Old Email Archive
Return to old archive list
digest 1997-03-01 #001
11:26 PM 2/28/97 -0800
From: "Society for Literature & Science"
Daily SLS Email Digest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Feb 1997 09:21:29 -0800
From: Carol Colatrella
Subject: Reminder: SLS97 deadline/new website address
IMPORTANT CHANGE please disseminate
This is the new and correct address for the SLS conference website:
http://www2.la.psu.edu/~hquamen/SLS_97.htm
The 1997 Annual Meeting of the Society for Literature and Science will
be
held in Pittsburgh at the Marriott Hotel in Pittsburgh City Center from
October 30 to November 2, 1997. The deadline for submissions is
February
28, 1997. Instructions for submitting abstracts and proposals are
available at
http://www2.la.psu.edu/~hquamen/SLS_97.htm
Or you can send an abstract or panel proposal to Susan Squier via
email:
sxs62@psu.edu or
Richard Nash via email: nash@ucs.indiana.edu
Special panels, seminars, poster sessions, roundtables are also
welcome.
Indicate keywords that can be used to categorize your submission and
whether you would like to serve as chair of another panel.
Thanks for your attention.
Carol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Feb 1997 13:56:04 -0800
From: garbutt@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (K. Garbutt)
Subject: Re: Literature and Science?
As a long time "lurker" and very rare contributor to this
group I have
watched the recent discussion about the friendliness of the group
towards
scientists and the whole culture wars issue with interest. It seems to
me
however that the behaviour of the list this week sums up why so many
scientists refuse to take "science studies" seriously. This
week one of
the most momentous announcements in modern biology was made concerning
our
ability to clone individuals from somatic cells. This achievement which
flies in the face of accepted wisdom concerning the relative
immutability
of differentiated cells is potentially as important and potentially
devastating as the splitting of the atom.
All week this has been the main topic of discussion in our Biology
Department among the Faculty Graduate students and Undergraduates. Yet
this has never been mentioned on this list. What is more interesting
is
that we have NOT been discussing science per se but the ethical and
social
impacts of this issue, and that the frame of reference far from being
scientific has been literature. Brave New World , of course keeps
cropping
up as do a wide range of SF stories and novels as we debate human
cloning
(no we are not for it but we have no doubt someone will try it) and all
it
frightening potential.
The very fact that this group has been silent on this issue suggests a
profound lack of understanding of science which I find disappointing as
I
do think an external perspective on science is interesting.
So what does every one think of "Dolly" who may be the
harbinger of a
"Brave New World", and the sheep the androids are dreaming
of.
Keith
*******************************************************************
* Keith Garbutt *
* Chair, Department of Biology *
* PO Box 6057 *
* West Virginia University *
* Morgantown WV, 26506 *
* USA *
* (304) 293 5394 *
* garbutt@wvnvm.wvnet.edu or kgarbutt@wvu.edu *
*******************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Feb 1997 14:11:28 -0800
From: Martha Bartter
Subject: Re: Literature and Science?
At 16:52 2/28/97 -0400, you wrote:
>As a long time "lurker" and very rare contributor to this
group I have
>watched the recent discussion about the friendliness of the group
towards
>scientists and the whole culture wars issue with interest. It seems
to me
>however that the behaviour of the list this week sums up why so
many
>scientists refuse to take "science studies" seriously.
This week one of
>the most momentous announcements in modern biology was made
concerning our
>ability to clone individuals from somatic cells. This achievement
which
>flies in the face of accepted wisdom concerning the relative
immutability
>of differentiated cells is potentially as important and potentially
>devastating as the splitting of the atom.
>
Oddly enough, the most likely place for such a discussion would have
to be in a science fiction format. Not only Brave New World, which
posited embryo development in various degrees of support (Alpha,
Beta, etc.) rather than cloning -- but Lois Bujold's Vorkosigan
novels (as an example) where a whole business runs on cloning new
bodies for the rich & famous who might want a spare sometime (and
the
natural consequences -- the clones are fully human, AND destroyed in
the process of switcing); Varley's Ophiuchi Hotline has a similar
premise. But -- you know -- I'm on one such list, and you're right:
not a word about the sheep.
>All week this has been the main topic of discussion in our Biology
>Department among the Faculty Graduate students and Undergraduates.
Yet
>this has never been mentioned on this list. What is more
interesting is
>that we have NOT been discussing science per se but the ethical and
social
>impacts of this issue, and that the frame of reference far from
being
>scientific has been literature. Brave New World , of course keeps
cropping
>up as do a wide range of SF stories and novels as we debate human
cloning
>(no we are not for it but we have no doubt someone will try it) and
all it
>frightening potential.
>
>The very fact that this group has been silent on this issue suggests
a
>profound lack of understanding of science which I find disappointing
as I
>do think an external perspective on science is interesting.
>
>So what does every one think of "Dolly" who may be the
harbinger of a
>"Brave New World", and the sheep the androids are dreaming
of.
>
>Keith
>
>*******************************************************************
>* Keith Garbutt *
>* Chair, Department of Biology *
>* PO Box 6057 *
>* West Virginia University *
>* Morgantown WV, 26506 *
>* USA *
>* (304) 293 5394 *
>* garbutt@wvnvm.wvnet.edu or kgarbutt@wvu.edu *
>*******************************************************************
>
>
>
Martha Bartter
Truman State University
mbartter@truman.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Feb 1997 15:47:42 -0800
From: Joseph Duemer
Subject: Re: Literature and Science?
In response to Keith Garbutt's questions:
(I've been going on at great length of late, so I'll keep this brief.)
I think the SLS list members who are not scientists have probably not
been commenting on Dolly because we're no longer much surprised by the
technical power of science. This probably leads us to underestimate the
importance of revolutionary science. I wonder if "we" think
that
contemporary science is analogous to the medieval church. Both
institutions established effective control over truth-claims within
their society to such an extent that people just stopped thinking about
the grounding principles of institutional power. (The difference
between
the two, of course, is the way in which science has institutionalized
"reality testing.")
Though I haven't been talking about it here, I have discussed the
cloning with several of my students, and their responses range from
fascination to repulsion. The fascination usually takes the form of
spinning out SF scenarios; the revulsion is almost always expressed in
religious or quasi-religious terms.
I caught the last part of an interview with the Scottish scientist in
charge of the lab where Dolly was "born" this afternoon on
NPR's Talk of
the Nation Science Friday. What struck me was 1., his downplaying of
the
technical difficulty of cloning. He remarked that a careful reading of
his group's paper from last year on embryo cloning was the real
breakthrough. And 2., his blithe assurance that human cloning would
never take place. He based his confident assertion on two points:
First,
that his group would not license the technology for human use; second,
that "it's not legal, at least in Brittan." In this, alas, he
conformed
to most of "our" fears about scientists.
Actually, the most interesting objection to cloning I've heard is
aesthetic, and came from a breeder of race horses: breeding a winner,
he
said, was difficult, but fun. Cloning Seattle Slew wouldn't prove
anything, and it wouldn't be any fun.
So what do our biological colleagues think? What are your literary
views
of Dolly's creation? I'd also be happy to hear more about the specific
ways in which cloning of this kind is as important in the history of
science as "splitting the atom."
- --
- --
Joseph Duemer
School of Liberal Arts
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13699
315-262-2466
"Poets are the only people to whom love is not only a crucial,
but an indispensable experience, which entitles them to
mistake it for a universal one."
-- Hannah Arendt
"People do not deserve to have good writing, they are so
pleased with bad."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Feb 1997 16:36:35 -0800
From: Joseph Duemer
Subject: Re: Literature and Science?
You guys can probably tell I'm avoiding that stack of papers on the
corner of my desk, but I have a question for Keith Garbutt, unrelated
to
the issue he raised, but in the spirit of his enquiry:
What do biologists think of Gould's recently published _Full House_,
specifically, the argument that biological complexity is an
epiphenomenon? Is this a revolutionary reworking of theory, or an
advance of normal science?
Personal note: I loved _Wonderful Life_--found it intellectually
bracing. This recent book of Gould's seems ill-written,
self-congratulatory, repetitive, and only interesting in flashes.
- --
- --
Joseph Duemer
School of Liberal Arts
Clarkson University
Potsdam NY 13699
315-262-2466
"Poets are the only people to whom love is not only a crucial,
but an indispensable experience, which entitles them to
mistake it for a universal one."
-- Hannah Arendt
"People do not deserve to have good writing, they are so
pleased with bad."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 28 Feb 1997 17:23:51 -0800
From: Ann Weinstone
Subject: sheep
In regards to sheep cloning, Keith writes:
The very fact that this group has been silent on this issue suggests a
profound lack of understanding of science which I find disappointing as
I
do think an external perspective on science is interesting.
Keith,
What is the nature of our misunderstanding? Are we misunderstanding
science qua science? Are you saying that we don't know what's really
important? Are you saying that while we are discussing
"friendliness," you
and your colleagues are using our tools (literature/sf/consideration of
ethics/etc.) to better effect?
best,
Ann Weinstone
Stanford University
Modern Thought and Literature
