The idea of “molecularization”, brought to the table by Raman and Tutton seems to permeate all the readings this week. When science is brought to its smallest bits and pieces we can get to the personal and introspective aspect of what is often considered big picture science. The study of genetic diseases, reproductive possibilities and stem cell research are all large overarching topics, but once they become “molecularized” into the more base or simple science we see the personal impact. It is important to remember the personal side of clinical science, because people are ultimately being affected by new genetic research. I like to think of molecularization as the process of taking a theoretical idea and applying it to a more tangible, human issue.
Callahan, in his discussion of communitarianism, concludes that biological advances need to be looked at through a new lens. He recommends taking into account human nature, the private and public spheres, the welfare of the whole and human rights when discussing new ethical problems in science. In this way he is asking us to break down, or “molecularize” broad bioethical issues, such as the ones Robertson asks.
In Robertson’s piece the big question: “why reproduction is important and valued?” is followed by the question of a legal framework to protect new advances in reproductive technology. His argument follows that much has been done to protect the termination of a pregnancy, and much will need to be done to protect the desire to reverse infertility and engage in genetic screening and altering of embryos. This is where laws may need to come into place to protect women choosing gene-altering therapies. Again, we see the idea of broad questions having human implications.
When the big picture science is broken down (“molecularized”) we see the advancement of this technology lies in the hands of the people. Or differently said, the power resides in the hands of those for whom the science directly affects. This is what Foucault meant in his exploration of biopower, and the discussion of power from “below”—or us, the people who experience the human implications of scientific theory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
One way to understanding "molecularization" is certainly to see it as approaching the "personal"—and for the personal to be "tangible, human." It's clear you see a sharp connection between the tangibly human, human implications and "the hands of the people" (the "below" of Foucault). What's likely worth doing is paying attention, as we move forward in the reading and our discussions, to the "pulls" (and "pushes") from "above", from those institutions (of many sorts) that we are part of and that both enable and constrain what we can do with our "hands".
ReplyDelete