# data[].attributes.headline
‘Biological Citizenship: The Science and Politics of Chernobyl-Exposed Populations’, Summary

# data[].attributes.subject
‘Biological Citizenship: The Science and Politics of Chernobyl-Exposed Populations’, Summary

# data[].attributes.body
Petryna’s article on the politics of Chernobyl-exposed populations mainly focuses on the emergence of a new form of knowledge and discourse about illness and its connection to the political, economic, and legal dimensions. As a result of the catastrophe in Ukraine (as well as Belarus, but it is not the topic of the article), there was an emergence of a new category of population – sufferers (‘poterpili’) – which was defined by being somehow affected by the radiation. This new category was an ‘at-risk’ population which required continuous medical attention and state support. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has condemned the Soviet management of the accident and has been using it to reclaim both domestic and international legitimacy by implementing european-level safety regulations and controls. However, work protection in the 2000s was still deficient, radiation safety decided on the local level, and the amount of people claiming the disabled or affected status was increasing. As a result, the collapse of ‘knowledge’ has occurred, that is, the previous information about the catastrophe and its impacts was seen as wrong; naturally, after some time, a new construction has emerged – ‘biological citizenship’. Biological citizenship is a demand for social welfare based on medical and legal criteria that can recognise an injury and compensate for it, since citizens have to depend on technologies and legal procedures to gain political recognition and be eligible for social welfare inclusion. The illness, as a result, amounts to a form of ‘market compensation’ and is used as a means to earn a status that would bring economic and political welfare. Thus, suffering is appropriated to its legal, economic, and political dimensions.

Questions:

What is the correlation between illness, political recognition, and the pursuit of social welfare?

What part does corruption play in this emergence of biological citizenship?

Is there a connection between health and social welfare in non-Chernobyl related cases?

Do you think it is morally correct to use suffering and/or illness as a means to gain social and economic benefit from the state after the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe? How does Petryna view this from a moral standpoint?

# data[].attributes.body
Smith (2006) - “There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster”

Smith’s paper discusses the social, political and environmental fallout in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and whether a disaster of this proportion can ever be attributed to solely ‘natural’ causes.

The natural event of the hurricane occurring was a disaster in itself in that it caused mass destruction in New Orleans, killing thousands and causing billions of dollars of infrastructural damage. But this disaster is defined by the severe social inequalities which were revealed as a result of the disaster. Smith argues that the area had an innate vulnerability to catastrophic hurricanes due to its topography, but that social inequities meant that this area was mostly inhabited by poorer residents, more unable to evacuate in the event of a disaster and less financially capable to recover after such an event. The social vulnerabilities go further than class, revealing a racial element too as the majority of refugees after Katrina were African American and so, just due to their race and social standing, had an increased vulnerability to the risks of this disaster. In all, Smith argues that a natural disaster does not exist, as the disastrous element of such an event is caused by the impact that the geography has on the social and political.

Discussion question: How can cities be built to reduce social and racial vulnerabilities to natural hazards?

# data[].attributes.body
Hilgartner (2007) – Overflow and Containment in the Aftermath of Disaster

Hilgartner is exploring in this paper what one might expect from official investigations in the aftermath of disaster, using Hurricane Katrina as a case study. They explain that although this is difficult to predict, the field of science and technology studies have produced substantial literature, and they now have seven points of major themes within this. They refer to the belief that there is ‘no natural disasters, only sociotechnical ones’ p153, that to have political legitimacy you need to have manageable sociotechnical systems, which leads onto disasters creating collective experiences that challenge the vision of these orderly systems. Furthermore, they discuss how state governments need to be creating a discourse of protection, how public inquires play an important role in frame responsibilities and reassurances, and how these inquires influence future efforts.

In referring to Hurricane Katrina, Hilgartner discusses how this disaster conforms to many elements of these ideals. There was immediate political damage, and the state governments were unable to provide protection. Furthermore, there were multiple enquiries initiated, and at the time of writing, Hilgartner predicts that there will be a prolonged period of this, including a series of investigations allocating responsibility. However, they also argue that this won’t increase attention to structural inequalities and ‘'The cascades of overflows in the aftermath of Katrina will disperse responsibility over many actors.' p156.

Discussion questions:

Do you agree that there is no such thing as a natural disaster?

Do political actors face substantial consequences as a result of public inquiries and investigations?

How impactful are public enquiries in uncovering cause and blame?

# data[].attributes.body
molecularization

epidemiology

environmental justice

genomics

race

# data[].attributes.body
-Exploitation of environment for for right agenda

↳ Laporations and social elilas

-Politics of reproduction

-Heberonomativity

-Right-wing Christians: Heterosexual, patriarchal families natural and divinely created.

-“conservative film critic and radio host Michael Medved was quoted as say- ing: “[The March of the Penguins] passionately affirms traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice and child rearing....” -p.109

--Roy and Silo-Central Park Z00

-Symbol of sabotaging Christian conservation:

-Human investment in animal relationships

-Use of biology to explain relations VERY problematic

· Al Gore for environment campaign use of penguins/polar bears

-Blame for human population booming put or poor non-white people (p. 16]

-Human nature able to choose and and change its environment instead of biological issues.

↳ Free will vs. Determinism Debate

# data[].attributes.headline
Shostak discussion - keywords that i got no clue about 

# data[].attributes.subject
Shostak discussion - keywords that i got no clue about 

# data[].attributes.body
micro- and macro-politics

etiology

biomarkers

toxicogenomics

biopower

# data[].attributes.headline
Shostak discussion - keywords that i got a vague idea about 

# data[].attributes.subject
Shostak discussion - keywords that i got a vague idea about 

# data[].attributes.body
Molecularization

Genetic susceptibility

Locus of responsibility

# data[].attributes.body
Penguin family values: The nature of planetary environmental reproductive justice (Sturgeon, 2010)

In this paper, Sturgeon (2010) explores the intersections between environmental, reproductive, and social justice issues – using penguins as a segue. Beginning with the surprising interpretation of the documentary ‘March of the Penguins’ as an example of monogamy and traditional Christian family values with the penguins’ behaviour perceived by some as an aspirational model for human family values, Sturgeon examines the contradictions apparent. Penguins at the time were also increasingly being viewed as symbols of gay marriage – presenting this interesting paradox, seemingly unknown to many.

Sturgeon also examines the utilisation of penguins, alongside polar bears, as visual imagery to raise environmental consciousness, particularly in the context of global warming. These images have become ingrained in popular culture, transforming penguins into cultural symbols that evoke emotions and personify planetary phenomena. For Sturgeon, though, this raises the question of what happens to the human populations hardest-hit by the effects of climate change and this idea of environmental justice, with these impacts not distributed evenly. We see this iconisation of these animals as having serious implications then, with such imagery localising climate change to remote places like the Antarctic, seemingly overlooking the Indigenous communities, for example, bearing the brunt.

Introducing the term ‘environmental reproductive justice’ to help connect environmental, reproductive and social justice issues, Sturgeon explores the implications of heteronormativity in shaping family values and societal structures. Interestingly, this narrative challenges the portrayal of suburban American families as “natural”, highlighting the exploitative nature of the consumerist reliance on the Global South.

Considering reproductive rights in tandem with environmental justice: what might this look like? Sturgeon takes issue with Gore’s (2006) documentary series An Inconvenient Truth, making the argument that it reproduces ideas that overpopulation is the issue, with the “reproduction of the planet…most threatened by the reproduction of people, especially people of colour” (Sturgeon, 2010:124). Why is it that we often see industrialising countries attributed to causing an imbalance in the Earth system? Here, there appears to be no recognition that higher reproduction rates does not necessarily equate to high consumption lifestyles – again, founded on Western notions of family, neglecting the diversity of family structures globally. Why do we see the persistence of this false narrative within environmentalism that somehow the suburban nuclear family is ‘best’?

Discussion questions:

1. How effective is visual imagery in raising global environmental consciousness?

2. How can we reframe discussions around environmental challenges to address the wide-ranging environmental impacts without perpetuating harmful stereotypes about communities or particular regions?

3. And, how can we make these discussions about ‘responsibility’ more nuanced, focusing on individual lifestyles rather than making assumptions and sweeping generalisations?

# data[].attributes.body
Helmreich tackles an ongoing contradiction in contemporary society, what is socially constructed and what is natural. He does this through the lens of Hawaii's aquatic invasion, arguing that scientists think about natives within the parameters of nature, time, culture and agency. Examples of the limu and Faris's molluscs highlight this intersection between culture and nature, and the ways in which biology and influence politics and law.

It is clear throughout the text that scientific statements differ on how to think about native non-humans, thus perhaps calling into question the universality of biology and perhaps the western centrism present in it.

1) Is the idea of classifications a biologist or anthropologist issue? i.e. Is it scientifically constructed or socially constructed?

2) Based on the reading, how might you define native / invasive species?

# data[].attributes.body
Subramaniam argues that the language and rhetoric used to describe foreign plants and animals as exotic, alien, and invasive reflects a cultural anxiety about globalization and nationalism.

Criticizes the environmentalist bias against alien species and the assumption that everything should be in its “rightful” place in the world, also questions the identity of the “natives” who claim to belong to the land they colonized.

The battle against invasive and alien plants is a symptom of a movement that imposes misplaced anxieties about various (economic, social, political, cultural) changes onto foreigners

Questions:

1. What is the relationship between nature and culture (and how would you define those terms)?

2. Is the focus on alien species disproportionate to the actual effect of alien species?

3. Does the current political mood truly have such influence over terms and labels in natural sciences?

# data[].attributes.body
Cronon believes it is the time to rethink the environmentalist notion that wilderness is a place untouched by ‘human disease’ (1). Instead, think how the concept of wilderness has been created by human culture, with its meaning changing from barren, and dangerous in the 18th century to a spectacle from the end of the nineteenth century. There are two main ways of thinking about wilderness: sublime and frontier. Sublime wilderness is romanticised, often spoken with spiritual context by poets, whereas frontier wilderness is anti-modernity and suggests a more primitive return to origin. People who support the notion of the frontier are often masculine individualists. The idea of wilderness is heavily classist: the wilderness experience is only open to rich people who can take holiday while lower class farmers are villainized for making their living off the land.

The wilderness debate is full of ironic dualisms whereby wilderness is defined as untouched land, yet requires human management to preserve it (which would thereby prevent it from being wild). Cronon suggests that we need ‘an environmental ethic’ (16) that brings wilderness closer to home.  It includes practising gratitude for the nature more local to us, such as a pond in our gardens, and protecting this nature, as well as distant wilderness, as he claims most serious environmental problems begin at home. We need to relearn how to live in nature.

1. What does wilderness mean to you?

2. Do you dis/agree: ‘wilderness is a figment of human imagination.’

3. To what extent has our modern idea of nature been constructed?

4. According to Bill McKibben in The end of Nature, nature as previous generations have understood it has entirely changed. He believes that we now experience nature that has been completely altered by human activity. To what extent do you agree/disagree?

# data[].attributes.body
RISAKO

1) What is the purpose of GM crop production?
2) What are the risks of GM foods?
3) Is GM crop essential for global food security?

LEILA

1) How can we make the general public more open to the idea of GM crops and foods?
For example: Should scientists make the general public trust their findings more? How? Should schools teach about GMs more, or does this step over a line? Perhaps a student's parents do not want them learning about GMs due to their own beliefs...

2) Do you think it is fair to call GMOs "Frankenfood"? Or, could this term be used to describe other food?

3) Does the term "Frankenfood" contribute negatively to the image of GM crops and foods?

# data[].attributes.body
Massey
In this article, Massey debunks the fear surrounding 'genetically modified' crops in a laboratory. Massey explains that the majority of this fear stems from misunderstanding by the general public. Many individuals do not even realise that plants have genes in the first place, meaning they envision 'genetic modification' as scientists in a laboratory injecting plants with strange substances, like a scene from a SciFi movie. Massey points out how genetic modification has been ongoing for thousands of years - yet in a way the general public would consider "less scientific". From the beginning of time, as hunter-gathers, we would collect plants with specific traits and breed them. We took on the role of a god-like creator, removing seeds and toxins to create fleshier and more edible fruit. Later, we experimented with radiation which created thousands of genes we do not know the role of. In a way, genetic modification is safer as we do know the role of the genes in the plants.

Gusterson
Gusterson utilises discourse analysis to understand the truth behind these anti-GM food views. Gusterson explains that many are concerned with the safety of GM foods and distrust scientists. Allegedly, many are frightened of unknown allergens in GMOs. However, Gusterson exposes that this fear stems from the work of a controversial scientist. Some dislike the 'terminator gene' which strips the plant of the ability to reproduce, yet this ability has been reduced for years - even prior to GMOs through selective/cross breeding. Many propose GMOs are unnecessary because we already have enough food in the West and this will create a stronger divide between us and third-world countries, who have a food shortage. However, Gusterson explains that GMOs can help poorer countries as they can contain vitamins and medicine to improve the citizen's health, meaning the production of these should not be discouraged. Consequently, instead of gatekeeping GMOs in the West, GMOs should be distributed to third world countries. Gusterson explains that there is no evidence to suggest GMOs are dangerous and they may be considered safer, seeing as we know which genes are in them. Yet the distrust between the general public and scientists means many are not ready to take the jump.

# data[].attributes.body
Massey
Adrianne Massey is a biologist. In this paper, Massey describes GM crops from a biological perspective. Many of the vegetables and fruits people eat daily are produced by intervening in nature and interfering with the evolutionary process of crops over a long period to make them easier to grow and tastier. For example, humans have developed crops with impossible characteristics in natural crosses by selecting and breeding those with altered character through natural mutations or by crossbreeding different varieties. Such techniques have also created new random genes using mutagenic agents to give desirable properties to more than 1,550 crop varieties. These GM techniques have achieved an increased range of improvements and have led to the development of insect-resistant and disease-resistant crops and crop varieties with low levels of unpleasant and unhealthy substances for humans. The FDA requires testing and labelling for safety and nutritional value when marketing these GM crops. However, Massey points out that the FDA's labelling and naming of GM foods is misleading because crops are domesticated plants that people have been eating for years, created from wild plants and improved. Thus, Massey consistently takes a positive stance on GM foods and does not detail actual harm and accidents to biodiversity or human health caused by GM.

Gusterson

Hugh Gusterson is a scientific anthropologist. Gusterson summarises the arguments for and against GM crops. GM foods are the product of a scientific endeavour to understand and utilise the structure and function of living organisms. GM crops developed include insect-resistant, disease-resistant and functional varieties with adjusted content of certain nutrients. Pro-GM activists argue that further GM food development could make a social contribution to the problems of hunger, malnutrition and the ongoing global degradation and decline of arable land. There are many uncertainties about the effects of manipulating DNA, which is a black box, and artificially causing phenomena that would not usually occur in nature. Gusterson makes little reference to the financial benefits of GM crops to the biotech industry. In contrast, opponents of GM equate such companies trying to commodify with pollution. Anti-GM activists also have images of GM crops as hybrids associated with the destruction of nature, genetic pollution, and contaminated DNA and mutations. Gusterson uses Douglas and Haraway's theory to explain the origins of these images of anti-GM activists. Gusterson explains that GM crops create fear and disgust because they cause disruption and threaten social order by deviating from the basic binary categories of nature and culture.

# data[].attributes.headline
week 11: uncertainty, indeterminancy - BSE crisis :

# data[].attributes.subject
week 11: uncertainty, indeterminancy - BSE crisis :

# data[].attributes.body
Adam

Hinchliffe - Lily

# data[].attributes.body
Beck

Wynne

# data[].attributes.headline
week 9: Chernobyl Disaster –  human and animal disaster :(

# data[].attributes.subject
week 9: Chernobyl Disaster –  human and animal disaster :(

# data[].attributes.body
Petryna

Alexandra Nikolaeva

Raffles

# data[].attributes.headline
week 8: Un/natural Disaster: Hurricane Katrina & The Bhopal Disaster

# data[].attributes.subject
week 8: Un/natural Disaster: Hurricane Katrina & The Bhopal Disaster

# data[].attributes.body
Hilgartner

Amy Howe

Neil. Smith

Megan Spary

Madeleine Votaw

Fortun

# data[].attributes.headline
week 7: Environmental Justice (genomics and race; family values)

# data[].attributes.subject
week 7: Environmental Justice (genomics and race; family values)

# data[].attributes.body
Shostak

Sturgeon

Heidi

# data[].attributes.headline
week 5: Making Species: Natives, Aliens, Invasives

# data[].attributes.subject
week 5: Making Species: Natives, Aliens, Invasives

# data[].attributes.body
Helmreich

- Izzy Crossland
Shannen

Subramaniam

Lucas

# data[].attributes.headline
week 4: Trouble with Wilderness and Nature as Community

# data[].attributes.subject
week 4: Trouble with Wilderness and Nature as Community

# data[].attributes.body
Cronon

Rachel

Di Chiro

Natalie

# data[].attributes.headline
week 3: local vs. global enc. (whale hunting & global imagery)

# data[].attributes.subject
week 3: local vs. global enc. (whale hunting & global imagery)

# data[].attributes.body
Martello

Jasanoff

# data[].attributes.body
Massey

Gusterson

~~~~~~~~~
Leila Benabid

Risako