Search

DNA profiling has become a culturally ubiquitous technology. Its use, whether in forensic investigations, genetic databases, biomedical research, international border-making, or popular genealogy, has been familiarized through political debates, media and cultural representations and commercialization. DNA profiling has also attracted considerable scholarly attention across this terrain. However, scant attention has been paid to the key role played by legal migration in driving DNA profiling's initial translation from lab bench discovery to "truth machine" and identity token. Here, I discuss the first state-sponsored use of DNA profiling as a tool for establishing kinship relations among legal but racialized migrants on Britain's borders in the mid-1980s. I argue that this early "experiment" conditioned the commercialization and future uses of the technology at and beyond border zones. Reinstating migration as the origin context for DNA profiling, and retracing the postcolonial routes by which it entered the biopolitical sphere, sheds light on the conjoined naturalization and racialization of genetic technologies of identity and identification, whether at or beyond national borders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technology flows are becoming increasingly diverse in the twenty-first century, calling for an update of concepts and frameworks. Reflecting on the inherent tensions of technology transfer, including its technocratic dreams, insensitivity to technological materiality, and narrow focus on certain human actors, we propose technology translation as a complementary conceptual framework to understand traveling technologies. Taking a socio-technical approach, technology translation views artifacts as socially shaped with distributed agency, which makes technology flows unstable and unpredictable. In so doing, we develop a typology to explain five technology flow scenarios, shedding new light on the mechanisms of technology traveling by foregrounding the role of translators. Last, we discuss the politics of translation and elaborate how technology translation opens new space to engage with the complexity and uncertainty of technology flows, especially in the Global South. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discursive deference in the governance of science and technology is rebalancing from expert analysis toward participatory deliberation. Linear, scientistic conceptions of innovation are giving ground to more plural, socially situated understandings. Yet, growing recognition of social agency in technology choice is countered by persistently deterministic notions of technological progress. This article addresses this increasingly stark disjuncture. Distinguishing between "appraisal" and "commitment" in technology choice, it highlights contrasting implications of normative, instrumental, and substantive imperatives in appraisal. Focusing on the role of power, it identifies key commonalities transcending the analysis/participation dichotomy. Each is equally susceptible to instrumental framing for variously weak and strong forms of justification. To address the disjuncture, it is concluded that greater appreciation is required—in both analytic and participatory appraisal—to facilitating the opening up (rather than the closing down) of governance commitments on science and technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we address the problem of how technoscience knowledge and practices are translated when they are relocated during the highly organized, international encounters between cultures, often called ‘development.’ We examine efforts to build a ‘model’ Australian dairy and instantiate Australian dairy practices in East Timor following East Timor's recent emergence as a nation-state. Through this ethnography of development's construction of a heterogeneous sociotechnical assemblage, we show how knowledge and power inform the practices that enable Western models of production and exchange to be reassembled in postcolonial spaces. In aiming to conduct a symmetrical anthropology of development based in the actor-network approach, we follow development's actors and actants as well as its epistemic divisions—nature and culture, human and nonhuman, us and them—into East Timor, arguing that the politics and agency of technology transfer is distributed among discourse, epistemology, and human and nonhuman actors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]