Priya Kurian & Debashish Munshi
“Communication lies at the heart of public understanding of science,” we said in our last blog. But sometimes this communication manifests itself in the form of buzzwords that attempt to capture the public’s imagination on new and emerging technologies.
“Communication lies at the heart of public understanding of science,” we said in our last blog. But sometimes this communication manifests itself in the form of buzzwords that attempt to capture the public’s imagination on new and emerging technologies.
The politics of buzzwords, as indeed the
economics of buzzwords, are the focus of a thought-provoking article by
Bernadette Bensaude Vincent in the latest issue of Public Understanding ofScience. What purpose do “fashionable stereotyped phrases such as ‘public
engagement in science’, ‘responsible innovation’, ‘green technology’, or
‘personalised medicine’” serve in discussions on science and technology,
Vincent asks.
Buzzwords, according to Vincent, go
beyond the merely scientific issues around a technology; they create a
linguistic laboratory where an alchemic understanding is created that almost
magically blends science with politics, business and economics. In the process, they serve to smoothen out
controversies, contradictions and challenges, acting as “pacifiers” that
subvert the possibilities for change by overcoming dissent and avoiding “clashes
of values.” Such words don’t have philological roots nor do they convey any
depth of meaning. But they serve a pragmatic purpose in creating what Vincent
calls a “‘trading zone’ that allows different stakeholders to communicate.”
Pragmatic is an operative word here.
Words are not neutral units of language. They are political domains that are
contested. Let’s take the example of the term ‘genetic engineering’ which has
evoked polarised reactions from those who are for it and those that are
against. Given the massive protests against genetic engineering of food in
different parts of the world, this term has slowly gone behind the shadows
although research and practice of this technology continues as ever before.
Instead, we hear more of the term ‘synthetic biology’ which is not as
politically loaded as ‘genetic engineering’ is.
But is ‘synthetic biology’ much different
from ‘genetic engineering’? In linguistic terms, they are pretty close but the
connotations are nowhere near as similar. People don’t know as much about
synthetic biology and, as a result, research in the field is much less
controversial.
Talking of synthetic biology, the BBCreported this week the “creation of the first
synthetic chromosome for yeast in a landmark for biological engineering.” The
BBC quoted the research team leader, Dr Jef Boeke of the Langone Medical
Centre at New York University, as describing the achievement as "moving
the needle in synthetic biology from theory to reality."
This, according to an article in the Independent,
is a “milestone development in synthetic
biology, which promises to revolutionise medical and industrial biotechnology
in the coming century.”
Note the bracketing of medical and industrial –
science, medicine, business, and industry are no longer separate domains.
Buzzwords work in making this nexus easier.
Good points in this post and the previous one. Remember The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis: "The modern synthesis solved difficulties and confusions caused by the specialisation and poor communication between biologists in the early years of the 20th century." - @On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses - 3
ReplyDelete