A. Kamenshchikova, P. Wolffs, C. Hoebe, J. Penders, K. Horstman
{"title":"外来陌生人的隐喻:生物医学话语中的抗微生物耐药性","authors":"A. Kamenshchikova, P. Wolffs, C. Hoebe, J. Penders, K. Horstman","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2023.2180628","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Complex phenomena such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are often explained in biomedical sciences by using analogies and metaphors. Metaphors play a crucial role in the knowledge production processes, as well as in ensuring the continuity of scientific models of thought. Novel conceptual metaphors, such as ‘AMR is an apocalypse’ or ‘antibiotics are weapons’ are usually immediately recognised as metaphors. Therefore, they have been scrutinised for their role in producing militaristic and even discriminatory discourses towards specific antibiotic use practices or populations, such as migrants or residents of low-income countries. At the same time, other terms have been presented as literal and descriptive, thus escaping critical analysis. Terms such as ‘bacterial reservoirs’ and ‘bacterial colonies’ have been conventionalised in biomedical sciences. However, the historical links between these terms and the sources of comparisons (reservoir – a source of something; and colony – a settlement in a foreign territory) are still present in biomedical discourses. As such, these terms stimulate a style of thinking about bacteria as foreign actors coming from foreign lands and bodies. Critical engagement with conventionalised metaphors helps to trace the continuity in scientific thought processes that links the historical context from where these metaphors are coming from to the present material practices and methods of science-making, including funding distribution.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"294 - 314"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metaphors of foreign strangers: antimicrobial resistance in biomedical discourses\",\"authors\":\"A. Kamenshchikova, P. Wolffs, C. Hoebe, J. Penders, K. Horstman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09505431.2023.2180628\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n Complex phenomena such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are often explained in biomedical sciences by using analogies and metaphors. Metaphors play a crucial role in the knowledge production processes, as well as in ensuring the continuity of scientific models of thought. Novel conceptual metaphors, such as ‘AMR is an apocalypse’ or ‘antibiotics are weapons’ are usually immediately recognised as metaphors. Therefore, they have been scrutinised for their role in producing militaristic and even discriminatory discourses towards specific antibiotic use practices or populations, such as migrants or residents of low-income countries. At the same time, other terms have been presented as literal and descriptive, thus escaping critical analysis. Terms such as ‘bacterial reservoirs’ and ‘bacterial colonies’ have been conventionalised in biomedical sciences. However, the historical links between these terms and the sources of comparisons (reservoir – a source of something; and colony – a settlement in a foreign territory) are still present in biomedical discourses. As such, these terms stimulate a style of thinking about bacteria as foreign actors coming from foreign lands and bodies. Critical engagement with conventionalised metaphors helps to trace the continuity in scientific thought processes that links the historical context from where these metaphors are coming from to the present material practices and methods of science-making, including funding distribution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science As Culture\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"294 - 314\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science As Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2180628\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science As Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2023.2180628","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Metaphors of foreign strangers: antimicrobial resistance in biomedical discourses
ABSTRACT
Complex phenomena such as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are often explained in biomedical sciences by using analogies and metaphors. Metaphors play a crucial role in the knowledge production processes, as well as in ensuring the continuity of scientific models of thought. Novel conceptual metaphors, such as ‘AMR is an apocalypse’ or ‘antibiotics are weapons’ are usually immediately recognised as metaphors. Therefore, they have been scrutinised for their role in producing militaristic and even discriminatory discourses towards specific antibiotic use practices or populations, such as migrants or residents of low-income countries. At the same time, other terms have been presented as literal and descriptive, thus escaping critical analysis. Terms such as ‘bacterial reservoirs’ and ‘bacterial colonies’ have been conventionalised in biomedical sciences. However, the historical links between these terms and the sources of comparisons (reservoir – a source of something; and colony – a settlement in a foreign territory) are still present in biomedical discourses. As such, these terms stimulate a style of thinking about bacteria as foreign actors coming from foreign lands and bodies. Critical engagement with conventionalised metaphors helps to trace the continuity in scientific thought processes that links the historical context from where these metaphors are coming from to the present material practices and methods of science-making, including funding distribution.
期刊介绍:
Our culture is a scientific one, defining what is natural and what is rational. Its values can be seen in what are sought out as facts and made as artefacts, what are designed as processes and products, and what are forged as weapons and filmed as wonders. In our daily experience, power is exercised through expertise, e.g. in science, technology and medicine. Science as Culture explores how all these shape the values which contend for influence over the wider society. Science mediates our cultural experience. It increasingly defines what it is to be a person, through genetics, medicine and information technology. Its values get embodied and naturalized in concepts, techniques, research priorities, gadgets and advertising. Many films, artworks and novels express popular concerns about these developments. In a society where icons of progress are drawn from science, technology and medicine, they are either celebrated or demonised. Often their progress is feared as ’unnatural’, while their critics are labelled ’irrational’. Public concerns are rebuffed by ostensibly value-neutral experts and positivist polemics. Yet the culture of science is open to study like any other culture. Cultural studies analyses the role of expertise throughout society. Many journals address the history, philosophy and social studies of science, its popularisation, and the public understanding of society.