Rapporteur Notes 2/17

Rapporteur Notes 2/17

Housekeeping issues:

Sites of levorotary we are working on, from neuroscience labs to engineering labs, from clinical labs to labs in a corporate setting. What does a lab mean in terms of spatial and organizational setting? Also the differences in perspectives of entering and observing the labs, the hierarchical order in the lab, gender relations, national origins, the presence or absence of undergrads, and the absence of PI. Possibilities for further thoughts. The experience of conducting ethnographies as well as challenges in the ethnographies, like choose what to focus, social relation or theory, and advertise the notion of ethnography to lab members. Ways of collecting data, including surveys and interviewing, which are forms of performing in return.

Rough Draft Due Date Extended to March 1^st, Peer review due date extended to March 8^th.  

Planed for discussion: race and ethnicity as social constructs and real facts, how products like genetic markers reshape personal identity, differences between particular companies, broader uses of DNA, such as the genome project and in public health context.

Discussion part led by Savannah on natural, social, and political uses of Native American DNA

We first revisited readings from last week that presented the historical contexts, the tension between bio/genetic and cultural conception of race. According to Latour and Knorr-Cetina that lab is a site of the transformation of power dynamics, lab is a product of social works in which it is carried out. Political environment, social context, have influences on scientists on approaching scientific questions, as well as ordinary people accepting scientific results.

We talked about the “Western” concept of science, which haunted the whole session, about to what extent science implied changes of power dynamics.

We then moved to the idea of blood quantum, about its colonial background and why it differed from Genetic Ancestry Test. Savannah reminded us that blood quantum was not the way in which indigenous people connected to each other and built self-identity, it was embedded in the colonial context and was not the choice made by native people, instead, it was imposed on them. From then on, we touched upon the “complex web of colonialism” for the first time. We also discussed the changing notion of being indigenous, and the documentary introduced by Savannah, Real Injun, which traces the evolution of cinema’s depiction of Native American people from the silent film era to today.

We moved to Tallbear’s piece, which showed that the diversity of Native American, that there were different requirements for tribe enrollment, while none of the tribe required genetic test. There were no fixed categories, categories were products of negotiations and conflicts. The role played by DNA, oversimplified representation of Native American identity, blending various categories together, showing the differences between genetic ancestry tests and cultural concepts.

From the accuracy of DNA test, we came to discuss Bardill’s paper, in which indigenous people researched indigenous people, to some extent legitimized their research, and identity claimed certain knowledge and expertise.

Recognizing that DNA test being viewed as an authoritative knowledge, we talked about alternative methods around the world, as well as why DNA test was so popular in US (because of its racialized environment and gene being framed as a commodity). What could happen in a homogenous society, like Iceland, where DNA test being used in public health by the state.

In terms of DNA tests’ popular in US, we discussed the paper by Bolnick etc., which explained why people chose to do such tests. The power of DNA test, which changed power dynamic in return.

Savannah brought the claim that “Your cultural identity is not about what you can claim but what claims you”. We discussed the notion of ownership of DNA, that made up your cultural identity. And the spatial turn from the field to the lab, as well as tracing the life history of an object. The process of purification in the lab that taking objects out of context was heavily critiqued. We returned to the idea of Western science and discussed different approaches in non-Western sciences, which recognized relationality. DNA in a different science might mean nothing without considering the cultural and political context and other situating factors.

When Jake brought up the Thrifty-Gene Hypothesis, Savannah showed us the Circular reference of social contexts and scientific research, including:

 

She also recommended an article by Gravlee “How race becomes biology: embodiment of social inequality.”

We hovered the danger in linking identity with DNA, because such biological differences were because of the social context. Then we critiqued Western science again, it might come from good intentions such as to diversify environment, but it was problematic when comes to interpretation of differences. And distinct categories existed in even those diverse labs.

We started talking about ethnomedicines and science, when Dick mentioned his experience in a traditional medicine hospital, a physician saying“don’t talk to me about science”. It drove us back to discuss the colonial root of science.

We talked about the standardization of ethnomedicines, including traditional Chinese medicine and Ayurveda medicine, and such transformation or localization occurred in relation to power dynamic changes.

Finally, Savannah kindly warned us not do the DNA test which leaked your data and led to unexpected consequences.