chapter 1 introduction - connecting repositories › download › pdf › 2731237.pdf · chapter 1...

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

©CopyrightedMaterial


chapter1

Introduction

Setting the scene and positioning the genome

Thisbookisaboutthehumangenomeinmediacultures.ItisaboutashiftfromthesingularhumanGenomeprojectofthe1990stothecurrentpluralityofgenomesacross media cultures. It follows the proliferation of genomes across multiplemedia sites, as human genomics finds audiences, markets and publics in everyday life.Thisbookisnotthenaboutlifeofthegenomeunderlaboratoryconditions,orits life in scientific journals, but it is about the genome under cultural conditions andinmediacultures.

consonant with a media approach, this introduction starts with an imagethatactsasacastingoffpoint for thevariousdirections that thisbook takes.afewdaysagoas Iwalkeda trailonSanBrunomountain inSanFrancisco,(california, USa), I looked back to admire the views of downtown SanFrancisco. As I looked over the film-like towers of the city there motored over this already rather surreal scene, a zeppelin, also known as a dirigible or rigid airship. Once a familiar figure in the skies of Europe and the USA, airships have been out of the business of commercial and military air travel since the late1930s.SowhatwasthisrelicoftheearlytwentiethcenturydoingintheskiesofoneofthemosthightechcitiesintheUSain2009?

The245-feet (or75metres)ofwhite airshipwasadornedwith thebrightlycolouredimageofapairofchromosomesandthelogo‘23andMe.com:personalgenetics’. The zeppelin it seems is operating as an advertising space for the personalgenomicscompany23andMe.(Thiscompanyisexaminedinsomedetailin Chapter 2 so I am not going to discuss it here.) As I watched, the zeppelin motoredofftowardstheGoldenGateBridgedisappearingbehindtheTwinpeakshillthattowersbetweenSanBrunoandtheGate.

I had already heard about the zeppelin because I’ve been researching 23andMesince they opened for business in 2006, and friends in california, as well ascommentatorsinthetechnologypress,havementionedit.ThisishowIwasabletoidentifythisotherwiseanomalousfeatureoftheskies.Iwasalreadyorientatedtowards it. However, seeing the zeppelin provided a different orientation to that of just reading about it. The zeppelin is a very large and material symbol of much ofwhatisgoingonatthemediainterfaceofhumangenomicsanditsaudiencesatthemoment.Itloomslargebutitisalsoperipheral.Iamgoingtotryandusethezeppelin to provide some sign posts, both of where I am going with this book, and wheregenomicsisgoingwithitspublics.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



The Genome Incorporated2

Firstly, the zeppelin is absolutely intrusive and it forces attention by flying throughthesky.Itisanaddressanddemandsaninteractionandinthiswayitcouldstandinformuchofhumangenomicsatthemoment.Theproliferationofsitesatwhich human genomics appears seems unending. Like the zeppelin in the sky, genomics addresses a potential everyone. At the same time it is site specific. The zeppelin is in Northern California, flying over one of the biggest concentrations ofinformationtechnologyandbiotechnologycentres intheworld.Imagesof itcirculateonthewebsoanyonecanseeit,butitalsohasahereandnow.

Secondly, there are multiple responses to the zeppelin, and it has multiple realities.Somepeoplehateitandothersloveit.Somepeoplehaven’tnoticeditandothersdon’tcareaboutit.Forsomepeopleitisjustanotherthinginthesky,forothers it is familiar as a zeppelin that has been in the area for over a year now, and formanythe23andMe logo won’t even register. The zeppelin is incontrovertibly material,itisalsoephemeralandtransient,predictableandunexpected.Itcastsashadow.Itprovidesasurreal,newweirdaesthetictoaviewofthecitysomedays.otherdaysitisgone.

Thirdly, but in a similar vein, there are many different ideas about what23andMe and the zeppelin are doing. There are many different hopes, fears andquestions.are theydoingnew formsof surveillanceor do theyoffer newpromise?aretherightquestionsonesaboutaccessandgovernance,orarethesejust new forms of advertising and new snake oils? Is the zeppelin and its logo a weapon,oratechnologyofhopeandliberation,orjustagiantbillboard?doesthe zeppelin/23andMepartnershipsymbolisethepotentiallyincestuousrelationsoftechnoscienceandbusinessinthearea?doesitofferapromiseofeconomicregenerationandemploymentinanareahitbyrecession,orisitjustevidenceoftheelitegettingricherandtheirtoysgettingbigger?

Fourthly, the zeppelin combines highly technologised imaginaries and materialities in the USa in 2009, with late nineteenth century technoscienceineurope.Likegenomics,whichtracesitsnineteenth-centuryrootstoGregorMendel’s work on plants in the 1860s in Austria, the zeppelin was designed in Germany in the 1870s. Genetics saw a period of implosion in the post-war period after its use in Nazi Germany was widely circulated. The zeppelin industry imploded after the hindenburg air disaster of 1937. despite mid-centurydisastergeneticswasrebornthroughtheiconicdoublehelixasthenewgenetics of the 1950s. Genomics and the zeppelin are both seeing a twenty-first-centuryrenaissance.TheairshipoverSanFranciscowithitschromosomepairandpromiseofpersonalgeneticsisasignofthetimes.

Thisbookexamines this signof the times,andothers like it, aspartof theaddressofhumangenomicsacrossmediaformsfromairshipstoartworks.Thereis a sense in which the twenty first century is marked by the proliferation of such signsofbiotechnology ineveryday life.Thesecanbe tracked incontemporarymedia cultures of technoscience. These are marked by a convergence of thebiologicalanddigital,throughabiodigitalmilieuofpersonaldigitaltechnologies.areviewofrecentjournalarticlesandbooksinthehumanitiesandsocialsciences

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 3

would indicate that there has been a shift in the focus of academics, from thenetworked informationandbiotechnologicalagesof the twentiethcentury, intothe biopolitics of the twenty-first century (Da Costa and Phillip, 2008; Rose, 2006; rose and novas, 2004; novas and rose, 2000; Franklin, 2000, 2006; Sunderrajan, 2006; Thompson, 2005; Waldby, 1998). The meanings that the twenty-first century heralds has been harnessed to genomic and post genomic sciences by biotechnologists,mediacommentatorsandsocialscientistsalike(Sunderrajan,2006; Guttmacher and collins, 2003; reardon, 2005). The twentieth biotechcentury of the gene (Bunton and petersen, 2005; Keller, 2005; rifkin, 1998;Yoxen,1986)hasphaseshifteditseemsintothemillenniumofpost-genomiclife.Iaminterestedinwhatthismomentlookslikeintermsofitsmediaculturesandeverydayproductionandconsumption.

What is the genome incorporated?

Incorporation in this book figures as a way of thinking about how human genomics istakenupbypeople,andatthesametime,howpeoplearetakenupintogenomics.

Figure 1.1 The Airship Ventures Zeppelin with the 23andMe logo in the sky in the San Francisco bay area (Photo: Javier Psilocybin, Santiago)

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




Ifgenomicsforcesattentionbypushingintotheavailablespace,liketheairship,whatarethespacesitoccupiesandwhatkindofattentiondoesitget?Incorporationis a figure for thinking about these ways that genomics moves in and out of bodies and spaces. The genome incorporated is a figure in a story that draws up several sensesofincorporation,mostobviouslythemeetingbetweenthebodilyandtheeconomic.

on the one hand the genome is incorporated in sense of the embodied,corporeal habits andpracticesof thebody.There is amultidirectionalmaterialandbodilychoreographyofincorporation.onedirectionofthisincorporationisthe extraction of bits of bodies. In this mode of extraction bodily samples areincorporated into genome projects, genome sequencing, gene chips, diagnosticlaboratories,genomicdatasetsandtestingapparatusesthroughthemovementofsaliva,buccalswabsandother tissue,skinandbloodsamples into laboratories.Genomeprojectsthusincorporatebodyparts,ingestingthemandrenderingthemasbioinformaticcapital.however,suchinformaticgenomesarealsoincorporatedbyindividuals,theyaretakenupintobodilypractices,knowledgeandfeelingsineverydaylife.Genomicsalsoincorporatesourattention.Soforexample,bodilybehaviourssuchasfoodselection,exercise,andreproductivestrategiesmadeonthebasisofattentiontogenomicinformationareformsofincorporation.anothervectorforbodilyincorporationisfeelingoremotion,tobeshocked,distressedorrelievedbytheresultsofagenetictestorgenomesequence,suchthatthegenomecanbefeltisanotherwayinwhichthegenomeisincorporated.afurtherversionof bodily incorporation might also extend to activism around genomics andbiotechnology,forexamplethemobilisationofbodiesindemonstrationsaroundbiodemocracy,biodiversityandbiodevestationintheUSa.IntheUKandeurope,Gmcrops,eugenics,embryoresearchandtheuseofeggs incloninghavealsoprovidedsitesofmobilisation.Suchmobilisationsaresiteswhereincorporationisresistedandmadevisible,butalsowherethepowerofbiotechnologytowriteintothefabricofculturallifeisemphasised.

Somepracticesofbodyknowledge,throughtestingforexample,offerakindofpreferredreadingofthegenome.Thesepreferredreadings,todrawonStuarthall’s (1973) terms, occur when the address of genomics is taken up withoutdisagreement.Forexample,tohaveagenetictest,andtounderstandonesidentityasknownthroughthat testandtoactonthatknowledgeprovidesthepreferredreadingforgenomics.however,thesepreferredreadings,whilstbothidealformsand subjectivepositions, arenot theonly readingofgenomics.The addressofgenomicsiscontestedandbeingremadeallthetime.havingagenetictestdoesnotensurethemeaningofthetestwillbeunderstoodinoneway.Testinghastobeincorporatedintopeople’slivestobemademeaningfulandpeople’slivesmaynotbeorientatedtowardsagenomicaccountofthemselves.Forexample,researchonthetakeupofancestrytestsingenealogyshowsthatpeopleoftenrefusetoacceptgenomic information that disrupts their self-understanding, whilst informationthatreinforcesexistingaccountsismorelikelytobedrawnupon(Smith,2009).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 5

practices of body knowledge do not require testing however. The genomecan be incorporated through mere address. or in other words just by being incirculation.The so-calledgaygene is agoodexampleofanaddress that somepeople have taken up and incorporated into their identity, whilst others haveresisted the address.at the same as the gay gene can be incorporated there isnogaygenetest,justanargumentthatsimilarallelesinaparticularareaofthegenomeindicatearelationshiptomalesexualorientation(hameretal.,1993).

anotherformofincorporationiseconomic,atonelevelapersonbuysatest,and a company makes a sale.The test moves into the life of the person, theirtissuesandmoneymoveintothelifeofthecompany.Thegenomeincorporated(habitus)isalsothegenomeinc.(economic).Thissenseofincorporationsignalsthegenomiccapacityformarketapplications,businesses,companiesandcorporations(rose,2001;parry,2004).Througheconomicincorporationthegenomeistakenup into the founding of biotechnology companies, health providers, diagnosticlaboratories, media texts, artworks, pharmaceuticals, instruments, softwareprogrammes, t-shirt sales. The genome is incorporated in both economic andbodily senses through commodity value, market application and consumerinterfaces. The regulation of testing, the making up of biobanks or genomicdatabases,thestorageofmaterials,thecounsellingofpeopletested,thetrainingofcounsellors, themeans throughwhich testingwasdecideduponandhowitsresultsareinterpretedareallpartofthisincorporation.ateachpointtherearenewopportunities for differing interpretations, contestation and resignification. This extractionoftissuesinthemodeofbiocapitalconstructsgenomicknowledgewithanorientation tocommodityvalue,market applicationandconsumer interface.For dna testing and genome sequencing to have a point of sale, a consumermarket, it has to made more than informational, it has to have meaning, to betakenupintotheeveryday,tobefelt,tobecomehabitual,orpartofthehabitusinBourdieu’s(1977)terms.Intheseprocessesofincorporationgenomicsbecomesdestabilisedaswellasreinforced.

Thesetwosensesofincorporation,bodilyandeconomic,cannotbeseparatedout fully. There is extensive interplay between making genetic informationmeaningful through practices of body knowledge on the one hand, and theincorporationofgenomicbusinesses,andtheproductionofgenomicgoodsontheother.Thegenomeisincorporatedinboththesesensesandthisbook,examinesthese intersections of body knowledge, attention, and economic value. Theeconomicvalueofgenomicswemightcall(afterKaushikSunderrajan,2007andSarahFranklin,2006),biocapital:

Biocapitalisoneviewpointfromwhichtoviewthecomplexitiesofcapitalism(s),and like all situated perspectives it contains within it both its specificities as well asitsdiagnosesof themoregeneralstructuralfeaturesofcapitalism.(Sunderrajan,2007:7)

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




InhisformulationofbiocapitalSunderrajanbringstogethermarx’sattentiontopoliticaleconomy,withFoucault’sattention tobiopower, inorder toanalysethearticulationofbiocapital’s‘life, labourandlanguage’(2007:14).anaspectofbothcapitalandbiocapital thatSunderrajan foregrounds,andwhichmightbe helpful in thinking about the interplay of economic and embodied genomicincorporation,isthedialecticbetweenmaterialandabstractformsofcapital.oneof thecontoursofgenomicbiocapital is thematerialisationof (bio)informationandthisgeneratescommodityvalue.Thusgenomesequenceshavedirectvalueasobjects.Forexamplesequence informationcanbesoldasamaterialobject.KnomeInc.wassellingfullpersonalgenomesequences,suppliedonadatastick,at around $250,000 at the time of writing (spring 2009). however, sequenceinformationalsohasvaluebecauseofitsrelationtoanabstractionoridea,suchasthehopeofahealthierfuture,andmedicalcures,ortheideaofgenetherapy.Sequenceinformation,orgenechipsforproducingsequenceinformation,alsohavespeculativevalueastheproductonwhichacompanycanbebuilt.Thespeculativevalueofinvestmentcapital,orsharevalue,isalsoanabstractvaluethatderivesfromthematerialobjectsofthegenome.Thegenomeiseconomicallyincorporatedinbothmaterialandabstractwaysthatdetermineeachother.however,inadditionto this flow of capital through biotechnology companies, patients, research subjects andclinicians,theattentionandtakeupofwideaudiencesisanothercrucialaspectinshapingthevalueofbiocapital.

Biocapital isone lens throughwhich to lookatgenomicmarketsbutmediaaudiences offer a supplement to this. at the media interface, where audienceattention is a key commodity, the genome also has both abstract and materialvalues.Thevaluesoffuturehope,hype,imaginaries,andregistersoffeelingmightbethoughtofasmoreabstract:

onceyourcompletegenomehasbeensequenced,youwillbeabletostaycurrentonfuturegeneticdiscoveriesastheybecomeavailable.(KnomeInc.)

LikethepromisesofGenetichealthexaminedinchapter2,thesequencingcompanyKnomepromisesafuturerealisedinthehereandnowthroughtheuseofnewbiotechnologiesanddigitaltechnologiestogether.Theseabstractionsthatbringthefutureintothepresent,aresimultaneouslydeterminedby,andextractedfrom, thematerial forms thatgenomic information takes.Thesematerial formsincludegelarrays,datasticks,databases,diagnosticbrochures,genomebrowsers,andinterfacesthatnarrateandannotategenomicinformationinrelationtohealth,ancestryorlifestyle.Theseformsalsoinclude,websites,televisionprogrammes,films, books and other media texts, forms and artefacts.

Thematerialityofthisabstractioncanalsobethoughtofindonnaharaway’stermsasmaterial-semiotic:

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 7

the imaginary and the real figure each other in concrete fact and so I take the actual and the figural as constitutive of lived material-semiotic worlds (Haraway, 1997:2).

havingthedatastickwithyourpersonalgenomesequence(material)allowsyou,according toKnome’sclaim‘tostaycurrentonfuturegeneticdiscoveries’(abstract).Theofferofaccesstoagenomicobject,fromsequencedatatodiagnosticbrochures and interfaces, is an offer to incorporate both actual and figural, and thusconstitutethefactual.Inthiswayincorporationmightbethoughtofasthemodeofaddressthroughwhichgenomicformsareorientatedtowardsconsumers.Genomic incorporationoperatesasa factualmodeofaddress,and thequestionbecomestowhomistheaddressmade,whoattendstothisaddressandtakesupitsfacticity.InJudithButler’s(2005)terms(aswellasalthusser’s),wecouldaskwhoisrecognisedbytheaddress.The‘who’ofgenomicincorporationiscentraltothisproject.Whotakesupgenomics,recognisesit,isrecognisedbyit?Whoprovidesthe preferred reading, and incorporates genomics, and who does not? Whoseattention is drawn to these objects, who recognises them, who misrecognisesthem,whotakesthemupandwhochallengesthem,orputsthemdownagain?atthelevelofthestructureofaddressgenomicformsmightbesaidtobesimilar.attheleveloftakeup,readings,anddifferentialincorporations,genomicformsarediverse.Thisinturnleadstoamotivatingquestionaboutthepointofthiskindofcritique.Whatkindofdifferencedoesthisdiversityofincorporationmake?Toreturn to the imageof theairship,asgenomicspushes into theavailablespace,whatkindofdifferencedoesitmakeifpeopleloveit,hateitorignoreit?Thesekindsofquestionsarepursuedinthefollowingchaptersofthebook.

Media cultures of genomics: From iconography to incorporation

Genes ascending

Scholarshiponthemediaculturesofgenes,geneticsandgenomicshasbeenmarkedbyanattentiontothesymbolicascendanceofthegene.Twentyyearsagoinanarticlecalled‘Lifestory:thegeneasfetish’,SarahFranklin(1988)providedananalysisofafactualUKtelevisionbroadcastongenetics–Lifestory. This was a Horizon special sciencedocumentarythatdramatisedtheheroicdiscoverynarrativeofJamesWatsonandFranciscrick’sunveilingofnaturethroughtheconstructionofthedoublehelixinthe1950s.GregmyersalsowroteaboutLifestoryin1990andinthefollowingdecade JonTurney (1998),patSpallone (1993), Josevandijck (1998),dorothynelkinandSusanLindee(1995b),anddonnaharaway(1997)allcontributedtoascholarshippointingtotheiconicandfetishisticsymbolismofthegeneplayingoutingeneticmediacultures.Thissymbolicpowerof thegeneoperatedthroughthedoublehelix,theiconographyofwhichSarahFranklinclaimedwasalreadyin1988‘etchedonthemodernWesternconsciousness’(1988).

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




Intheinterveningtwodecades,scholarshipthatdealswiththerepresentationof the gene on television, in the press, on film and in the arts has proliferated. TherehavenotableanalysesofthesemediaculturesinrecentyearsfromJudithRoof (2007), Eugene Thacker (2005), Suzanne Anker and Dorothy Nelkin (2004) andJackieStacey(2010).Inadditiontothisworkonthesymbolismofthegeneasdnaanddoublehelix,arenewedinterestincodethroughtheworkofnewmediatheorists (Anna Munster, 2006; David Berry, 2008; Adrian Mackenzie, 2006; Mackenzie Wark, 2004; Matt Fuller, 2008) both reinforces and challenges the old ideathatdna-as-codeistherepositoryofallidentity,‘theendtoallstories’asJudithroofputit(roof,2007:2).

a shift in this period has occurred through the kind of address made.Thisshiftisfromiconographytoincorporation.Ifweasmediaaudienceshavespenttwentyyearsmarvellingat theiconographyofthegene(andonlyafewpeoplehavebeen),thecurrentmodeofaddressinthemediaculturesofgenomicsasksaudiences for a more intimate gaze. The current address invites audiences to come closerandtointeractwithgenomics,incorporatingitintoembodiedpractices.Itisthisshiftfromiconographytoincorporationwithwhichthebookisconcerned.The current mode of address in genomics (in the twenty-first century) has also shifted from foregrounding life to foregroundingdeath.Genomicsonamythicscaleisattachedtothemeaningofbothlifeanddeath(Keller,1992).however,thepreviouslyoverwhelmingattachmenttolife,lifestoriesandbooksoflife(Kay,2000)thatcharacterisedtheascentofthegenomehasnowbeenannotatedwithan attention to modes of death. In a range of recent newspaper and televisionappearancesgenomesequencingandgenotypinghasbeenvariouslyarticulatedas‘thedoomsdaytest’,‘thekillerinme’,‘howwillIdie?’,‘canItaketheworst?’audiences are also addressed as though they can personalise the genome andincorporate it.Genomicsmaybethebookof lifebut themodeofaddress is to‘knowthyself’(KnomeInc.),andaudiencesarenowaskedtoidentifywithandnarrateaversionof ‘mygenomic life’ (pinker,2009). In this transition, in thiscontext,thefactsoflifenowalsoappearastherealitiesofdeath.

Genes descending

Theascendancyofthegeneacrossmultiplesitesinthelatterpartofthetwentiethcentury(roof,2007;Vandijck,1998;Lindeeandnelkin,1995)didnotaddupto an accumulative leverage of symbolic power that can be exercised evenly.Thegenemaybepowerfulbutitisnotoverwhelminglyorsimplydeterministic.The meanings of genomics are constantly being made and remade under newconditionsofpossibility.Thesearealwaysinformedbywhathascomebefore,bythetemporaloperationofthehumangenomenarrativeoverseveraldecades,andthelongertrajectoryofthehumangenenarrativeoverthelastcenturyandahalf.atthesametimethesemeaningsarealsoinformedbytheconditionsofthesitesinwhichtheyarecurrentlybeingmade.Theseconditionsincludeforgetfulnessora

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 9

rejectionofsuchnarratives,amnesia,modesofattentionandorientationthathavemissedoutontheetchingofthemodernWesternconsciousness(Franklin,1988).

an example of a current site in the making of these meanings is realitytelevision. This kind of programming has both very specific characteristics and is incredibly flexible. However, the structure of the genre does not facilitate explicit connections to historical contexts, but relies on immediacy and the reality offeeling.The meanings of genomics are remade in reality television, especiallyin the shift from factual programmes about genomics to reality television thatincorporatesgenomics,andthisisexaminedinchapter3.

Some see reality television, as the very depths to which genomics coulddescend.however,by1995and1998JoseVandijck,SusanLindeeanddorothynelkinhadalreadyhighlightedtheubiquitousappearanceofthegeneinmultiplepopular sites, including cartoons, advertising and lifestyle magazines. One of the aimsoftheirworkwastoexaminethemeaningsofpopulargenetics,meaningsthataremadebeyondthecontrolofscientists,researchprojectsandinstitutions.Importantly they also examined the interplay between popular and scientific meanings,concludingthattheimaginariesofthegenewerepowerful,butlimited,and both scientific and popular sites needed some kind of ‘re-tooling’ of the imagination(vandijck,1995).

Another significant site in the mediation of genomics, and one that has also been characterised at times as the absolute sink of popular culture, is theinternet. Arguably internet media are more prolific, more mutable and even more transformativethanrealitytelevisioncouldbe.Therearemultiplewaystothinkabout internet technologies in this context but I want to focus specifically on the interfaceofthebrowser–genomebrowsers.Browsersareprivateinterfaces,withanentrypriceinthecaseof23andMe (of zeppelin fame), and open interfaces that are free at the point of access like the UC Santa Cruz, Genome Browser. One main differencebetweenthemisthat23andMeisanewmediacompanyofferingdirectto the consumer personal genotyping through the web, whilst the UC Santa Cruz GenomeBrowser(s)isaninterfacetothegenerichumangenomeofthehumanGenomeproject, and somenon-humananimalgenomes.The latter is designedfor use by science-orientated researchers, although there is little in the way ofmonitoring of use. Genome browsers offer access to sequence information ofalreadysequencedgenomes,whilst23andMeoffersaccesstoyourowngenotypicinformation.23andMecustomerssendintheirfeeandtheirsaliva.Inreturntheygetanimpressivelyannotatedpersonalgenomescan(genotypedat580,000Snps),with links todiagnosticandancestry information,aswellasasharingfunctionand an option to contribute to scientific research. This kind of genome scanning, sequencing,genotypingandbrowsingisexaminedfurtherinchapter2.

Another prolific media site and one that addresses large audiences, is film. Jackie Stacey’s (2010) extensive examination of film in The Cinematic Life of the Geneprovidesinsightsintothecurrentgeneticimaginaryasitplaysoutoninthisform. Stacey discusses a range of Hollywood, independent and alternative films fromthelate1990sGattaca (1997)andAlien: Resurrection(1997)tothefeminist

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




Teknolust (2003)andmichaelWinterbottom’sCode 46 (2003).It isbeyondthescope of this book to develop additional film analysis but this cinematic life of thegene intersectswith theconsumer interfaceofgenomicsandsuchgenomicimaginariesalsocontributetothekindsofincorporationexaminedhere.

art, even as public art, often reaches smaller audiences per project thanHollywood film. However, it often has longevity and operates in such a prolific multiplicityofsitesworldwide,thatitextendstolargeaudiencenumbers.Genomicarthasalonghistoryofinterestandinvestment.Formanycriticsithasalreadyoperatedasaformofcorporatepublicrelationsforthegenomeproject(Stevens,2008).althoughanincrediblydiversecategory,artalsohasaparticularkindofculturalstatus.atraditionalhierarchyofculturalproductionputsitaboverealitytelevisionforexample.artisseemsismoreserious,anditisattachedtoeconomicandinstitutionalstructureswhichhelp tosustain itsgravitas,suchaspatronagesystems, art galleries andarts councils. I amconcernedwith threeoverlappingareasofgenomicart inthisbook,oneispublicartworkscreateddirectlyfromsciartprojects,orprojectslikethem.Inthisareaanumberofprojectshaveemergedthatbringtogetherscientistsandartistsinordertoengagepublicswithscience,andalsointhehopethatartmightengagescience.Thesecondareaisartworksthathavetakenupgenomicsastheirsubjectbecauseofitsinterestfortheartist,aparticularcommunity,orbecauseofitsgeneraltopicalityasasubject.Thismightbetermedgenomicthemedart.Thethirdrelevantareaofgenomicartisbioart,or tactical bioart.This latter areaof the arts takesupbiologicalmaterials, likebodilytissues,astheartisticmediaitself.Inthisareabodypartsandtissuessuchasskin,salivaandsemenarepartofthematerialityoftheartwork,andtacticalbioart particularly is attached to a political agenda of activism (da costa andphilip,2008).Theworkofbioartextendswellbeyondgenomicsandmuchofitsmore celebrated pieces are not in fact genomic. However, genomics is figured and stronglyimplicatedinthisareaalso.Theturntopublicsinthebiosciencesrelatestothearts,whichhavebecomepublicisedand,likegenomics,haveproliferatingaudiences (McClellan, 2003). Public art has a high profile in the academy and morebroadlyasthebusinessofculture,andartgalleriesarespacesofconsumption(prior,2003).Theyhavebeenenlistedintheprojectsofscienceeducation,publicscience,andmakingthingspublic(LatourandWiebel,2005),thathavebecomeattachedtothevariousglobalgenomeprojects,andgenomenetworks.

LatourandWiebel(2005)curateanextensiveprojectintheirbookcollectionand exhibition, Making Things Public. It evokes publics gathered around notjusttheterrainofpoliticsbutamyriadofothersitesandobjects.Theypointto‘atmospheresofdemocracy’beyondthepublicspheresofpoliticsthatinclude:

newatmosphericconditions—technologies,interfaces,platforms,networks,andmediationsthatallowthingstobemadepublic(2005).

atthecentreoftheirprojectisanimaginedpublicconstitutedthroughthings,oranargumentthatthingsmakepublics.Insettinguptheexperimentalexhibition

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 11

andbookcollectionof the title, theygenerated and investigated thepossibilityof an assembly that corresponded to the things of their exhibition. They alsoofferedtheexhibitionandbookasadditional thingsthatmightprovokepublicsintobeing.Their invocationofanassemblyhasaparallel tomyargument thatpublicsareusefullythoughtaboutthroughaudiences.WhatLatourandWeibel’s(2005)‘assembly’andmyuseofthetermaudienceshareisacommitmenttoaway of thinking about publics as groups who are orientated towards specific media technologies, platforms, artefacts or texts. They also share an attention to thetechnosocialconstitutionoftheseaudiencesandthecorrespondingapparatusofassembly,theassemblage,whichcombinestechnologiesandbodiesascollectives.audiencesarebroughtintobeingthroughanorientationtothemediatechnologiesto which they attend. The extension of media technologies across cultures,countries,spacesandtimesmakesthempublic,bothcreatingagroundforpoliticsandinthesenseofbeingopentoview.

Publics and audiences

claims that the dawning of a new era have followed the completions of thehuman Genome projects (2000–2003), and accompany the emergence ofpersonalGenomics.Theseprojectsalsocomewithclaimstothe‘publicness’ofgenomics. publics operate as at once the supporting other of genomics and itsdetractor. Claims to the publicness of genomics underwrite the significance of genomics and its power tomark the epoch–preciselybecause it is thepublicand social significance of genomics that is seen to be important beyond the sciences. Genomics, the claim goes, doesn’t just change science, it transformssociety, it is a social science, ithaspublics.Theeconomicclaim tomarkets isaccompanied by a claim to publics.These publics were powerfully called intobeingin2000throughthejointaddressbythethenstateleaders,presidentclintonand Prime Minister Blair, on the occasion of the press release for the first of the humangenomeproject’sseveral‘completions’(nerlichandhellsten,2004).Theplatformofworldleadersaddressingaglobalmediapublicaboutaninnovationinthelifesciences,inthenameofGodandhumanity,operatedtosedimentthe‘geneasculturalicon’(nelkinandLindee,1995b).Indoingso,theyalsoaddressedaglobalgenomicpublicthroughmassmediacirculation.Sincethatannouncementgenomicshas shifted in termsof its address, froma singular form (thehumangenome),tothepluralityofpersonalgenomics,andatthesametimeitspublicsandaudienceshavebecomemultiple.

Whilst providing the rationale for the significance of genomics, publics are alsopositionedas apotential threat,or ananti-public.Variouspublics arepre-constructedaseithertoointerestedorirrationalorreligioustobegoodgenomicpublics.Theseconstructionsofdangerouspublicsthreatentoexcludethelegitimacyofsomepeoplebyassigningthemasirrational,havingaspecialinterest,orasa‘lobby’(haranetal.,2008).Theseexclusionsgenerateaformofaddresswhere

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




thosewhoarenotonthesideofthebiotechnologicalobjectthreatenthe(public)benefits of genomics. These threats ensue, by definition (in the UK at least) from theirrationalpublics(haranetal.,2008).activistmobilisationisnotencouraged,whilstpurchasinggenometestsisendorsed,theaddressofgenomicsisshapedbyelitegroupswithaninterestinpreferredreadings.however,themultiplepublicsthathavecometoattentionaresometimesresistanttosuchcontrol.

Isuggestthatcurrentscienceandsocietyrelationsarenotinfactcharacterisedbyonetypeofscienceoranother(informatics,genomics,proteomics,nuclear,andclimatechangesciences).Thatis,wearenotinagenomicorpost-genomicera, beyond very specific fields. We might be however, in a time characterised bypublicsonamoregeneralisablescale.aneraofproliferatingandcontradictorypublics, inwhich theapparently socialandpoliticalquestionsofgovernance,knowledge,justice,securityandthepossibilityofconsensus,ontheonehand,are played out through the consumption and regulation of apparently scientific sites,ontheother.Thispublicnessofthebiosciencesmeansthattheirmeaningsare contested in multiple spheres and the media operates as the ground andconditionofmakingmeaning,andsecuringauthorityaroundgenomics.

Ifpublicsarethecontentandcontextofthematterathand,thenthisshiftswhatmightbeforegroundedandbackgroundedinthesedebates.InthisbookIsetouttopositionhumangenomicsintermsofitspublics,andaudiences.Thetaskisnottotryandsaythisiswrongandthatisright,buttoexaminehow,inwhatwaysandwhenisgenomicstakenup,supported,resisted,forwhomandinwhichcontexts?Inotherwords,howandwhoarethepublicsofgenomics,andhowandwhopaysfor, or gains from, their configuration as such.

Inthinkingaboutthepublicsofgenomicsitisimportanttothinkaboutpublicsasmultiple(mcclellan,2003;Laclau,2005).Inotherwordsitisnotenoughtosay that there are is a distinct private versus public, consumer versus citizen, or lay versus scientific public. These are dynamic categories and there is no one way of thinking about the questions raised by the life sciences (e.g. no or yesto hybrid embryos). There are private publics, consumer publics, citizen publics, publicscientistsandmanyothers.Thetaskistocontinuetotryandaccountforthe multiple contingencies of both refusal and agreement, and all those thingsinbetween. In this attempt at that task, thebookexamines the intersectionsofgenomicsandthemedia,atwhatcouldbethoughtofastheconsumerinterfaces,audiences,andpublicsofgenomics.

Examining what publicness means is an important and difficult proposition andthishaspreoccupiedmuchliteratureinpoliticaltheory(Laclau,2005;Fraser,1990,2000),insciencestudies(durant,1995;Wynne,1995;IrwinandWynne,1995;marres, 2005), and inmedia studieswhere the subjectivityof audienceshas been a central concern (Lippman, 1925; dewey, 1927; Livingstone, 2005;couldryetal.,2007).atonelevelpublicnessreferstotheconstitutionofapoliticalgroundinsocialandculturallifethatisaccessible,thatisopentoview,toaccess,participation,andtochange.however,tobepublic,toexperiencepublicnessasapoliticalsubjectivity,alsomeanstoberecognised,tobeabletorecogniseothers,

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 13

tobeorientated toformsofaddress,and tobeable toaddress thoseformsandothers.Focusingontheaddress(Warner,2002;Butler,2005)andonrecognition(Fraser,2000),asbasicunitsofpublicness,isawayofforegroundingtheroleofmediationinconstitutingpublics.

Genomic incorporation is a mode of address that is offered to consumingpublics,whocanbedifferentiated,andhomogenisedinavarietyofways.Forthegenometobeincorporatedithastobetakenupasembodiedandeconomicwaysin everyday technoscientific lifeworlds. Consumers are usually defined as people whobuygoods,andthistakeupcouldbeinrelationtopayingforagenomictestofsomekind.consumersarepayingcustomerswhohaveaneconomicrelationtotheobjecttowhichtheyareattached.Theypaymoneyforit,buttheyarestillpublics.This way of conceptualising people as consumers is often opposed tothat of citizens who are understood to have a political relation to their object of attachment (usuallyavote).however, studiesofconsumptionalsopoint to thepolitical dimension of consumption, consumer activism – such as boycotting‘bad’ companies – and the ethical consumer group movements (hilton, 2003).Likewise studies of citizenship and political participation have also underscored the economic dimensions of voting behaviours and citizen consumption (Cohen, 2003; Scammell, 2003). All this is to say that consumers and citizens are theoretical categoriesthatareconsiderablymorecomplexwhenpractised,indeedoneofthefeaturesofcapitalismmightbesaidtobethecompletemixingupofconsumerandcitizen (Lury, 2004).

The ‘consumption junction’ of science and technology is a particular siteoutlined in science and technology studies (michael, 1998; cowan, 1987). Ithas been used to articulate a relationship between technologies, and users andconsumers.This articulation recognises consumers as agents in the shaping oftechnologies, rather than as the outsiders or lay audiences of science (cowan,1987; Oldenziel and Zachmann, 2009; Silverstone, Hirsch and Morley, 1992; Brown,2003).Whilsttheuseofthetermconsumptionjunctionstemsfromsocialshapingoftechnology,anddomesticationoftechnologydebates(cowan,1987;Silverstone,hirschandmorley,1992),nikBrownrecently‘revisited’thistermtothinkaboutwhathecalledthe‘anticipatorypublics’ofscience(Brown,2007).In other research mike michael also takes up a discussion of the consumer inrelationtotechnoscience(michael,1998).Theconsumerisrelevantformichaelbecause it is the subjectivity of the consumer-citizen that orientates various publics towards technoscience. as every day users and purchasers they also becomeknowingevaluatorsoftechnoscience.Understandingthepublicsofscienceinthisway challenges the assumption that publics are lay citizens who need to be either enrolledoreducated.Brownandmichael’sworkpositionspublicsasconsumerswhoarealreadyinanevaluativerelationshipwithtechnoscienceinmultipleforms(michael,1998).michaelextendsthisargumentinabooklengthprojectwhichsituatestheconsumptionoftechnoscienceineverydaylife.Thisandworkonthedomesticationoftechnologiesillustratesthecomplex,andintimateformsoftakeup and resistance in relation to home and work-life technologies (Silverstone,

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




hirsch and morley, 1992). This articulation of consumer and publics togetheroffersanaccountofpeople thatmightbe thoughtofas theactiveaudiencesoftechnoscience. Feminist accounts of technoscience have also emphasised theaudience dimension of the sciences, drawing on the metaphor of the theatre(vandijck,1998;haraway,1997),notonlythetheatreoftheplayhousebutalsoofwarandofsurgery.Thesefociallpointtotheimportanceofanaudienceasaconstituent in the making of scientific knowledges.

my central concern is the relationship between genomics as a structure ofaddress,andthetakeupofgenomicsineverydaylife.Inthisprojectitisusefultothink of publics, beyond general publics, phantom publics, citizens, and consumers, asalsobeingkindsofaudiences.publicsasaudiencesaresoughtafterandsubjecttobothacommunalandindividualaddressinwhichtheyalsohaveareciprocalforcetoaddress.Thesedifferentkindsofaddressarenotevenlydistributed,butaudiences can be active, engaged, attending, consuming, absorbed, passionate,creative,commentating,chorusing,complaining,heckling,indifferent,resisting,distracted,absentandasleep.membershipinanaudienceisconstitutedthroughanorientationtowardsaformofaddress.Thisorientationisbothindividualandcollectiveatonce. Itholdsasbothan individualexperienceandasacollectiverelation to theobject, other audiencemembers, or the timeor the spaceof themediationoraddress.

nickcouldryraisesthequestionofaudienceorientationinhiscollaborativeworkonmediaconsumptionandpublicconnection(couldryandmarkham,2008;couldry,Livingstoneandmarkham,2007).couldryandhiscolleaguesarguethattheassumptionthatthereisalinkbetweenmediaconsumptionandpeople’soverallorientationtoapublicworldneedstobere-thought.Inchallengingtheassumptionthatmediaattentionislinkedtopublicconnection(orsomekindofparticipationincollectiveconcerns)theymovebeyondwhattheycallthe‘presumptionofattention’and indoing sodrawon the languageof ‘orientation’ (couldry andmarkham,2008:255).however,inthisresearchcouldryetal.areprimarilyconcernedwithaudiences’orientation topublic connection that is somehowheld tobeoutsideofthemedia,‘thewayinwhichyouorientyourselftotheworldthroughmedia.’(couldryandmarkham,2008:261)

In thisproject I am interested in anorientation towards themediaas a siteinwhichpublicconnectionmightbemade,orfail (hereIamindebtedtoSaraahmed’sworkonorientation(ahmed,2006).)Itmightbehelpfultotakemediaaudiencesaspublicsorientatedtowardsmediatedtechnoscience,ratherthanseeingaudiencesasorientatedtowardsthetechnoscienceofgenomicsthroughmedia.astartingpointforthinkingaboutcontemporarypublicsistheirorientationasmediaaudiences.currentmediatedgenomicsoffersconnection tomediaartifacts, themediatinggenome(haraway,1997),andthebodyasmedia(Thacker,2004).ratherthantosuggestthatthisconnectionisaclosedcircuitofmedianarcissismwhereconnectionstorealityarelost,inthemodeofJeanBaudrillard’ssimulation(1981),Iwouldrather(re)openthispresumptionofclosureandaskwhattheseconnectionsare. Inotherwords thepointhere isnot toget throughmedia toanoutside,or

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 15

centre, of public connection but to examine what connections are constitutedthrough genomic mediation.This project thus attempts to take genomic mediaculturesintheirownterms,ratherthantoreadthemasindicativeofsomethingoutsideofthemediaasthoughtherewereaworldoutsideofmediation.

Inthecurrentdigitalmediaecologythetermdigitalpublicshelpstogetatthewaythatpublicsaresuturedintoandappearasconstituentsofmediation.digitalpublicsareaddressedthroughdigitalmediaforms.Theyaddressothers,theyarerecognised,andtheyperformrecognition.Theymakeuptheformoftheaddressandspeakbacktoitandtoothersaboutit.digitalpublicsareconstitutedthroughdiverse, networked, always on, forms of address that demand a negotiation ofan overwhelming overload of addressable forms. Thus, contemporary digitalpublicsareorientatedbothtowardsopennessandwaysofmanagingselectionandclosure.Genomesarealreadydigitalmediaartefacts,aswellasbeingvectoredthrough media forms, and contemporary genomic publics are characterised byanengagementincriticaldigitalmediawork.contemporarygenomicsaddressesits publics aspersonal, individualised anddocilehealth consumers,whilst alsoconstitutingactivelyincorporatedandpubliclyintimatebodieswhointerveneinthechoreographyofgenomicincorporation.

Interactivity as a mode of address

The primary mode of address in contemporary media cultures is the offer anddemandofinteractivity.mediatechnologiesliketheinternet,handhelddevices,mobilephones,gaming,anddigitalmediamoregenerally,haveakindofinteractiveaura.Thatistosaythattheyseemtobeoriginallyinteractive,orinteractivefrominception.Theyalsoseemtohavebroughtwiththemtheexpectationofinteractivity,which thenextends toother forms(so-calledpassiveforms)suchas television,film, and radio, which are reconstructed as both digital and interactive. Despite thehistoricaldivisionsbetweenactiveandpassivemediaforms,andanalogueanddigitalmediaforms,itispossibletoclaimthatthecontemporarymediaecologyischaracterisedbyinteractivityandisdigital,tosomedegree,acrossthespectrum.Forexample,printmediaformssuchasnewspapersmaynotbedigitalintermsofthematerialtext(thenewspaper)butdigitisationispartoftheproductionprocess,andoftenadigital formof theprintversion is alsoavailable through theweb.readersareinvited,intheprintforms,tointeractviaemailortobloginresponsetoarticlesthattheyread.

Interactivity is both something offered by a media technology and is anaudience response, strategy, orwayof engagingwith amedia artefact. Somemedia technologies are said to just be interactive (the internet and computergamesareexamples),butwhateverthetechnologicalaffordancesofaparticularform,(touseIrvingGoffman’slanguage),theaudienceisalsoimplicatedinthe‘inter’of interactivity.Inotherwordsinteractivemediaareonlyinteractiveifactivated.Interactivitythusmightbebetterseenasamodeofengagementrather

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




thanapropertyofanartefact.Thismightseemobviousbutitisimportanttostresstherelationalityofinteractivity.makingthispointhelpstoclarifythatamediaartefactthatdoesn’tseeminteractive(ordoesn’taffordmuchinteractivity)canalsobeexperiencedasinteractiveifanaudienceinteractswithit.Itisthereforetherelationof‘inter’ inwhichaphenomenaof interactivityoccurs.Genomesaredigitalmediaartefactsdistributedinamodeofinteractivityanddemandandcompelaninteractiverelationshipandanactiveaudience.

The meanings of interactivity have been debated throughout the academicliterature on computer-mediated-communication (cmc), and digital media,(as well as elsewhere) and the meanings of interactivity are made in variousdifferentways.Interactivitycanbethoughtofasatechnicalform,asapropertyofcommunication,asaconcept,asadiscourse,asepistemology,andasontology.Within cmc literature the interface is central. In relation to the interface, themeanings of interactivity operate at the order of the first three categories above: a technical form;apropertyofcommunication;aconcept.asa technical forminteractivityhasoftenbeenusedasakindofmeasureorpropertyofdigitalmedia,for example in designing or evaluating the amount of opportunities a web siteaffordedforuserinput.

InanattempttobringthetermundersomekindofcontrolSpiroKiousis(2002)notesinhis‘conceptexplication’ofinteractivitythat‘theoreticalandoperationaldefinitions are exceedingly scattered and incoherent’ (2002: 255). In his article, whichprovidesanexcellentoverviewoftheuseofinteractivityincmc,hepointstothewaythatinteractivityhasoperatedintwodistinctways,ontheonehandit isunderstoodasapropertyof a textor technical affordance (e.g. responsivetouch screens), and on the other hand it is seen as residing in the perceptionor action of the user (does the audience touch the screen?). he concludes thatinteractivityisbestunderstoodasbothapropertyofthemediaandtheperceptionoftheaudiencecombined.Interactivityremains,inthisexplication,adiscussionabouttheintersectionofdigitalmediaandaudiencesengaginginsomethinglikeinterpersonalstimulus,feedbackandresponse.

however,interactivityismorethanadesignfeature,oraconceptualtoolofnewmediastudies,cmc,andotherrelatedareas.Interactivityoperatesasadiscourseinamuchbroaderculturalsense.Interactivityhasbecomebothadvertisingandpolicyforcontemporarymediaecologies.andrewBarry,arguesinadiscussionof sites as diverse as the UK national Lottery, science museums, and digitaltechnologiesthat‘interactivityisactuallymuchmorethanaparticularpossibilityinherentinthedevelopmentofmedia’(Barry,2001:129).hegoesontoarguethatinteractivity can be seen as something like a model for contemporary citizenship, andselfhood.puttingthemodelintopracticeoffersapromisebothforinstitutionsand audiences.Thepromise inputting amodel of interactivity intopractice insciencemuseumsis:

toturntheunfocusedvisitor-consumerintotheinterested,engagedandinformedtechnological citizen. Interactivity is more than a particular technological

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 17

form.(…)Inaninteractivemodel,subjectsarenotdisciplined,theyareallowed.(Barry,2002:129)

In Barry’s analysis interactivity operates as a Foucauldian discourse in theconstitution of subjects, not so much disciplining, but allowing subjects. Thisoperation of interactivity as a disciplinary regime is examined in chapter 2throughdirecttotheconsumergenetictestinginthecaseoftheWeb2.0company23andMe. however, interactivity and its capacity for both empowerment andexploitationisakeythemeofthebookthroughout.

media scholar mark poster (1990, 1995) engages with interactivity as partof theproductionandconstitutionofcontemporarysubjectivity.heargues thatthe networked media cultures of the present produce an interactive, self-reflexive and fragmented contemporary subject, one that is different from the rationalautonomoussubjectof theprintculturesof thepreviousera.poster,andotherswhotakethisposition(e.g.Turkle,1995),havebeencritiquedfortakinganoverlydeterministicstanceinrelationtothetechnology.Inotherwordstheyareseenasarguingthatthemediatechnologiesofaperioddeterminethepossiblesubjectivitiesofaperiod.however,ifweseeinteractivityasnotjustatechnologicalaffordance,but alsoadiscursive formation, andapolitical economyof labour, itmightbepossibletoavoidareductivedeterminism(thetechnologymakesusso).at thesametimethinkingaboutdifferentiatedformsofinteractivityisausefultoolforanalyses of how life and media technologies emerge together and do differentkindsofworkoneachother.

Interactivity is a form of labour, as well as taking technological andideologicalforms.Tobecomeinvested,interestedandengaged,asBarryargues(2002), is a resource intensive process through which the attention of theaudience is extracted. InanengagementwithWhitehead,BergsonandVirno,andrewmurphie(2005)extendsinteractivityas labourevenfurther,situatingitascentralto‘thecontemporarypoliticsoftheformationoflabour.’(murphie,2005unpaginated).Inasectioncalled‘InteractiveLife’,hetakesupanapproachwhere ‘life itself is taken as interactive from the start.’ For murphie, in thisargument,toliveistointeract:

To live then is to assembleandmediate interactionsbetweenwhatwemightnormally call ‘living’ and ‘non-living’. (…)This very rough sketch suggeststhatinteractivetechnologiesareamatteroflife(networkdrives,assemblage,thetransductionsofvariousforces,chemicalsandsoon)anddeath(archivefevers,disassembly).(murphie2005unpaginated)

Inbiopoliticalarenassuchasgenomics,organandtissuestrades,sexwork,andbiotechnologyofallkinds,lifeisgatheredupasinteractivelabour.Lifeisputtowork.Soforexampletheenergy,bodies,andsubjectivitiesofsurrogatemothersareputtoworkinthesurrogacytrade.Tissuesareextracted,andremediatedinorganandtissuetransfer,andintheaggregationoftissuebanks,dnadatabasesandso

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




on.What catherineWaldby (2002) refers to as biovalue, Sunder rajan (2007)asbiocapitalandmelindacooper’s(2008)‘lifeassurplus’arethedifferentiatedand unequal processes by which material, spatial, temporal, imagined and feltqualitiesoflifeareputtotheworkofeconomicextraction.murphie’sargumentalsopoints to theway thatother formsof livingbeyond tissuesandorgansarealsogatheredupintothelabourofbiopolitics.Theseotherformsoflivingincludesensoryattention,attachmenttoobjectsandartefactsandtheinteractiveviewingcapacityoftheaudience.

Tiziana Terranova (2004), along with others in the autonomous Marxist tradition,examinesthekindsoflabouroperatinginnetworkedsocietiesstructuredby media technologies. Ideas such as immaterial labour and free labour havebecomeattached to thekindsof labour thatoperate for example in thecurrentnew media, ‘Web 2.0’ context. When participation becomes a demand and aresponsibility(bothwhatweareallowedandcompelled todo), thenwhatkindoflabouristheworkofprovidingdnasamples?Thesequestionsoflabourareofcentralconcernin thediverse literatureonnetworkedcultures,(seeShaviro,2003; rossiter, 2006; Terranova, 2004; Galloway and Thacker, 2007), as wellas surveillanceand interactivity (andrejevic,2004;agreandrotenburg,1998;phillips,2007),andnetworkedanddigitalmediaculturesmoregenerally(poster,1990; castells, 2000). Terranova’s (2004) theories of network identity andlabour and earlier work which forms the field, such as Donna Haraway’s (1985) ‘informaticsofdomination’,shareaconcernwithshiftsinlabouroccurringacrosstheintersectionandintegrationofbiotechnologiesandinformationtechnologiesthroughoutthelatterpartofthetwentiethcentury.

engaging with this literature, in the case of the consumer interface withgenomics,Icontendthatinteractivityisakindofbiopoliticallabourthatoperatesto offer audiences pleasure and empowerment, but which at the same timeoperatesasamodeofextractionofvalue.Thisvalueisproducedbyengagementandinteractionwiththeaddressofgenomics.Thatistosaythatinteractivityisthemodethroughwhichaudiencesareaskedtoattendtogenomics,andthroughwhichthey can be constituted as ‘the interested, engaged and informed technologicalcitizen,’ (Barry, 2001). However, a focus on the genome does not only operate asbiopolitical,italsocreatesconnectionsbetweendiversesubjects,forexamplemedia audiences become connected to research subjects through an identification withthegaygene.Thisismediation,abiodigitalmodeofconnection,anditisnotonlyaboutmorebiotechnologicalconnections,becauseit isunpredictableas towhatpeoplewillfocuson.Interactivityisbothamodeofextractionandamodeofattention,itisademand,apleasureandacompulsion.however,interactivityoperatesunevenlyandunexpectedlyandthisbookseekstoexaminethedifferentkindsofvaluecreated,andthedifferentexperiencesofaudiences,andproducers,as they attend to, contribute to and intervene in genomic value. Interactivity,alongwithmediationisacentralmechanismforgenomicincorporation,buthowincorporationcanbedifferentiatedmightbewhatisimportant.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 19

Biodigital identity

Theterm‘biodigital’isusedinthisbookinadjacencytobiopoliticsandbiocapital.drawingonmuchofthesameliteraturethroughwhichatheoreticalframeworkofbiocapitalisbuilt(helmreich,2008),thisprojectalsotakesaslightlydifferentturn.Biopoliticsandbiocapitalarebothtakenupthroughframeworksthatexaminethebios,orbarelifeofcontemporarycapitalism.Inthismodethelifeofanimals,plantsandhumansalikeistakenupasthe‘rawmaterial’ofcapitalism.Tissuecultures(Waldbyandmitchell,2006),celllines(Landeker,2007),bodyparts(dickenson,2008), transnational surrogacy, egg trades and biotechnology more generally(Sunderrajan,2006;cooper,2007),arethedrivingforceofacapitalismthathasbecomebiocapital (Sunderrajan,2006), apolitics thathasbecomebiopolitics(rabinow and rose, 2006; rose, 2001). however, the term biodigital offersanadjacent frame to this literature. It offers awayof reintroducingmediation,media technologies and media audiences into the biopolitical assemblage.Biodigitalidentityisamodeofidentityconstructionthatatonceacknowledgesthephenomenathatproducebiopoliticalrelations,whilstofferinganadjacentandperhapsinterstitialspace.Ultimatelytheconstructionofbiodigitalidentitythroughgenomicsisanothersignofthehighlytechnologisedlifeworldsthatpeoplelivein.however,itisalsosignofjusthowordinarybiodigitalidentityis.InordertoclarifywhatthatadjacentspacemightopenintoIofferhereaselectiveoverviewofthecirculationofthetermbiodigital.

nigelThriftusesthetermbiodigitalinrelationtoLucianaparisi’sprojecton‘abstractsex’:

here we have, in other words, a biodigital politics in which ‘the body is nolonger determined by individual qualities constituting thedifferencebetweenanimal,humanandmachine’.(parisi,2004:137)(Thrift,2007:166)

nigelThriftengageswithLucianaparisi’sprojecton‘abstractsex’todiscussanewpoliticsofsentiencethatcouldbecharacterisedasbiodigital.Inhisdiscussionof‘technology,biologyandspace’(2007:153),Thriftoutlinesthepoliticsofan‘informedmateriality’ (2007:166)where ‘technologyhasmoved sodecisivelyintotheintersticesoftheactivepercipienceofeverydaylifethatitispossibletotalkofanewlayerofintelligenceabroadintheworld’(Thrift,2007:166).Thisnewlayerandthisinformedmateriality,amaterialitythatisalreadyinformational,computational and interspecies amounts for Thrift to a new spatial politics, apoliticsofthebiodigital.althoughthisisarichdiscussionIdepartfrombothThriftandparisibecauseIamnotproposingthebiodigitalasatotalisingrespatialisationor a newontology.however, thinking about theways that audiencesnegotiatebiotechnological and digital convergences, does open up a space for thinkingabouttakeup,negotiationandresistancetoabiodigitaladdress.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




In Abstract Sex Luciana parisi proposes the biodigital as a layer in astratification of what she terms ‘abstract sex’. Abstract sex, for Parisi, is a philosophical thesis on modes of production and reproduction. These modessheexplainsarethreeaggregatingstratastartingwitha‘biophysical’bacterialmode of reproduction, a ‘biocultural’ human mode of reproduction and finishing witha late twentieth century ‘biodigital’ strataofmolecular and recombinantreproduction. In parisi’s philosophical model bacterial is the primal soup,biocultural is now and biodigital is the future. These strata are overlaid incomplexsystemsofbecominginwhichthebiodigitalisanassemblageofdigitaland biodigital cloning. These biodigital bodies, although future bodies, still‘map the tendancies of the bio-informatic phase of capitalism’ (parisi, 2004:195).Thiskindofformulationisitselfanimaginativeaddressbyparisiinspiredbyherownnegotiationofbiologicalanddigitalconvergence,andherworkcanbereadasasymptomofakindofbiodigitalpoetics,asignofthetimes.

USa-based media artist, activist and scholar eugeneThacker also uses theidea of informed materiality that runs throughThrift and parisi, to articulate atheoryof ‘biomedia’ (2004).Biomedia inThacker’s terms is similar toThrift’sbiodigitalinthatitpointstoaninformedmateriality,andparisi’sbiodigitalstratainthatitforegroundsrecombinationandremediation.however,Thackerismuchmore specific about the kind of technology that he is analysing. In a form of digital mediaanalysisThackerarguesthatdigitalmediaareakindofbiomediathroughwhich information isembodiedandbodiesare informed ina simultaneousandrecursive movement through which bodies and information flow. If information lostitsbodyinKatherinehayles’accountof‘howwebecameposthuman’(1999),eugene Thacker’s theory of ‘biomedia’ re-embodies information. Informationis corporeal andbodies are informatic inThacker’s accountof the relationshipbetween bodies and digital media, they flow into each other, remediating each other inunevenandstickyways.Thus,Thacker’sbiomedia,asanothersignofthetimesisamoreusefulversionofthebiodigital,formyproject,thanparisi’sbecauseitforegroundsmediationbringingmediatechnologiesandbiotechnologiestogether.

In his examination of Lynn Hershman-Leeson’s film TeknolustJussiparikka(2007)alsodeploysthetermbiodigital.Inparikka’sanalysisthebiodigitalisclosertoeugeneThacker’sexaminationofbiomediathanthemoreabstractrenderingofparisi.ForbothThackerandparikkabiodigitalsignalsanintegrationofpeopleandmachinethroughthosemediatechnologiesthatremediatebodies.TheseformsincludeTheVisiblehumanproject,ThehumanGenomeproject,dnadatabases,andmultipledigitalmediaforms,whichremediatebodies,orinharaway’sterms‘corporealise’information(1997).ForbothThackerandparikkabiodigitalityisbound up in media technologies and it is this inflection or focus of the term that is importantforme.althoughparisi’sthesisisextensive,itisalsotooabstractformypurposes.Inexaminingthecontoursoftheconstructionofbiodigitalidentity,I focus on the somewhat more mundane consumer interface produced throughtheintersectionofdigitalmediatechnologiesandbodies,theconsumerinterface

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 21

ofhumangenomics.Thisbiodigitalinterfaceisatonceaformationofbiomedia,corporealisinginformationandenframingbodiesintheformofgenomebrowsers;andamodeofengagementwithbiodigitalculturesthroughmultiplemediaforms.Thus, processual public art projects, broadcast television, and film, also open into this interface.The consumer interface of human genomics is a cluster of sitesthrough which human genomics is incorporated through publics, realities andimaginaries,economiesandidentities.

Layout of the book

This book engages with the literature briefly outlined so far and takes up the questions of genomic incorporation: when, where and how is the genomeincorporated and what different kinds of genomic incorporation operate in thecontemporarymediaecology?Interactivity,mediationandembodimentarecentralthemesthatrunthoughthedifferentsitesexploredhere.

Thesecondchapter‘TheGenomeandme’takesupthediscussionoflabourandinteractivityinanexaminationof23andMe.ThisnewmediabiotechnologycompanycombinesWeb2.0structureswiththegenomebyofferingdirecttotheconsumer genotyping via the web. part of the product is 23andMe’s interfacewhich operates as a browser, part social networking technology, part genomicdatabase,partresearcharchive.Thiscompany,andotherslikeit,haveemergedinthelastfewyearsunderthebannerofdirecttotheconsumergenetictesting.mostofthemareembeddedintheinformationalandbiotecheconomiesofcalifornia,whilst alsohavingglobal reach.They toohaveemerged throughcontemporarydiscoursesofinteractivity,withtheirpowerfulpromisethatinteractivemediabothofferspro-activeparticipationanddemocratisesconsumption.23andMeprovidesa site inwhich individual consumers canbuy a stake in thedigitalmediationsof thegenometowhichtheysimultaneouslycontributeintheformofsamples.Theseare then soldback toparticipants alongwitha tailoredgenomebrowserthatallows them toview theirgenomesequenceasdigitalmediacontent.Thisbrowsingformatenablesparticipantsto‘connect’with‘similar’genes,genomes,orpatientandotherinterestgroups.newsocialnetworksofgenomiccommunitiesareofferedfortheconsumertoconstitutethroughmembership.Thepromotionalculturesand investment insalesofpersonalgenomesequencingaregeneratingnewformsofconsumption,aswellasnewkindsofscience.

Thethirdchapter,‘realityGenomics’,looksatagenomics/mediapartnershipintheformofaUKrealitytelevisionprogrammeThe Killer in Me.realityTVrestyles factual and fictional boundaries and re-works genomic knowledge through thisrestyling.Thischapterexaminestherelationshipbetweentherealitycategoryinrealitytelevisionontheonehand,andgenomicincorporationontheother.ItoffersananalysisoftheresponsesthatplayedoutintheUK,thewaythatthegenomeismademeaningfulineverydaylife,anditthekindsofboundariesthatthismeaningmaking reinforces,createsanddisrupts.Genre, formandcontentare important

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com




inthispartofthebookandareusedtotracethelayersofintelligibilityoperatingin this form of genomic consumption. The chapter builds up a framework forexamining the specificity of genre and form whilst thinking about the connections acrossotherareasinwhichhumangenomicsistopical.

The Killer in Meexploitedthetopicalityofhumangenotyping,linkingittoagerelatedhealthcare.Thistopicalityhadinpartbeenstagedthroughasetofarticlesin the UK press, generated by, and involving the company Genetic health™.TheUK’sIndependentTelevisionproductions(ITV)partneredGenetichealthina one-hour lifestyle programme that followed four celebrities as they took the‘pioneering’genetictestsandweregiveninformationabouttheirfuturehealth.

The ‘reality Genomics’ chapter examines the programme, the ensuingcomplaintfromtheBritishSocietyforhumanGenetics(BShG),andtheoutcomeoftheinvestigationbytheUKcommunicationsregularofcom.Thequestionofwhatkindofrealityisatstakeinrealitygenomicsstructuresthischapter.

The fourth chapter examines art and genomics in the form of sciartcollaborations that have accompanied genomic research in the early twenty-first century. Investment in sciart in the UK has been significant and globally arthasbecomeanimportantvectorforgenomics.Thischapterisbasedonananalysisofaselectionofartworks,sciartprojects,andbioartcombinedwithresearchinterviewswithavarietyofartistsinthisarea.Thisanalysisissituatedwithin a critical appraisal of literature around sciart and bioart. The chaptertraces the emergence of DNA, genetic, and genomic art and examines Suzanne ankeranddorothynelkin’s(2002)workincataloguingartinthisarea.Itoffersa supplemental genealogy of bioart and in doing so offers an intervention indebatesaboutsciartandbioartandtheirroleintheproductionofknowledgeinthis area. A key figure in these debates is the trope of C.P. Snow’s ‘two-cultures’ lecture, and the work that this does is examined as an important structuringelementinengagement,fundingandorganisinggenomicart.

chapter5isananalysisofsexualityinthegenome.Thisisorganisedthroughacasestudy inwhichaudiencesarecalledupon to identifywithcontemporarygenomicsthroughtheHow Gay are Your Genes? project.Thisprojectemergedasasciencecommunicationprojectatthepolicy,ethicsandLifeScienceresearchcentre(peaLS)innewcastle,UK2005–06.Theprojectusedthe‘gayscience’ofhamerandcopeland(1994),andlaterstudiesongenomicsandsexuality,toaddressthequestion‘How Gay Are Your Genes?’Theprojectinvolvedinterviewswith the local LGBT communities on their ideas about how LGBT identity isformed.aseriesofeventsandwritingworkshopsoccurred, followedbyanartexhibition commissioned for the project. This project provides a catalyst forexaminingtheissuesatstakeinboththescienceofsexuality,andincommunitybasedexplanationsofidentity.Italsoprovidesanexampleofasciartprojectwithadifference.Itreturnstosomeoftheissuesraisedinearlierchaptersabouttherelationshipsbetweenart,scienceandpublics,aswellasprovidinganopportunityto reflect on the relationships between genomics and other narratives of identity.

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com

as

hgat

e.co

m

ashg

ate.

com



Introduction 23

a hybrid form of science media, How Gay are Your Genes?, shows howhumangenomics isnotonlyamediated science (haranet al., 2008)but a sitewheremediation,scienceandidentityareincorporatedinanaddress.Importantly,thissiteshowsboththepreferredincorporationofhumangenomicsatwork,andalsodemonstrateshowresistance,critiqueandinterventioncanbeatworkatthesametime.Thiscaseisanexampleofwherepeopletakeupthenarrativesfromthe genome and incorporate them as identity narratives, but also where peoplecritique,resistandinterveneinthesamenarratives.Italsosignalsashiftintakeup of genomics over time, where the gay gene saw critical coverage (Kitzinger, 2005),andwasembracedinthe1990sbygaymenintheUSa(rosario,1997),itsaddresshasbecomeasiteofuneaseformanypeoplewhoidentifyaslesbian,gayor trans in the early twenty-first century.

A note about critique and engagement

Thisprojectisanexaminationofpublicengagementswithhumangenomics.Itisanattempttoputsuchengagementsintoabroadcriticalperspective.Thiskindofengagementisanattempttomakevisiblesomeofthepowerrelationsofgenomicsandtheirpublics,andtobringtolightsomeofthedifferentkindsofengagements,resistances,refusals,andexcessesofgenomicincorporationineverydaylife.

The Genome IncorporatedcomesfromaBritishculturalstudiestraditionasit intersects with feminist cultural studies of science and technology (mcneil,2007). It isconcernedwith theway thatmeaning ismade ineveryday lifeandwithwhoandwhathasthepowertomakeandmaterialisesuchmeanings.Suchmeaning–makingstructuresideasaboutwhatistrue,whatisreal,whatisfactualandhowpeopleshouldorganisetheirlivesinrelationtosuchtruths,realitiesandfacts.Whateverthefactsofgenomics,asfarasgenomicscienceisconcerned,itishowmediaculturesofgenomicsarecurrentlyoffered,takenupandunderstoodineverydaylifethatmakesitmeaningful,realandvaluable–infelt,imagined,materialandeconomicterms–forboththeaudience-consumersofgenomicsandtheproducersofgenomicknowledgeandproducts.Thefollowingchapterstraceout these differential offerings (modes of address) take up (consumption), andunderstandings.

chapter 1 introduction - connecting repositories › download › pdf › 2731237.pdf · chapter 1...

Documents