The New Genetics: Professionals' Discursive Boundaries

Abstract

In this paper we examine new genetics professionals' accounts of the social context of their work. We analyse accounts given in interview by an 'elite' group of scientists and clinicians. Drawing on the work of Gilbert and Mulkay (1984), we consider interviewees' discourse about knowledge, exploring the way in which they separate science from society through the use of what we have called the 'micro/macro split'. We then go on to consider the reasons for such a discursive boundary, exploring the interviewees' wider discourse about expertise and responsibility for the social implications of the new genetics. We argue that interviewees' discursive boundaries allow them to appeal variously to their objectivity, to dismiss bad science and to characterize the public as ignorant. However, these discursive boundaries are permeable and flexible, and are employed to support the new genetics professionals' role in guiding education and government policy, whilst at the same time deflecting ultimate responsibility for the use of knowledge on to an abstract and amorphous society. Responsibility is flexibly embraced and abrogated. These flexible discursive boundaries thus promote rather than challenge the cognitive authority of new genetics professionals as they engage in debates about the social implications of their work. We end by challenging the replication of these discursive boundaries, noting some of the implications of such a critique for evaluation of the new genetics.

Non-professionals’ evaluations of gene therapy ethics

“…Although the medics had both medical and nonmedical information available to them, they demonstrated clear ''discursive boundaries'' (Kerr, Cunningham-Burley, & Amos, 1997), as shown by the relative paucity of the ethical issues they raised as relevant to SGT (risk, in terms of the potential side effects of novel therapy, and the societal burden of healthcare costs). Thus, in making their moral evaluations, medical professionals focused on recognised areas of their own professional responsibility.…”

Speech acts and performances of scientific citizenship: Examining how scientists talk about therapeutic cloning

“…First, although Philip drew a parallel between the rhetorical manoeuvrings during the current stem cell debates and those during the 1980s, he did not portray the contemporary changes in labels as strategic. Rather, and this is the second point of note, he placed himself and other stem cell researchers as neutral and objective advice providers (Kerr et al, 1997) in search of accuracy. Third Philip, like most respondents above, constructed public discussions as fora to get simple and accurate messages across; a scientist's role is to educate.…”

“…This explains why many scientists in this study portrayed themselves as providers of clear simple technical information (cf. Kerr et al, 1997) and made calls for education. It also means that taking on this role in public will be accepted as normal: seeing scientists as objective educators forms part of our habitual ways of thinking, and scientists are very much encultured to see themselves as such.…”

“…It is impossible however to tell exactly how each respondent perceived the interviewer at different times during the interview. 11 Following Kerr et al (1997), and to use Gilbert and Mulkay's (1984) vocabulary, scientists' utterances are analysed here both as "topic" and "resource". 12 Although Austin ultimately found this formula unsatisfactory (1962: 123-32), it is a useful guide in identifying speech acts.…”

Engaging Across Boundaries—Emerging Practices in ‘Technical Democracy’

“…The goal of involving members of the public in upstream discussion of a new science before decisions are made about its application and regulation is consistent with the democratisation of science and is a valuable contribution to the developing STS literature in this field (e.g. Goven 2003;RogersHayden et al 2007;Kerr et al 2008;Pidgeon et al 2009). …”