television
Academic expert in 'Inside Story', 22 minute TV programme on Toyota Recall and its impact. Presented by Mike Hanna. Produced by Al Jazeera English, first aired prime time on Al Jazeera English TV, 7 February 2010
Key role in the design and development of the film 'Rules of the Game', 30 minute TV film on innovation and the industry life-cycle, Featuring work and interviews by academic experts: Mariana Mazzucato, Paul David, and Clive Sinclair. Presented by PY Gerbeau. Produced by BBC, first aired prime time on BBC2, June 2002.
News
'Is R&D spending worth it?' (forthcoming Spring 2010) - contribution to the 'Excellence in Leadership', the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants business publication
'Economic Insight' column (Jan 2010) - opinion piece on 'to what extent throwing money at funding innovation helps keep a country ahead in the knowledge economy' in the Business XL publication
'Fixing the Broken Innovation Model' (Dec 2009) - opinion piece for Pharmaceutical Executive Europe
'Innovate to Stimulate' (Jan 2010) - article on Prof Mazzucato's inaugural address (25 March 2009): 'Do the best firms always win?' featured in Sesame magazine.
'Economic Recovery is a Slow and Painful Process' (Nov 2009) - Peter Bartram from the Financial Director quoting Professor Mazzucato on the economic growth rate in 2010.
'Winning Advantage Through Innovation' (Nov 2009) - Brett Matthews from the Business Today quoting Professor Mazzucato on why people are not investing and a discussion piece on the relationship between innovation and company growth.
'Study Probes Role of Finance in the Economy' (July 2009) - Market Research Industry Online highlights FINNOV, the OU grant awarded by the European Commission (http://www.finnov-fp7.eu/), led by Mariana Mazzucato
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Where are the users in the Global Health Research and Innovation System?
Dr. Rebecca Hanlin, Director of Health Innovation at the ESRC Innogen Centre
During many of the discussions held at Forum 2009 towards the end of last year in Havana, Cuba, a particular set of users (patients and civil society members) were frequently missing. One concept discussed at the meeting and in a commentary piece published at the time in The Lancet was that of a Global Health Research and Innovation System. This concept acknowledges the need to consider more systemically the wide range of actors, stimulus and challenges impacting the ability to innovate (new) health related products and services to address the health of the poorest in the world. However, the current conceptualisation of this system put forward ignores the valuable role users play in the innovation process.
This is despite an increasing recognition of the role of users within academic thinking around innovation more generally. There is a growing recognition that innovation is disruptive and often takes place as a result of those who, or to address groups who, are ‘below the radar’ thus recognizing the role of low income populations at the bottom of the pyramid. Much of this has been user driven innovation whereby innovation takes place in response to the needs of users while other innovation actually involves the user in the innovation process. Considering these forms of innovation provide one means to overcome the mismatches affecting innovation of health related products and services for those who need them most.
Further information:
[1] http://www.globalforumhealth.org/Forum-2009
[1] Matlin, S.A. and Samuels, G.M.R. (2009) “The Global Health Research and Innovation System (GHRIS)” The Lancet Vol. 374, pp.1662-3
[1] DPP (2009) BELOW THE RADAR: WHAT DOES INNOVATION IN THE ASIAN DRIVER ECONOMIES HAVE TO OFFER OTHER LOW INCOME ECONOMIES? Innogen Working Paper 69 January 2009
[1] Prahalad, C.K. (2004) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits Wharton School Publishing[1] Hanlin, R. and Sutz, J. (2009) Where are the flags of our fathers? Rethinking linkages between social policies and innovation policies Innogen Working Paper (forthcoming)
During many of the discussions held at Forum 2009 towards the end of last year in Havana, Cuba, a particular set of users (patients and civil society members) were frequently missing. One concept discussed at the meeting and in a commentary piece published at the time in The Lancet was that of a Global Health Research and Innovation System. This concept acknowledges the need to consider more systemically the wide range of actors, stimulus and challenges impacting the ability to innovate (new) health related products and services to address the health of the poorest in the world. However, the current conceptualisation of this system put forward ignores the valuable role users play in the innovation process.
This is despite an increasing recognition of the role of users within academic thinking around innovation more generally. There is a growing recognition that innovation is disruptive and often takes place as a result of those who, or to address groups who, are ‘below the radar’ thus recognizing the role of low income populations at the bottom of the pyramid. Much of this has been user driven innovation whereby innovation takes place in response to the needs of users while other innovation actually involves the user in the innovation process. Considering these forms of innovation provide one means to overcome the mismatches affecting innovation of health related products and services for those who need them most.
Further information:
[1] http://www.globalforumhealth.org/Forum-2009
[1] Matlin, S.A. and Samuels, G.M.R. (2009) “The Global Health Research and Innovation System (GHRIS)” The Lancet Vol. 374, pp.1662-3
[1] DPP (2009) BELOW THE RADAR: WHAT DOES INNOVATION IN THE ASIAN DRIVER ECONOMIES HAVE TO OFFER OTHER LOW INCOME ECONOMIES? Innogen Working Paper 69 January 2009
[1] Prahalad, C.K. (2004) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits Wharton School Publishing[1] Hanlin, R. and Sutz, J. (2009) Where are the flags of our fathers? Rethinking linkages between social policies and innovation policies Innogen Working Paper (forthcoming)
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Framing the engagement of science?
By Gill Haddow, Ann Bruce, Jane Calvert and Robin Williams
Consulting and engaging with sectors of the UK population on the development of new scientific and medical technologies, such as GM crops, stem cell technology and DNA databases is considered to be of fundamental importance by some politicians, funding bodies, scientific organisations and social scientists. Social scientists have become involved with these ‘public engagement’ activities – studying their operation and impacts and, often supporting their activities. However the position of social scientists involved in these “engagements” remains rather unclear.
As social scientists, in recent years, we have become involved in public engagement activities with a number of groups (public, regulatory, academic etc) on various new scientific and medical technologies. Again and again, we have come across the problem of how to present complex technical, legal, ethical and social issues about these technologies to our participants. There is after all, a fundamental difference between asking people for their views on a particular topic based on their experience of it and asking people for their views based on little experience or knowledge. More often than not the public/s we engaged with had little experience, awareness and knowledge of these new scientific developments; and to be frank, were often little interested in them.
To reiterate, the problem is one of engaging with lay publics or with specialist communities (politicians, managers, specialists etc) on areas outside their specialism. This is why the issue of “framing” comes to the fore. There has been much criticism from STS colleagues about the disposition of scientists to persuade public/s that the science they are conducting is good and fair by framing the issues in a particular way. A much overlooked issue in these interactions is the problem of “framing” by the social scientists themselves. The role of “framing” in social interactions can be traced back to the classic work of Goffman who suggested that, “definitions of a situation are built up in accordance with principals of organization which govern events, at least social ones, and our subjective involvement in them; frame is the word I use to refer to such of these basic elements” (Goffman, 1974). Gitlin provides a convenient accessible definition: “Frames are principles of selection, emphasis and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens and what matters” (1980: 6). It is this question of “what matters” that has emerged in some of our latest research.
As social scientists, seeking to elicit the views of diverse constituencies in the course of fieldwork or public engagement activities, we may need to convey something about complex technical fields and associated social issues and policy debate. Time constraints, let alone the limits to our technical understanding, mean we can only provide a condensed and simplified account of these complex issues. Such simplification brings a risk of misinterpretation by giving some aspects greater emphasis than others. So no longer is it only about making sure that we do not ask leading questions, but it is the ability to present debates, issues etc that are provocative but reasonable; that stimulate debate but do not antagonise; that do not capture our respondents by our own analytical commitments and vested (critical) interests. Social scientists involved in PE activities around particular scientific or technological developments as “critical friends” of scientists are faced with additional questions such as, “how do we present information that does not alienate and antagonise scientific colleagues through inaccuracies, ignorance or unintended bias, yet allows the social scientist to present contested debates”?
We are also faced with a problem that, at one and the same time, the “picture we present” of such advances are to be inclusive, do not lead to power-differentials, do not “capture” the audience by our (conscious or unconscious) vested interests, do not lead to premature consensus and presents the information in a fair and unbiased way.
Some commentators have tended to discuss the issue of framing as a conscious strategy to lead (or mislead) those being engaged with towards a particular view (McCombs, et al 1997). In our experience this is less frequently an issue for social scientists as the unconscious representation of knowledge that reflects the social scientist’s interests. For example – there is an issue about justifying the involvement of social scientists as paid members of PE exercises; the general concern by social scientists to emphasise their value as intermediaries in techno-scientific change and there is also a question of the social and political personal commitments of social scientists. The solution is perhaps to spend more time reflecting on the presentation of information, more time discussing it with colleagues and more time thinking about the reactions it is likely to produce and to take more care in the results to demonstrate what and where the social science was in the frame.
References:
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience New York: Harper and Row
Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA & London, U.K.: University of California Press.
McCombs, M., Shaw, D. L., and Weaver, D., (1997) Communication and Democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Consulting and engaging with sectors of the UK population on the development of new scientific and medical technologies, such as GM crops, stem cell technology and DNA databases is considered to be of fundamental importance by some politicians, funding bodies, scientific organisations and social scientists. Social scientists have become involved with these ‘public engagement’ activities – studying their operation and impacts and, often supporting their activities. However the position of social scientists involved in these “engagements” remains rather unclear.
As social scientists, in recent years, we have become involved in public engagement activities with a number of groups (public, regulatory, academic etc) on various new scientific and medical technologies. Again and again, we have come across the problem of how to present complex technical, legal, ethical and social issues about these technologies to our participants. There is after all, a fundamental difference between asking people for their views on a particular topic based on their experience of it and asking people for their views based on little experience or knowledge. More often than not the public/s we engaged with had little experience, awareness and knowledge of these new scientific developments; and to be frank, were often little interested in them.
To reiterate, the problem is one of engaging with lay publics or with specialist communities (politicians, managers, specialists etc) on areas outside their specialism. This is why the issue of “framing” comes to the fore. There has been much criticism from STS colleagues about the disposition of scientists to persuade public/s that the science they are conducting is good and fair by framing the issues in a particular way. A much overlooked issue in these interactions is the problem of “framing” by the social scientists themselves. The role of “framing” in social interactions can be traced back to the classic work of Goffman who suggested that, “definitions of a situation are built up in accordance with principals of organization which govern events, at least social ones, and our subjective involvement in them; frame is the word I use to refer to such of these basic elements” (Goffman, 1974). Gitlin provides a convenient accessible definition: “Frames are principles of selection, emphasis and presentation composed of little tacit theories about what exists, what happens and what matters” (1980: 6). It is this question of “what matters” that has emerged in some of our latest research.
As social scientists, seeking to elicit the views of diverse constituencies in the course of fieldwork or public engagement activities, we may need to convey something about complex technical fields and associated social issues and policy debate. Time constraints, let alone the limits to our technical understanding, mean we can only provide a condensed and simplified account of these complex issues. Such simplification brings a risk of misinterpretation by giving some aspects greater emphasis than others. So no longer is it only about making sure that we do not ask leading questions, but it is the ability to present debates, issues etc that are provocative but reasonable; that stimulate debate but do not antagonise; that do not capture our respondents by our own analytical commitments and vested (critical) interests. Social scientists involved in PE activities around particular scientific or technological developments as “critical friends” of scientists are faced with additional questions such as, “how do we present information that does not alienate and antagonise scientific colleagues through inaccuracies, ignorance or unintended bias, yet allows the social scientist to present contested debates”?
We are also faced with a problem that, at one and the same time, the “picture we present” of such advances are to be inclusive, do not lead to power-differentials, do not “capture” the audience by our (conscious or unconscious) vested interests, do not lead to premature consensus and presents the information in a fair and unbiased way.
Some commentators have tended to discuss the issue of framing as a conscious strategy to lead (or mislead) those being engaged with towards a particular view (McCombs, et al 1997). In our experience this is less frequently an issue for social scientists as the unconscious representation of knowledge that reflects the social scientist’s interests. For example – there is an issue about justifying the involvement of social scientists as paid members of PE exercises; the general concern by social scientists to emphasise their value as intermediaries in techno-scientific change and there is also a question of the social and political personal commitments of social scientists. The solution is perhaps to spend more time reflecting on the presentation of information, more time discussing it with colleagues and more time thinking about the reactions it is likely to produce and to take more care in the results to demonstrate what and where the social science was in the frame.
References:
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience New York: Harper and Row
Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA & London, U.K.: University of California Press.
McCombs, M., Shaw, D. L., and Weaver, D., (1997) Communication and Democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
How many scientists fabricate and falsify research?
Press release from PLoS ONE
It's a long-standing and crucial question that, as yet, remains unanswered: just how common is scientific misconduct? In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours. The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research.
Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jon Sudbø's made-up cancer trials have dramatically demonstrated that fraudulent research is very easy to publish, even in the most prestigious journals. The media and many scientists tend to explain away these cases as pathological deviations of a few "bad apples." Common sense and increasing evidence, however, suggest that these could be just the tip of the iceberg, because fraud and other more subtle forms of misconduct might be relatively frequent. The actual numbers, however, are a matter of great controversy.
Estimates based on indirect data (for example, official retractions of scientific papers or random data audits) have produced largely discrepant results. Therefore, many researchers have asked scientists directly, with surveys conducted in different countries and disciplines. However, they have used different methods and asked different questions, so their results also appeared inconclusive.
To make these surveys comparable, the meta-analysis focused on behaviours that actually distort scientific knowledge (excluding data on plagiarism and other kinds of malpractice) and extracted the frequency of scientists who recalled having committed a particular behaviour at least once, or who knew a colleague who did.
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.
In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers, or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. The latter interpretation would support growing fears that industrial sponsorship is severely distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.
As in all surveys asking sensitive questions, it is likely that some respondents did not reply honestly, especially when asked about their own behaviour. Therefore, a frequency of 2% is probably a conservative estimate, while it remains unclear how the figure of 14% should be interpreted.
Contact: Dr Daniele Fanelli
Citation: Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
PLEASE ADD THE LINK TO THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN ONLINE VERSIONS OF YOUR REPORT: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
It's a long-standing and crucial question that, as yet, remains unanswered: just how common is scientific misconduct? In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours. The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research.
Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jon Sudbø's made-up cancer trials have dramatically demonstrated that fraudulent research is very easy to publish, even in the most prestigious journals. The media and many scientists tend to explain away these cases as pathological deviations of a few "bad apples." Common sense and increasing evidence, however, suggest that these could be just the tip of the iceberg, because fraud and other more subtle forms of misconduct might be relatively frequent. The actual numbers, however, are a matter of great controversy.
Estimates based on indirect data (for example, official retractions of scientific papers or random data audits) have produced largely discrepant results. Therefore, many researchers have asked scientists directly, with surveys conducted in different countries and disciplines. However, they have used different methods and asked different questions, so their results also appeared inconclusive.
To make these surveys comparable, the meta-analysis focused on behaviours that actually distort scientific knowledge (excluding data on plagiarism and other kinds of malpractice) and extracted the frequency of scientists who recalled having committed a particular behaviour at least once, or who knew a colleague who did.
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.
In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers, or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. The latter interpretation would support growing fears that industrial sponsorship is severely distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs.
As in all surveys asking sensitive questions, it is likely that some respondents did not reply honestly, especially when asked about their own behaviour. Therefore, a frequency of 2% is probably a conservative estimate, while it remains unclear how the figure of 14% should be interpreted.
Contact: Dr Daniele Fanelli
Citation: Fanelli D (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
PLEASE ADD THE LINK TO THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN ONLINE VERSIONS OF YOUR REPORT: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
Constituting Neurologic Subjects: Neuroscience, Identity and Society after the ‘Decade of the Brain’
Are we are brains? Certainly, new research in the neurosciences is providing compelling evidence to suggest that much of what we think, say and do is governed by the brain, at least in part. Through their work, not least of which are powerful imaging studies, neuroscientists provide new ways of understanding ourselves, social relations, and societies. In so doing, the 'new brain sciences' are contributing to longstanding debates concerning free will, morality, and madness. Increasingly, neuroscience research is filtering into other domains and discourses, challenging existing practice and animating new social engagements and relations. Accordingly, social theorist Nikolas Rose has suggested that 'we' have now become 'neurochemical selves' (Rose, 2007: 188), understanding thought, feeling and behaviour as being mediated through the workings of the brain.
Rose's formulation captures well the broad shifts in identity that the meta-narratives of neuroscience and the psy-sciences have entrained. Anthropologist Joseph Dumit (2004) and sociologist Kelly Joyce (2008) have likewise examined some of the cultural practices associated with neuroimaging in particular. It is becoming clear that neuroscience is not a twenty-first century phrenology: neuoscientific narratives about personality and behaviour align somatic and societal registers in sophisticated ways which render problematic simplistic critiques of ‘reductionism’ or ‘determinism’ (Pickersgill, 2009). Yet, there are clearly a number of ‘gaps’ in our understandings of the complex interactions between neuroscience and society that need to be explored. In this project, funded by the ESRC, we (in collaboration with Dr Paul Martin, University of Nottingham) seek firmer analytic purchase on these important issues through empirical work examining the positioning of a range of publics (including neuroscientists themselves) towards neuroscience.
Methodologically, this 11 month project employs documentary analysis and focus groups to reach an understanding of the range of subject positions assumed by publics in relation to neuroscience. Extending Sarah Cunningham-Burley’s work on science and publics, and Martyn Pickersgill’s research into the links between psychiatry and neuroscience, this investigation charts the constitution of neurologic subjects by exploring the shifting understandings of expertise and identity engendered by neuroscience. In the process, we seek to ground theoretical discussion about neuroscience in empirical reality, and create a new vantage point from which we can better engage with the ethics and politics of this potentially transformative science.
Contact:
Martyn Pickersgill and Sarah Cunningham-Burley
Public Health Sciences Section, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh
martyn.pickersgill@ed.ac.uk
Rose's formulation captures well the broad shifts in identity that the meta-narratives of neuroscience and the psy-sciences have entrained. Anthropologist Joseph Dumit (2004) and sociologist Kelly Joyce (2008) have likewise examined some of the cultural practices associated with neuroimaging in particular. It is becoming clear that neuroscience is not a twenty-first century phrenology: neuoscientific narratives about personality and behaviour align somatic and societal registers in sophisticated ways which render problematic simplistic critiques of ‘reductionism’ or ‘determinism’ (Pickersgill, 2009). Yet, there are clearly a number of ‘gaps’ in our understandings of the complex interactions between neuroscience and society that need to be explored. In this project, funded by the ESRC, we (in collaboration with Dr Paul Martin, University of Nottingham) seek firmer analytic purchase on these important issues through empirical work examining the positioning of a range of publics (including neuroscientists themselves) towards neuroscience.
Methodologically, this 11 month project employs documentary analysis and focus groups to reach an understanding of the range of subject positions assumed by publics in relation to neuroscience. Extending Sarah Cunningham-Burley’s work on science and publics, and Martyn Pickersgill’s research into the links between psychiatry and neuroscience, this investigation charts the constitution of neurologic subjects by exploring the shifting understandings of expertise and identity engendered by neuroscience. In the process, we seek to ground theoretical discussion about neuroscience in empirical reality, and create a new vantage point from which we can better engage with the ethics and politics of this potentially transformative science.
Contact:
Martyn Pickersgill and Sarah Cunningham-Burley
Public Health Sciences Section, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh
martyn.pickersgill@ed.ac.uk
References
Dumit, J. (2004) Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Joyce, K. (2008) Magnetic Appeal: MRI and the Myth of Transparency, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Pickersgill, M. (2009) ‘Between Soma and Society: Neuroscience and the Ontology of Psychopathy’, BioSocieties, 4, 1, 45-60.
Rose, N. (2007) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century, Princeton: Princeton University
Reducing our carbon footprint: can selective animal breeding help?
Innogen Research Fellow, Ann Bruce has been awarded an ESRC grant:
Mitigating the environmental impact of cattle and sheep: animal genetics and farmers' readiness for uptake
Global warming is often thought as being caused by energy production but the second largest contributor is animal production, with methane produced by cows and sheep a key component. One obvious solution is to reduce meat and milk consumption but this is unlikely to be acceptable to everyone. Moreover, grass-fed animals (such as cows and sheep) can provide other benefits than food, such as managing biodiversity. The UK has a good climate for producing grass and many of the upland regions of the UK cannot be used for cultivating anything other than grass. Grazing animals therefore provide the backbone of many rural communities.
A range of different animal breeding technologies (including but not limited to genetic modification) could be used to mitigate the global warming impact of farm livestock, but adoption of these may be limited by willingness of farmers to purchase these replacement breeding animals. The aim of this project is to:
This project will run from January 2010-Decemebr 2011. For more information, please contact Ann Bruce.
Mitigating the environmental impact of cattle and sheep: animal genetics and farmers' readiness for uptake
Global warming is often thought as being caused by energy production but the second largest contributor is animal production, with methane produced by cows and sheep a key component. One obvious solution is to reduce meat and milk consumption but this is unlikely to be acceptable to everyone. Moreover, grass-fed animals (such as cows and sheep) can provide other benefits than food, such as managing biodiversity. The UK has a good climate for producing grass and many of the upland regions of the UK cannot be used for cultivating anything other than grass. Grazing animals therefore provide the backbone of many rural communities.
A range of different animal breeding technologies (including but not limited to genetic modification) could be used to mitigate the global warming impact of farm livestock, but adoption of these may be limited by willingness of farmers to purchase these replacement breeding animals. The aim of this project is to:
- understand how farmers reach decisions on where to source replacement breeding animals
- understand how the whole system of producing replacement breeding animals impacts on the decisions made by farmers
- evaluate what changes could be made to encourage the uptake of animals bred for reduced global warming impact
This project will identify key factors that influence the uptake of animals bred for reduced global warming impact. By working in collaboration with a key animal breeding technology transfer body (Genesis Faraday Partnership) this project will be working directly with the people who would be in a position to act on the knowledge created in this project and influence how breeding technologies could be used to mitigate the global warming potential of farm animals.
This project will run from January 2010-Decemebr 2011. For more information, please contact Ann Bruce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)