Search

2016 witnessed the birth of the first baby conceived using mitochondrial replacement technology (MRT), a procedure conducted by an international team in a Mexican clinic. The story soon made it to the international press, where authorship was assigned to the USA team and Mexico was described as lacking regulation, thus a suitable location. The Mexican media offered a different version. The baby was stamped as "made in Mexico" and the Mexican physician involved was described as a remarkable citizen and bold scientist. The story served as a counter-narrative to the one circulating in the press and academic circles. It dismantled the notion of Mexico as a country with "no rules" and instead offered a story of a country producing cutting-edge technology and of a government ready to back up scientific progress. In this paper, we analyze the performative acts that transformed this breakthrough into a national success and we ask about the role the Mexican team had in this accomplishment. This analysis contributes to the conversation held within the field of postcolonial science and technology studies, regarding knowledge production, authorship, and the role of science stories in the process of nation building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT2016 witnessed the birth of the first baby conceived using mitochondrial replacement technology (MRT), a procedure conducted by an international team in a Mexican clinic. The story soon made it to the international press, where authorship was assigned to the USA team and Mexico was described as lacking regulation, thus a suitable location. The Mexican media offered a different version. The baby was stamped as “made in Mexico” and the Mexican physician involved was described as a remarkable citizen and bold scientist. The story served as a counter-narrative to the one circulating in the press and academic circles. It dismantled the notion of Mexico as a country with “no rules” and instead offered a story of a country producing cutting-edge technology and of a government ready to back up scientific progress. In this paper, we analyze the performative acts that transformed this breakthrough into a national success and we ask about the role the Mexican team had in this accomplishment. This analysis contributes to the conversation held within the field of postcolonial science and technology studies, regarding knowledge production, authorship, and the role of science stories in the process of nation building.

Abstract Background While critique on Global Health is not new, recent years show a surge of criticism on the field’s colonial legacy and practices specifically. Such accounts argue that despite Global Health’s strive for universality and equity in health, its activities regularly produce the opposite. The epistemic privileging of Northern academics and scientific method, further augmented by how Global Health funding is arranged, paints a picture of a fragmented field in which ‘doing good’ has become a normatively laden and controversial term. It is specifically this controversy that we seek to unpack in this paper: what does it take to be a ‘good’ Global Health scholar? Results We used Helen Verran’s notion of ‘disconcertment’ to analyse three auto-ethnographic vignettes of Robert’s Global Health ‘fieldwork’. We illustrate that disconcertment, a bodily and personalised experience of unease and conflicting feelings, may serve as an important diagnostic of conflicting imperatives in Global Health. Robert’s fieldwork was entangled with incongruous imperatives which he constantly had to navigate through and that repeatedly produced disconcertment. The contribution that we seek to make here is that such disconcertment is not something to defuse or ignore, but to take seriously and stay with instead. Conclusion Staying with the disconcertment serves as a starting point for conversations about ‘doing good’ in Global Health fieldwork and creates opportunity for making Global Health teaching and projects more reflexive. The paper thereby positions itself in discussions about fair collaborations between the Global North and South and our analysis offers a set of considerations that can be used by Northern scholars to critically reflect on their own role within Global Health.

Background: While critique on Global Health is not new, recent years show a surge of criticism on the field's colonial legacy and practices specifically. Such accounts argue that despite Global Health's strive for universality and equity in health, its activities regularly produce the opposite. The epistemic privileging of Northern academics and scientific method, further augmented by how Global Health funding is arranged, paints a picture of a fragmented field in which 'doing good' has become a normatively laden and controversial term. It is specifically this controversy that we seek to unpack in this paper: what does it take to be a 'good' Global Health scholar? Results: We used Helen Verran's notion of 'disconcertment' to analyse three auto-ethnographic vignettes of Robert's Global Health 'fieldwork'. We illustrate that disconcertment, a bodily and personalised experience of unease and conflicting feelings, may serve as an important diagnostic of conflicting imperatives in Global Health. Robert's fieldwork was entangled with incongruous imperatives which he constantly had to navigate through and that repeatedly produced disconcertment. The contribution that we seek to make here is that such disconcertment is not something to defuse or ignore, but to take seriously and stay with instead. Conclusion: Staying with the disconcertment serves as a starting point for conversations about 'doing good' in Global Health fieldwork and creates opportunity for making Global Health teaching and projects more reflexive. The paper thereby positions itself in discussions about fair collaborations between the Global North and South and our analysis offers a set of considerations that can be used by Northern scholars to critically reflect on their own role within Global Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Where There Is No Doctor is one of the most widely used community health books in the world and has been translated into over 80 languages. This paper traces four aspects of translation in Tamil-language editions of the text, including Doctor Illaadha Idaththil and related books. First, translators choose and create language to produce a colloquial text related to, but different from, the original. Second, the translated text, as part of a genre of health writing, is edited to motivate readers to take new and different actions related to their bodies and wellbeing. Third, the success of this work is assessed by asking future readers to respond to the draft. Finally, the finished translation circulates to new arenas, influencing popular writing on health and ways of understanding the body. Analyzing the translation of a health text through the lens of postcolonial translation studies, this paper argues that the translation and adaptation of Where There Is No Doctor and the books it inspired engage translators, clinicians, and future readers in a transnational knowledge production process.

In this paper, we engage with the widespread and influential approach of National Innovation Systems (NIS). We discuss its adequacy to non-OECD countries, especially in Latin America where it tends to be reified. Although the NIS approach is meant to address the most pressing needs of the economies it applies to, we argue that it would benefit from developing a more encompassing scope, allowing integration of greater diversity and complexity. By retracing the history of regimes of science, technology and innovation in Latin America, we explore the following paradox: whereas numerous Southern scholars urge the pressing need to develop an innovation agenda for Southern countries with a 'Southern framework of thought', they continue to heavily rely on a reductionist version of the NIS-approach that prevents such a 'Southern perspective' to fully emerge. This creates problems for actors willing to use NIS more reflexively, and it also affects the effectivity of science, technology and innovation (STI) policies in non-OECD countries. We formulate a research agenda with three suggestions for further engaging NIS both conceptually and practically. Using such analytical perspectives, we argue, might benefit both to scholarly work about NIS, but could also allow for a better articulation with STI regimes in Southern countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]