On first reading Understanding the HGP, I was surprised that a scientist would do the research and write what amounts to a defense of using a decidedly nonscientific means- biographical literature- to convey scientific ideas. It seems possible that Zwart is rebutting a commonly-held grudge extant in his niche of the scientific community. I wonder, are indignant scientists writing essays damning the use biographical literature to convey science-knowledge? Does the substantive opposite of Understanding the HGP exist in some other science journal (or a previous issue of New Genetics)?
Though he dances around it, lurching, sometimes dramatically within the space of a paragraph, between praise and harsh criticism of biography in this context, his thesis becomes clear on p. 358: "(I)n comparison to the official channels and avenues of scholarly publication- and to a much greater extent than other contingent genres- biographies and autobiographies constitute an important complementary source of information for understanding scientific change." The rhetorical tone of the entire piece, with its careful examination and dissection of the criticisms of science biography, lead me to believe that Zwart is appealing to fellow scientists not only to accept biography as an important tool for communicating with the public and across disciplines, but to engage in more such writing.
Why now? Not having read anything more from Zwart than what he's written here, I can only posit guesses as to his motivations. Perhaps he believes that the public still misunderstands the issues, processes, and science behind genetics and genomics; that vital biographies are yet to be written. At any rate, the appeal is timely. This new "techno-scientific field" which caused a shift to a "new paradigm" in the approach of biological research, remains relatively shapeless. There is no shortage of words denoting the novelty and freshness of genomics in Understanding: "new", "emergence", "changing", "transforming", and "transformation" all appear several times as modifiers. The fact that the genomics wunderfirm deCODE Genetics applied for bankruptcy protection last November perfectly illustrates the volatility of the industry.
You are right that Zwart sees the autobiographical avenue as an important way to inform a generally ill-informed public. And Zwart is clear, as you recognize, that autobiography is not simply chattiness or mere story-telling. It gives a glimpse of what the scientific insider is up to in his or her lab, and how researchers can be engaged in battles about ways to ask questions, what techniques to use, what aims to have in mind, etc. And this baring of the insiders' game is perhaps particularly important when, as you note, the situation is still "relatively shapeless." The autobiography is one way to inform us as to the forces, ideas, and such that are at play as genomics takes shape.
ReplyDelete