|
Diversity.com/Population.gov
Eugene Thacker [maldoror@eden.rutgers.edu]
A Tsunami of Data
When, in the early 1990s, the U.S. government-funded Human Genome Diversity
Project (HGDP) drafted plans for a genetic database of some 4,000 to 8,000
distinct ethnic populations, it was met with a great deal of controversy
and criticism. The stakes were raised even more when it was discovered
that the HGDP had proposals for the patenting of the cell lines from several
members of indigenous populations, all without those members' or communities'
informed consent. Due to the interventions by such groups as the Rural
Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), the HGDP was forced to drop
three of its patents. In 1996 it provided a testimony to the U.S. National
Research Council and has since drafted a document of "Model Ethical
Protocols" for research, which emphasizes informed consent and cultural-ethical
negotiation. Since that time, however, the HGDP has been conspicuously
silent (it is now based at Stanford University, as the Morris Institute
for Population Studies), and, despite the flurry of news items and press
releases relating to the various genome mapping endeavors around the world--both government and corporate sponsored--there has been relatively
no news or updates on the progress of the HGDP's original plans.
Much of this curious disappearing act has to do, certainly, with the bioethical
conundrums in which the HGDP has been involved, as well as with the combination
of vocal critics such as RAFI, and the HGDP's having been marked by the
media and dubbed by its critics as "the vampire project." However,
while the HGDP as an organization may have slipped from science headlines,
the issues and problems associated with it have not. Another, parallel
development within biotech and genetics has emerged, which has more or
less taken up the "diversity problem" that the HGDP had dealt
with in the 1990s: bioinformatics. Bioinformatics involves the use of
computer and networking technologies in the organization of updated, networked,
and interactive genomic databases being used by research institutions,
the biotech industry, medical genetics, and the pharmaceutical industry.
Bioinformatics signals an important development in the increasing computerization
of "wet" biotech research, creating an abstract level where
bioinformatics can form relationships between bioscientific approaches
to diversity and the fluctuations of the biotech economy. A driving economic
force is finance capital, bolstered from within by a wide range of "future
promises" from biotech research (software-based gene discovery, data
mining, genetic drugs, and so on). The emphasis we are witnessing now
in "digital capitalism," to use Dan Schiller's term, is an intersection
of economic systems with information technology. As Michael Dawson and
John Bellamy Foster show, this trend leads to an emphasis on a "total
marketing strategy" that is highly diversified: consumer profiling,
individualized marketing, "narrowcasting," "push-media"
and so on. Such trends are transforming biotech research as well. More
often than not, the future of a research field within biotech can flourish
or perish depending on the tides of stock values. In turn, those stock
values are directly tied to the proclaimed successes or failures of clinical
trials or research results. Most of the stock value of the biotech industry
is an example of what Catherine Waldby calls "biovalue": either
being able to produce valuable research results that can be transformed
into products (such as genetic-based drugs or therapies), or the ability
to take research and mobilize it within a product development pipeline
(mostly within the domain of the pharmaceutical industry).
These trends are worth pointing out, because they draw our attention to
the ways in which race, economics, and genomics are mediated by information
technologies. Genomics--the technologically-assisted study of the total
DNA, or genome, of organisms--currently commands a significant part of
the biotech industry's attention. In economic as well as scientific terms,
genomics has, for some years, promised to become the foundation upon which
the possibility of a future medical genetics and pharmacogenomics would
be based. As a way of providing a backdrop for Diane Ludin's project
Harvesting the Net::MemoryFlesh, what I would like to do here is to outline
some of the linkages between biotech as an increasingly corporate-managed
field, and the emphasis within genomics programs on diversification. Such
research programs, which highlight types of "genetic difference,"
demonstrate the extent to which culture and biology are often con-fused,
as well as the extent to which both ethnicity and race are compelled to
accommodate the structures of informatics.
Decoding Genomics
The recent rise in genomics projects, especially those geared towards
unique gene pools and genetic markers, has impelled the hybridization
of a new practice of statistics and medicine, combining studies in population
genetics with new techniques in genomic mapping. This application of sociobiological
studies of populations--what I'll be calling "population genomics"--brings together a lengthy tradition in the study of populations, hereditary
patterns, and inherited characteristics, with the contemporary development
of large-scale genomic sequencing and analysis for clinical medicine.
For instance, biotech companies such as deCODE, Myriad Genetics, and Oxford
Biosciences Inc., are focusing on the genomes of populations with histories
of low migration and a low frequency of genetic mixing (Icelandic, Mormon,
and Newfoundland communities, respectively). Other companies, such as
DNA Sciences Inc., are focusing on building a volunteer-based genetic
health database to aid in the fight against disease. DNA Science's Gene
Trust uses the GenBank model to archive medical, genetic, and health-related
data (GenBank holds the public consortium's human genome data). Still
other companies and research labs are focusing on the minute genetic sequence
differences between individuals--polymorphisms, SNPs, and haplotypes--that may be the keys to individual genetic susceptibility to disease,
and, by extension, the key to the development of genetic drugs.
What all of these databases promise to provide is an extensive, computer-driven
analysis of the genetic basis of disease, as well as assisting in the
developments of treatments, cures, and preventive practices. In these
projects, the database--both local and online--is a key technology.
A database such as deCODE's Icelandic Healthcare Database (IHD) is a good
example, in that it brings together three types of genetic-medical data:
(i) phenotypic (observable) health data and health-care information, (ii)
genotypic data (genomic sequence), and (iii) genealogical and hereditary
data (gene pool and statistical information). The IHD is both highly specified
in its object (a genetically-isolated population) and widespread
in its coverage (containing national health records, genealogical
records, and genetic data). In addition, the IHD, as part of deCODE,
is a business endeavor as well as a health-care one, and deCODE uses this
product--here the product is information or database access--to forge
productive relationships with governments (Icelandic national genealogical
records) as well as with other businesses (especially pharmaceutical corporations).
The scope and ambition of projects such as Celera's or deCODE's are, of
course, made possible by advances in computing technologies, most of which
are exorbitantly expensive, inaccessible to non-specialists, and which
have a high learning curve. This, combined with the illegibility of genetic
sequence data by non-specialists, makes the potentials of genomics extensively
out of the reach of the general healthcar public, and it makes any
informed critique or public debate challenging as well.
For instance, in articles written by Kari Steffanson, CEO of deCODE, the
potentials of informatics technologies transforms science research from
a linear, hypothesis-driven approach, to a semi-automated data mining
agent that completes computations far beyond what was possible prior
to the use of parallel processing computers and data mining algorithms.
Both deCODE and other companies such as Human Genome Sciences have stated
that they are in the business of information and discovery. The intersection
of business approaches to genomics and the use of informatics-based tools
means that science research is based in combinatorial techniques; the
best pattern-recognition combinations will be of the highest value, the
greatest assets.
In considering this complex of life-science business models, new computer
tools, and a genomics-based approach to populations and disease, we can
actually differentiate several types of strategies for databasing the body
within contemporary genomics.
Universal Reference: Generalized human genome projects, such as that undertaken and first completed by Celera, emphasize their universality as models for the study of disease,
treatment, and a greater understanding of life at the molecular level.
They also highlight the backdrop against which all genetic difference
and/or deviations from a norm will be assessed. Indeed, part of the reason
genomic projects by Celera, Incyte, or the public consortium have
received so much attention is that these projects are in the
process of establishing the very norms of genetic medicine. Their practices
and techniques themselves are the processes of establishing what will
or will not exist within the domain of consideration for genetic medicine,
and will or will not be identified as anomalous or central to genetic
knowledge and genetic drug design. A company like Celera, though it assembles
its sequences from a number of anonymous individuals, constructs one
single, universal human genome database. That database becomes the model
for all sorts of research emerging from genomics--proteomics, functional
genomics, DNA diagnostics, and so forth.
Difference and the Subject: At the opposite pole of Celera's universal model of the human genome is
a field of research that deals with the minute, highly specific base
pair changes that differ from one individual to another. Accounting for
about .1 percent of the total genome (or roughly one million base pair variations
per individual), these "single nucleotide polymorphisms" (SNPs)
are thought to contribute to a range of phenotypic characteristics, from
the physical markers that make one person different from another (hair
color, etc.), to the susceptibility to single base pair mutation conditions
(such as sickle cell or forms of diabetes). However, many SNPs are phenotypically
non-expressive; that is, they are base pair changes that do not affect
the organism in any way and are simply differences in code sequence. Specific
projects, such as Genaissance Pharmaceutical's HAP series of haplotype
database tools, as well as the Whitehead Institute's SNP database, focus
exclusively on these minute base pair changes. These databases of individual
point changes form linkages between variation within a gene pool and
a flexible drug development industry that operates at the genetic level.
Stratifications: Between universal genome projects and individualized genetic medicine
research, other genomics projects are focusing on collectivities within
a universal gene pool. The projects from deCODE, Genaissance, Myriad,
and others focus on genetically isolated populations. Often combining the
usual genotypic data with demographic, statistics, genealogy,
and health-care data, these projects are both new forms of health-care
management as well as studies of the effects of disease within genetically homogenous
groups. Projects such as deCODE's IHD promise to be able to perform large-scale
computational analysis on entire genomes, but in this they also threaten
to fully abstract genetic data from real, physical communities. The population
genomics projects take a genetics-based or genotypic view of race, and
make connections to the functioning of norms within medicine and health
care. In doing this they establish an intermediary space between the
universality of the human genome project (which claims a uniformity under
the umbrella of a distinct species) and the high-specificity of SNP or
haplotype databases (which claim individual difference within a general
category). This intermediary space is precisely the space of racial (mis)identification
and boundary-marking; it is the space where bioscience forms collectivities,
composed of individuals and united under a common species categorization.
With their primary aim as medical, these population genomics projects
are involved in the re-articulation of race and ethnicity itself as biologically determined,
and they do so through the lens of bioscience research and corporate biotechnology.
In this schematic of different types of genomics projects, we can see
an approach toward biological information that is far from a simplistic
monocultural model, in which difference is marginalized, silenced, or
pushed out of the domain of serious consideration. In fact, everything
in genomics moves toward an inclusion of differences, but differences
that can be accounted for by both DNA and information. From a scientific
perspective, of course, difference or diversity is the cornerstone of
traditional evolutionary theory, be it random or directed environmental
influence. Likewise, from a business perspective, diversity is not only
the key to creating more custom-tailored products (as in genetic drug
design), but diversity also enables a more thorough knowledge-production
of the population. This is a kind of niche biomarketing, in which information
is extracted from a heterogeneous population, then selectively organized,
and re-routed into research and product development.
Projects like deCODE's IHD are prototypes for scientific-business practices
that are indissociable from a consideration of race and ethnicity, themselves
considered from a molecular and informatic perspective. They do two things:
they work toward establishing new, more flexible sets of norms, both
within biomedicine and from the point of view of business strategies,
and in doing so they form new methods of population management and regulation.
The New Dotcom
In some ways, it is misleading when we talk about the biotech "industry";
in the most literal sense biotech rarely produces anything. Its specialty
lies in modifications and recontextualizations of organic life. We can
begin by outlining three main kinds of companies within the biotech industry:
First, there are the "pick-and-shovel" companies, mostly in
the technology and laboratory supply sector, which provide the tools for
research. Like the original pick-and-shovel businesses during the California
gold rush, such companies implicitly believe that, while the actual genome
may not yield any profits, the need for research technologies will. These
companies are generally the lowest risk-takers, though radical new tools
such as DNA chips are transforming the way in which research is carried
out. An example is Affymetrix, which is one of the leading suppliers of
microarrays, or DNA chips, for large-scale, efficient sequencing.
Second, there are the software and service companies, which operate
mostly on the level of computer technology, software, and network applications.
These companies often provide a counterpart to the pick-and-shovel companies
by supplying the software tools necessary to complete the work done by
the hardware. Such companies can offer software packages (such as Incyte's
"LifeSeq" sequencing and analysis software), they can
offer data analysis services (these are mostly software companies), or
access to a database on a subscription-only basis (as the
private genome companies such as Celera are doing).
Finally, there are what we might call the product-makers, those companies--usually large pharmaceutical corporations--that take the information
generated by the second group (say, the information generated by Celera
on the human genome), and transform it into an array of products, services,
and practical techniques. The most prevalent among these is Big Pharma
and the emphasis in such companies is on drug development and gene therapy-based
drug treatments (or "pharmacogenomics"). Currently, the most
prevalent test for the value of biotech research is the clinical trial,
in which a genetically designed drug is put through an extensive series
of tests before gaining approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.
A consideration of these types of companies not only illustrates the degree
to which biotech has become infotech, but it also suggests that the future
success of the biotech industry is dependent on the ability to generate
value out of the data collected from biological material. All of this
is predicated on the assumption that biological bodies--tissues, cells,
molecules, chromosomes, genes--can be unproblematically translated into
data. Such a move indicates the degree to which biotech relies upon the
notion of a stable "content" in the genome, irrespective of
its material instantiation (be it in cells or in computer databases).
It is in this sense that, for the biotech economy, the genome becomes
a value-generator, through its ability to adequately perform in the organism
(and thus the eagerness of biotech companies to gain patents on novel
molecules). The biotech economy demands that everything within biotech
have an informatic equivalent; it does not, like biotech research, demand
that everything be translated into information, but it does demand a direct
link between genetic bodies and relevant data.
The economics of biotech touches the population, not through direct genomic
database management, but more indirectly through the commodification of
such databases. As biotech becomes increasingly privatized, the database
corporations such as Celera or Incyte will become the main bio-commerce
brokers. At issue is not the buying or selling of databases, but the generative
potential of genetic data; in such a case racial population genome databases,
individualized SNP or genetic screening databases, and various animal
genome databases important for human medicine will all become sources
of a biopolitical management of selected collectivities.
Each and Every
As a way of approaching such issues, it might be helpful to consider Michel
Foucault's later work dealing with "biopolitics." Although the term begins to appear with some regularity around the time of
Discipline & Punish, Foucault later clarified its relationship to
his other concepts of "bio-power" and "disciplines."
For Foucault, biopolitics is "the endeavor, begun in the eighteenth
century, to rationalize the problems presented to governmental practice
by the phenomena characteristic of a group of living human beings constituted
as a population: health, sanitation, birthrate, longevity, race..."
(Ethics, 73).
Roughly speaking, Foucault calls "biopolitics" that mode of
politically accounting for "the population," considered as a
biological, species entity. This is differentiated, but not opposed to,
"bio-power," in which a range of techniques, gestures, habits,
and movements, most often situated within social institutions such as
the prison, the hospital, the military, or the school, collectively act upon
the individualized body of the subject.
The fundamental difference here is not between the individual and society,
but rather between individuating and collectivizing strategies, similar
to what Foucault earlier called "dividing practices." Biopolitics
is, first, an organizational technology articulating something called
the biological and species population--a collectivity of bio-subjects.
Through a range of techniques and practices, it produces and collects
knowledge of the population in the form of a manageable quantum of information.
And biopolitics reproduces its continual and changing regulation of the
population through a set of techniques and practices that insert this
informatic knowledge back through the social-biological body of the population,
culminating in a quantifiable, organizational entity that may be "touched"
at a variety of points through a range of technologies. To these characteristics
we might add a further extension, which is that contemporary population
genome projects form complex hybrids of economics, policy negotiations,
and high technology. In short, biopolitics is not exclusive to the mobilization
of state forces that Foucault emphasizes (what he terms "governmentality"),
but it brings to the forefront the multiple constraints set forth by an
informatics-based view of the body.
Bearing in mind Foucault's emphasis on the population as a biologically defined
entity, we can outline several important factors in considering population
genomics:
Informatics: Informatics is a key factor in considering contemporary power
relationships in biotech, because it works as a medium for transforming
bodies and biologies into data. But that data is understood in many different
ways, not simply as the liquidation of the body. Genomic, population,
ethnic, and SNP databases are just some examples of the variability of
biological data. At its root the case of informatics brings up philosophical
questions (what is the body if it is essentially information?), but preceding
this at every point are political questions (how are the manifold differences
in embodied communities encoded into data?).
Biodiversification: Biodiversity is a term that is most often reserved
for debates concerning the preservation, conservation, or sustainability
of natural resources, which depend a great deal on natural diversity.
Most often biodiversity is opposed to transnational corporations,
which take advantage of natural diversity to produce monocultures as product,
in what Vandana Shiva calls "biopiracy." In the context of genomics,
biodiversity becomes a signifier for genetic difference, and the ways
in which genetic difference gets translated into cultural difference. Biopiracy
is not simply about the destruction of natural resources, it is about
a complex re-framing of "nature" and the use of that diversity
toward commercial ends. As Shiva states, the discourse of biodiversity
is actually less about sustainability than it is about the conservation
of biodiversity as a "raw material" for the production of monocultures.
The same can be said of molecular biotech, especially in the case of genome
projects, genome databases, gene banks, human tissue banks, DNA sample
resources, and other instances of biopiracy.
Genethnicities: The point of controversy with many genome projects is
the issue of genetic discrimination. With molecular genetics, a unique
type of identification and differentiation has come about, in which individuals
and populations can be uniquely analyzed and regulated through their DNA.
This twofold process of molecular genetics (genetic essentialism) and
informatics (population databases) paves the way for a new type of identification,
and in some cases, discrimination. It is based not on race, gender, or
sexuality, but rather on information (genetic information). Bioinformatics--an apparently neutral technical tool--thus becomes manifestly political,
negotiating how race and ethnicity will be configured through the filter
of information technology.
Managed Health: However, even when public projects attempt to assemble
biological databases, there is still discomfort over the very process
of sampling, extraction, and utilization of one's own body for medical
research. In the case of genomics, this is a very abstract process, but
also a very simple one, moving from a blood sample to a DNA archive in
a computer. On the one hand there have been disputes concerning the ownership
of one's own DNA, in which, for instance, a company like deCODE develops
novel patents based on research done on individual human DNA samples.
For this reason many companies require complex disclaimers, and they also
make an important further distinction--between one's own lived body
and what is considered health-related data generated from a person's body.
This reduction of the debate to a distinction between blood and data may
solve the patenting and ownership issue, but it still does not address
the ontological difference between one's own, proper body, and the genetic
data extracted from one's body.
Biocolonialism
Taking these issues into consideration, do genomics projects such as deCODE's
IHD, or Celera's human genome database, form instances of a colonialist
imperative, a kind of "biocolonialism"? If, traditionally, colonialism
involves the forced appropriation of land and economy by one economically
and technologically empowered collective over another disenfranchised
collective, then biocolonialism presents us with a situation in which
the bodies of the colonized are in fact the land and economy. As theorists
such as Edward Said have pointed out, colonialism is not only economic
and militaristic, but also a complex cultural encounter. How might this
asymmetrical intersection of economies, power dynamics, and cultures translate
into biotech?
Biocolonialism takes the molecular body and biological processes as the
territory or the property to be strategically negotiated and acquired.
Often, when governmental regulations stipulate, this is done through some
type of informed consent, so that the individuals and/or community whose
biological materials are being acquired, are informed about the reasons
and future uses of their bodies. At other times this is handled without
such formalities, resulting in either biopiracy (a simple taking without
any reimbursement to the community) or patenting (based on cell lines
that are minimally modified). In order to conduct successful research,
and potentially turn over great profits, the first thing needed is a large
resource, which in this context means a biological sample suited for the
particular type of research being conducted. For example, a cell line
from an individual from New Guinea, from a collectivity known to have
developed a resistance to certain forms of diabetes (in the example of
the HGDP). Therefore, the territory overtaken by the biotech industry
is the molecular body itself, contextualized through race and high-technology.
In addition, biocolonialism doesn't so much reconfigure the colonized
economy, as it appropriates the molecular body as a type of condensed
economy in itself. The same molecular body that is the territory for biocolonialism,
is also the primary value-generator, by virtue of its composition and
operativity as a molecular organism.
Here In This Colony
As we've pointed out, the bioinformatics of database access is inextricably
connected, in biotechnology, to software and subscription models for research,
and this is where bio-informatics intersects with bio-capitalism, or the
integration of genetic bodies into an advanced capitalist framework. Discussing
the free-floating dynamics of late capital, Fredric Jameson notes that
the self-referential feedback loops of finance capital propel it into
a zone of "autonomization," a virus-like epidemic that forms
a speculation on speculations. For Jameson this has resulted in "the
cybernetic 'revolution,' the intensification of communications technology
to the point at which capital transfers today abolishes space and time
and can be virtually instantaneously effectuated from one national zone
to another." It is this instantaneousness and total connectivity
that has driven many labs to fully incorporate advanced computing and
networking technologies (such as Celera), and it is this integration of
biotech with infotech that has brought companies such as IBM, Compaq,
and Sun Microsystems into the lifesciences. If, in the biotech industry,
finance capital and laboratory research are interconnected, how does this
transform the "wet" biological materials in the lab, the molecular
bodies of life-science research?
One response is to suggest that it is in the unique, hybrid objects of
the biotech industry--genomic databases, DNA chips, automated protein
analysis computers--that genetic bodies and a "digital capitalism"
intersect. In other words, the correlations between bodies and capital,
which enables a biotech industry to exist at all, are currently mediated
by computer and information technologies. The use of such technologies
is predicated on the assumption that a range of equivalencies can be established
between, say, a patented genetic sequence and the marketing of that sequence
through genetic-based drugs.
What has become of the original issue put forth by the critics of the
HGDP? Part of the problem is that the issues dealt with in the criticism
of the HGDP have been handled in the way that criticism of genomic mapping
and human embryonic cloning have been handled: they have been filed under
the worrisome category of "bioethics." As postcolonial critiques
have pointed out, the HGDP came to a relative standstill because it could
not reconcile Western scientific assumptions and intentions with non-Western
perspectives toward "agriculture," "population,"
"medicine," "culture," and so forth. The gap in between
the HGDP's biocolonialism and those predominantly non-Western cultures
that were to be the source of biomaterial for the HGDP database illustrates
the degree to which "global" once again means "Western"
(and, increasingly, "economic"). But it is equally important
to note that biocolonialism need not be the familiar First World-Third
World struggle that has characterized debates on post-colonialism recently.
As we've seen, genomics projects articulate genetic difference according
to a variety of standards (universal, individualized, groups) that in
no way depend upon the marketing of biomaterials from indigenous collectives.
If anything, biocolonialism will depend as much upon Euro-American health-care models as it will on the isolated or unique genetic reserves of indigenous
populations. The development of DNA chips, genetic screening, genetic
profiling, and medical genetics are just some examples.
One of the meanings of the decrease in the presence of the HGDP and the
rise in bioinformatics developments and applications is that the issues
of race and ethnicity have been sublimated into a paradigm in which they
simply do not appear as issues. That paradigm is, of course, one based
on the predominance of information in understanding the genetic makeup
of an individual, population, or disease. When, as geneticists repeatedly
state, genetic information is taken as one of the keys to a greater understanding
of the individual and the species (along with protein structure and biochemical
pathways), the issue is not race but rather how to translate race into
information. In such propositions, race and ethnicity become split between
their direct translation into genetic information (a specific gene linked
to a specific disease predisposed to a given population) and its marginalization
into the category of "environmental influence" (updated modifications
of the sociobiological imperative, in which race and culture are accounted
for by biology).
The biopolitics of genomic science is that of an informatics of the population
in which cultural issues (ethnicity, cultural diversity) are translated
into informational issues (either via a universal, generalized map of
the human genome, or via individualized maps of genetic diversity). As
Evelyn Fox Keller, Donna Haraway, and others have pointed out, information
is not an innocent concept with regard to issues of gender and race.
The questions that need to be asked of bioinformatics, online genomic
databases, and genome mapping projects is not just "where is culture?"
but rather, "how, by what tactics, and by what logics are technoscientific
practices re-interpreting and incorporating cultural difference?"
Public Memory, Privatized Body
It is these intersections between populations, economics, and informatics
that are performed in Diane Ludin's project Harvesting the Net::MemoryFlesh. Combining a critical-artistic approach with a knowledge
of Web technologies, Harvesting the Net fleshes out the connections
between bodies and technologies in the biotech industry. Using her concepts
of "wet code" and "dry code," Ludin explores what
she refers to as the "circumstance of the body" as it is interpolated
between techno-hype and bioscientific anticipation.
From the technophilia evident in human genome projects (for instance,
the New York Times has run a number of articles on how gene sequencing
computers were largely responsible for the progress of the human genome
map), to the many promises that biotech research narrates (any advertisement
from a biotech startup illustrates this), the individuated body of the
biomedical subject becomes a site of contestation. The debates over genetic
privacy, patenting, and the promised medical benefits of biotech all extend
from this individuated body, at once distributed through an array of databases,
and condensed into a genetic profile.
In the midst of these tensions between wet and dry codes, hype and anticipation,
Harvesting the Net inserts the figure of the artist as a kind
of data-filtering module. Mainstream media reportage, science journalism,
press releases, as well as images, are all routed through the critical
lens of the artist, and re-purposed as an inquiry into the ways in which
the body, for the biotech industry, is inextricably connected to questions
of race and economics. Harvesting the Net shows us that the
political approaches in biotech inform every aspect of its public face,
from the images used in news articles and press releases, to the images
depicting high-tech labs, to the professionalism of biotech websites that
contain investment portfolios.
Using the "legitimate" materials from the biotech industry,
Harvesting the Net recontextualizes the multi-medial language
of the body, including it to articulate the wet and dry codes which are
constantly transmitted and reformatted. Between media representations,
computer databases, search engines, e-trading, and the molecular biology
lab, Ludin asks us to consider how bodies might fulfill a "recombinant"
functionality within the biotech industry.
References
Brower, Vicki. "Mining the Genetic Riches of Human Populations."
Nature Biotechnology 16 (April 1998): 337-339.
Burchell, Graham, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, eds. The Foucault Effect:
Studies in Govermentality. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1993.
Celera Genomics: <http://www.celera.com>.
Chakravarti, Aravinda. "Population Genetics--Making Sense Out of
Sequence." Nature Genetics 21 (January 1999 supplement): 56-60.
Dawson, Michael and John Bellamy Foster. "Virtual Capitalism."
In Capitalism and the Information Age. Ed. Robert McChesney et al. New
York: Monthly Review Press, 1998. 51-69.
deCODE Genomics: <http://www.decode.com>.
Enserink, Martin. "Iceland OKs Private Health Databank." Science
283 (1 January 1999): 13
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Vol.I. New York: Vintage,
1978.
---. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. The Essential Works of Michel Foucault
1954-1984, Vol. I. Ed. Paul Rabinow. New York: New Press, 1994.
---. Power. Ed. James Faubion. New York: New Press, 2000.
Haraway, Donna. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™:
Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Howard, Ken. "The Bioinformatics Gold Rush." Scientific American
(July 2000): 58-63.
Jameson, Fredric. "Culture and Finance Capital." In The Cultural
Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998. New York: Verso,
1998. 136-62.
Kahn, Patricia. "Genetic Diversity Project Tries Again." Science
266.4 (1994): 720-22.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press, 1995.
Persidis, Aris. "Bioinformatics." Nature Biotechnology 17 (August
1999): 828-830.
Philipkoski, Kristen. "Everybody Into the Research Pool. " Wired
News (11 October 2000): <http://www.wired.com>.
RAFI: <http://www.rafi.org>.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979.
Schiller, Dan. Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System.
Cambridge: MIT, 2000.
Shiva, Vandana. "Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Profits." Biodiversity:
Social & Ecological Perspectives. Ed. Vandana Shiva et al. New
Jersey: Zed Books, 1991.
----. Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Toronto: Between
the Lines, 1997.
Stefansson, Kari and Jeffrey Gulcher. "The Icelandic Healthcare Database
and Informed Consent." New England Journal of Medicine 342:24 (15
June 2000).
Waldby, Catherine. The Visible Human Project: Informatic Bodies and Posthuman
Medicine. New York: Routledge, 2000.
|
|