Steven Sturdy

Genetics and the Sociology of Identity

In 1990, an international coalition of scientists successfully argued for huge public investment to support their work to sequence the human genome. Proponents of the Human Genome Project described it at the time as ‘one of mankind’s greatest odysseys. It is a quest that is leading to a new understanding of what it means to be a human being’ (Bodmer and McKie, 1994: vii). According to its advocates, the resulting knowledge of human genetic make-up would not only impact on basic science, the practice of medicine and the delivery of healthcare; it would also do much to explain human behaviour, elucidating and even offering solutions to social problems and reshaping how humans think of themselves and relate to others. The Human Genome Project spurred renewed claims by scientists to speak authoritatively about what makes us who we are, challenging the position held by the social sciences, and in particular by sociology, since the end of the Second World War. Over the past two decades, social scientists from different traditions – sometimes in alliance with sympathetic scientists – have risen to this challenge in two distinct but related ways: first, by engaging with and critiquing claims about the explanatory power of genetics; and second, by studying the myriad ways in which actors draw upon and interpret genetic knowledge as part of their identity-making practices. This latter programme of research and reflection has been particularly fruitful as a source of insights into the sociology of identity. Early fears that genetics would lend itself to a process of reification and standardisation of identities (Flower and Heath, 1993) have been superseded by a growing appreciation of the extent to which ‘individuals resist, appropriate, or accommodate themselves to genetic power/knowledge in line with diverse identity politics, not schemes of centralized or capillary control’ (Brodwin, 2005: 142). Social scientists have accordingly assembled a rich and multifaceted empirical literature on the ways in which identities are formed where genetics comes to be involved. The articles in this Special Issue contribute to this sociological understanding of genetic knowledge and identity practices in two key respects. On the one hand, they emphasise just how deeply genetics has penetrated into many realms of social life. On the other, they illustrate the diversity of the ways in which identities are negotiated between self, others and institutions, and how the language and practices of genetics – and heredity more generally – have been integrated into those negotiations. Before discussing the contributions of the individual articles in this Special Issue, we briefly revisit the wider sociological literature on identity in order to specify the particular challenges raised by these new empirical analyses.

Recovery in Scotland The Rise and Uncertain Future of a Mental Health Social Movement

“Recovery” has become a key element in Scottish mental health policy and practice, despite continuing uncertainty over just what is meant by the term. This article draws on social movement theory to explore the processes underlying the growth of recovery in Scotland. Based on documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews with key actors, it looks at the emergence of a “recovery movement” in Scotland and in particular at how that movement articulated a “recovery frame” that subsequently came to inform policy and practice. It then reflects on the dilemmas posed by this success, as the recovery movement expanded to intersect with state agencies and the recovery frame was adapted to accommodate the needs of government policy. It concludes that the future of the recovery movement in Scotland will depend on its ability to maintain a sufficiently broad and inclusive framing of recovery even as it becomes associated with specific policies and practice.

Personalised Medicine and the Economy of Biotechnological Promise

Rather than seek to distinguish hype from legitimate promise, it may be more helpful to think about personalised medicine as embodying a promissory economy which serves both to mobilize resources for research and — partly at least — to determine the ends to which that research is directed. Personalised medicine is a development of the larger promissory economy of medical biotechnology. As such, it systematically conflates public benefit with the pursuit of commercial and especially pharmaceutical interests. Consequently, research and development in personalised medicine tends to favour the production of expensive new treatments over unprofitable forms of prevention or more effective use of older therapies. A rebalancing of research priorities is needed to favour the pursuit of public benefit, even when it does not deliver private profits. This will in turn require sustained reflection, self-criticism and often self-denial on the part of public research funders and the scientists they support.

Reciprocal instrumentalism: Scotland, WHO Europe, and mental health

This paper explores the relationship between the World Health Organizations Regional Office for Europe (WHO Europe) and Scotland in the context of mental health. Since devolution Scotland has gained autonomy as a constituent country of the UK and has developed a reputation for progressive mental health policy. Scotland has also become increasingly involved in WHO, notably in the development of the Mental Health Declaration for Europe. In this paper we examine the interactions that regulate the relationship between these two actors in order to determine how and why the relationship was built. Our analysis draws on interviews with individuals involved in the development of the Declaration and its accompanying Action Plan alongside an analysis of related texts. We observe that the relationship between Scotland and WHO was created and perpetuated through personal communication, meetings and the joint production of documents, in a way that mutually validated the policy aims and agenda of both actors.

What can development policy learn from the history of development

This article reports the proceedings of a workshop held on 3 June 2010, that aimed to establish a dialogue between historians of agriculture and academics working in development studies. Including papers by historians from the Netherlands, Canada and the UK, and a commentary from the development anthropologist, Paul Richards, the workshop identified a number of themes for further investigation, and confirmed the value of continuing dialogue between historians and policy academics.