These first couple weeks of Biopolitics have introduced me to the concepts behind the human genome, while looking at the political and social role our human DNA has played in our ever-growing world. Technology is constantly changing, improving and trying to find ways to enhance our way of life. Science is very similar in a sense that the more we look into it, the more we see the diversity and fluidity within concepts such as genetic technologies and the research on DNA. This class has taken a look Actor-Network Theory, an approach to social theories and research that shows how networks intertwine and act as one for a single purpose . In the study of genomics and this course, the diagram presents “doing science”. This model gives us ideas on how to approach new problems in the sciences. In particular, we will be looking at the in-between. The article “Understanding the Human Genome Project” by Hub Zwart’s, takes an important look at three specific individuals and biographies that were apart of the Human Genome Project. It looks at the issue of using autobiographical pieces and their journey, as well as the pro’s and con’s to using these empirical pieces. Issues such as reliability and individual experiences can affect scientific ideas behind the HGP, while some believe there is a sense of self-correctiveness within these experiences. It also shows the role these scientists and researchers played in the HGP. I am a social science major with a minor in psychology and took a more sociological perspective on the piece. In regards to using autobiographies in a science context, I believe personal experience can be a viable source because people take their passions seriously. In the science field, to become a creditable name, creating theories and ideas have to be based on facts. I feel there is a sense of pride that is taken in their science research. They want to not only uphold themselves, but the advancement of science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Once I arrived within about a half-dozen lines of your reflection's end (and was reminded of your major), the style and focus of your comment became clearer to me. For example, your quick look at technology and the way you described it, as well as your untroubled look at actor-network theory, provide me a good sense of where you are likely to look as we move through the remainder of the readings. All that said: with respect to what we have read thus far, what particular aspects of your social science training do you notice coming to the fore? That is, how is your major area of study influencing the way you "read" the articles? Do you see a pattern to what you're drawn to focus on? How is that training influencing your sense of our general argument?
ReplyDelete