Advertisement

Introduction

  • Francesca Molfino
  • Flavia Zucco

In the area of natural and physical science, biology, as a life science, seeks to account both for the conservation of individuals and the invariance of certain laws of the discipline, and for their transformations. It seeks to construct laws and at the same time account for processes that often seem to be incompatible with their absolute, generalised nature. On the inclusion of man in contemporary science we see a form that we might define as ‘phagotization of the human dimension in its biological sense, and a rootedness of our humanness in the material bases common to all living things (e.g. DNA, physical-metabolic functions, cognitive neural connections, knowledge of the outside world dependent on belonging to the species)’ (Gagliasso 2001). The aim is to account for the entire human person (psychic characteristics, forms of societal and economic organisation) through the apparatus of the laws of biological evolution, recently integrated with the laws of molecular genetics and population genetics.

However, once the human species found a place as an object of the natural sciences, it should have brought with it the relevant set of humanities but, since they were deemed insufficient for the production of ‘scientific’ truths, and thus unreliable, no intermediate space was created for exchange between the various ways of thinking about humankind. The rift between the various forms of knowledge that had begun to open in the last few centuries grew wider and deeper. This separateness was imposed in part because it was believed that science could draw upon the ‘absolute truth’ (credibility turned to faith), thereby substituting the certainties belonging to religion, philosophy and psychology.

Keywords

Genetically Modify Female Body Genetically Modify Food Feminist Criticism Contemporary Science 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alicchio, R., & Pezzoli, C. (1988). Donne di scienza: esperienze e riflessioni. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
  2. Appleby, M. C. (1999). Tower of Babel: Variation in ethical approaches, concepts of welfare and attitudes to genetic manipulation. Animal Welfare, 8, 381–390.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Balsamo, A. (2000). Reading cyborgs writing feminism. In G. Kirkup, L. Janes, K. Wooward, & F. Hovenden (Eds.), The gendered cyborg: a reader (pp. 148–158). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bauman, Z. (2007). Modus Vivendi. Inferno ed utopia del mondo liquido. Roma, Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (p. 221). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Benigni, L., Menniti, A., & Palomba, R. (Eds.) (1988). Pubblici scienziati: la carriera imperfetta. Sistema ricerca (Suppl. 9).Google Scholar
  7. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2001). Chemical analysis: Language reform played an integral role in the development of a discipline. Nature, 410, 415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2004). Two cultures of nanotechnology? International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 10, 65–82.Google Scholar
  9. Birke, L. (1986). Women, feminism, and biology: The feminist challenge. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  10. Braidotti, R. (2002). Metamorphoses. Towards a Materialist Theory of Becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Calabrò, A. R. (1997). L’ambivalenza come risorsa. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  13. Damasio, A. R., Harrington, A., Kagan, J. et al. (Eds.) (2001). Unity of knowledge: The convergence of natural and human science. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 935.Google Scholar
  14. Donini, E. (1990). La nube e il limite. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
  15. Doull, J. (1984). The past, present, and future of toxicology. Pharmacological Reviews, 36, 15S–18S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Doull, J. (2003). The “Red Book” and other risk assessment milestones. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 9(5), 1229–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fantone, L. (2003). From dissection to digital genetic maps: Representations of the (female) body and the political implications of genetic research. Paper presented at Gender and Power in the New Europe, the 5th European Feminist Conference, Lund University, Sweden, August 20–24, 2003.Google Scholar
  18. Fausto-Sterling, A. (1992). Myths of gender. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: Bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65, 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gadamer, H. G. (1983). Reason in the age of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gagliasso, E. (2001). Verso un’epistemologia del mondo vivente (pp. 216–217). Milano: Guerini Studio.Google Scholar
  22. Gane, N. (2006). When we have never been human, what is to be done? Interview with Donna Haraway. Theory Culture Society, 23, 135–158. DOI: 10.1177/0263276406069228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate vision: gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
  25. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Harding, S. (Ed.) (1993). The “racial” economy of science: Toward a democratic future. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Harding, S. (1998a). Is science multicultural?. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Harding, S. (1998b). Women, science and society. Science, 281, 1599–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hobsbawm, E. J. (1994). Age of extremes: The short twentieth century 1914–1991. New York: Pantheon Books/Random House.Google Scholar
  30. Hubbard, R. (1990). The politics of women’s biology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
  32. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Keller, E. F. (2005).The century beyond the gene. Journal of Biosciences, 30, 3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelly, K. (1998). The third culture. Science, 279(13), 992–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kiessling, A. A. (2001). In the stem-cell debate, new concepts need new words. Nature, 413, 453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus bedeviled: Science and the contradictions of contemporary culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Malmfors, T., & Rosing, H. (2002). Introduction–risk from philosophy of science point of view. Toxicology, 181/182, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merchant, C. (1979). The death of nature. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  41. Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. (1963). Sociological ambivalence. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Mitroff, J. I. (1974). Norms and counter–norms in select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mohanty, C. T. (1997). Women workers and capitalist scripts: Ideologies of domination, common interests, and the politics of solidarity. In M. J. Alexander & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), Feminist genealogies, colonial legacies, democratic futures. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Nowotny, H. (2005). Unersättliche Neugier: Innovation in einer fragilen Zukunft. Berlin: Kulturverlag Kadmos.Google Scholar
  46. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2002). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Porter, D. G. (1992). Ethical scores for animal experiments. Nature, 356, 101–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosser, S. V. (2000). Women, science and society (pp. 46–47). New York/London: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rotblat, J. (1999). A hippocratic oath for scientists. Science, 286, 1475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sayre, A. (1975). Rosalind Franklin and DNA. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  51. Schiebinger, L. (1989). The mind has no sex? Women in the origin of modern science. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Scienza e potere, coscienza del limite (1986). Quaderni di Donne e politica (Suppl. 5).Google Scholar
  54. Selinger, E., & Crease R. P. (2006). The philosophy of expertise. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Shiva, V. (2001). Protect or plumber? Understanding intellectual property rights. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  56. Sloviter, R. S. (2002). Apoptosis: A guide for the perplexed. Trends in Pharmacological Science, 33, 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Snow, C. P. (1959). Two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge/London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Touraine, A. (2006). Le monde des femmes (p. 190). Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  59. Wajcman, J. (2004). Technofeminism (p. 81). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wilczek, F. (2001). When words fail: Scientists have to struggle with words that don’t fit reality. Nature, 410, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ziman, J. (1996). Is science losing its objectivity? Nature, 382, 751–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ziman, J. (1998). Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be? Science, 282, 1813–1814.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RomeItaly
  2. 2.RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations