In Tango with Science and Culture

Responding to After Absolute Neutrality: Expanding Science by Sandra Harding

Sandra Harding suggests that we should be critical of science because research methodology in itself and technologies are culturally bound — we cannot divorce science nor technology from our own understandings of the world. Samaa and I talked about this in relation to problematic medical testing that historically has used certain bodies rather than others.

For example, Henrietta Lacks (1920–1951) was an African American woman diagnosed with cervical cancer in 1951 and was used for testing radiation therapy, of which she did not consent to it. Her “HeLa” cells continue to be used — even after her death — for scientific research, again without her consent. Though yes, cancer research is important, this is an example of a problematic way to go about research for the “greater good of science” that disregards/disrespects racialized bodies.

This goes even further, as part of Lacks’s genomes have been made public, and thus commercialized. However, her family have not benefited economically from this commercialization, so they continue to be exploited under the guise of “progress” and scientific inquiry. If her full genome was to become public, it would have very dangerous consequences for her extended family members, for example, if that information became readily available, life insurance companies could see which medical conditions her family would be genetically predisposed to (in addition to cancer) and potentially raise life insurance costs accordingly.

The Henrietta Lacks example then makes us think about how some people’s medical conditions are treated as medical conditions, whereas other people’s conditions are treated as social conditions due to the cultural biases that exist within science. This was something that we also encountered in the Shohat reading where endometriosis was considered a legitimate disease in middle-class white women, but was considered a self-inflicted cultural disease in women of colour coming from lower socio-economic status.

The whole concept of genetic testing is very interesting. On the one hand it’s scientific but on the other it’s totally socio-culturally framed. We think of science and technology as innovative fields, but our scientific inquiry is limited to the technology that we have available. So all of the claims that we make right now on based on our “rudimentary” technologies.

Another medical story that came to mind was the topic of testing for male birth control. Recently, this has been highly publicized in the news. Currently, the World Health Organization is testing a hormonal birth control injection for men that would prevent sperm from being produced. However, the trials have been cut short, and potentially the study abandoned altogether, because men wanted to quit. Their reason was that they were having “mood swings.”

It is interesting that was considered a “good enough” reason for these men to quit, and for the study to be halted, because it is just an accepted reality that women have to suffer through mood swings when they are on hormonal birth control, or have to suffer through physical pain of cramps or PMS if they have an IUD or if they are not on birth control. This sort of tacit approval or expectation of women’s pain and discomfort reinforces the idea that reproduction is totally a woman’s responsibility — and maybe even her curse. Perhaps there is an implicit reasoning that women will suffer when they are giving birth, so if it is “inevitable” then women can/should also suffer through mood swings because it’s their responsibility to do so. This reminds Samaa of a SNL skit where one of the actresses says “If men were able to get pregnant, abortion clinics would be as available as Starbucks.”

NPR interviewed one of the researchers to gain more context about the problems with the study. After reading Emily Martin’s piece “The Egg and The Sperm”, we found this quote particularly interesting:

Why is it harder to develop birth control for men than women?

That’s the a big question. There are a couple of reasons. One is that it’s harder from a biological point of view. If you think about it, it’s a numbers game: women produce one egg a month, while men are producing millions of sperm constantly. With women, you can take advantage of their normal monthly cycle with the birth control pill. There’s nothing equivalent to that in men.

It is notable that even a researcher, an “objective” scientist, holds these gendered ideas about whose fertility is problematic. In this case, a man’s “overflowing” virility is seen as an asset, and it is implied that to restrict that would be to “defy” nature. However, the researcher has no such qualms when it comes to women’s fertility, and in a way, women’s sexuality as a whole.