This paper is concerned with the ways in which lay people come to understand and assess xenotransplantation. Drawing on focus group data, we explore how people can both demonstrate a collective process of cost–benefit thinking and tacitly problematize this by deploying three meta-arguments that we call “trust,” “telos,” and “trump.” Respectively, these meta-arguments emphasize: unexamined relations of trust; irrelevance because innovations such as xenotransplantation are inevitable; and redundancy in the face of desperation. We then consider how lay people draw upon certain analogies associated with meat in order to grasp the meaning of xenotransplantation. The data show how “meat” itself displays disparate and contested meanings. Depending on what aspects of meat are emphasized, xenotransplantation is represented in either a negative or a positive light. Some of the implications of the fluidity of the meaning of both meat and xenotransplantation for cost– benefit thinking in lay and expert discourse are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, C. (1990) The Sexual Politics of Meat. Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell .
2.
Aldhous, P. , Coghlan, A. and Copley, J. (1999) “Let the People Speak” , New Scientist22May 1999: 12–14 .
3.
Arluke, A. and Sanders, C. R. (1996) Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press .
4.
Baker, S. (1993) Picturing the Beast:Animals, Identity and Representation. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press .
5.
Barthes, R. (1972) Mythologies. London: Paladin .
6.
Barthes, R. (1996) Image-music-text. London: HarperCollins .
7.
Benton, T. and Redfearn, S. (1996) “The Politics of Animal Rights – where is the Left?,”New Left Review215: 43–58 .
8.
Billig, M. (1987) Arguing and Thinking: a Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
9.
Billig, M. (1992) Talking of the Royal Family. London: Macmillan .
10.
Billig, M. , Condor, S. , Edwards, D. , Gane, M. , Middleton, D. and Radley, A. (1988) Ideological Dilemmas. London: SAGE .
11.
Brown, N. (1999) “Xenotransplantation: Normalizing Disgust,”Science as Culture8: 327–355 .
12.
Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2001a) “Switching between Science and Culture in Transpecies Transplantation,”Science, Technology and Human Values26: 3–22 .
13.
Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2001b) “Transgenics, Uncertainty and Public Credibility,”Transgenic Research10: 279–293 .
14.
Douglas, M. (1985) Risk and Acceptability. London: Routledge .
15.
Fiddes, N. (1992) Meat: a Natural Symbol. London: Routledge .
16.
Foster, J. , ed. (1997) Valuing Nature? Ethics, Economics and Environment. London: Routledge .
17.
Franklin, A. (1999) Animals and Modern Cultures: a Sociology of Human–animal Relations in Modernity. London: Sage Publications .
18.
Galli, I. and Nigro, G. (1987) “The Social Representation of Radioactivity Among Italian Children,”Social Science Information26: 535–549 .
19.
Gentner, D. and Gentner, D. R. (1983) “Flowing Waters or Teaming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity,” in D. Gentner and A.L Stevens (eds) Mental Models, pp. 99–129. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
20.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
21.
Herzlich, C. (1973) Health and Illness: a Social Psychological Analysis. London: Academic Press .
22.
Hesse, M. (1963) Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed & Ward .
23.
Holland, D. and Quinn, N. , eds (1987) Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
24.
Irwin, A. and Michael, M. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill .
25.
Irwin. A. and Wynne, B. , eds (1996) Misunderstanding Science?The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
26.
Kahneman, D.Slovic, P. and Tversky A. , eds (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
27.
Keller, E. F. (1995) Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth Century Biology. New York: Columbia University Press .
28.
Kempton, W. (1987) “Two Theories of Home Heat Control,” in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds) Cultural Models in Language and Thought, pp. 222–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
29.
Knorr, K. D. (1980) “The Scientist as an Analogical Reasoner: a Critique of the Metaphor Theory of Innovation,” in K. Knorr , R. Krohn and R. Whitely (eds) The Social Process of Scientific Investigation (Sociology of Sciences Yearbook, Vol. 4), pp. 25–52. Boston-Dordrecht: D. Reidel .
30.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press .
31.
McCloskey, M. (1983) “Naive Theories of Motion,” in D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (eds) Mental Models, pp. 299–324. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
32.
Markova, I. and Wilkie, P. (1987) “Representations, Concepts and Social Change: the Phenomenon of AIDS,”Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour17: 389–409 .
33.
Martin, E. (1994) Flexible Bodies. Boston, MA: Beacon Press .
34.
Mercer, D. , Inaba, M. , Maekawa, F. , Chen Ng, M. and Obata, H. (2002) “Japanese Attitudes Toward Xenotransplantation,”Public Understanding of Science11: 347–362 .
35.
Michael, M. (2000) Reconnecting Culture, Technology and Nature: From Society to Heterogeneity. London: Routledge .
36.
Michael, M. (2001) “Technoscientific Bespoking: Animals, Publics and the New Genetics,”New Genetics and Society20: 205–224 .
37.
Michael, M. (2002) “Comprehension, Apprehension, and Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science,”Science, Technology and Human Values27: 357–370 .
38.
Michael, M. and Birke, L. (1995) “Scientific Uncertainty, Public Unease and Animal Experiments,”Science as Culture5: 249–277 .
39.
Michael, M. , Grinyer, A. and Turner, J. (1997) “Teachers of Biotechnology: Identity in the Context of Ignorance and Knowledgeability,”Public Understanding of Science6: 1–17 .
40.
Moscovoci, S. (1981) “On Social Representations,” in J. P. Forgas (ed.) Social Cognition pp. 181–209. London: Academic Press .
41.
Moscovoci, S. (1984) “The Phenomenon of Social Representations,” in R. M. Farr and S. Moscovici (eds) Social Representations, pp. 3–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
42.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1996) Animal-to-Human Transplants: the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics .
43.
Plein, C. (1991) “Popularising Biotechnology,”Science Technology and Human Values16: 474–490 .
44.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. London: SAGE .
45.
Quinn, H. and Holland, D. (1987) “Cultural Models in Language and Thought: an Introduction,” in D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds) Cultural Models in Language and Thought, pp. 3–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
46.
Rozin, P. and Nemeroff, C. (1990) “The Laws of Sympathetic Magic: a Psychological Analysis of Similarity and Contagion,” in J. W. Stigler , R.A. Shweder and H. Gilbert (eds) Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development, pp.205–232. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
47.
Wagner, W. , Kronberger, N. , Allum, N. , De Cheveigne, S. , Diego, C. , Gaskell, G. , Heinben, M. , Midden, C. , Odegaard, M. , Ohman, S. , Rizzo, B. , Rusanen, T. & Stathopolou, A. (2002a) Pandora”s genes – images of genes and nature. In M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell (Eds.) Biotechnology: the making of a global controversy (pp. 244–276) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
48.
Wagner, W. , Kronberger, N. , Gaskell, G. , Allansdottir, A. , Allum, N. , De Cheveigne, S. , Dahinden, U. , Diego, Montali, L. , Moternsen, A.T. , Pfenning, U. , Rusanen, T. and Seger, N. (2001) “Nature in Disorder: the Troubled Public of Biotechnology,” in G. Gaskell and M. W. Bauer (eds) Biotechnology 1996–2000: the Years of Controversy, pp. 80–95. London: Science Museum .
49.
Wagner, W. , Kronberger, N. and Seifert, S. (2002b) “Collective Symbolic Coping with New Technology: Knowledge, Images and Public Discourse,”British Journal of Social Psychology41: 323–343 .
50.
Wynne, B. E. (1991) “Knowledges in Context,”Science, Technology and Human Values16: 111–121 .
51.
Wynne, B. E. (1992) “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science,”Public Understanding of Science1: 281–304 .
52.
Wynne, B. E. (1996) “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert–lay divide,” in S. Lash , B. Szerszynski and B. Wynne (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity, pp. 44–83. London: SAGE .
