Skip to main content
Monthly Archives

May 2008

Reiner Matysik's giant artificial organism show opens in Bonn today

By Biomedicine in museums

Today, Reiner Matysik’s exhibition ‘Biofakte–Organismen der Zukunft’ [Biofacts-Organisms of the Future] opens in Bonn. When I wrote about the project in an earlier post in February, I thought the Bionten were small creatures, the size of a walnut or something:

 

And then Reiner sent me this photo from the installation work — they are huge!

(couldn’t get through the doors to our exhibition space). This could be a great show at the National Natural History Museum here in Copenhagen (maybe they’ve already arranged to show it?).

Pharma lab chemical compound bottles as designer's objects for collecting

By Biomedicine in museums

I must admit I’ve never paid much attention to chemical compound packages. But, of course, when you think about it — there they are, lots of variegatedly coloured bottles and plastic containers stacked on the shelves behind more fancy and eye-catching instruments and displays. A pedestrian, infrastructural backdrop to the more sophisticated scenery on the bench.

I thought about them, because one of my favourite science blogs — Derek Lowe’s well-written, professional, insightful (and almost daily updated) In the Pipeline (see earlier enthusiastic review here) — describes the different kinds of packages that arrive in his pharma lab. For example, the Japanese company TCI

sends a lot of its compounds in normal-looking glass bottles, but these are first put inside capped plastic containers, like larger translucent versions of the ones that 35mm film probably still comes in.

Maybridge, on the other hand, sends their compounds in

these weird little squat brown-glass bottles with small black caps on them. They must have the world supply of that particular bottle shape tied up, since I’ve never seen one anywhere else.

And so on and so forth. Collecting lab artefacts will never be the same again.

Is the microarray replacing DNA as the icon for biomedicine and the life sciences?

By Biomedicine in museums

It looks like microarray patterns are gradually replacing the DNA double helix as the central icon for biomedicine and the life sciences. For example, the new Center for Protein Research at the University of Copenhagen—funded for a ten-year period with 600 mill. DKK (~120 mill. USD) by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and fully operative some time in 2009—has just presented their logo:

thereby adding to the growing iconicity of microarrays, the new wonder tool of life science research. Martha de Menezes famously turned it into art a couple of years ago, we put it as a wall-paper on our blog about a year ago, and many others are beginning to employ the dotted pattern as an icon of the power of bioinformatics and systems biology in the life-sciences.

This particular logo has been worked out in co-operation between Søren Brunak, Michael Sundström and L. N. Jørgensen at the Center together with a graphical design company (‘daugbjerg + lassen’, which I cannot find on Google). Read more in the Center’s last newsletter.

Actually it’s more readable when it’s downsized!

Natasha Demkina (The Girl with X-Ray Eyes) filmed by Phillip Warnell

By Biomedicine in museums

Last year, Phillip Warnell (who made the pill camera installation which Jan Eric has reported about in an earlier post) went to Moscow to meet Natasha Demkina, one of the most famous contemporary medical clairvoyants and media darlings (aka The Girl with X-ray Eyes).

Now Phillips’ film of her scrutinising his body with her purported extra-ordinary ability will be premiered at Warwick Arts Centre on Thursday at 6pm.

After the film, lit crit theoretician Steven Connor will talk on the popular fantasy of acquiring x-ray vision, followed in turn by a showing of Werner Herzog‘s documentary on mystical and shamanic traditions in Russia, Glocken aus der Tiefe: Glaube und Aberglaube in Russland [Bells from the Deep, 2005]. Plenty of vodka will of course be available during the event.

For another critical report on Demkina’s abilities, see here.

Buttons for biomedicine

By Biomedicine in museums

For more than a century, buttons (and badges and pins) have been carried to signal political or ideological allegiance. The appearance of a button tells us (to use Hegelian jargon) that a group of people an sich is becoming a movement or subculture für sich. If you have a political case to make, then produce a button.

Here’s the first example I’ve found of biomedical buttons. The folks behind easternblot are selling these buttons with the blog’s erlenmeyer flask logo. They are made in two colours — not simply red and blue, of course, but ‘Ponceau S Red’ and ‘Bromophenol Blue’:

Easternblot say they have received “a great response from scientists and non-scientists, from children and adults, from button-fanatics and button-novices”.

A must in any exhibition about the culture of contemporary biomedicine. Can be ordered here (wonder if they give a bulk discount if we would like to fill a whole wall?)

Biomedicine on display — via the participatory web

By Biomedicine in museums

I’ve promised to write a chapter with the provisional title ‘Biomedical curating and the participatory web’ for our planned joint project anthology with the (also provisional) title Curating Biomedicine: Collecting, writing and displaying contemporary medicine. Here’s the abstract of the chapter (to be included in the book proposal; we haven’t found a publisher yet):

For more than a decade, museums in general have been exploiting the Internet for making their collections and exhibition available online. In the last 4-5 years museums have also begun to explore the potentials of the participatory web (web 2.0) for drawing users more actively into the production of the heritage. In this chapter I will explore, one the one hand, how museums actively promote the use of the participatory web for curating purposes, and, on the other hand how the increasing online availablility of iconographic and textual information about artefacts (both physical artefacts, images and documents) on user-driven websites (blogs, flickr, etc) provides an extra-mural source of curated objects. In addition, the chapter will also explore the vast resources of curated artefacts that are avaliable through traditional websites, including product catalogues of medicotechnical companies. The chapter will 1) give a state-of-the art overview over the variety of ways in which biomedical objects are represented on the web, 2) discuss the potentials of the participatory web for turning the curation of biomedicine into a more dialogical process between professional curators and amateurs (scientists, engineers, medical doctors), and 3) discuss the prospects for a synergy between museums and the web with respect to curating contemporary medical objects vs. a possible conflict between web-based curating and traditional curating procedures in medical museums.

Science and medical blogs will of course loom large in this chapter. So, in the next of couple of weeks I will post some examples of blogs and other kinds of user-driven websites that display biomedical objects. Ideally, the accumulated posts will then add up to the final chapter — don’t hesitate to engage in a critical discussion of my rambling thoughts. 

MoMA online exhibition of design, science and art

By Biomedicine in museums

If you are interested in seeing examples of how design and art orient themselves towards science (incl. biomedical science and bioinformatics) you can visit Museum of Modern Art’s supersmart on-line exhibition ‘Design and the Elastic Mind’. The exhibition is currently on show at MoMA in New York City (closes next Wed), but the online version will probaly be up for a while. Among other things it has a central piece by Ben Fry who visited us here in Copenhagen last August. 

Auto-Bio-Phagies — a blind alley for those who want to revisit the historical subject

By Biomedicine in museums

For someone like myself who has spent much time writing biography and reflecting on the genre of biography, there has never been much doubt about the central role of the individual subject as a key for understanding scientific practice, including all possible aspects of contemporary biomedicine. In other words, the idea of the decentered subject of poststructuralism and postmodernism has never resonated with my experience.

Accordingly, I’m paying close attention to current signs of a return of the subject in the humanities. Here’s an example: the Department of French Studies and Modern Languages at the University of Cyprus in Nicosia is organizing a conference under the heading ‘Auto-Bio-Phagies’ 31 October–2 November (with the leading theoretician of autobiography, Philippe Lejeune, as invited speaker). What’s interesting with this meeting is that the organizers focus on how the “process of re-subjectivization” is linked to discourses of the body, particularly the metaphor of digestion:

[T]he instrumentalized body is replaced by a bodiliness which becomes the site of the revisited subject. This kind of discourse often focuses on the metaphor of digestion. On the one hand, this metaphor can be the paradigm of every “bio-graphy”, that is of a discourse which might be described in terms of an “orexis” or of an “eating well” which encourages us to “identify with the other, who is to be assimilated, interiorized, understood ideally” (Derrida, “ ‘Eating Well’, or the Calculation of the Subject”). On the other hand, this very metaphor is equally present in the writing of “auto-bio-graphy”, given that “a strong and successful man digests his experiences (his actions, including his evil actions) as he digests his meals” (Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals). This conference aims to explore the multiple facets of the disappearance and the resurgence of the subject placing special emphasis on the discourses of the body and of the self, in order to investigate what the neologism of the title, namely auto-bio-phagy, might mean.

This seems to me like a blind alley. The problem is that they continue to think the “resurgence of the subject” in linguistic terms. They apparently do not accept digestion as a physiological process outside discourse, but only as a metaphor. Not the body as a physiological process outside discourse, but only “discourses of the body”. So there is still much work to do to firmly base the understanding of the subject, including the biomedical subject, in non-discursive bodily experiences. What do you think, Adam?

For further info, see the Nietzsche News Center website.

Avoid boring Watson

By Biomedicine in museums

It took the local university bookstore for ever to get my copy of famous molecular geneticist James D. Watson’s Avoid Boring People. Lessons from a Life in Science (Knopf 2007) ordered and shipped – so apologies for this late review.

Like biographies, autobiographies are written and read for a multitude of purposes, from trying to settle priority disputes to producing a piece of literature. Watson (who shared the medical Nobel Prize in 1962 for his construction, with Francis Crick, of the double helix model of DNA, and then played a significant role in the subsequent triumph of molecular biology) has chosen another option. He has penned the history of his life in the form of a “recollection of manners” deployed to navigate in Academia. A self-help book for scientists and academics “on their way up”, as he puts it.

Consequently each of the 15 chronologically ordered chapters ends with a number of succinct “remembered lessons” statements with snappy titles, like “Have a big objective that makes you fell special”, or “Sit in the front row when a seminar’s title intrigues you”, or “Delegate as much authority as possible” — 109 altogether. Here’s one which I hope many colleagues in my generation will read and contemplate:

Never be the brightest person in a room.

Getting out of intellectual ruts more often than not requires unexpected intellectual jousts. Nothing can replace the company of others who have the background to catch errors in your reasoning or provide facts that may either prove or disprove your argument of the moment. And the sharper those around you, the sharper you will become. It’s contrary to human nature, and especially to human male nature, but being the top dog in the pack can work against greater accomplishments. Much better to be the least accomplished chemist in a super chemistry department than the superstar in a less lustrous department. By the early 1950s, Linus Pauling’s scientific interactions with fellow scientists were effectively monologues instead of dialogues. He then wanted adoration, not criticism.

One must admit that Watson has more often than not lived up to this particular advice. Last autumn’s row over his racist statements, during the promotion tour for this book, about the innate intellectual capacity of black people certainly didn’t bring much adoration.

But this aside, the self-help book format is an excellent idea. During the 19th century, scientific lives were often written and read for their instructive value, but since the beginning of the last century, self-help biographies and autobiographies of scientists have been virtually extinct as a genre. I find it hard to believe that Watson has deliberately chosen to rejuvenate this old practice, however, or even that he has been aware of the history of autobiography. His choice of this unusual format is probably rather a case of independent genre construction, and if so, it is yet another indication of Watson’s greatest personality trait: his independence and creativity.

I’m afraid this is all I can say in favour of this book, however. The rest of Avoid Boring People is a conventional, unengaging and, yes, boring autobiographical story. Too many banalities, too many unnecessary details, too few surprises. I read on, page after page, just to find out that nothing has really caught my interest. As we’ve seen so many times before, succesful scientists are not necessarily succesful autobiographers. 

Even the “remembered lessons” are becoming somewhat trite. Admittedly, some of them are excellent, worth copying and hanging above your desk as daily reminders (“Two obsessions are one too many”, is my favourite one). But others are self-evident, or a trifle too idiosyncratic (like “Avoid gatherings of more than two Nobel Prize winners”, or “Spend your prize money on a home”).

And as the book advances you begin to realise that these self-help lessons are really of a quite different kind than those of the ancients. 19th century self-help biographies were aimed at cultivating the virtues of the reader, not his individual career and success. With few exceptions, however, these 109 Watsonian lessons are all about making it to the top. Many advices could as well be directed to a CEO, or a budding presidential candidate.

Generally, there is very much fascination with success and fame in this book, but very little evidence of Watson’s fascination with science. So little that, after having finished Avoid Boring People, I began to wonder if the famous Jim Watson has ever been really passionate about science. Or did he take up science just in order to make success and become a celebrity? Has his obsession with success excluded his obsession with science? And if this is so, is this really a lesson one wants to give on to one’s students?

PS: My hardback copy presents an enigma. The Avoid Boring People title of Watson’s autobiography is printed on the spine, in the front matter of the book, on the dust cover, and in the Library of Congress catalogue entry. But – in certain angles of light the title on the dust cover changes to ‘Avoid Boring Other People’ (not visible on the cover pic above). Which, of course, give an extra dimension to the lessons presented here. It’s thus not just a question of egotistically avoiding the bores of the world, it’s also a reflexive imperative: avoid boring them as well! But why is this printed on the dust cover only? And why is there no hint to this alternative title in the book? Has Watson okayed the dust cover copy? Or is it a joke of a Knopf editor?

PPS: It’s not the first time orders through our university bookstore are delayed; we’ll soon have to find another supplier.

Taming microarrays

By Biomedicine in museums

As announced in an earlier post, the third meeting of the Genetics and Medicine Historical Network (GMHN; see more about the network here) organized by pharmaceutical historian Toine Pieters at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam is taking place in sunny Barcelona on 30-31 May. The meeting is about all possible interesting aspects (historical, science studies, ethics, public understanding, etc.) of the rise of medical genetics and genomics in the last decades.

I’m placed in a double-session, chaired by Ruth Chadwick, called ‘Taming Microarrays’. When I sent in the proposal a couple of months ago, I titled the paper “Microarrays and the Empire/Multitude-distinction: A ‘presence’-approach to the public engagement with microarray technology and SNP genotyping”. Realizing now that this is a ridiculously long and unintelligible title, I think I will change it to something more snappy. Maybe ‘Microchip Museum, Inc.’ will work better? (Got the idea from Paul Werner’s recent book Museum Inc.)  Anyway, a short version of it will appear on this blog within a couple of weeks.

And here’s the full list of papers for the two-day meeting. We’re going to be busy from early morning to late afternoon both days, but since almost everyone in the field will be there, it will definitely be worth the hard work):

  • Celeste Condit (Department of Speech Communication, University of Georgia, USA): From the “Central Dogma” to Gene “Expression”: Materialist Understandings of Human Being
  • Heena Patel, C. Kramer, S. Patel, A. Cashmore (GENIE, University of Leicester, UK): The Sickness of Genes? Exploring the attitudes towards genetics in the community
  • Sophia Vackimes (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, Germany): Genetic literacy and dystopian visions
  • K. Mathieson, M. Leech, L. Holmes, J. Ayres (Nowgen, Centre for Genetics in Healthcare, University of Manchester, UK): Dialogue events on genetic medicine
  • Heike Petermann (University of Münster, Germany): Brave New World? Reflections on the role of utopias and their public understanding in the history of human genetics.
  • Matiana González-Silva (Centro de Estudios de Historia de las Ciencias (CEHIC)-Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona): The rhetoric of hope: The promises of the HGP in the Spanish daily press
  • Christian Simon (Bioethics School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, USA): No more “gifted” knowledge: African American perspectives on the obligations of genetics researchers to reciprocate data
  • A. Wilde, B. Meiser, PB Mitchell, C Bonfiglioli & PR Schofield (School of Psychiatry, Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, and Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Sydney, Australia): The impact of news coverage of the genetics of major depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia
  • Arantza Etxeberria Agiriano, Antonio Casado da Rocha (University of the Basque Country, Spain): Ethical challenges of genetic biobanks
  • Victor Rodriguez (TNO Innovation Policy Group, The Netherlands): Is there a failure of concern on modes and impact of material transfer? A review of the empirical evidence
  • Vincenzo Pavone (Institute for public goods, CSIC, Spain): Genetic testing, geneticization and social change
  • Øivind Michelsen (University of Oslo, Norway): Morality of inclusion: reflections on the legitimacy of population structuring by ‘race’ in contemporary medical genetics
  • Vence L. Bonham, S. Sellers, D. Frank (National Human Genome Research Institute (NIH), Bethesda, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA): US Physicians’ attitudes towards race, genetics and clinical medicine
  • Stephen Snelders, Charles D. Kaplan, Frans J. Meijman and Toine Pieters (VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands/ University of Houston, USA): Genetics in the doctoring of cancer and alcoholism – Historical lessons on racial and ethnic discrimination
  • María Fernanda Olarte Sierra (Amsterdam School for Social Science Research, The Netherlands): Amniocentesis: A troubled hope (The Columbian experience)
  • Shahid Mahmood Baig, Marriam Bakhtiar (Human Molecular Genetics Laboratory, NIBGE, Faisalabad, Pakistan): Controlling monogenic disorders through cascade testing, prenatal diagnosis and genetic counseling in a highly consanguineous population
  • Martina Cornel, Toine Pieters, Carla van El (VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands): Governing the balance between ‘duty to protect’ and ‘right to test’
  • Ilana Löwy (CERMES, Paris, France): Preimplanatory diagnosis and cancer risk
  • Soraya de Chadarevian (UCLA Center for Society and Genetics, LA, USA): Karyotyping human populations in the 1960s
  • María Jesús Santesmases (CSIC, Instituto de Filosofía, Madrid): Establishing karyotypes: from children to fetus, 1966-1976
  • Adam Hedgecoe (Department of Sociology, University of Sussex, UK): Genomic Expectations, Bioethics and the Social Sciences
  • J.H. Fujimura and Ramya Rajagopalan (University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA): Fishin’ Chips: Microarrays as predictive technology in biomedical genomics
  • Bertrand Jordan (Marseille-Nice Genopole, Marseille, France): Why is the adoption of DNA microarrays for clinical diagnostics so slow?
  • Susan Rogers (McGill University, Montreal, Canada): Collaborating on comparability: How standards and regulation sustain microarray experimentation
  • Ellen H.M. Moors and Tilo Propp (Utrecht University, The Netherlands): Genomics based expectations of personalised health: An innovation systems perspective
  • Marianne Boenink, F. Lucivero, T. Swierstra (University of Twente, The Netherlands): An ethics of promising
  • Wieser Bernhard (Inter-University Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture, University of Klagenfurt, Austria): Guiding public accounts of genetics: a strategic enterprise
  • Xiaomei Zhai (Director of the Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, Peking Union Medical College, China): Public understanding of genetics in China
  • Philippe Mustar, Alberto Cambrosio and Andrei Mogoutov (École des Mines, Paris, France / McGill University, Montreal, Canada / Aguidel, Paris, France): Microarrays as collective innovation
  • Pascale Bourret, Alberto Cambrosio and Peter Keating (UMR 912 INSERM-IRD-Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France / McGill University, Montreal, Canada / UQAM, Montreal, Canada): Governing Microarrays
  • Thomas Söderqvist (University of Copenhagen, Denmark): Microarrays and the Empire/Multitude-distinction: A ‘presence’-approach to the public engagement with microarray technology and SNP genotyping
  • Carla van El, Toine Pieters, Martina Cornel (Community Genetics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands): An unhappy wedding between genetic screening and prevention
  • Neal Holtan (University of Minnesota, Program in the History of Medicine, Minneapolis, USA): Public health genetics in mid-twentieth century Minnesota
  • Peter Harper (Institute of Medical Genetics, Cardiff University, UK): The future of the history of human genetics; the role of archives

For full programme, see also here.