Page 1

06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 1

BIOS

BIOS News Issue 4 • Autumn 2006

In this issue Editorial Conceptualising regulation, by Filippa Lentzos

1

Life, humanness and the challenges of interdisciplinarity

2-3

Science and discovery as political arena by Kerstin Klein 3-4

Welcome to the Michaelmas term and a new academic year at BIOS. And although we have all hopefully had the chance to revitalise our energy supplies in the summer months, in many ways the summer break was far from a holiday!

The BIOS experiment – part 2, by Mathew Kabatoff 5

invited keynote speakers in Lausanne and quite a few research students also presented papers.

BIOS welcomes stem cell scientists from China, by Lamprini Kaftantzi 6 An elusive evidence base? by Ayo Wahlberg

7

Research updates

8-9

Postgrad pages

10-11

Postcards from BIOS visitors

12-13

Only a few weeks later, BIOS provided the setting for a research student workshop on the challenges of interdisciplinarity in the social study of the life sciences (5-6 September) reviewed in the postgrad pages by Chris Hamilton. This research workshop was immediately followed by Vital Politics II (7-9 September), an interdisciplinary conference organised by BIOS following the first Vital Politics held three years ago. Further to paper presentations, the conference was highlighted by three plenaries, each pairing a life scientist with a social scientist to discuss the key themes of the conference – neuroscience, regenerative medicine and biocapital. And interestingly it seems that the title of Brenner’s 2003 lecture was very apt as the different ways in which the life sciences and persons interact, come into tension and/or enter into alliances have indeed become central research themes for BIOS.

Publications and conference presentations 14-15 Upcoming events

16

It is now three years since BIOS was officially launched with a public lecture by Dr Sydney Brenner entitled ‘Persons and Genomes’. A lot has happened since then and the past few months have provided us with various occasions to take stock. For one, the BIOS experiment described in issue 3 of BIOS News was carried through to a provisional culmination (see Mathew Kabatoff’s follow-up article in this issue) as a lead up to a panel BIOS was invited to prepare entitled ‘Producing collectivity’ for this year’s ‘Reviewing Humanness’ EASST conference in Lausanne (23-26 August). Professors Sarah Franklin and Nikolas Rose were

In this issue you will also find a feature by Dr Filippa Lentzos on distinctions between centred and de-centred regulation in her work on dual use biological R&D. Kerstin Klein reflects on reading science history between the lines while Lamprini Kaftantzi reports on a visit by leading Chinese stem cell researchers to BIOS. Ayo Wahlberg provides a review of a two-day symposium held at the LSE in June on the rise of Evidence-Based Medicine and Randomised Controlled Trials in Psychiatry. Having bid sad farewells to Dr Carlos Novas as well as visitors Dr Priska Geisler and Anelis Kaiser during the

summer, BIOS is pleased to welcome 11 new members in the coming academic year. Dr Ilina Singh will be joining us as the first recipient of a Wellcome Trust University Lectureship in Bioethics and Society; Dr Kevin Burchell joins us as the Research Officer and Co-applicant (with Professor Sarah Franklin) on a three-year Wellcome Trust grant to investigate biomedical scientists’ perceptions of communication and deliberation in the context of public engagement initiatives; Joy Zhang (Wellcome studentship) and Shahana Schmid will join the BIOS PhD programme (working on stem cells in China and reproductive technology in Switzerland, respectively); and Professor Nikolas Rose will be working in the BIOS Centre for the period of his sabbatical leave. Dr Andreas Roepstorff (Aarhus), Dr Alondra Nelson (Yale), Professor Janice Graham (Dalhousie) and Dr Wei Liu (China Stem Cell Bank – Chevening Fellowship) will be joining us as BIOS Visiting Fellows during the year, and we are very happy to be welcoming back Professor Lene Koch. A big welcome also to this year’s MSc in Biomedicine, Bioscience and Society students! Annette VB Jensen, Lamprini Kaftantzi, David Reubi, Ayo Wahlberg


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 2

‘Is regulation solely a state activity, and once separated from the state no longer regulation, but something else?’

Conceptualising regulation By Filippa Lentzos being carried out, and of experiments carried out in the past. The concept, intent and design of experiments are recorded, as are observations during the experiment and any resulting data, where it is practical to do so, otherwise a reference is made to where the data is stored. A fairly elaborate set of company-specific rules exists around lab notebooks, concerning how to make the records, how they should be signed, what needs to be witnessed and how, where lab books are stored, how often lab books are microfilmed, even, as one researcher said to me, ‘what to do with blank spaces and what kind of pen you can use’.

‘You know it, because that’s the way things are done. It’s not because it’s a rule. It’s just that’s the way things are done and you do them that way’

2

What is regulation? For sure it is acts of parliament and their statutory instruments. Guidance and explanatory notes developed by regulators to assist in the implementation of these could also be labelled regulation. As could government guidelines, like the NIH guidelines for recombinant DNA, even though they only apply to researchers in receipt of NIH funding. But what about professional guidelines or standards like the British Medical Association’s ‘code of conduct for private practice’ or the BioIndustry Association’s ‘code of best practice’; do these count as regulation? And what about standard operating procedures, accreditation regimes, or professional norms? Is regulation solely a state activity, and once separated from the state no longer regulation, but something else? The neo-classical model of regulation derived from economics argues that this is indeed the case: regulation is state intervention through law. Often referred to as the ‘command and control’ approach to regulation – involving the command of the law

and the legal authority of the state – regulation is seen as the natural opponent of the market. In the absence of regulation, it is assumed that there would be market competition and that organisations would behave unchecked. Regulation is therefore viewed as intervention to restrain competition, either to remedy market failure or to prevent undesirable outcomes and protect public goods. Yet, this ‘centred’ understanding of regulation relates poorly to what I have found in my research on regulatory influences and oversight structures in the research labs of biotechnology firms. Of course statutory regulation, like health and safety legislation, plays a key role in the development of structures and procedures to manage the research taking place. But in addition, I have also found a number of other, more informal, regulatory systems that oversee biological research. The keeping of laboratory notebooks is one example. Laboratory notebooks form the primary record of experiments

Another informal oversight system regulating research activities in corporate labs is the matrix of professional norms, research practices, experience, and common sense (which interestingly often correlate tightly with the routines, procedures and precautionary measures prescribed by statutory regulations). As one scientist told me: ‘Everyone also just generally brings in experience if they’re coming from another academic lab or from a different industrial setting. They bring experience with them in terms of how something in the lab was handled in their past life and the safest way of handling it, you know, if that safety issue can also be used here.’ Or as others said: ‘Proper lab etiquette is basically just common sense – wear gloves and goggles, no eating in the lab, etc.’; ‘You know it, because that’s the way things are done. It’s not because it’s a rule. It’s just that’s the way things are done and you do them that way.’ A third sort of informal oversight system is peer observation. One scientist I spoke to used the term ‘in-house policing’, noting that ‘if someone does something really stupid – and occasionally that happens – then everybody gets in

BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 3

Conceptualising regulation (cont) on that individual or gets them to clean up their act or else.’ Similarly, another scientist at a different company explained that he knew ‘pretty much what everyone is doing and what they’re working on; how frequently they work with the radioactivity; what kind of experiments they do’ and that this provided fairly effective supervision of the research undertaken. I would argue that the informal oversight systems overseeing biological research also constitute

a form of regulation. However, once regulation is understood to be ‘decentred’, ie not tied exclusively to the state, but rather diffused through society, it becomes difficult to say where its boundaries lie as a social practice. Is regulation, for instance, all mechanisms of social control or influence affecting all aspects of behaviour from whatever source, whether they are intentional or not? This particular conception provides no boundaries as to where regulation might end and some other influencing factor take effect, and is

therefore of little help as an analytical tool. So, would it perhaps be helpful to relabel all decentred forms of regulation as something else, say control, oversight or, dare I say it, governance? Or would this merely shift the debate to the level of contesting labels, rather than providing an understanding of the concepts to which those labels might refer? I look forward to continuing this discussion in the upcoming set of reading group meetings dedicated to governmentality.

Science and discovery as political arena: reading science history between the lines By Kerstin Klein Reading with much pleasure in the dusty germs of science history/historical works on genetics and cytology, I was struck by what I would like to call the difference between the actual and the so-called factual in official science narratives. To roughly sketch my way through the field: I started with the beginnings of cell theory in the early 19th century and Darwin’s and Mendel’s ground-breaking works on the natural rather than divine origin of species (1859) and laws of genetic inheritance (1865/6); moving on via the

BIOS Reading Group’s next sessions on ways of governing in the life sciences During the summer term, a few reading group sessions were held on the theme of liberalism and how one might understand and analyse it in relation to the life sciences. Out of the discussions that emerged, participants debated to what extent one could distinguish a governmentality approach to studying social aspects of the life sciences from an STS (or perhaps more appropriately Actor-Network Theory) approach. In the Michaelmas Term we will continue discussing this theme using practical texts. 20 September: ANT and the life sciences 11 October: Governing the life sciences 1 November: Governmentality and ethics 22 November: Risk

BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006

transatlantic race of three research groups in Cambridge University (Francis Crick and James D Watson), King’s College London (Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin), and Caltech (Linus Pauling) for the discovery of DNA structure a century later; and ending up in the presence of modern life science and its latest hot spot of embryonic stem cell science. Two things I found particularly striking: first, an achy sense of tragedy of individual scientists, who dedicated their life’s work to advance their science, without always (and for various reasons) getting the credit they deserved. In some cases, they were even witnesses to how their work was sacrificed for the sake of more prominent and influential contemporaries, as happened in the case of Alfred Russel Wallace for instance who with similar but separate work prompted Darwin and his circle of friends to accelerate the publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which went on sale on 22 November 1859. Second, what was hard to swallow was to see the workings of timeless mechanisms of social selection; based on class (which is why Wallace was rather grateful that Darwin without his permission arranged for a ‘joint’ publication of a paper written by Wallace), or based on ethnic origin. In the already anti-semitic 19th century Germany, Robert Remak, a Jew, was

barred from teaching and the academic profession by Prussian Law, and although his work had been ahead of co-cytologist Rudolf Virchow, it is the latter today who is the prominent figure for the discoveries of their time. In the following, I will elaborate on these two cases with more detail. 1 Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) Wallace, a naturalist, was traveling from 1854-62 through the Malay Archipelago (now Malaysia and Indonesia) to collect specimens. He met Darwin only once, very briefly, but both were in regular correspondence. It was known to Wallace that Darwin was interested in the question how species originate and trusted his opinion on the matter. He therefore sent him for review his essay On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type. The essay did not use Darwin's later term of natural selection, but was essentially similar to theory Darwin had been working on for nearly 20 years. Darwin was hesitant to publish his world-shattering views, being aware of the public outcry he would provoke from a society which, much like he had prior to his observations of nature when traveling on the Beagle, believed in divine creation. When Darwin on 18 June 1858 received the manuscript, he wrote in a letter to his close friend Charles Lyell, that Wallace could not have made a better abstract. Although Wallace did not ask nor give

3


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 4

Science and discovery as political arena (cont)

Images: stock.xchng

permission for publication of his paper, Lyell and Joseph Hooker were determined to publish Wallace’s essay, together with excerpts from a paper that Darwin had kept confidential since 1844. They presented On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858, highlighting Darwin's priority. Darwin himself was absent, because his son had died a few days before. Wallace accepted the arrangement, after the fact, grateful to be included at all. Being born into an upper class family of a doctor, Darwin's social and academic status was far greater. Wallace thought it unlikely that his views on evolution would have been taken seriously by Britain’s more exclusive 19th century scientific circles. Perhaps one can say that Wallace, who at the time was downgraded to the position of co-discoverer, by now has even lost that fame. 2 Robert Remak (1815-65) If Darwin and Mendel are associated with the discovery of genetics, no single individual can be granted such a central role in the discovery of cell theory, and of the founders of the field Robert Remak is probably one of the most remarkable but least known. As cytologist and embryologist he is mostly remembered for discovering and naming the three germ layers of the early embryo: the ectoderm, the mesoderm and the endoderm in 1842. As mentioned before, he was Jewish, born in the ghetto of Poznan. Remak, who as a result of early legal Anti-Semitism in Germany

4

was prohibited to teach, was planning to apply to Paris, but Alexander von Humboldt (perhaps ill-advisedly) urged him to stay in Berlin. There, he was forced to work as unpaid assistant in Johannes Peter Müller’s laboratory at the University of Berlin, supporting himself through medical practice and microscopy lessons. He made several attempts to gain higher academic positions and sent a direct petition to the King, but all he was granted was a lectureship. In 1841, he wrote of cell division in red cell formation in the chick embryo, and between 1850 and 1855 he wrote his studies on the development of vertebrates (Untersuchungen ueber die Entwicklung der Wirbeltiere, 1855), a treatise in embryology. He concluded the book with evidence for cell division as a means of cell generation. Although groundbreaking, his thesis initially failed to achieve general acceptance, and only did so after forceful endorsement by Rudolf Virchow. The more prestigious promoter of cell division of the two, Virchow articulated what Remak had announced a short time before, without acknowledging Remak’s original contribution up until three years later when Virchow published Die Cellularpathologie 1858. What is more, not only was Remak left in Virchow’s shadow in his biological work, he would also lose out professionally. Firstly, when Remak, unwilling to accept the law, applied for the position as prorector of a university medical hospital in Berlin in 1846, the position was eventually awarded to Virchow, his junior by six

years. And secondly, in 1856 when Virchow and not Remak was appointed chair of pathology at the University of Berlin. In conclusion, I would like recall Jane Maienschein (2003), who suggests that scientific progress is not so much about revolutions and ‘great leaps of theory and interpretation that carry us forward to new understanding’, rather it is a ‘painstaking accumulation of data (and) advancement of techniques and equipment’. Beyond accepting science as a contested arena – where politics, power and social selection play equally crucial roles today in shaping individuals’ careers and scientific legacies – perhaps it is exactly for this desire to think of scientific advancement in grander terms of discoveries and revolutions, that narratives of science history often do not tell us enough about the ‘painstaking accumulation’ carried out by so many. As much as it would be ethical not to engage in power techniques or intentionally gain advantages from cultural capital to use Bourdieu’s term, in our genealogies and narratives of the history of the present we, and I am using a thought articulated by Btihaj Ajana, should not let the author die.

BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 5

The BIOS Experiment – Part 2 By Mathew Kabatoff In issue three of BIOS News I wrote a brief introduction to the BIOS Experiment due to be presented on August 26 2006 at EASST, held at the University of Lausanne. The following is a summary of the contents of the presentation, the progress that was made leading up to EASST and a set of remarks on the Experiment and the BIOS Centre. The BIOS Experiment was presented by five BIOS members (Megan Clinch, Sarah Franklin, Nikolas Rose, Mathew Kabatoff and Ayo Wahlberg) in a panel session dedicated to BIOS at the EASST 06' conference. It was attended by approximately 40 conference participants and lasted 2 hours. The Experiment was sparked from a discussion between Nikolas Rose from BIOS and Anthropos at the University of Lausanne in conjunction with EASST 06. This discussion, was concerned with what it meant to establish a research centre working at the intersection of society and science and led to an invitation to submit an abstract for a panel presentation at EASST. This invitation was taken back by Rose to BIOS and it was decided by the group that an ‘experiment’ would be conducted to investigate how research functioned and performed within BIOS.

Images: Bettina Bock von Wulfingen

This experiment consisted of two parts: the first was series of group discussions on the general themes or shared research practices within the BIOS centre; these sessions followed and worked off of the energy from ten bi-weekly roundtable discussions that featured presentations by BIOS members. The second was to provide empirical support to the general typology developed during the discussion sessions; this data was obtained by sending out two short survey’s to BIOS members asking each to identify key concepts, sources, methods and questions they were working with. The survey was not designed to discover the absolutes of the working practices of BIOS members (ie reasons for doing the research, aim of research within a broader context) but how the research was conducted.

(1) Tradition and innovation: in a response to a question at the end of the panel presentation Nikolas Rose said that research in BIOS possessed modest realism, in that the description of science and its social implications was discussed with little irony and without being wrapped in grand theoretical claims. This fits with the conclusions developed around tradition and innovation. From the research questions, methods and sources presented by BIOS research members it was suggested that BIOS members were very much concerned with investigating contemporary practices, controversies and innovations within science. These investigations were, however, performed by analysing the data of the scientific or social phenomena first. (2) Text-based analysis: the type of analysis that tended to take place in BIOS involved the analysis of text. This analysis was performed either through the examination of scientific writing, policy, legislation or through the analysis of interviews with key actors. This analysis was not a rhetorical analysis nor did it draw from phenomenology inspired theories about the performance of language as language itself. The text here was tied more closely to the empirical operation of the debate. (3) The Interdisciplinary: a question was asked about the role of critique and/or irony within social science research. An audience member did not believe that critique or irony could be absent from the discourse of science and society (a point that was made in the BIOS presentation).

Sarah Franklin answered this question by appealing to what she called ‘inter-literacy’. That is, critique or problematisation was something that remained within social science discourse but there was an obligation on the part of the social scientist investigating science to come to grips with the facts, concepts, discourses scientists use along with the discourse of social impact. Furthermore she also indicated that scientists themselves (and there are scientists working in BIOS) were quite aware of the social implications of their work. This seems to fit with a general BIOS strategy which does not shy from controversies but is intent on dialogue. (4) Relationship to STS, public policy, bioethics: the key point that can be used to address these three fields that came out of the BIOS experiment was that research at BIOS was problem focused and that there was an aim to develop sets of concepts to address the problems at hand. This means that BIOS research was more focused on the development of arguments from phenomena than specific outreach into the STS, public policy/politics or bioethics worlds. This makes sense given the commitment to empirical analysis in the research that goes on at BIOS. It also means that, if called upon or under individual initiative a BIOS member could contribute to any of these three areas, given topical relevance. The BIOS Experiment, as an experiment can be regarded as successful. Successful since as a group BIOS members were able to produce a collective document and uncover a rich data-set that pertained to the working practices of 19 of its most active members. Hopefully we can make further use of this data, and continue to draw conclusions as the centre develops.

What did this data reveal? The key findings of the survey’s and the experiment discussions concerned four broad topics: (1) BIOS’s relationship to tradition and innovation; (2) a focus on text-based analysis and methodology; (3) interdisciplinary practices between science and social science; and (4) the broader relationship to science and technology studies, public policy/politics and bioethics.

BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006

5


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 6

BIOS welcomes leading stem cell scientists from China By Lamprini Kaftantzi

coordinated from BIOS, LSE. BIONET (which is officially launched in October 2006) is funded by the European Commission under its Sixth Framework Programme, and involves 21 partners from China and Europe, and aims to bring together researchers, practitioners, ethicists, social scientists and policy makers from China and Europe, to explore key issues in the ethical governance of advanced biomedical research and to evaluate research and evidence on contemporary policies and ethical practices among Chinese and European practitioners and researchers.

On the 12th of June, BIOS welcomed Professor Guangxiu Lu and her team from the Institute of Human Reproduction and Stem Cell Engineering, Changsha, China.

Above: Dr Stacey explains the cryopreservation system Below: Workshop on ethical governance of biomedical research

Professor Lu is one of China's foremost experts in the field and member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). She is the Director of the National Centre for Human Stem Cell Research and Engineering and President of the Institute of Reproduction and Stem Cell Engineering at Central South University in China’s Hunan province. In addition, Professor Lu is the founder and President of the largest and most eminent fertility clinic which is located at the CITIC-Xiangya Reproduction and Genetics Hospital (the first modernized large-scale reproduction and hereditary hospital of China). The aim of Professor Lu’s team was to acquire first-hand knowledge about the facilities and materials that are used in the development, characterisation, handling and storage of human stem cell lines, as well as on current UK quality control methods, international patent depositary status and methods of worldwide distribution of the stem cell line stocks (stored in UK Stem Cell Bank) under International Quality Standards. Professor Lu is also a partner in BIONET, a Chinese-European collaboration on ethical governance of the life sciences and biomedicine that is being

6

Professor Sarah Franklin headed the BIOS team for Professor Lu’s visit, which involved a number of BIOS PhD students researching the ethical governance of stem cell research/technologies in UK, Europe and Asia. The group’s first visit included the HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority), the UK’s independent regulator overseeing safe and appropriate practice in fertility treatment and embryo research and POST (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) during which the group was updated on current UK and EU regulation on both IVF and stem cell research. The following day Professor Franklin introduced the team to Dr Stephen Minger one of UK’s leading scientists in the field of stem cells and regenerative medicine and Director of King's Stem Cell Biology Laboratory. The team had the opportunity to discuss with Dr Minger, tour his state of the art laboratory at the Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases and later in the evening participate in one of the famous London Regenerative Medicine Network meetings that are held monthly at the Centre. On the final day, the team visited the UK Stem Cell Bank which is based at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) in Hertfordshire. The Bank provides a repository for stem cells derived from adult, fetal and embryonic tissues from various laboratories all over the world. The UK Stem Cell Bank operates under accredited quality systems, in accordance with strict rules

of governance, and is inspected by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Dr Glyn Stacey (Director, UK Stem Cell Bank) and Dr Charles Hunt (Operations Manager) explained the Bank’s management and organisation system and Penny Carter (Cell Biology Quality Assurance Manager) shed light on the technological issues involved in the preservation, characterisation, and quality assurance of the lines. A three-hour workshop was held at the LSE on the same afternoon entitled ‘Regulation and Standardisation of Stem Cell Research in the UK and China: a comparative assessment with a view to greater harmonisation’. The workshop was sponsored by the BIOS Centre as part of ongoing activities related to the social and economic implications of stem cell science and was primarily aimed to address the issue of harmonisation through standardisation and regulation of practices, in the context of the rapid scientific advances in the field of stem cell research. During the workshop Professor Lu addressed the mechanisms and protocols that are being developed and put in place in China to ensure ethical as well as quality standards in the derivation, handling and storage of hES. She also spoke about the construction of a new Stem Cell Bank with a possible role in the distribution of lines and cells across China and eventually worldwide. Professor Sarah Franklin and Professor Nikolas Rose followed with a joint presentation on UK approaches to a national strategy of hES derivation and banking with an emphasis on issues of ethics and translation. Collaboration with China is a priority for BIOS, and this is taking a number of forms. In addition to the BIONET partnership, which will host a number of workshops and conferences in China, several BIOS research students are engaging in research on biomedicine in China. Moreover, Professor Franklin is collaborating with Chinese partners on the regulation, standardisation and commercialisation of stem cells, and we are very pleased to be hosting a 9-month visiting fellowship for Dr. Wei Liu (from the CITIC – Xiangya team) in BIOS.

BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 7

An elusive evidence base? By Ayo Wahlberg

In early June, an interdisciplinary group of about 50 philosophers, psychiatrists, clinical researchers, sociologists, anthropologists as well as regulators gathered in LSE’s Robinson Room for a two-day symposium. At stake was the much acclaimed rise of randomised controlled trials as a ‘gold standard’ in the building up of evidence about the effectiveness of a certain treatment or medicine in psychiatry. The event grew out of last year’s successful collaboration between BIOS and the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College on a seminar series about the placebo effect, and was made possible by the Nuffield Foundation as well as the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness.

‘Among the most debated topics were whether or not ‘evidence bases’ could ever be complete both as regards the safety and efficacy of a new drug under current regulatory regimes where commercial, regulatory and patient concerns do not necessarily converge.’ BIOS News

As might be guessed, the twelve presentations held over the course of the two days set the stage for lively discussions among participants. Among the most debated topics were whether or not ‘evidence bases’ could ever be complete both as regards the safety and efficacy of a new drug under current regulatory regimes where commercial, regulatory and patient concerns do not necessarily converge. Professor David Healy argued that relations between industry and researchers, often mediated by a new breed of organisations specialising in the ‘presentation of health information’ was leading to a degradation of clinical research practice, especially as concerns accurate reporting of safety data. Dr Tim Kendall of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health showed some of the hurdles his organisation was facing when attempting to translate evidence into clinical practice in the form of NICE guidelines in mental health. Kendall pointed out that 85 per cent of drug trials in mental health are funded by drug companies and that these are five times more likely than nonindustry trials to claim efficacy. Moreover, many drug trials are not published which raises questions about how complete evidence bases actually were. From a sociological perspective, Dr David Armstrong highlighted the differences between ‘medical elite’ and ‘field practitioner’ strategies for

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006

Images: Nikolas Rose

underpinning the trust that the public has in doctors. While the former strategy relied on what Professor Nikolas Rose called the ‘lure of the objectivity of numbers’ which appears to be controlled by ‘neutral’ and unbiased processes, the latter focuses on the individual needs of patients which can only be determined through doctor-patient encounters. Both agreed that EBM constituted a new form of governing clinical judgement which in part arose out of the need to protect patients from the iatrogenic dangers of medicine itself. In considering just what it is that constitutes an evidence base, Professor Nancy Cartwright argued that RCTs are not the only game in town and that as a gold standard method for determining efficacy its conclusions were necessarily limited in scope. In her talk, Cartwright distinguished between clinchers (eg RCTs, certain econometric methods) which may clinch a conclusion but are narrow in their range of application, and vouchers (e.g. ethnographic methods, qualitative comparative analysis) which vouch for a conclusion but are broad in their applications. Following this notion

of different forms of evidence, Professor Andrew Webster argued that assessment should be based not just on experimental evidence but also evidential (from ‘practices of use’) and experiental (‘patient values’) evidence. Finally, psychiatrist Ivan Eisler argued that randomised controlled trials can help practitioners by helping them to build up conceptualisations of a therapy and models of change. Changes in clinical practice, he argued, require changes in the understanding of how treatments work, something RCTs could contribute to. Professor Derek Bolton suggested that this limited use of RCTs was related to a dialectical play between generality and uniqueness. The two-day symposium certainly achieved its aims which were to promote interdisciplinary debate about the usefulness and role of RCTs and EBM in psychiatry. The Institute of Psychiatry and BIOS are currently in discussions about how to continue collaborations in the coming year following successful joint efforts to debate and discuss the placebo effect and RCTs.

7


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 8

Research updates Btihaj Ajana PhD Candidate Biopolitics and Bioethics of Biometrics: ID cards and the will to Low Risk Bodies My project is concerned with the proposal of Biometric ID Cards in the UK. Through an analysis of policy documents, media texts and the various debates by civil liberties groups, I am aiming to explore how forms of identity and modes of identification are being redefined and reconfigured through the use of biometric technology; understand the changing logic of security and risk management; and articulate the ways in which media discourses and those of civil liberties and the like are ‘shaping’ the debates over the implications of biometric ID cards. I spent most of the first academic year reading through the relevant literature and trying to tighten up my research questions and determine the appropriate research methodologies. I also attended various courses offered by the Methodology Institute in order to strengthen my research skills. Part of my endeavour was to ‘negotiate’ what is ‘sociological’ about my research project. Coming from the background of Cultural/Media Studies and Computing Science, my initial take on the issue of biometric ID cards was rather conceptual/philosophical. As such, I had to think of how to make the theoretical nature of my preliminary research proposal less abstract without compromising, nevertheless, my desire to engage with the philosophical aspects of the subject matter. With the help of my supervisor, I managed to find a middle-ground whereby both the empirical and the philosophical dimensions can be brought together. In this academic year, I am intending to conduct some empirical work by collecting and analysing various data and research material. In addition, I am planning to present papers at a number of conferences such as Embodiment and the State in Denmark. In terms of publications, I just published last month a paper entitled ‘Immigration Interrupted’ in the Journal for Cultural Research.

8

The paper provides a critique of immigration policy in Britain and elsewhere by drawing on the work of Nancy, Levinas and Derrida.

undignified individual today poses threats to the social just as much as the social is threatening the dignity of the individual.

But in spite of the promising prospects of my research project as well as my academic achievements, I did not receive any financial assistance from the Department of Sociology this year, which was truly a big surprise and a huge disappointment. My only wish now is that I will manage to subsist and complete my PhD despite the lack of financial aid!

Carrying out this research has not been easy or uncomplicated. Often I have wondered about the reasons why; Was it the character of the subject? Was it the craziness of embarking on a PhD; or was it me?! The latter frequently seemed the best bid in particular at the outset of my studies. I, of course, carefully abstained from sharing my concerns with my supervisor. But he, wise and experienced, and on a few occasions, has gently put my worries into perspective, and me back in my desk chair to work. So what at first – and for a while I should add – appeared to be a failure to grasp a body of literature, as endless procrastination or de-routes into obscure peripheral alleys of knowledge, later turned out to be quite fruitful for how the work has developed. This comforts as well as excites me when looking ahead on the work I still have in front of me to reach a happy ending.

Annette V B Jensen PhD Candidate The discursively embedded politics of dignity in assisted death ‘From Mercy Killing to Human Dignity' is the title of my doctoral research because I initially show how the question of euthanasia throughout the last century shifted in terms of values and perceptions of the individual: from mercy, where the person is object for external compassion, to dignity where the value of life is related to a person’s subjectivity. However, dignity is a contested notion with multiple meanings and it is unclear what it serves of function as well as which actions it legitimates. To get a better understanding of this I am undertaking an analysis of the discursively embedded politics of dignity in a sociological space of investigation named Assisted Death. So far, the research has shown that dignity embodies contemporary ideas of mental capacity, of choice and autonomy. It operates as a very powerful notion, often equally important or more important than the right to self-determination. Where mental capacity/personhood is contested or lacking, a uniform perception of an individual is sought preserved, and dignity is ensured through past wills, external norms and even use of coercion. Where personhood and competence is intact the quantity of life can be and is articulated as a risk. One argument developed on the basis of these findings, is how an

Besides the research I am spending some time coordinating and organising ‘Health and Citizenship,’ a conference for research students from UK and the Nordic Countries taking place 18-20 January, 2007 in Elsinore, Denmark. You can find more information about this event in this issue.

David Reubi PhD Candidate Constructing an Ethical Market – Ethics, Public Opinion and the Circulation of the Human Body in Britain and Singapore The last year has been a pretty busy one for me. In June, after many months writing up, I successfully passed my upgrade. The writing of the three chapters which constituted my upgrade materials has helped me to both clarify my theoretical approach and to further focus the theme of my research. Using a governmentality framework, the l atter looks at some of the rationalities and technologies of government

BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 9

Research updates (cont) currently being deployed to regulate the collection and circulation of human cells used in biomedical therapy and research. These rationalities and techniques constitute a heterogeneous style of governance made of bioethical notions of dignity, public opinion surveys and informed consent forms. Through the exploration of this mode of governance, my research also attempts to map out the image of the subject which underlies it, a subject whose body is the source of the parts used in therapy and research. My second chapter argues that before the current mode of governance, the modern West had experienced two other systems to govern the circulation of the human body for research and therapy. Using as illustrations for these two systems the 1832 English Anatomy Act drafted by Jeremy Bentham as well as Richard Titmuss’ 1970 book The Gift

Relationship: From Blood to Social Policy, I explore the characteristics of these two styles of government in order to understand the particularities of the rationalities and techniques currently in place. My third chapter explores the emergence of this current mode of governance of body parts in the Euro-American context. Analysing different policy documents, it argues that an anxiety about a market in human cells and the commodification of the human body constituted an important trigger and shaping element in the development of this style of government. Since my upgrade I have been gathering materials for my next chapters. These look at two instantiations of this novel mode of governance: the regulation of the collection and circulation of human stem cells in Britain and Singapore. While both countries have made stem research a priority to enhance

their position in the global knowledge economy, their historical, cultural and geographical differences articulated within wider discourses contrasting East and West make their comparison worthwhile. The data collection should be finished by early April, leaving the remaining months of 2007 to write up and submit my PhD. Apart from gathering data, I have also attended and presented papers at a few conferences in the past months. Drawing on my two first substantive chapters. I have presented papers at the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology’s Annual Conference in Lausanne (August 2006), at the BIOS Centre’s Second Vital Politics Conference as well as at the University of Brighton’s Centre for Applied Philosophy, Ethics and Politics’ Inaugural Conference (both September 2006).

From communication to deliberation By Kevin Burchell BIOS is pleased to announce that we have been awarded £220,000 by the Wellcome Trust (award number GR080201MA) for a three-year project entitled From communication to deliberation: the impacts of new forms of public engagement on biomedical scientists. The project takes place against a UK background of increasing reliance on deliberative and inclusive approaches to policy-making (DIPs) with respect to science and technology research trajectories and policy-making that involves scientific knowledge. Broadly, DIPs involve the exchange of views, concerns and knowledge between scientific experts, policy-makers, the public and other stakeholders. They tend to be advocated, variously, as: essential for public confidence in science and technology, a route to better policy and to the development of technologies that have greater social value, and as a democratic imperative. For scientific experts, this development requires a potentially challenging shift from technocratic, expert-focused approaches to policymaking and public engagement that consists of straightforward science communication. Within this context, the goal of the project is to provide

BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006

rigorous policy advice concerning the opportunities and barriers that are encountered by biomedical scientists with respect to the development and establishment of DIPs within biomedical science. To achieve this, the research objective is to collect data on the understandings of, experiences of and responses to DIPs of scientists working in the biomedical sciences. More conceptually, the objective is to examine these issues within the social psychological frameworks of identity and representation. These are potentially fruitful conceptual frameworks because they are able to deal with changing relationships between individuals and societies in ways that are politically, sociologically and psychologically informed.

interests: analysis of the aforementioned policy trajectories (from expert-focused policy-making and science communication to DIPs), and analysis of the discourses of scientists themselves (especially with respect to advocacy of their own work, and relationships between science and society). For further information about the project, please contact Kevin at k.burchell@lse.ac.uk.

The project commenced on 1 September, 2006 and is managed by Dr Kevin Burchell (reporting to Professor Sarah Franklin), who joins BIOS from the Department of Geography and Environment at LSE. Broadly speaking, Kevin’s background is in science and technology studies, (critical approaches to) public understanding of science, and environmental risk. This project brings together Kevin’s two more specific

9


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 10

Postgrad pages

The challenges of interdisciplinarity – tools for studying the life sciences By Chris Hamilton

Images: Annette V B Jensen

Interdisciplinarity is one of the key words for the social study of the life sciences. As researchers in the field, we need to become literate in writings and languages of disciplines that are not our own. Conversely, we seek to communicate through disciplinary conventions that are often illegible to our collaborators from other disciplines. How these new kinds of relationships emerge and become ‘interliterate’ is a process that mirrors a wider set of engagements – between patients and genetic counsellors, scientists and the ‘general public’, expert and ‘lay’ communities, activists and policymakers, and a myriad of other sites of interaction. How do we forge these interdisciplinary relationships? What can we expect to learn from them? How is the concept of interdisciplinarity misused? What is ‘best interdisciplinary practice’?

10

Thanks to a grant from the Wellcome Trust, it was a discussion of these issues that brought a group of postgraduate students from several institutions together on the 5th and 6th of September for a workshop organized by BIOS PhD students Chris Hamilton, Megan Clinch, and Ayo Wahlberg. The workshop had two main objectives. The first was to provide a space for postgraduate students to discuss and exchange ideas about their nascent research, conceptual frameworks and methodological strategies in a collegial and productive environment. The second was to embark on discussions where the definition and implementation of interdisciplinarity could be explored. The workshop was organized around five core sessions, which dealt specifically with different aspects of interdisciplinary research:

1 What does interdisciplinarity mean and how do we do it? a) Does interdisciplinarity entail reforming the disciplines involved? b) If so is this a compromise, an act of innovation, or something else? 2 Ethical practice through multiple sites a) How do we deal with different codes of ethics (formal, informal or otherwise) that might prevail in different settings? b) How might an interdisciplinary team working on a research project come to a shared understanding of ‘ethical practice’ c) How should we share our findings with our collaborators?

BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 11

Postgrad pages (cont) 3 ‘Inter-literacy’ a) How do we, as interdisciplinary researchers become literate in the writing and languages of disciplines that are not our own (eg biomedical research, clinical practice law, sociology etc.)? b) How do we communicate our own thoughts and ideas which are often embedded in our own disciplinary conventions and languages? c) How do these relationships impact on how we carry out our research? 4 Interdisciplinary dissemination of findings a) How do we communicate our findings through disciplinary boundaries (both our own and others)? b) Is there a politics of dissemination, and how could this shape the ‘end product’ of our research? c) How do we ensure this dissemination is most effective, and how is this effectiveness defined? 5 Gaining access and negotiating sites a) How is access gained, and what are some of the challenges in this process both practically and intellectually? b) What are our key sites? Are they only spatial? If not, what forms can they take?

The workshop sessions were facilitated by more experienced academics, who generously donated of their time, expertise and intelligence to ‘workshop’ these ideas with a spirited group of postgraduates. It was widely acknowledged that the success of the workshop, with its format of discussion-focused sessions, was entirely contingent on the approaches of the participants. Overwhelmingly, it was the feeling of the organizers, and indeed of those participants and facilitators who spoke to us afterwards, that the participants and facilitators alike rose to the challenge and contributed to lively, interesting and valuable discussions in the sessions. There was a great deal of interest in furthering the momentum built

up in this workshop, and there are now a variety of options about further discussion and outputs being explored. The workshop organizers would like to extend a very special thanks to those facilitators who generously gave of their time, their patience, and especially their willingness to discuss their engagement with these issues in their work: Professor Nikolas Rose (BIOS), Professor Richard Ashcroft (Queen Mary), Dr Michael Barr (BIOS), Professor Sarah Franklin (BIOS), Professor Derek Bolton (IoP), Dr Filippa Lentzos (BIOS), Dr Ilina Singh (BIOS), Dr Karen Throsby (Warwick) and Dr Bronwyn Parry (Queen Mary).

BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie tiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioS ocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesB ioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocieti esBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSoc ietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBio SocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocieties BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocie tiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioS

Out now!

The first two issues of BioSocieties: an interdisciplinary journal for social studies of neuroscience, genomics and the life sciences, published for the LSE by CUP, March and June 2006.

www.journals.cambridge.org/jid_BIO BIOS News

Issue 4 • Autumn 2006

‘How do we, as interdisciplinary researchers become literate in the writing and languages of disciplines that are not our own’

11


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 12

Postcards from BIOS visitors

Life of BIOS It was while looking at the postcard scenery surrounding Lausanne, that I started missing BIOS… I had come here for the EASST-conference, where the STS-community was gathered, after having just reoccupied my office in the old observatory building of ETH Zurich. Checking whether the telescope in the cupola of the building was still there, I remembered the London eye, which I had seen on so many days, always wondering whether it was secretly serving Foucault’s panoptic role of looking back at us, gazing through to BIOS, in tower 2. But here I sat, staring at the wonderfully blue lake of Geneva, admiring the amazing mountains, and felt moved. What I somehow had taken for granted for a couple of months, those people and ideas around me, nearly everyday, started to ache as lacking. Most certainly there is email these days, but would I ever get back into discussing the differences between botany and gardening with Carlos through the net? Would I hear so spontaneous elaborations on rational modernity in the health system of Vietnam again from Ayo? Would I elaborate on ‘true’ democracies with Kerstin? Would I go out desperately hungry to look for some proper continental meal during lunchtime with Anelis?

What I somehow had taken for granted for a couple of months, those people and ideas around me, nearly everyday, started to ache as lacking.

12

bio-capitalist subject and how it is formed, that I got most excited. I started to realize that it had been the very same questions driving me during these past nine months, and on a small scale it was mirrored in asking myself, whether it was the luxurious open office space with its gorgeous view on the London eye, or the privileged yet engaging situation of its inhabitants that made this BIOS collective tick and its individuals think.

glittery Zürichsee from the roofterrace, at these moments – I will be missing the panoptic London eye, but I will be reminded of the ideas floating around on the 11th floor. And they will keep me asking about the global trends in local economies and the governing of subjects and the management of their health etc, whether everything is the other way round and how we ourselves are getting involved in these trends.

So, I would like to thank all of you, on this occasion – and when I climb the stairs to look through the telescope of the observatory again, or if I see the steep mountains and the

With warm regards – Priska

Priska Gisler, Collegium Helveticum, Zurich, Switzerland

It hadn’t been easy to get into this microcosm of an international university and to bear the chaos and ‘grind of London’ (Mathew). Time seemed to be a scarce element in the life of BIOSers. It took me quite a while to realize that it was life itself that governed the 200 square meters office space, and that it would be those bits and pieces, the agitated discussions during roundtables, David’s books on his desk, or Michael’s thinker sculpture on his, that made me know and let me interact with the people around me. Linsey’s outcries on her mobile phone, woke me up and got me to my paper again, and whenever I saw Btihaj, I wondered, how I possibly had been portrayed by Al-Jazeera. It was during this post-card conference in Lausanne, when Nikolas Rose and Sheila Jasanoff debated the impact of the state and social institutions on the development of the bio-sciences and on the role of the

BIOS News

Issue 4

Autumn 2006


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 13

‘I’m going back with an enormously enriched understanding on the social implications, interactions and regulations of the biosciences, plus an incidentally acquired knowledge on reproductive medicine, cloning, bioeconomy, Chinese medicine, biometric identification technologies and much more.’

Images: Filippa Lentzos

From Anelis Kaiser My very first impression of BIOS (which I briefly visited in March 2005 to check out what these vital letters might contain), was crucial, busy but nice looking people and everywhere indicators of the common topics of interests: biomedicine, bioscience, biosociality, biopiracy, bioweapons, biotech, biorisk, bioterror, biopower, biosociety, bioethics...

the BIOS experiment itself. For myself, it was informative to observe this period of self discovery and this process of self identification based on simple questions with hard answers like ‘what is BIOS?’ or ‘are we a collectivity?’; and it was illuminating to see this project end up in a brilliant presentation at EASST 2006 in Lausanne.

Can so much bios be good?

Compared to the Swiss and German universities, there are many differences, some are better, others are worse. When it comes to the PhD system, I would say that English academia brings up its pupils with a focus on written expression of ideas, whereas Swiss and German academia perhaps drive their students to develop their verbal questioning skills further but possibly at the expense of the intellectual discipline of the written word. What also struck me here was the deliberate but very productive treatment and use of an applied ‘interdisciplinarity’ – and I don’t think that the only reason for that is the direct dealing with the ‘hard’ sciences.

Undoubtedly yes! Looking for inspirations ranging from Foucault to Gender Studies/Feminism I came to BIOS. Nik’s traces everywhere and Sarah’s supervisions were exactly the right combination for these purposes. I applied as a visiting research student and left behind a brain imaging project where I had worked for three years. It was quite challenging at the beginning, so many new impressions, so many new structures in academic life. I had the fortuity to participate in BIOS activities during a whole academic year. So I saw BIOS both quite stressed, and also pretty relaxed. I enjoyed the MSc course program me held during the first two terms. I also enjoyed the BIOS seminars, the neurosience and society workshops, the roundtables and many public talks. Luckily, I had the unique and incomparable opportunity to witness

BIOS News

Issue 4

Autumn 2006

biometric identification technologies and much more. I’m gratefull to every BIOSone who patiently answered my new-comer questions, who invited me to the reading group sessions or discussed extendedly with me after talks. You have been very inclusive. Specials thanks to my supervisor Sarah for the inspiring discussions during our supervisory meetings. It’s sad to go. So, never leave BIOS!

Anelis Kaiser, Department of Neuroanatomy, University of Basel, Switzerland

I’m going back with an enormously enriched understanding on the social implications, interactions and regulations of the biosciences, plus an incidentally acquired knowledge on reproductive medicine, cloning, bioeconomy, Chinese medicine,

13


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 14

Publications and conference presentations by BIOS staff, associates and students Publications Ajana, B (2006) ‘Immigration Interrupted’ in Journal for Cultural Research, Vol 10: (in press) Bauer, MW (2006) ‘The paradoxes of resistance in Brazil’ in: Gaskell G and M Bauer (eds) Genomics and Society: legal, ethical and social dimensions, London: Earthscan, p228-249 Bauer, MW & J Gutteling (2006) ‘Salience and framing of modern biotechnology in the elite press, 1973-2002’ in: Gaskell G and M Bauer (eds) (2005) Genomics and Society: legal, ethical and social dimensions, London: Earthscan, p113-130. Clinch M (2006) [Review of the book] ‘Case Analysis in Clinical Ethics’ in New Genetics and Society, Vol. 25(1) Franklin, S (2006) ‘Embryonic Economies: The Double Reproductive Value of Stem Cells’ in Biosocieties, Vol 1(1): 71-90. Franklin, S (2006) ‘The IVF-Stem Cell Interface’ in International Journal of Surgery, Vol. 4: 86-90 Hamilton, C (2006) ‘Biodiversity, biopiracy and benefits: What allegations of biopiracy tell us about intellectual property’ in Developing World Bioethics, (in press) Hamilton, C (2006) ‘Intellectual property rights and living organisms’ in International Journal of Surgery Vol. 4: 82-5 Kaiser, A et al (2006) ‘On females' lateral and males' bilateral activation during language production: a fMRI study’ in

14

International Journal of Psychophysiology, (in press) Kaiser, A (2006) ‘Neue Versuche zur Konfiguration und Konstitution von Materialitäten und Verkörperungen’ in Freiburger FrauenStudien, Vol.18: 296-301 Kerr, A and S Franklin (2006) ‘Genetic Ambivalence: Expertise, Uncertainty and Communication in the Context of new Genetic Technologies’ in Andrew Webster (ed.) New Technologies in Health Care, Houndmills: Palgrave, pp. 40-56. Lentzos, F (2006) ‘Managing Biorisks: Reflecting on Codes of Conduct’ in Nonproliferation Review, (in press) Rose, N (2006) ‘Biopower today’ in BioSocieties, Vol.1(2): 195-218 (with Paul Rabinow) Rose, N (2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the TwentyFirst Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press, to be published November 2006.

Clinch, M (2006) ‘Seeing as an Assemblage: An Ethnography of an NHS Thyroid Clinic in the UK’, paper presented at Reviewing Humanness: Bodies, Technologies and Spaces, EASST Conference, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 23-26 August 2006 Clinch, M (2006) “Producing Collectivity: Research Centres, Experimentation and Interdisciplinarity in ‘Biosocial’ explorations”, paper co-presented with Nikolas Rose, Sarah Franklin, Ayo Wahlberg and Mathew Kabatoff at Reviewing Humanness: Bodies, Technologies and Spaces, EASST Conference, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 23-26 August 2006 Corneliussen, F (2006) ‘What are the challenges associated with implementing new oversight requirements in Europe?’, introductory remarks at workshop on Controlling Dangerous Pathogens Project: Regional Workshop on Dual-Use Research, Matrahaza, Hungary, 12-14 May 2006

Wahlberg, A (2006) [Book reviews of] ‘Marginal to Mainstream: Alternative Medicine in America – M Ruggie Nature, Technology and the Sacred – B Szerszynski’ in British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 57(2): 343-6

Corneliussen, F (2006) ‘Managing Dual Use Concerns in the Bioindustry’, paper presented at non-proliferation and disarmament seminar series jointly hosted by the French Defence Ministry and the Institute for International and Strategic Relations, Paris, France, 13 April 2006

Presentations

Franklin, S (2006) ‘Feeling Sheepish: How Dolly Became a Biological Relative’, invited presentation at Animal Genomes in Science, Social Science, and Culture, Genomics Forum Workshop, Edinburgh, 5-7 April 2006

Ajana, B (2006) ‘The Ethics of the Whatever in Cultural Studies’, paper presented at Contexts, Fields, Positions – Situating Cultural Research, University of East London, 25-26 May 2006

BIOS News

Issue 4

Autumn 2006


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 15

Publications and conference presentations (cont) Franklin, S (2006) ‘Cleavage: the Multiplications and Divisions of Accounting for Embryos’, invited presentation at Talking Embryos, Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities (CRASSH), University of Cambridge, 5 May 2006 Franklin, S (2006) ‘Ambivalent Biology and the Politics of Suspicion: Living With the New Facts of Life’, plenary address at Reviewing Humanness: Bodies, Technologies and Spaces, EASST Conference, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 23-26 August 2006 Hamilton, C (2006) ‘On biopiracy’, paper present at ESRC Genomics Forum Workshop on Genomics and Intellectual Property, Edinburgh, 1-3 March 2006 Hamilton, C (2006) ‘Too natural/too cultural? Biopiracy, biocapital and biosociality’, paper presented at Vital Politics II: Health, Medicine, and Bioeconomics Into the 21st Century, BIOS Centre, London School of Economics, 7-9 September 2006 Kaiser, A (2006) “On ‘Geschlecht’ in Brain Science Experiments”, paper presented at Thinking Gender – the NEXT Generation, Leeds, 21-22 June 2006 McGoey, L (2006) ‘Taming dissent: the politics of objectivity within evidence-based Medicine’, paper presented at Vital Politics II : Health, Medicine, and Bioeconomics Into the 21st Century, BIOS Centre, London School of Economics, 7-9 September 2006 Reubi, D (2006) ‘The Capacity to Reflect and Decide. The Emergence of a Novel Object in the Government of Human Body Parts’, paper presented at Medicine and The Body Politic, Centre of Applied Philosophy, Politics and Ethics, University of Brighton (21-22 September) Reubi, D (2006) ‘Beyond Commodification – Techniques to Govern the Collection of Human Biological Materials’, paper presented at Vital Politics II: Health, Medicine, and Bioeconomics Into the 21st Century, BIOS Centre, London School of Economics, 7-9 September 2006 Reubi, D (2006) ‘Governing the Body – from Secrecy and Corpses to Consent and Cells’, paper presented at Reviewing Humanness: Bodies, Technologies

BIOS News

Issue 4

Autumn 2006

and Spaces, EASST Conference, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 23-26 August 2006

Technologies and Spaces, EASST Conference, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 23-26 August 2006

Rose, N (2006) ‘Biopower in the 21st Century: bioeconomics and biocapital’, presented at Science, Medicine and Politics, Centre de recherche sur la santé, le social et le politique, INSERM, University of Paris 13, 4 April 2006

Vrecko, S (2006) ‘Biosocial dynamics within the industry, science, and politics of gambling’, paper presented at Vital Politics II: Health, Medicine, and Bioeconomics Into the 21st Century, BIOS Centre, London School of Economics, 7-9 September 2006

Rose, N (2006) ‘Biofutures in the present: the role of imagined futures in contemporary biomedicine and bioeconomics’, presented at Shifting Politics: Governing Biofutures, Groningen, Netherlands, 21-22 April 2006 Rose, N (2006) ‘What is an adequate life?’, presented at Vital Citizenship, Moral Experience and the Governance of Life in Post-Mao China, Harvard, 19-20 May 2006 Rose, N (2006) ‘Ethopolitics and the transformation of biopolitics’, presented at The Politics of Ethics and the Crisis of Government, University of Washington, Seattle, 25-26 May 2006

Wahlberg, A (2006) ‘Above and beyond superstition’, paper presented at Diversity and Debate in Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Alternative and Complementary Health Research Network, Nottingham University, United Kingdom, 6-7 July 2006

Grants Franklin, S and K Burchell (2006) ‘From Communication to Deliberation: the Impacts of New Forms of Public Engagement on Biomedical Scientists’, Wellcome Trust Society Awards, £225,000 (01/09/06-31/08/09)

Rose, N (2006) ‘Somatic Ethics and the Spirit of BioCapital’, presented at Lancaster University, April 2006 Rose, N (2006) ‘The politics of life in the twenty first century’, presented at University of Lisbon, June 2006 Rose, N (2006) ‘The Value of Life: Somatic Ethics and the Spirit of BioCapital’, plenary address at Reviewing Humanness: Bodies, Technologies and Spaces, EASST Conference, University of Lausanne, Switzerland, 23-26 August 2006 Vrecko, S (2006) ‘From neuroethics to neuropolitics: linking gender, power, and the nature of the anorexic brain’, paper presented at Bioethics: past, present and future, Birmingham University, June 2006 Vrecko, S (2006) “Crime control and the death of the social: on drug courts and emerging forms of ‘therapeutic justice’”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the British Society of Criminology, Glasgow, August 2006 Vrecko, S (2006) ‘Desire under control: addiction treatment in psychopharmacological societies’, paper presented at Reviewing Humanness: Bodies,

15


06_0407 BIOS_news_4

25/9/06

10:55 am

Page 16

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.

Dates for your calendar October – December 2006 Unless otherwise stated events take place 5-7pm in Graham Wallas Room (Old Building, 5th floor), London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street. Tuesday, 3rd October ‘Reproduction: an issue of human rights’, with the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, speakers include Dr Stephen Minger and Dr Debora Spar, Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House, 6.30-8pm Thursday, 26th October Alain Pottage, Law Department, LSE Thursday, 23rd November George Gaskell and Martin Bauer, Institute of Social Psychology, LSE

BIOS • The London School of Economics and Political Science • Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE

BIOS Reading Group The reading group will meet 1-3pm on 20 September, 11 October, 1 November and 22 November. Check the BIOS website for an updated Michaelmas Term programme and reading list.

BIOS Roundtables BIOS roundtable will continue in the Michaelmas Term aiming at exploring shared interests in the BIOS community, and to address problems, issues, and concerns encountered. The roundtables will be held at BIOS Centre 12-1.30pm on the following dates: 18 October, 8 November, 29 November.

SO455 Key Issues in Bioscience, Biomedicine and Society Thursdays in S53 from 10am to 12pm during the Michaelmas Term.

Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 6998 Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 6565 www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIOS/

16

BIOS News

Issue 4

Autumn 2006


BIOS News Issue 4. Michaelmas 2006  

BIOS News Issue 3. Michaelmas2006

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you