The human body is becoming hot property, a resource to be “mined,” “harvested,” patented, and traded commercially for profit as well as scientific and therapeutic advances. Under the new entrepreneurial approach to the body old tensions take on new dimensions—about consent, the fair distribution of tissues and products developed from them, the individual and cultural values represented by the body, and public policy governing the use of organs and tissues.

Dolly is a lamb that was cloned by Dr. Ian Wilmut, a Scottish embryologist. But she is also a Rorschach test. The public response to the production of a lamb by cloning a cultured cell line reflects the futuristic fantasies and Frankenstein fears that have more broadly surrounded research in genetics and especially genetic engineering. Cloning was a term originally applied to a botanical technique of asexual reproduction. But following early experiments in the manipulation of the hereditary and reproductive process (...) during the mid-1960s, the term became associated with human biological engineering. It also became a pervasive theme in horror films and science fiction fantasies. Appearing to promise both amazing new control over nature and terrifying dehumanization, cloning has gripped the popular imagination. (shrink)

David Horn. Social Bodies: Science, Reproduction, and Italian Modernity. (Princeton Studies in Culture/Power/History.) xii + 189 pp., bibl., index. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995. $45, ?37.50 (cloth); $14.95, ?11.95 (paper). -/- Susan Merrill Squier. Babies in Bottles: Twentieth-Century Visions of Reproductive Technology. xvi + 270 pp., illus., index. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1995. $48 (cloth); $17 (paper).

The 1981 legislation in Arkansas and Louisiana which required "balanced treatment of creation-science and evolution-science" represents the most ambitious effort of the "scientific creationists" to date to gain equal time for the teaching of the book of Genesis as an alternative and viable scientific theory of origins. The trial testing the constitutionality of the Arkansas law culminated in a powerful and unambiguous decision; however, creationists continue to lobby for similar legislation in many other states. Far from an aberration, today's scientific (...) creationists represent a modern manifestation of a deep fundamentalist current in American social history. (shrink)

Controversies concerning the religious implications of science have grown increasingly strained in recent years. Creation scientists have deployed new strategies to eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools; right-to-life groups have obstructed fetal tissue research; and clerical groups have criticized genomics and genetic testing. Meanwhile, the Templeton Foundation has begun promoting the idea that there is no conflict between science and religion. In this paper, I explore emerging efforts to reconcile religion and science. I focus particularly on the use (...) of religious imagery and metaphor by scientists as they seek to convince the public of the power of genes or to allay concerns about new technologies. I suggest that their use of Godtalk may reflect both its wider prevalence in political rhetoric in the United States and its instrumental utility in light of the religious implications of contemporary biology. (shrink)

At the occasion of the annual banquet of the Society for Social Studies of Science, the President commemorated Robert K. Merton, Dorothy Nelkin, and David Edge, who all died in 2003. The address highlights some of the contributions of these three scholars and past presidents to the development of the social studies of science, and to 4S.

Book reviewed in this article: Dangerous Diagnostics: The Social Power of Biological Information. By Dorothy Nelkin and Laurence Tancredi.

A physician recently asked how to respond in the case of an 87-year-old patient with advanced Alzheimer's disease, who was unable to swallow or tolerate a nasogastric tube, when the family insisted a gastrostomy tube be inserted but the physician believed the intervention futile. That question encompasses some of the crucial issues in the concept of futility of the treatment goals of physician, patient, and family; the rights of patients and families to demand care; physician judgment; family values; and, to (...) the degree that it represents many similar dilemmas, justice. What are professionals saying when they pronounce treatment futile? What are patients' rights if they or their surrogates disagree?The word “futile” implies a precision about outcome probability that we do not have, and it ignores the wide range of treatments for a given diagnosis. Is futile the same as useless or the opposite of hope? Futile for what? Cure? Restora tion of function? Prolongation of life? Relief from pain? Relief from anxiety? Com fort? Reassurance? To satisfy or placate the patient or the family? The word “futile” is so imprecise that, rather than clarifying, it confuses and clutters the discussion. (shrink)