Abstract (text)

This paper proposes that the ways in which “civil society” engages with the multiple applications of human genomics, from proteomics to PGD, can be understood as the behaviour of a “social movement society” (Meyer and Tarrow 1998). Initial findings to date indicate that to construct any actor group as simply “pro” or “anti” biotechnology fails to map the sophistication, range, contextdependency and so on, of actor responses (see Irwin and Wynne 1996, Wynne 1995, Bauer and Gaskell 2003). Correspondingly, whilst in some arenas clear ‘battle lines’ are drawn, overall, mobilisation over human genomics is fragmented, shifting and complex, with implications for theories of social movements and “collective identity” (Melucci 1996). 1 Paper given at Innogen seminar series, Edinburgh, March 15th 2004. I am grateful to the seminar organisers and participants for their extremely helpful and constructive feedback. 2 Principal Investigators Dr Ian Welsh [email protected] and Dr Robert Evans [email protected] : Research Associate Dr Alexandra Plows [email protected] DO NOT QUOTE DIRECTLY WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR Whilst these are tentative conclusions drawn from early stages of research, this paper will provide clear ethnographic examples which highlight the complexity, the emergent politics, of social engagement. It demonstrates that in a multiplicity of contexts,(ie over specific issues, around certain narrative frames, in particular arenas) whilst there is much “usual suspect” oppositional activity and claimsmaking and staking (“Venter vs Sulston”, Seriously Ill for Medical Research vs animal rights activists), there are also cross cutting narratives/ frames which highlight the complexity of the issues at stake, and the diffuseness of boundaries between actor groups. An example of this is whether science should be publicly funded or driven by market forces, a theme which unites the discourse of an increasing number of regulators and ‘producers’ with “antiglobalisation” and /or “anti biotech” activists. Overall, there is a dissolving of actor group boundaries and identities, as categories of, for example, ‘producer’ and civil society actor, ‘lay’ and ‘expert’, blur; not only the “scientific citizen” (Irwin and Michael 2003), but the “citizen scientist”. The existence of emergent, fluid “strange bedfellow”and “usual suspect” -clusters and crossovers, and the simultaneous existence of oppositional activity, often involving the same actor groups in different contexts, is extremely challenging, and the paper provides ethnographic examples of this complexity and shifting fluidity or what Irwin and Michael (2003) call “ethno epistemic assemblage”.