BIOS
BIOSNews Issue 10 • Fall 2008
In this issue Quality and biomedicine in a Sicilian transplant centre by Chiara Di Bartolo 2 The future of biological control by Sarah Franklin 3
Regulation, dialogue and quality control
Mind the gap? The roles of social science in public dialogue by Kevin Burchell 5 The proof is in the placebo by Ayo Wahlberg 6 Postgrad pages: ‘Lost in Rotterdam’ by Leo Kim 8 Library resources for BIOS by Rowena Macrae-Gibson 9 Research updates 11 Postcards to BIOS 12 Publications and conference presentations 13 Upcoming events 16
If we look at some of the anxieties and insecurities that surround biological research today, it seems that biology is out of control. Biological research is something to be monitored and regulated, its implications are to be publicly debated and even its ‘raw’ or starting materials have proved difficult to standardise or tame in ongoing efforts to translate advanced biological research into transplant, stem cell or gene therapies. This first BIOS News issue of the new academic year is packed with articles and reports exploring this question of biological control from a number of different angles. BIOS MSc alumnus, Chiara Di Bartolo has sent us a fascinating account of her current work as Quality Assurance Manager at the ISMETT Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy Unit in Italy. She provides us with insight into some of the many translation challenges in biology today. Sarah Franklin reflects on the Dame Dr Anne McLaren Memorial Symposium on the Future of Biological Control held on 10 July. Panelists, which included Susan Michie, Ian Wilmut and Stephen Minger, reflected on the extraordinary contributions of Anne McLaren to regulation, policy and ethics related to human fertilisation and embryology in the UK. Kevin Burchell reports from a BIOS workshop on the role of social science in public dialogue on science and technology held on 4 July.
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
As we kick off a new academic year, we say hello to a number of new people. Sara Tocchetti, Caitlin Cockerton and Des Fitzgerald join BIOS as new PhD students (see Sara’s and Caitlin’s introductions in the research update pages). Dr Niamh Stephenson from the University of New South Wales has come to BIOS as an Academic Visitor to work on her biosecurity projects. Sui Suli, Sita Kotnis and Maurizio Meloni have come to BIOS as Visiting Research You will also find some of our regular Students. And, as Sabrina is about to features in this issue. In the postgrad go on maternity leave, Christine Sweed pages, Leo Kim reports from the has joined us as Centre Manager while recently held 4S-EASST conference in Sabrina is away. A warm welcome Rotterdam. Rowena Macrae-Gibson to all new faces at BIOS and also to gives BIOS staff and students excellent the incoming 2008/09 BIOS MSc advice on how to get the most out of class. We look forward to a lively the LSE library. Also, Chris Hamilton academic year! n sends us a greeting from his new life in Ottawa and Giovanni Frazzetto sent Valentina Amorese, Giovanni us a postcard from Salem in the south Frazzetto, Leo Kim, Jim Ottaway of Germany. and Ayo Wahlberg Workshop participants debated the perhaps uncomfortable notion that social science is seen as increasingly irrelevant due to its failure to provide a helping hand to scientists or policymakers. Finally, in a review piece, Ayo Wahlberg looks back at the most recent of controversies surrounding antidepressant pharmaceuticals when, in February 2008, headlines proclaimed that ‘Prozac doesn’t work’.
1
Quality and biomedicine in a Sicilian transplant centre by Chiara Di Bartolo, LSE Alumnus, MSc in Biomedicine, Bioscience and Society Quality Assurance Manager, ISMETT Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy Unit Fellowship Program Manager, Ri.MED Foundation, Palermo, Italy
I first contacted the Mediterranean Institute for Transplantation and Advanced Specialized Therapies (ISMETT) when collecting data for my MSc dissertation on attitudes towards organ donation in Southern Italy. Visiting ISMETT, I was immediately impressed by the wide offer of medical interventions (transplants, hepatic resections, hepatobiliopancreatic surgery, thermoablation, complex interventional radiology procedures, interventional endoscopy) and by the institute’s focus on technology, research and quality. As I have now been working for more than a year at this institute, I can definitely confirm my first impression.
2
ISMETT was established ten years ago through a Private-PublicPartnership between the Region of Sicily and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC). It quickly implemented its programs reaching higher post-transplant survival rates than national standards and achieving original successes such as, for example, the world’s first ever lung transplant on an HIV patient. Most importantly, it fulfilled its main objective to provide Sicilians with efficient transplantation programs. Sicilians with end-stage organ failure and their families are no longer required to face stressful journeys to other regions/nations, which were also a significant cost for the health system. One of the keys to ISMETT’s success is that the programs, supported by advanced information technologies, benefit from the constant exchange of know-how with partner institutions and from continuous staff education. ISMETT employees spend working/training periods at UPMC and vice versa. The staff attend congresses and external events and a wide range of meetings, speeches and courses organised by the Education Department. Staff proposals to invite speakers are also welcome: Sarah Franklin, my MSc supervisor, recently gave a speech on informed consent for tissue donation.
The development of innovative medical strategies and their translation into clinical practices are priorities for ISMETT. The Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy Unit includes research laboratories and a state of the art human cell processing facility, where I am now setting up a Quality Management System (QMS) according to Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP). I have visited similar facilities in Pittsburgh and Miami and met the Quality Assurance Managers; attended courses by the European Compliance Academy to obtain the ‘European Quality Assurance Manager’ qualification; and courses on ISO 9001:2000 norms to obtain the ‘Internal Auditor for ISO Quality Management Systems’ qualification. I can therefore set up and organise the QMS in my Unit more efficiently. International regulations on cell therapies require good quality management. Plenty of guidelines have been published to date and the issue has been the subject of a very fervid international debate. The main challenge is to transfer a system of GMP and standard procedures, originally designed for the pharmaceutical industry, to the less ‘standardisable’ field of cell products: cells are isolated from organs and tissues, which are highly variable starting materials.
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
Quality and biomedicine in a Sicilian transplant centre continued… Establishing a QMS in a cell processing facility means ensuring that not only the final product, but all peripheral activities and the production environment are highly controlled. The system should allow for the efficient management of changes and deviations; should guarantee traceability from the donor organ/tissue to the final recipient; should guarantee all data are registered in a way that enables their analysis; should allow detection of possible system weaknesses; and should include periodical selfinspections. To do this one must establish and implement a complete set of Standard Operating Procedures. SOPs include technical aspects of production, as well as a code of conduct, supplies management, documentation preparation, review and filing, data management, equipment use and maintenance. As regards documentation, we are trying to limit the amount of hardcopies by storing all information electronically through software applications. Biologists are provided with tablet PCs for data recording: this allows avoiding the use of paper –
a potential contaminant – in the clean rooms; but most importantly, it enables us to perform statistical analyses and correlate the different variables of cell isolation procedures to each other. The 255 sqm GMP facility is equipped with state of the art devices, part of which were custom made to fulfil our quality control objectives (eg, access to the facility is restricted and entrance is recorded electronically; opening the fridge is subject to control; laboratory pressure, temperature, humidity and particle count data is collected on a continuous basis, with alarms set for out of range values). Another unique feature of the facility is that some equipment pieces (eg, the motorised microscope) have remote access and can be fully controlled by partners elsewhere in the world. Cameras for training purposes or to consult partners during operations are available in each room and inside the Biological Safety Cabinets. The Regenerative Medicine and Cell Therapy Unit staff, including myself, is hired by the Ri.MED
Foundation, which also promotes research throughout the region through Fellowship Programs with the University of Pittsburgh (Ri.MED postdocs are currently performing biomedical research studies at Pittsburgh laboratories). The Fellowship Program is one of the preliminary activities of the Biomedicine and Biotechnology Research Center, the realisation of which has been sponsored by the Ri.MED Foundation. The Center will be built and inaugurated in a few years near Palermo, and will be partly staffed with the personnel trained during the fellowship programs. The ISMETT experience could be the starting point for a novel study on the establishment of centres gaining people’s trust thanks to perceived quality. The study could embrace the methods adopted to achieve successful quality management, as well as the critical issues and aspects requiring improvement. n Web sites: www.ismett.edu www.upmc.edu www.fondazionerimed.com
The future of biological control by Sarah Franklin On 10 July the BIOS Centre was very privileged to co-sponsor a symposium devoted to the legacy of Dr Anne McLaren in law, ethics and policy in the field of reproductive biomedicine. Just over a year after Anne’s tragic death in a car accident along with her former husband and lifelong companion, Donald Michie, the event was attended by several members of Anne’s family, as well as her colleagues, students and friends. Remarkable though Anne’s achievements were as a scientist (she was the recipient of numerous international awards and was the first woman to hold office in the Royal Society), it was the sheer breadth of her contribution for which she will be remembered. The idea for the symposium arose at Anne’s funeral in a conversation about both her remarkable ability to communicate with the public, and her far-sighted contribution to ethics and regulatory policy. Coinciding both with Louise Brown’s 30th birthday (Anne was a pioneer of the technique of embryo transfer BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
3
The future of biological control continued… in mice, an early precursor of IVF) and the intact passage of the new Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill through parliament (Anne was described by Mary Warnock as the architect of the original legislation), the timing of the symposium was apt. We were also fortunate to have a stellar cast of commentators in attendance to reflect on the lessons learned over the past three decades of public debate over human fertilisation and embryology. Our first speakers, Anne’s eldest daughter Professor Susan Michie and one of her closest colleagues, Professor Marilyn Monk, opened the symposium with personal reflections on Anne’s influence. Both as a parent and as a mentor she led through a combination of intelligence, humour and care that inspired many. These were also the qualities she brought to her work communicating science to a wider public – eliciting the trust of others by extending it herself. Facilitating trust through creating bioethical policy was the theme of the first panel. Drawing on their extensive first-hand experience of the early period of formulating legislation in the area of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Professor Martin Johnson of Cambridge and Mr Hugh Whittall of the Nuffield Council offered insightful genealogies of the UK’s distinctive ethical policy in this area. For Martin Johnson it was the surprising parentage of anti-embryo research parliamentarian Enoch Powell (whose Unborn Children protection Bill catalyzed a vigorous medical-scientific lobby in the mid-1980s that was later crucial to the successful passage of the first HFE Act); Robert Edwards (the persistent developmental biologist who joined forces with the consultant obstetrician Patrick Steptoe to achieve a successful IVF pregnancy in the
4
face of significant opposition in the 1970s); and the Warnock Committee (fronted by the crucial partnership of Warnock and McLaren) that led to the ‘birth’ of the HFEA. Hugh Whittall also emphasised the unusual mixtures that make up successful policy, describing the process as ‘like alchemy’. Good academic input, he argued, is rarely adequate for good policy, which is ‘not neat, not clean and is rarely strictly logical’. Similarly, Whittall argued that robust ethical policy had been extremely difficult to achieve at European level. A position on embryo research that enabled a European approach that was not prohibitory was the result, he said, of ‘people who were in it for the long run’ and had considerable patience. Time and timing were of the essence, he argued, quoting a Dutch saying: ‘If you have a hot potato, put it in the fridge’. In the second panel dedicated to ethics, Ian Wilmut emphasised the undoubted benefits of new understandings of cellular function, in particular the new opportunity to study inherited diseases, including multifactorial diseases. At the same time no amount of scientific discovery can compensate for a restrictive climate of scientific experimentation. The unique opportunity to explore the potential of reprogramming and directed differentiation in the UK is the direct result of committee like Warnock. ‘You only have to look at the United States to see how a vociferous minority can have a disproportionate effect’, he argued. The Warnock report was important because it emphasised the need for limits, which, paradoxically, enabled fewer limitations to be placed on research. This theme was pursued by Wilmut’s co-panelist John Harris, who challenged the ‘logic of the limit’ suggesting both that limits were not essentially moral and that indeed
many limits, such as the so-called 14day rule at the heart of the Warnock committee’s recommendations, were illogical – or to put it more crudely, ‘a sop’. Many people’s reaction to new technologies is to ask – where should we draw the line? – as if the necessity of drawing lines at all was self-evident. In contrast, Harris argued that there needs to be a rational and defensible reason for drawing a line in a particular place, or indeed drawing any line at all. The most urgent and worrying problem facing society, he concluded, is not the ‘dangers’ posed by new research, but rather the danger of not pursuing innovative scientific research because feeble and unreasoned objections are given unjustifiable respect. Stephen Minger began the third and final panel, addressed to politics, by recounting the history of his involvement in human embryonic stem cell research. As a neural biologist and stem cell scientist, he had had nothing to do with research on human embryos until 2001, when the law was changed in the UK to enable the HFEA to grant licences for stem cell research involving human embryos. Working closely with Peter Braude and Sue Pickering in Guy’s Assisted Conception Unit, he became part of the first team to derive hES cells in the UK in 2003. After it was revealed, towards the end of 2005, that Professor Hwang’s research, in which he claimed to have created the first cloned human embryonic stem cell lines, had been deliberately falsified, serious questions were raised over whether it was ever, in fact, going to be possible to clone human embryos for stem cell purposes. Professor Hwang had had access to thousands of human eggs and if he could not produce one cloned embryonic stem cell line, with such large numbers of fresh
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
The future of biological control continued… human eggs, how would this ever be possible in the UK, where human eggs were a scarce and precious resource? Anne, along with many other scientists, believed that it was premature to use human eggs while the processes were so inefficient and the chance of generating a stem cell line so small. The alternative, which Stephen had seen done in China, was to use animal eggs. It was Anne’s suggestion these inter-species cytoplasmic hybrid embryos be called cybrids. Stephen’s team submitted their application to the HFEA in 2006 and the successful public and Parliamentary acceptance of this technique is one of the most dramatic measures available of the relationship between robust ethical governance, public trust and a permissive climate for scientific experimentation. MP Evan Harris was reluctant to accede victory too soon and described some of the difficulties and frustrations of the recent parliamentary debates. Unlike the Thatcher government in 1990, which worried about the Church of England’s reaction to the legislation, in 2008 the government’s primary concern seemed to be how they are portrayed in certain sections of the media. And the media does not always portray scientific issues in a properly balanced way. Media debates tend to take the form of a ‘head to head’, in which the fact that the whole of the scientific establishment backs position A is lost by giving equal weight to position B, which is held by one disgraced maverick.
Evan also talked about the concerted efforts which took place after the government’s decision to issue a restrictive White Paper, following the 2005 Science and Technology Select Committee Report which had called for modernisation and liberalisation. As well as being worrying in its own right, Harris claimed that the government’s announcement that it intended to ban the creation of hybrids must have put some pressure on the HFEA not to antagonise the government. EH contested the idea that because the HFEA has generally worked well, and has a degree of public trust and scientists’ confidence, its regulatory remit should lie unchallenged. Unnecessary regulation is unnecessary regulation, regardless of its impact on public confidence. The job of the HFEA is to regulate and to take tough and perhaps unpopular decisions, not to reassure the public. Overall the event enabled participants to consider a mix of views concerning the formation and evaluation of ethical policy in contested contexts such as that of human embryo research. While many speakers emphasised the difficulties of achieving a workable balance between enough and not too much legislation, or the promotion but not overpromotion of science, what emerged was the importance of experience, leadership and in particular communication in the realisation of successful outcomes.
To the extent the UK legislation in the area of human fertilisation and embryology can be considered a success – as many both within and outside the UK judge it to be – and however alchemical the process may be – three cardinal principles emerged: patience, open dialogue and sheer labour. In all of these respects Anne McLaren set an example was a kind of unofficial scientific civil servant-volunteer that has reshaped expectation of what scientists can achieve as public spokespersons. As Hugh Whittall observed, ‘It was Anne’s ability to explain the facts of life that gave birth to the HFEA’. This unusual achievement is reason alone to recognise the many lessons yet to be learned from the past about the future of biological control. n
Mind the gap? The roles of social science in public dialogue On 4 July 2008, a diverse group of thirty one individuals attended a BIOS workshop to discuss the role of social science in public dialogue on science and technology. In this brief report, Kevin Burchell reflects on the background to – and the key outcome from – the workshop. In the UK, government-sponsored public dialogue – structured and deliberative discussions involving the public that are intended to feed into policy-making in some way – is increasingly considered to be an essential component in the governance of issues where science and technology are brought to bear. In a reflection of contemporary modes of governance, it is notable that public dialogue projects are delivered by networks of organisations drawn from government departments, BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
government intermediaries, commercial organisations and non-commercial organisations of various kinds (including academic institutions). The emergence of this novel community or network raises a range of practical and conceptual questions, including specific issues relating to the relationships between social science and this novel policy commitment. This is a relationship that could be described as often successful, yet occasionally ambiguous or even contentious. With these thoughts in mind, the
objective of the workshop was to provide individuals from this diverse network the opportunity to discuss, with particular reference to social science, the frames of reference, preoccupations and ways of doing things that characterise the various actors and institutions in the public dialogue network. We hope that such understandings will lead to increasingly productive working relationships and to greater social science engagement with this significant policy development.
5
Mind the gap? The roles of social science in public dialogue continued…
The workshop was oriented around some very basic research that I conducted among non-academic actors within this network, as well as a report that I presented on an academic workshop on the same topic that took place in June 2008 in Zürich. The BIOS workshop also featured wide-ranging talks by other social scientists, commercial dialogue practitioners and representatives from the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), the Human Genetics Commission secretariat, The Food Standards Agency and The BA (details are in the full workshop report).
into the views of non-academic members of the public dialogue network suggests that, outside of academic social science, social science is largely valued for its potential to help practitioners and policy actors to achieve their aims. This perspective might constitute social science as providing a helping hand or, perhaps, as a discipline that is a servant to the objectives and world views of the institutions that govern science, technology and innovation. However, this conception of social science was in sharp contrast to that which emerged from the earlier social science workshop in Zürich. Here, the discussion was framed around three stereotypical mindsets for social scientists that are discussed by Ian Hacking in The social construction of what? To inadequately summarise: ‘ironists’ are critical observers who remain detached from institutional practice; ‘reformers’ are critical, yet work within accepted institutional frameworks; and ‘rebels’ challenge institutional frameworks and assumptions. At the Zürich workshop, the consensus appeared to be that these monikers provide a helpful, though inevitably inadequate, insight into some of the multiple approaches that social scientists feel that they adopt and perform at different times and in different circumstances.
Of course, many interesting issues emerged during the workshop; however, in the limited space here, I would like to touch on the key issue of the roles of social science in public dialogue. My basic research
So, practitioners and policy-makers appear to want fairly instrumental help from social scientists, yet many social scientists appear to be more inclined towards critique of various stripes and intensities? I would not
wish to present this as a universal and unbridgeable divide. However, for me, the key outcome of the London workshop was widespread recognition of the tension between the conceptions of social science with which the academic social scientists and the practitioner and policy actors felt most comfortable. There is a very real challenge for social science here. My basic research suggests that a key criticism, from outside of academia, of social science is that it is increasingly irrelevant due to its failure to provide a helping hand. With this in mind, and notwithstanding the fact that social science research has its own intellectual relevance, the challenge is perhaps to emphasise and promote more widely the policy relevance and value of commentary, analysis, reflection, critique and criticism. However, this surely also presents a challenge to policy-actors and practitioners to be open to ‘learning from objections’ to one’s aims as well as from help to achieve them. I look forward to future discussions of these fascinating and important issues and to working more closely with policy actors on these issues of mutual interest. The workshop was generously funded through LSE’s phase three Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF3) allocation from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). I would also like to thank everyone, too numerous to name here, who contributed to the success of the workshop. There is a full workshop report in the Events section of the BIOS website. n
The proof is in the placebo by Ayo Wahlberg Prozac made the headlines again in February 2008 here in the UK. ‘Prozac, used by 40m people, does not work’, ‘Depression drugs don’t work’, ‘Prozac pills ‘do not work’’, were some of them. These headlines were misleading, since the meta-analysis that prompted them had in fact concluded that Prozac does work. The problem, according to the authors of the meta-analysis, was that taking Prozac (and related Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)) did not work better than taking a placebo pill, except perhaps for severely depressed patients.
6
As it happens, the three main ingredients of this most recent of controversies surrounding SSRIs – depression, SSRI drugs and the concept of ‘working’ or efficacy – have been objects of research for a number of us at BIOS in recent years. Through an interdisciplinary seminar series on the placebo effect held in early 2005, a symposium on the construction and governance of randomised controlled trials in psychiatry held in June 2006, a special issue of BioSocieties on randomised controlled trials
published in March 2007 as well as a number of individual research projects by Nikolas Rose, Linsey McGoey, Ilina Singh, Giovanni Frazzetto, Scott Vrecko, myself BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
The proof is in the placebo continued… and others, we have historically and sociologically examined the conditions that ultimately have made such controversies possible. What follows is a brief summary of some of the things we have learned along the way.
Depression Nikolas Rose has argued that with the emergence of biological psychiatry over the last 50 years or so, we have become ‘neurochemical selves’ – persons who increasingly understand, relate to and work on themselves in terms of their neurochemistry. That is to say, neuroscientific concepts and objects are no longer (if they ever have been) the purview of elite university laboratory scientists, rather they have spilled over into popular imaginations through lifestyle magazines, entertainment programmes as well as GP consultations. We are not depressed, we are ‘chemically imbalanced’; we are not addicted to alcohol, we are ‘endorphin challenged’; our children are not naughty, they are ‘dopamine deficient’. Indeed, Scott Vrecko has suggested that we might think of these emerging neurological cultures as a kind of ‘folk neurology’ which provides individuals with a basis for explaining, predicting and managing themselves and others. While not without contestation, it seems clear that there is a prevalent folk neurology around depression these days. Depression is a condition related to by many in terms of chemical imbalance, something to be rectified through psychopharmacological consumption, even if combined with lifestyle adjustment. Pharmaceutical companies use animated neurotransmitters in their advertisements to educate their potential customers, a ‘natural’ alternative to ‘toxic SSRIs’ like St. John’s Wort is nevertheless marketed as ‘Nature’s Prozac’, patient testimonials proclaim ‘I now understand how a lack of serotonin depleted by stress can really affect mental health’, etc. These of course are different versions of what is known as the ‘serotonin hypothesis of depression’, a hypothesis that has been as much challenged as it has been touted since it emerged in the 1960s. Yet, as Ilina Singh and Giovanni Frazzetto have shown in their work, neurobiological accounts of affect, mood or behaviour will often cocirculate with a certain unease or ambivalence about a lost or gained authenticity. By consuming BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
psychopharmaceuticals, some suggest that they are finally able to be ‘themselves’ while others fear they are numbing or holding back their ‘real’ selves. Nevertheless, despite the unease and contestation, depression has certainly come to be somatically understood and intervened upon by millions of people.
SSRIs Prozac, of course, is the most notorious of SSRIs, a class of antidepressant drugs that have been controversial in many ways over the past few decades. These controversies have especially revolved around three concerns: 1) a generalised worry that our daily lives are becoming over-medicalised as SSRI prescription and use continues to grow, 2) a specific concern that SSRIs can increase the risk of suicidality in patients who take them, and 3) accusations that the pharmaceutical industry has purposefully misled the public about the safety and efficacy of SSRIs by downplaying the former and exaggerating the latter. Linsey McGoey has shown how uncertainty and ignorance have in fact played key roles in legal wrangles over whether or not pharmaceutical companies have been up front about their SSRI products. The way in which relations between regulators and pharmaceutical companies are structured, she suggests, leads to a paradoxical need for regulators to both protect the public and conceal things from its sight in the name of ‘commercial interests’. The statistical complexities which surround estimations of safety and efficacy can lead to uncertainty and ignorance being strategically deployed as a form of political capital.
It was disclosure that led to the latest controversy around SSRIs in February 2008. The meta-analysis that Irving Kirsch and his colleagues published included clinical trials data that had previously been held in confidence by the FDA in the USA. In an interview with Linsey McGoey in BioSocieties, Tim Kendall has also described his difficulties in getting access to clinical trials data on antidepressants to facilitate his work in formulating clinical guidelines for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence – ‘although we actively seek unpublished material, we can’t usually get it’. This, of course, leaves open questions of whether pharmaceutical companies only release those results which do prove efficacy and safety while burying others.
Effects Now, to be able to say, as the newspapers did in February, that antidepressants don’t work is in fact a lot more complicated than one might immediately think. For, to do so, one must first define. What is it that is to ‘work’ (a chemical compound, ingested in certain doses, according to a certain treatment regimen, over a certain period), what is it that it’s ‘working’ on (depressed patients as diagnosed according to standardised diagnostic criteria), and how does one know that it has ‘worked’ (clinical outcomes, before and after depression scores)? In some of my own work, I have looked at how it is that ‘above and beyond placebo’ has become today’s standard of efficacy. It is not enough that something works for it to be efficacious (and Kirsch and his colleagues clearly show that antidepressants work in the
7
The proof is in the placebo continued… treatment of depression), nor is it enough to show that it works more than a placebo pill given to unknowing trial patients does (this was also shown by Kirsch and co.), rather one has to show a drug or treatment works more than a placebo pill does to a statistically (preferably clinically) significant degree. What clinical trials do is, in a sense, audit the efficacy of a drug, allowing one to separate out the specific effects of a drug from the non-specific effects. This set up relies on a biological ontology of the disease being treated since specific effects concern those effects causally attributable to the ingestion of a compound and nothing else. Non-specific effects, on the other hand, concern those beneficial effects which quite evidently arise (since those receiving inert placebo pills also improve) from participation in a clinical trial which entails observation, a certain amount of care directed at the patient as well as a certain ‘ritual’. This is what anthropologists refer to as ‘symbolic efficacy’. What I have argued is that the ‘placebo effect’ hangs somewhere comfortably in between the symbolic and the somatic, as its preconditions are symbolic (observation and assessment, ritual, care, etc.) yet its effects are seen as somatic (if depression is somatically locatable and placebo pills make people better, then the symbolic somehow ‘spills over’ into the somatic). What the headlines in February should have proclaimed is that ‘Prozac works… and so does placebo’. n
Some resources: Frazzetto, G (2008) ‘The drugs don’t work for everyone. Doubts about the efficacy of antidepressants renew debates over the medicalisation of common distress’, EMBO reports, 9, 605-8. McGoey, L (2007), ‘On the will to ignorance in bureaucracy’, Economy and Society, 36(2): 212-35 Rose, N (2007), ‘Neurochemical Selves’, in The politics of life itself : biomedicine, power and subjectivity in the twenty-first century, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Singh, I (2005), ‘Will the “real boy” please behave: Dosing dilemmas for parents of boys with ADHD’, American Journal of Bioethics, 5, 3, 34-47. Vrecko, S (2006), ‘Folk neurology and the remaking of identity’, Molecular Interventions, 6, 300-3. Wahlberg, A (2008) ‘Above and beyond superstition – western herbal medicine and the decriminalising of placebo’, History of the Human Sciences, 21(1): 77-101 Wahlberg, A and McGoey, L (2007), ‘An elusive evidence base – the construction and governance of randomised controlled trials’, BioSocieties, Special issue ‘The Construction and Governance of Randomised Controlled Trials’, 2(1): 1-10.
Postgrad pages Lost in Rotterdam by Leo Kim
Maybe my expectation was too high, whereas my body was not diligent enough to follow my academic enthusiasm. As many as 2,600 people gathered in Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) and European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EAAST) Conference this year at the University of Erasmus in Rotterdam, 20-23 August. This was my first experience participating in this kind of big conference. My expectation was even higher than usual because it happened to be a joint conference across Atlantic, between 4S and EAAST. As it turned out, this size of conference was just huge enough to make me overwhelmed and puzzled. Under the theme ‘Acting with science, technology and medicine’, the conference itself was lively, well organised, and very diverse in subtopics such as: politics and science, regulation, public engagement and
8
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
Lost in Rotterdam continued… participation, ethical issues, public understanding, policy directions, regional studies, globalisation, theory, expertise, etc. Some interesting discussions followed in many sessions, but I simply couldn’t participate in all of them. Attending the sessions was even more exhausting because there were so many sessions that did not exactly correspond to my prior expectations on the topics, and both the style and level of presentations/ discussions varied largely. In the end, partly because of the ‘unfocused’ gatherings, I was too tired to recognise relevant sessions for my research interests, and couldn’t even turn up and say hello to my colleagues who were also participating with interesting research themes.
During a private meeting, some experienced scholars complained that it was getting harder to manage ‘quality control’ of the conference, in face of rapidly growing number of participants and surmounting abstract applications. ‘We shouldn’t accept everything, this is getting massy’, someone said. Another said that there should be clearer division between organised sessions and rather more ‘spontaneous’ gatherings. What was at least visible to me was that not a few people expressed fatigue (or even boredom) and left well before the last day.
Overall, I should satisfy myself with the feeling that I could notice some general trend in social studies of science: Cross-regional and interdisciplinary study is getting more important, and there are newly emerging ethical/political angles over the horizon of existing discourses on bio-science and nano-technology. And, despite confusion and fatigue, I could seize chances to see quite a few renowned experts from across the Atlantic. In some cases, I could happily participate in their organised sessions and engage in discussions. Even more, I could finally see some persons that I had long corresponded without recognising their face. Maybe these were just good enough reasons for going to the conference! n
Library resources for BIOS The Librarian for BIOS is Rowena Macrae-Gibson (pictured), some of you may have met her already but if not then do get in touch if you need help accessing, choosing or searching online databases, setting up search alerts, citation searching, getting more out of your Google searches, using the Endnote bibliographic software programme, using the Library or finding materials generally. Many resources with STM topics are freely available, such as Pubmed Medline, the premium bibliographic search tool for medical topics or BioMed Central, the free repository for research papers. However not everything is freely available so don’t assume that Google will find all the articles you need as the Library provides access to much more powerful searches via our various subscriptions. Google Scholar is a better tool than Google, and can link through to our subscriptions on campus, although it does not include resources from all available publishers. The good news is that we have access to over 20,000 full text electronic journals, including BIOS top titles such as American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMJ, Cell, JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, New Scientist, Science, Scientific American and Social Science and Medicine. All of these can be BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
searched via our e-journals portal at http://zw4gk5cr3l.search. serialssolutions.com/ don’t just go directly to the publishers websites as our subscriptions may be via a different route. Don’t know exactly which journal titles you are looking for? Then use our online resources to see what has been published in your topic. These resources can provide a mixture of full text articles and reports and also references to articles, conference papers, theses, book chapters and other documents. Most resources allow you to set up search alerts saving you time as details of new items are sent to you directly. Many resources allow you to save results directly into Endnote which will save you a lot of time when it comes to compiling your bibliography. Look out for the LSE Article Finder button as this will enable you to link directly through from most databases into our Ejournals portal to see if we have a full text subscription to your chosen articles. In addition to PubMed Medline other online services which you will find useful are: • ScienceDirect – Full text access to a large range of journals, mostly medical and scientific, although a good range of social science material is available
• Science and Social Science Citation Indexes – Abstracts and references to journal articles and book reviews. Also allows you to track research via the citation searching option. You can also combine your search with Medline • Popline – articles and reports on reproductive health and demography • International bibliography of history of science, technology, and medicine – includes references to journal articles, conference proceedings and book details • Cochrane Library – Mostly medical and psychological topics in a collection of evidence-based medicine databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Includes withdrawn information • Psycinfo – the premium database for psychology and related topics. This is just a small selection-we also have databases on ageing, economics, politics, public affairs, philosophy, business, news, development, theses, and many more – do get in touch if you need further help deciding which databases to use.
9
Library Resources for BIOS continued… Follow the links from our Electronic Resources page at www.lse.ac.uk/library/elelib.htm to use these databases
Finding your way around these resources has just got easier
Further help and advice is available via our two services in Moodle, the Library Companion for Students at http://moodle.lse.ac.uk/ course/view.php?id=262 and the Companion for Researchers at http://moodle.lse.ac.uk/course/ view.php?id=183
From mid September we are launching a new service, Cross Searcher, which will enable you to search several different databases at the same time, so that you will not have to repeat your search in different resources. Cross Searcher will be available via our Electronic Resource page above. You can of course continue to use the databases individually if you prefer. Not all suppliers make their databases available for Cross Searcher, so you can access these from our Subject pages the Subject page for BioScience is at www.lse.ac.uk/ library/qusugu/healthbio.htm
We’ve worked hard in the Library to build up our collection of Bioscience related materials, but of course we are not a medical library so there may be items you need which we do not have in stock-items from reading lists should be in stock (unless out of print) providing we have received the list! You can request materials via our InterLibrary Loan Service, request that we purchase titles for the Library or visit other Libraries, in particular I would recommend the Wellcome Institute Library.
The Library runs hands on classes on various topics such as Endnote, keeping up to date, using e-journals etc – the programme for the coming term will be available soon at www.lse.ac.uk/library/insktr/ infoskillstraining.htm
Rowena
Do get in touch if you need any further help and advice. n
Email R.Macrae-Gibson@lse.ac.uk Ext. 6148
BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie Vol 3, issue 3 BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie ‘Where does the responsibility for BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie quality and care in an individual’s
Out now!
experience of illness lie? In this issue, several authors explore different dimensions of illness experience, including diagnosis, treatment and caregiving. The investigations involve different actors doctors, patients, regulators, industry, caregivers, and even social scientists themselves – and come from divergent perspectives, resulting in a rich and reflexive set of analyses that unsettle simplistic notions of blame and responsibility, agency and activism, in illness experiences.’ www.journals.cambridge.org/jid_BIO
Research updates
Sara Tocchetti PhD Candidate Biologist and yet starting a PhD at BIOS centre? Hopefully this is possible! The topic of (my) future research project (although I’m sure it will undergo substantial modifications) will be the recent developments of conceptual and practical (devices) within and around the synthetic biology research area. Synthetic biology is a recently emerged and fast expanding discipline. It aims to further develop the understanding and the control over metabolic processes, at the cellular, tissue, and organism levels by using a systemic approach. What I’m interested in is the process of construction of contemporary integrative theories and methodologies aimed to describe life at the cellular level and how these tools resonate within the public sphere through the diffusion of products, common metaphors, information etc. Being both new to the field of synthetic biology and sociology of science, I look seriously forward to discuss and share opinions around these topics...and of course many others! n
Caitlin Cockerton PhD Candidate ‘The Emergence of Synthetic Biology in the UK: a new chapter in the age of biological control?’ Having just completed the BIOS MSc, I aim to broaden the research I begun in exploring the emergence of synthetic biology in the UK. This new field has surfaced with the convergence of engineering and biology, seeking to build biological systems from scratch to serve useful functions and better understand fundamental biological principles. With the possibility of delivering future applications that range from producing biofuel to using disease-fighting bacteria in novel treatments, synthetic biology’s exciting potential is also coupled with a number of social and ethical concerns, including fears about bioterrorism and worries about the shaping of public perceptions. My dissertation focused on comparing how such issues are constructed in policy documents and how they were portrayed in interviews with leading scientists, social scientists and policy makers involved in the synthetic biology community. While biosafety, accidental release of artificial microbes and biosecurity are fervently discussed, the difficulties faced in the realm of intellectual property rights remains largely over-looked. This curious finding led me to write another paper about the tensions of situating synthetic biology materials in a rigorous patent system, in a novel open-source licensing scheme and/or in the public domain – a problem that is yet to be solved. Inspired by many possible avenues to further explore during the PhD, I now intend to take a step back and position the issues arising alongside synthetic biology in a broader range of sociological and philosophical literature before defining a precise question. I eagerly await that light-bulb moment of finding my question! n BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
11
Postcards to BIOS
Greetings from Ottawa! Chris Hamilton Reflecting back on four-plus years in a place as unique as BIOS can be a complicated task indeed. As one of the first cohorts of PhD students through the door of the centre, when even Wednesday cake was but a twinkle in the centre’s eye, it has been inspiring to see how the centre has developed. I recall in that first week one of my colleagues, Ayo Wahlberg, and I were discussing our good fortune after seeing how well appointed the BIOS Centre was when we contrasted it with the situation of many of our PhD colleagues scattered throughout a school where space is perpetually at a premium. What we also came to realise at that point was the
Gruesse aus Salem! Giovanni Frazzetto At the beginning of the year, I sent you a postcard from the very inspiring Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin. Now, eight months later I am writing from Salem, a small town in the south of Germany, close to the Lake of Constance. Although at opposite sides of the country, my two visits are connected. It was, in fact, in Berlin and with my Berlin fellow-fellow and
proverbial double edge – that this took away any excuses that we might have had for letting a lack of space or facilities slow down our PhD processes! What became abundantly clear to me, however, was that BIOS’ physical facilities, nice as they were, were only a very small part of what made it so special. Indeed it was more, much more, about the people that I had the chance to meet and work with in BIOS that made it such a special place to think, research, write and just to be. There were distractions aplenty, mind you, with cakes, conversations, collegiality and community all key parts of the BIOS makeup. In the end it will be those aspects of community and the friendships that I made that I will look back upon most fondly, and which I know I have taken the most from.
political scientist Dr Petra Dobner (and her dog Phoenix) that I was asked to convene a course for the summer academy of the Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes in the southern town of Salem. We named our course ‘Scared to Death: die Biologie und Politik von Angst’ (Biology and politics of anxiety) and mixing Deutsch and English, we covered material from action potential, anxious mice and serotonin receptors to tranquillisers, Hobbes, biopower and
I have left BIOS, as we all eventually (surely?) have to do and I have also left academia to pursue a career in the Canadian public service. I now find myself adapting to new challenges, like working in a place where ‘problematise’ doesn’t count as a verb, and explaining to people (perhaps even to myself) just what a sociologist might have to contribute to policy debates about woodland caribou. Through these new challenges, and all the rest to come, I take strength from the lessons that I learned thanks to the intellectual passion and rigour, and the all-round inquisitiveness and good humour that I had the privilege to be a part of as a member of the BIOS community. I will always look back fondly on the friends I made and the time I spent there, and I look forward to visiting in the years to come. n
terrorism. Special guest was Filippa, who gave a lecture on bio(in)securities. From the smile in her face, you can see she had a good time. She also sends her best greetings. The location was idyllic. Surrounded by woods and lakes, Salem is home to the Schloss Schule Salem, an old and renown boarding school (whose list of alumni includes notable figures such as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh…) premised in the castle of the Margraf von Baden – who pleases his guests with the excellent wine he produces. The Studienstiftung is Germany’s largest and most prestigious organisation sponsoring highly selected students who are not only academically outstanding, but also gifted with excellent social skills, modesty and musical talents (www. studienstiftung.de). All of the students in my group were extremely engaged in class and delighted me with classical music in the evening. I will never forget our inspiring discussions in the green fields. It was a very rewarding experience! n
Auf wiedersehen!
12
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
Publications, lectures and conference presentations by BIOS staff, associates and students Publications Ajana, B (2008), ‘In defence of poststructural ethics in sociological praxis: Derrida, Lévinas and Nancy’. Enquire, 1(1).
Frazzetto, G (2008) ‘The drugs don’t work for everyone. Doubts about the efficacy of antidepressants renew debates over the medicalisation of common distress’, EMBOreports, 9, 605-8
Amorese, V (2008) ‘Biosociety and public opinion: agricultural biotechnology in the United Kingdom and Italy. A methodological perspective’, Methodology Institute, LSE, July 2008
Ajana, B (2008) ‘Introduction’, in Mordini, E, Green, M and Ajana, B (Eds) Identity, Security and Democracy, Amsterdam: IOS Press. (forthcoming)
Lentzos, F, Gaymon Bennett, Jef Boeke, Drew Endy and Paul Rabinow (2008) ‘Visions and Challenges in Redesigning Life’ BioSocieties Vol.3(3)
Ajana, B with Mordini, E, Green, M (2008), Identity, Security and Democracy, Amsterdam: IOS Press. (forthcoming)
Lentzos, F and Rose, N (2008) ‘Die Unsicherheit regieren. Biologische Bedrohungen, Notfallplanung, Schutz und Resilienz in Europa’ in Purtschert, P, Meyer, K and Winter, Y (Eds.) Gouvernementalität und Sicherheit. Transcript Verlag
Braun, K (2008) ‘…a certain amount of engineering involved’. Scientific governance, the participatory turn and the new genetics, paper presented at the Society for Social Studies of Science (4) and European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) joint conference, Rotterdam, 20-23 August 2008.
Braun, B, Herrmann, SL, Könninger, S and Moore, A (2008) ‘Die Sprache der Ethik und die Politik des richtigen Sprechens. Regulative Ethikregime in Deutschland, Frankreich und Großbritannien’ in Mayntz, R, Neidhardt, F, Weingart, P and Wengenroth, U (eds.) Wissensproduktion und Wissenstransfer. Wissen im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit, Bielefeld (transcript) Burchell, K (2008) ‘Science is messy’, Science and Public Affairs, June 2008, London: The BA Franklin, S (2007) ‘Obituary: Dame Dr Anne McLaren’, Regenerative Medicine 2(5): 8539 Franklin, S, Lury, C and Stacey, J (eds.) (2007) Off Centre: Feminism and Cultural Studies (Volume II, Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies Classic Texts) London and New York: Routledge. Franklin, S, Geesink, I and Prainsack, B (eds.) (2008) Science as Culture Special Issue: Stem Cell Stories 1998-2008. 17(1): 1-100. Franklin, S (2008) ‘To Know or Not to Know? [Book Review of Blood Matters by Masha Gessen]’ Nature 454 (17 July): 277-8 Franklin, S, Hunt, C, Cornwell, G, Peddie, V, Desousa, P, Livie, M, Stephenson, EL and Braude, P (2008) ‘HESCCO: Development of Good Practice Models for hES Derivation’, Regenerative Medicine 3(1):105-16 Franklin, S (2008) ‘Embryo Transfer: a View from the UK’ in Molfino, F and Zucco, F (eds.) Women in Biotechnology: Creating Interfaces, Berlin: Springer Frazzetto, G (2008) ‘Genetics of Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders: From the Laboratory to Society and Back’, Current Science, in press
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
Rose, N (2008) Governing the Present: administering economic, social and personal life, Cambridge: Polity, 2008 (with Peter Miller) Rose, N (2008) The somatic ethic and the spirit of biocapital, Daedalus Winter 2008, 36-48 Rose, N (2008) Governing (In)security, in Patricia Purtschert, Katrin Meyer, Yves Winter, eds. ‘Gouvernementalität und Sicherheit. Zeitdiagnostische Beiträge im Anschluss an Foucault Papadopoulos, D, Stephenson, N and Tsianos, V (2008) Escape Routes: Control & Subversion in the 21st Century. London: Pluto. Publisher Diprose, R, Hawkins, G, Mills, C, Race, K and Stephenson, N (2008). ‘Governing the future: The paradigm of prudence in political technologies of risk management’, Security Dialogue. 39 (2/3), 267-266 Vanderwal, T, Hunyadi, E, Grupe, D, Connors, CM and Schultz, R (2008) ‘Self, mother and abstract other: An fMRI study of reflective social processing’, NeuroImage, 41, p. 1437-1446 医学 与 Wahlberg, A (2008) ‘越南 代医学的 合 践 [Combining modern and traditional medicine in Viet Nam]’, 科 学 [Ke-xué Science], in press
Presentations Amorese, V (2008) ‘Aprire le porte della scienza al pubblico: un possibile step per poter governare le incertezze della scienza contemporanea’, Uncertainty and Governance in Technoscience, STS Italia, June 2008 Amorese, V (2008) ‘Biosociety and public opinion: agricultural biotechnology in the United Kingdom and Italy’, Lancaster summer Sociology conference, July 2008
Braun, K (2008) Biopolitik und restaurative Gerechtigkeit. Probleme der Wiedergutmachung für die Opfer nationaler Sterilisationspolitiken’, Gender Studies Forschungskolloqium, Leibniz Universität Hanover, 23 June 2008 Braun, K (2008) ‘Scientific governance and the politics of proper talk: Public Bioethics between the Technological Model and Reflexive Government’, paper presented at the Conference on ‘Sociology for the 21st century: Theoretical and Critical Perspectives’, University of Crete, Rhethymno, 5-7 June 2008 Braun, K (2008) ‘The politics of time. Dimensions of analysis’, paper presented at the ESF Exploratory Workshop on `Eugenics and Restorative Justice, Hanover, 4-6 July, 2008 Burchell, K (2008) ‘Understanding the UK public participatory turn in science and technology’, BIOS seminar, LSE, 15 May 2008. Burchell, K (2008) ‘Just a helping hand?: stakeholder perspectives on the role of social science in the UK ‘participatory turn’ in science and technology’, Ironists, Reformers, Rebels? The Role of the Social Sciences in Participatory Policy Making workshop, Zürich, 26 June 2008 Burchell, K (2008) ‘A helping hand?: non-academic perspectives on the role of social science in public dialogue on science and technology’, The role of social science in public dialogue workshop, LSE, 4 July 2008 Burchell, K (2008) ‘Ironists, reformers or rebels?: reflections on the Zürich workshop’, The role of social science in public dialogue workshop, LSE, 4 July 2008
13
Publications, lectures and conference presentations by BIOS staff, associates and students continued… Burchell, K (2008) ‘UK scientists reflect on an engagement world’, 4S-EASST conference, Rotterdam, 21 August 2008 Burchell, K (2008) ‘We are probably unique in Britain’: scalar discourses of science and society’, RGS-IBG conference, London, 27 August 2008 Burchell, K (2008) ‘UK governmental public dialogue and the construction of converging public discourses: from “knowledge politics’ to the ‘politics of no politics”?’, Knowledge Politics and Converging Technologies workshop, Brussels, 6-7 May 2008.
Franklin, S (2008) ‘From Blood to Genes?: rethinking consanguinity in the context of geneticisation’, Invited Panel Presenter, Blood Kinship, organised by David Sabean, European Social Science History Conference, Lisbon, 27 February 2008
Connors, CM and Martin, AK (2008) ‘Volunteerism, research ethics and the United Kingdom’s National DNA Database’, Governing Biobanks – What are the Challenges?, St. Anne’s College, Oxford, 24-26 June 2008
Franklin, S (2008) ‘The Merographic Embryo: the return of biological form’, Senior Seminar, Department of Social Anthropology, University of Cambridge, 16 May 2008
Connors, CM and Martin, AK (2008) ‘Private brain, public data? Brain-banking in the information age’, First International Workshop on Identity in the Information Society, Lago Maggiore, Italy, June 2008 Connors, CM (2008) ‘Scans, Tissues and Privacy Issues: Governing Modern Brain Banks’, The 4th Social Study of ICT Open Research Forum, LSE, UK, April 2008 Franklin, S (2007) ‘Spare Parts: One Day You Might Need Them’, Chair, Dana Centre, London, 23 October 2007 Franklin, S (2007) Performativities: Contexs, Domains, Perspectives, Invited Participant and Chair, LSE Gender Institute, 3 November 2007. Franklin, S (2007) ‘Beyond Dolly: a visit to the genealogical frontier’ Departmental Seminar Presentation, Department of Sociology, University of York, 7 November 2007 Franklin, S (2007) ‘Analogic Return’, Invited Speaker in Commemorative Session for Marilyn Strathern, American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 29 November 2007 Franklin, S (2008) ‘Future Mix’, Launch Event ArtAkt, South Camden Community School, London, 13 February 2008 Franklin, S (2008) ‘Governing Genomics’, Invited Speaker, LSE, coorganisers Nikolas Rose and Barbara Prainsack, 18 January 2008
14
Franklin, S (2008) ‘Transbiology: the IVF-Stem Cell Interface’, Public Lecture, University of California Santa Cruz, sponsored by the Centre for Cultural Studies and History of Consciousness Programme, 13 March 2008 (broadcast on UCTV 19 September 2008)
Franklin, S (2008) ‘Dolly, Cloning and Stem Cells’, Public Talk, William Goodenough College Public Seminar Series, London, 22 May 2008 Franklin, S (2008) ‘Embryonic Hopes: Societal and legal dimensions of reproductive medicine and human cloning’, Keynote Speaker, King’s College, organised by Barbara Prainsack and Marie-Andree Jacob, 6 June 2008 Franklin, S (2008) ‘Five Million Miracle Babies Later: the cultural legacy of IVF’, Keynote Speaker at IVF as a Global Form: an international symposium, Department of European Ethnology, Humboldt University Berlin, co-organisers Michi Knecht and Maren Klotz, 12 June 2008 Franklin, S (2008) ‘The role of social science in public dialogue on science and technology’, Invited Participant and Panel Chair, ScoPE Project Workshop, co-organised by Kevin Burchell and Kathrin Braun, LSE, 4 July 2008 Franklin, S (2008) ‘The Future of Biological Control: The Legacy of Anne McLaren in law, ethics and policy in reproductive biomedicine’, co-organiser and chair (with Emily Jackson), cosponsored by the BIOS Centre and the Wellcome Trust, 10 July 2008 Frazzetto, G (2008) ‘Old and new anxiety drugs: expectations and discontents in a biologised world’, Our Brains, Our Selves? ENSN workshop, Harvard University, May 2008
Frazzetto, G (2008) Reflexivity and social awareness: the integration of society into life-sciences practice, Panel on ‘What’s the Ethical and Social Responsibility of Basic Science’, European Science Open Forum, Barcelona, 20 July 2008 Frazzetto, G (2008) Old and new anxiety drugs: expectations and discontents in a biologised world, Abendvortrag bei der Sommerakademie der Studienstiftung in Salem, Germany, 23 August 2008 Kim, L (2008) Study on Korean people’s reaction on Hwang scandal. EAAST Conference. 20-23 August. Rotterdam Klein, Kerstin (2008) ‘New Authoritarianism in the Global Bioeconomy: a New Governance Debate in China and Implications for Comparative STS’ Paper held at EASST/4S Joint Conference ‘Acting with science, technology and medicine’ Rotterdam, 20-23 August 2008. Lentzos, F (2008) ‘Biosecurity in a post 9/11 world’ presented at BIOS seminar, 12 June 2008. Lentzos, F and Sims, N (2008) ‘Statement to the Biological Weapons Convention Meeting of Experts’ Geneva, 18 August 2008 Lentzos, F and Rappert, B (2008) ‘Making Education Happen’ poster presentation at the Biological Weapons Convention Meeting of Experts, Geneva, 21 August 2008 Rose, N (2008) Social implications of new biological models of mental disorder, Keynote address to Mental Health Research Network, UK, March 2008 Rose, N (2008) Governing biomedical research, BIONET First International Conference, Changsha, P. R. China, April 2008 Rose, N (2008) Commerce vs. Commons, Keynote address to LSE Asia Forum, Singapore, April 2008 Rose, N (2008) Screen and Intervene, European Neuroscience and Society Harvard Workshop, May 2008 Rose, N (2008) Governing risky brains, Invited seminar at Centre Koyre, Ecole des Hautes en Sciences Sociale, Paris, May 2008 Rose, N (2008) Race in the Age of Genomic Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, May 2008
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
Vital Politics III The Politics of the Life Sciences in an ‘Age of Biological Control’ 16-19 September 2009 • The London School of Economics and Political Science Call for papers
The BIOS Centre for the Study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society is organising an international conference on 16-18 September 2009 at the London School of Economics and Political Science. The aim of the conference is to provide a comparative and global perspective on present forms of practice in the life sciences. The Organising Committee welcomes proposals for individual papers which seek to make empirically based and conceptually innovative contributions to the exploration of the character and genealogy of transformations in health, illness, vitality, pathology and politics. We particularly welcome papers that relate to the themes below, however we are also happy to consider contributions which address the topic of the conference but may not align with these themes.
Biological Citizenship in a Global Political Economy This theme includes biosocial identities and solidarities at the global scale, especially relating to global health inequalities or orphan diseases; the sustainable and democratic governance of the life sciences and the challenges of public policy making
in conditions of uncertainty; the impact of these policies on the formation (and transformation) of biological citizenships, in particular relating to identity, gender, or ethnicity; analyses of the pharmaceutical industry, its management and regulation in a globalised world.
Biopolitics in an Age of Regenerative and Synthetic Technologies
This theme includes explorations of politics and ethics in relation to synthetic biology and regenerative medicine; research on the ways in which developments in these areas are changing conceptions of self, identity and embodiment; analyses of the political and ethical frameworks This theme includes explorations of the ways in guiding biomedical research and interventions in the which recent developments in neuroscience such ‘age of regeneration’ and in the light of concerns as psychiatric genetics, psychopharmacology, about biosecurity; research on the socio-political and neuroimaging and other brain technologies are ethical aspects related to biosecurity, bioengineering changing power dynamics between state, industry, expertise and consumers, patients, children, parents, and the markets for DNA, tissues, organs and other synthetic devices. employees and offenders; analyses of the role Discretionary bursaries may be available for travel of neuro-expertise, the problems of uncertainty and accommodation. Please use the Abstract and strategies of risk assessment in the context of Submission Form at www.lse.ac.uk/collections/ regulation and control of the neuro-technologies BIOS/events/Vitalpolitics3.htm and the rise of ‘neuro-markets’; examinations of
Identities and Power in a Neuro-Age
the impact of neuroscience on categorisation in psychiatric disorders and on shifting patterns in ‘normalcy’ and ‘pathology’.
Deadline for abstract submissions: 1 December 2008. For any queries please contact Victoria Dyas, email: bios@lse.ac.uk
Publications, lectures and conference presentations by BIOS staff, associates and students continued… Rose, N (2008) Race and Medicine in the Age of ‘your own personal genome’, Diversity, Race and Genomics: Race and DNA in the Digital Age, Genome Canada and Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, May 2008 Rose, N (2008) Biological Biographies, Panel Discussion, World Science Festival, New York, May 2008 Rose, N (2008) What does it mean to be human? Panel Discussion, World Science Festival, New York, May 2008 Rose, N (2008) Society and Neuroscience: A European Perspective, 21st Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Barcelona, September 2008 Rose, N (2008) The Politics of Life Itself – in Contemporary China, Biopolitics in Asia, Vienna, October 2008 Rose, N (2008) Technology assessment – for the people?, European Parliamentary technology Assessment Conference, The Hague, October 2008 Rose, N (2008) Being human today and tomorrow – what news from genomics and neuroscience?, Institute of Advanced Studies, University of Durham, October 2008 Rose, N (2008) The ‘social brain’?, Global Minds Conference, University of Aarhus, November 2008
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008
Rose, N (2008) ‘The politics of health in the 21st century?’, Nordic Conference on Knowledge, Politics and Health, Aarhus, December 2008 Vrecko, S (2008) ‘The productive assemblage of fat and pharmaceuticals’, presented at Our Brains, Our Selves? ENSN workshop, Harvard University, May 2008 Vrecko, S (2008) ‘Anti-craving medications: appetite in economic, geographic and pharmaceutical transformation’, presented at Food, Society and Public Health (British Sociological Association), London, July 2008 Vrecko, S (2008) ‘The terms of public engagement in neuroscience’, invited presentation to Governing Emerging Technologies (Gordon Research Conference), Big Sky, MO, August 2008 Wahlberg, A (2008) ‘Good life and ‘the good life’ – on quality and vitality’, presented at Figurations of Knowledge, European Conference of the Society for Literature, Science and the Arts (SLSA), Berlin, 2-8 June 2008 Wahlberg, A (2008) ‘Reproductive medicine and the concept of quality’, presented at Standardising Objects, Stabilising Categories, 3rd Annual Symposium of the Postgraduate Life Sciences and Society Network, Department of Sociology, University of Helsinki, Finland, 12–15 June 2008
Wahlberg, A (2008) ‘RCTs and the placebo problem in Europe’, presented at BIONET workshop on Clinical Research and Clinical Research Organisations in EU-CN research – ethics and governance issues, Xi’an, 9-12 September 2008 Zhang, JY (2008) ‘The philosophical source of Chinese social relations: a comparison among Confucianism, Aristotelianism and Stoicism.’ Lancaster Sociology Summer Conference, 7 July, 2008 Zhang, JY (2008) ‘China’s Role in the Cosmopolitanization of Bioethics’, The 9th World Congress of Bioethics, Rijeka, Croatia, 6 September, 2008 Zhang, JY (2008) ‘What Is Chinese Life Scientists’ Role in Shaping Research Policies’ invited presentation at the 14th Meeting of Chinese Life Scientists Society in UK, Oxford, 13 September, 2008
Grants Johnson, M, Franklin, S and Hopwood (2008) ‘History of mammalian development in the UK: 1945-present’ awarded by the Wellcome Trust History of Medicine Programme, 1 April 2008 – 31 March 2010, £20,000, Grant No. 084418 Franklin, S (2008) ‘Crossing Over’, Arts Council of England (Grant for the Arts – £10,000) and People Award Grant Wellcome Trust (£26,975) (Principal Investigator Caterina Albano)
15
Upcoming BIOS events During term time, the BIOS research seminar series and BIOS reading group sessions are held regularly on Thursdays and Wednesdays respectively. The Thursday seminar series feature invited speakers to discuss their research on various social and ethical aspects of the life sciences and biomedicine, while the reading group facilitates discussion around a series of topics that are of interest to persons associated with BIOS or who have an interest in the life sciences throughout the LSE and beyond.
008 ecember 2 -D r e b o t c dar O your calen r o inar f s e t a arch Sem D BIOS Rese b er 20 13 Novem
0 8 5 -7pm
sOur Selve r Brains, u phic ‘O ra g o n er 20 0 8 istorical and Eth b m ce e D H New Brain ber-1 es to the 30 Novem Approach Denmark , Aarhus, Sciences’ Workshop r hus Mirro ENSN Aar
4 Dece
arch BIOS Rese 8 5 -7pm mb er 2 0 0
Seminar
olitics of nce and P ‘The Scie esearch’, Disease R d e ct le 8 g 0 e N nd mb er 2 0 Switzerla 8 -9 Dece S Geneva, by the BIO ed is an m org ur ch Symposiu ro B e NSS and th Centre, CP n Foundatio
and 26 November ctober, 12 roup O G 2 ichaelmas g 2 M in n o d ed a g BIOS Re e meetin r an updat b fo ill te w si p u eb g Gro e BIOS w The Readin . Check th list. om 1-3pm fr er d reading b an m ls ve No room detai e, m m ra Term prog ciety on e and So will meet iomedicin d Societ y B , an e ce n in ic ie sc Biomed MSc in Bio ioscience, Issues in B ey K . 5 m 5 p 4 -1 SO m 11am in L52 fro Thursdays , 29 October as Term on s lm the le ae b in h s ta ic st d M n re ared inte nue in the BIOS Rou sh ti n g n co ri ill lo p w ntered. ex dtables rns encou aiming at BIOS roun and conce December es 0 1 su is d s, an ber problem 19 Novem to address unity and m m co S BIO 6 p m. mber from d 26 Nove an er b m lity , 5 Nove BIOSocia 15 October BIOS • The London School a drink on r fo s u in Jo email. of Economics and Political follow by Details to Science • Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE
Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 6998 Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 6565 www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIOS/
16
BIOS News Issue 10 • Fall 2008