This article is concerned with the ways in which people who work in and use a cancer genetics clinic in the UK talk about the `gene for cancer'. By conceptualizing such a gene as a boundary object, and using empirical data derived from clinic consultations, observations in a genetics laboratory and interviews with patients, the author seeks to illustrate how the various parties involved adopt different discursive strategies to appropriate, describe and understand what is apparently the `same' thing.The consequent focus on the ways in which the rhetorical and syntactical features of lay and professional talk interlink and diverge illustrates not merely how our contemporary knowledge of genes and genetics is structured, but also how different publics position themselves with respect to the biochemistry of life.
American Society of Clinical Oncology (1998 ) Cancer Genetics and Cancer Predisposition Testing. Alexandria, VA: ASCO.
2.
Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
Black, M. (1962) Models and Metaphors. Structure in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
Bourret, P. (2005) `BRCA Patients and Clinical Collectives', Social Studies of Science35(1): 41—68.
5.
Bowker, G.C. and S.L. Star (1999) Sorting Things Out. Classification and its Consequences . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Condit, C. (1999a) The Meanings of the Gene. Public debates about human heredity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
7.
Condit, C. (1999b) `How the Public Understands Genetics: Non-Deterministic and Non-Discriminatory Interpretations of the Blueprint Metaphor', Public Understanding of Science8: 169—80.
8.
Descola, P. (1996) `Constructing Natures: Symbolic Ecology and Social Practice', in P. Descola and G. Palsson (eds) Nature and Society. Anthropological perspectives, pp. 82—102. London: Routledge.
9.
Durant, J., A. Hansen and M. Bauer (1996) `Public Understandings of the New Genetics', in T. Marteau and M. Richards (eds) The Troubled Helix. Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics, pp. 235—48. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
10.
Durkheim, E. and M. Mauss (1903/1963) Primitive Classification, transl. by R. Needham. London: Cohen & West.
11.
Fujimura, J. (1996) Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
Galison, P. (1997) Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Gibbon, S. (2002) `Re-examining Geneticization. Family Trees in Breast Cancer Genetics', Science as Culture11(4): 429—57.
14.
Gilbert, G.N. and M. Mulkay (1984) Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Gross, A.G. (1996) The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Hedgecoe, A. (1998) `Geneticization, Medicalisation and Polemics', Medicine, Healthcare andPhilosophy1: 235—43.
17.
Heidegger, M. (1959) An Introduction to Metaphysics, transl. by R. Manheim. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
Hesse, M.B. (1966) Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
19.
Kay, L.E. (2000) Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
Keller, E.F. (1995) Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth Century Biology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
21.
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson (2003) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar (1979) Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London: Sage.
23.
Lynch, M. (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
24.
Lynch, M. and S. Woolgar (eds) (1990) Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
25.
Myers, G. (1990) Writing Biology: Texts in the Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
26.
Nelkin, D. (2001) `Molecular Metaphors: The Gene in Popular Discourse ', Nature Reviews2: 555—9.
27.
Nerlich, B. and I. Hellsten (2004) `Genomics: Shifts in Metaphorical Landscape Between 2000 and 2003', New Genetics and Society23(3): 255—68.
28.
Prior, L. (2001) `Rationing Through Risk Assessment in Clinical Genetics', Sociology of Health and Illness23(5): 570—93.
29.
Prior, L. (2003) `Belief, Knowledge and Expertise: The Emergence of the Lay Expert in Medical Sociology', Sociology of Health and Illness24(2): 41—57.
30.
Prior, L., F. Wood, J. Gray, R. Pill and D. Hughes (2002) `Making Risk Visible: The Role of Images in the Assessment of Cancer Genetic Risk', Health, Risk and Society4(3): 242—58.
31.
Proctor, R. (1995) Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer. New York, NY: Basic Books.
32.
Rabinow, P. (1996) Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
Richards, M. (1996) `Families, Kinship and Genetics', in T. Marteau and M. Richards (eds) The Troubled Helix: Social and Psychological Implications of the New Human Genetics, pp. 249—73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Ricœur, P. (1977) The Rule of Metaphor. London : Routledge.
35.
Scott, S., L. Prior, F. Wood and J. Gray ( 2005) `Repositioning the Patient: The Implications of Being “At Risk”', Social Science and Medicine60: 1869—79.
36.
Star, S.L. and J.R. Griesemer (1989) `Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 1907—39', Social Studies of Science19: 387—420.
37.
Wood, F., L. Prior and J. Gray (2003) `Translations of Risk: Decision Making in a Cancer Genetics Service', Health, Risk and Society5(2): 186—98.
38.
Woolgar, S. (1988) Science: The Very Idea. London : Tavistock.
