My New Travel Blog
I am leaving for Brazil for 6 months in just over a week and have created a travel blog so I can share some of my experiences. You can view it at rebeccasresearchtravels.wordpress.com. The tagline is “Experiences across cultures, across languages, across disciplines.” I’ll keep you posted!
Announcement: New Research Project in Brazil
Dr. Anne Croy, Queen’s University, and Dr. Aureo Yamada, University of Campinas (UNICAMP) in Brazil, recently received funding from the Canada-Brazil Awards: Joint Projects initiative to create a training and exchange program for graduate student researchers to conduct research on pregnancy, maternal health, and fetal health in Canada and Brazil. While many participants in this program will be conducting basic science and clinical studies, as the first sociologist to participate, starting January 2012 I will spend 6 months in Campinas, Brazil conducting a survey of women’s perspectives on donating their placentas for scientific research. Placentas are integral to the conduct of scientific research on pregnancy, yet women’s views on the use of their placenta in research have not been systematically studied. My research will begin to address this gap. Ethical protocols for collecting and using placentas, as well as pregnancy research in general, may be made more responsive, efficient, and appropriate with insights from this research.
Around the world, donation, collection, and consent procedures differ vastly; likewise, experiences and perspectives of women regarding the use of their placenta in scientific research are likely to be highly contextually- and culturally-specific. As such, the program organizers and I plan to develop a comparative component with a complementary survey at Queen’s University.
I talked with Queen’s Journal about my participation in the study, and other components of the program are described, here.
I am looking forward to beginning this research and am excited for the opportunity to live in Brazil! Now to try to learn Portuguese…
New Publication: “Body Worlds’ Plastinates, the Human/Nonhuman Interface, and Feminism”
My article entitled “Body Worlds’ Plastinates, the Human/Nonhuman Interface, and Feminism” was recently published in a special issue on the nonhuman in the journal Feminist Theory, edited Myra J. Hird and Celia Roberts. Body Worlds is an exhibition that displays dissected human bodies that have been preserved by a process called plastination which infuses them with a polymer that purportedly makes them impervious to decay. While the exhibition’s creators claim to display “real human bodies,” because they are made with significant amounts of plastic and other materials, I argue that these exhibits are ambivalently human. But they are also ambivalently nonhuman as they can still engage the spectator in decidedly human, affective encounters. In this way, they signal a grey area in the human/nonhuman duality that underpins much of our economics, politics, and ethics. In this article, I discuss the important implications this has for feminism, which has always grappled with the questions of who should be granted the status of human and what privileges such status should confer.
I thank Dr. Hird and Dr. Roberts for their support in the writing of this article, as well as Dr. Kirsten McAllister and Dr. Zoë Druick, who supervised this research at Simon Fraser University.
I would be very happy to hear any comments readers have regarding this article.
Body Worlds is a hugely popular exhibition that claims to offer a reverential and educational experience of the ‘real human body’ through the display of plastinated dead human bodies. However, because they are posed, staged, and composed of significant nonhuman artifice, plastinates are ambivalently ‘real’ as human bodies, let alone ‘real’ as humans. Plastinates are as much nonhuman as human, and neither category fully accounts for them. In this article, I discuss the consequences of this for feminist theory. Approaches in feminist theory that reify, either implicitly or explicitly, a human/nonhuman binary framework are challenged by plastinates. I show that locating plastinates within either ontological category, though not fully accounting for them, enables feminist critiques of the exhibition; however, these categories also paradoxically permit forms of violence with which feminists are typically concerned. In this way, I argue that plastinates force feminist thought to the very interface of the human/nonhu- man divide. When applied to Body Worlds, these concepts at best form a heuristic ontological hinge whose angle is determined by ethical and political commitments, illustrating the ways in which key ontologies should be seen as political strategies more or less amenable to feminist goals, but not more or less true. I argue that what lies at the crux of this hinge, in the case of plastinates, is death, and suggest that Body Worlds demands that the interface of death with life become a key feminist concern.
Upcoming Conference: International Federation of Placenta Associations Annual Conference
I will be attending the International Federation of Placenta Associations annual conference, “Placenta, Predicting Future Health,” held in Geilo, Norway, from September 14th to September 17th. Last year, I attended the IFPA conference in Santiago, Chile, to conduct fieldwork for my study, “Laboratory Lives of Afterbirths: Placentas as Working Objects of Study,” which is a sociological investigation of placenta science. This year, I’ll be presenting the results of my study in both a poster and a plenary talk.
♦ Invited Plenary Talk: “‘It’s this all-singing, all dancing organ’: A Sociologist’s Perspective on how Placenta Scientists see the Placenta, their Science, and Themselves.”
♦ Poster: “A Sociology of Placenta Scientists: Towards Transdisciplinary Collaboration.”
I’m very excited to share my findings with conference delegates, some of whom contributed to my study, as well as to hear about the latest science on the placenta.
Remembering Jack Layton
Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, passed away today. It is a very sad day for Canada, as we have lost not only a tireless politician and staunch activist, but a great man. I can say that Jack Layton, being NDP party leader for my entire voting life, was the key to bringing my interest to politics. He gave me hope that there were different paths for Canada. His book, Homelessness: The Making and Unmaking of a Crisis, exposed me to public intellectualism at a crucial time in my life. His leadership during the most recent Canadian election seemed to single-handedly inspire renewed socially-progressive politics in our country. In all, I know I will miss Jack Layton.
Thank you, Jack Layton.
Jack Layton. Image (c) New Democratic Party of Canada
Art Imitating Study
Inherently generative, the placenta is sometimes represented or used in artistic practice. Some people are grossed out by this, while others appreciate commemorations of this special organ that is integral to bringing a new life into the world. In my case, the placenta is my object of study and I spend a lot (A LOT) of time thinking about it from a scientific, theoretical and philosophical standpoint. For a gift for generous new friends, and as a way to think placenta from a different angle, I stitched this:
Cross Stitched Placenta by Rebecca Scott
Text on the side reads “Thank you” – to my friends, and to this thing I’ve had the pleasure of studying for the past three years.
The Census is Important
While I normally write about science and society on this blog, I want to take some time to comment on the recent major changes to the 2011 Canadian census. My Canadian readers should have by now received their short form census notification directing them to a URL where a few questions can be answered online or informing them of how a paper form can be requested. Canadians have also now realized that the long form census, which for its entire history has been obligatory, is being administered this year to 1 in 5 households as a voluntary household survey.
This year at the Canadian Sociological Association annual conference in Fredericton, Dr. Monica Boyd, Professor at University of Toronto and Canada Research Chair in Immigration, Inequality, and Public Policy, delivered a lecture about this most significant change to the census. Thoroughly researched and compellingly presented, it has me worried.
Dr. Boyd pointed out that such a major change to the census is unprecedented. Cabinet has the power to determine the contours of the census – but this has always been exercised in developing the questions asked in the census, not its fundamental methodology. As Cabinet discussions are in camera, there was no consultation and no warning regarding these changes.
The voluntary nature of the long form has a profound impact on the quality of data that can be obtained from the census. In fact, Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada Munir Sheikh criticized the changes and resigned over them. There are many consequences that negatively affect Canadians (detailed for example in this open letter from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives). Most close to me is the impact is has on researchers, who use this data extensively in analyzing Canadian society. But Dr. Boyd also pointed out that this affects businesses, who use the data to determine feasible markets; government services that require information about populations and their needs; the government in determining equalization payments; cities, provinces, and school boards; nonprofits in establishing the nature and needs of marginalized populations; and the list goes on. The data is integral to the functioning of our country.
Tony Clement, Minister of Industry who is responsible for Statistics Canada, justified the change by saying that the obligatory nature of the long form census represented an unjust infringement on the privacy rights of Canadians. However, Dr. Boyd pointed out that in 20 years, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada had received but a few handfuls of complaints regarding the census. It does not seem that this concern accurately reflects the views of Canadians.
Why did the Conservative Cabinet decide to change the census? I think there are two reasons:
1. Ideology. Having an obligatory program mandated and financed by the government that asks Canadians to reveal private data, no matter how important it is and how anonymous and confidential the responses, is not consistent with the ideological underpinnings of the Conservative Party
2. With less and less reliable evidence on the nature of the Canadian population, the Conservatives can be less accountable to their needs and make more “executive” decisions.
I’m angered by this unfounded, unhelpful, and unnecessary change to the census. I do not support the move to change the Canadian long form census from obligatory to voluntary. If you are also against the changes to the census, you can:
1. Contact Minister Tony Clement.
2. Sign this petition which has over 18000 signatures as of today.
Thank you Dr. Monica Boyd for urging me to think more about the changes to the census.
July 7/2011 Update: According to this CBC news article, census workers are already observing issues in data quality in the voluntary household survey, “raising concerns the data will be even more compromised than originally feared.” We’ll have to wait till the data is released to know for sure just how limited it will be. I continue to urge readers to sign the petition and contact Tony Clement.
Update: I am now presenting in the Transdisciplinary Research Methodologies 2 Panel.
The Canadian Sociological Association annual conference is next week, May 31st to June 4th. I’m giving a paper and have organized two panels:
♦ Scott, Rebecca. “The Barker Hypothesis and Transdisciplinarity: The Case of Obesity.” June 2, 8:45-10:30.
♦ Panels: Transdisciplinary Research Methodologies (1), May 31, 1:30-3:00; and Transdisciplinary Research Methodologies (2), June 2, 8:45-10:30.
Presenters and paper titles here.
Hope to see you there!
Today at a coffee shop I spied a bit on the greeting and conversation of two men who appeared to be close friends who hadn’t seen each other in a while. As one of them went up to get his coffee, he asked the other if he would like one. The man said yes – even though he had already had a lot today. It wasn’t a problem, he said, as he had just heard of a new study which found that men who drink a lot of coffee have lower rates of prostate cancer.
The study he is referring to was recently widely reported in media (CBC, Science Daily, MSNBC, CBS News, etc.). It purports that men who drink 6 or more cups of coffee a day are less likely to get an aggressive form of prostate cancer (original research here).
The men had a little chuckle (and a little more coffee) and went about their reunion, while I started thinking about the encounter as reflective of the relationships between science and publics. In the CBC news article, one of the researchers is quoted:
It is premature to recommend that men increase coffee intake to reduce advanced prostate cancer risk based on this single study. In addition, the effects of coffee consumption on other aspects of health must be considered in making consumption recommendations.
So, as readers we can’t take away much more from the study than “that’s interesting. They should keep working on that.” As a supporter of and advocate for science, this notion resonates with me. But I wonder if that is enough for others.
While cautious statements like these mean much in the context of science which places so much emphasis on qualification and admitting limitations, they provide very little guidance on how publics should act on the knowledge produced. I can’t know whether the study actually informed the decision-making of the man at the coffee shop; however, I think the conversation illustrates a typical disjoint in the translation of the ‘official recommendation’ that comes from science to the everyday lives of people who are plunking along making decisions towards their short and long term health, happiness, and satisfaction. They make these decisions in a context where there is too little known and where too much of what is known is contradictory. And they make these decisions using knowledge that comes from diverse realms of life – not just science.
Since the study cannot offer any actionable advice, how are publics to “digest” the knowledge shared? Certainly if it is the case that the man decided to drink more coffee because of the study, this means that the disclaimer provided by the researchers may not be what “sticks” in the minds of readers about the research. The coffee shop encounter, then, raises ethical questions for researchers who are sharing their work. What if it is later found that the harms of drinking coffee outweigh the benefits? Or that there is some other explanation for the results of the study that are unrelated to compounds in coffee? I could go on – but the point is that uncertainty colours the knowledge produced by this study in many different ways. If it is the case that the man drank more coffee because of the study, their disclaimer does not absolve them of facing the ethical challenge posed by uncertainty in scientific knowledge. Still, if only “absolutely certain” results were shared with the public, well, we’d never hear from science again.
So my questions are: At what point in the production of scientific knowledge is it most advantageous to inform publics of what scientists are doing and finding? How should the knowledge be presented?
My book review of The Nature of Sexual Desire by James Giles appears in the most recent issue of Anthropological Forum. This book presents a useful argument that does not fall into either social constructionism or biological determinism; however, in the review, I relate my critique of its understanding of gender which I found to be uncritical in important ways and largely uninformed by feminist scholarship. Do readers have any comments on the book?
