外来陌生人的隐喻:生物医学话语中的抗微生物耐药性

IF 2.5 3区 哲学 Q1 CULTURAL STUDIES Science As Culture Pub Date : 2023-02-17 DOI:10.1080/09505431.2023.2180628
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要生物医学中经常使用类比和隐喻来解释抗菌药物耐药性等复杂现象。隐喻在知识生产过程中发挥着至关重要的作用,同时也确保了科学思维模式的连续性。新颖的概念隐喻,如“AMR是世界末日”或“抗生素是武器”,通常会立即被认为是隐喻。因此,他们在针对特定抗生素使用做法或人群(如移民或低收入国家的居民)发表军国主义甚至歧视性言论方面所起的作用受到了审查。与此同时,其他术语被描述为文字和描述性的,从而逃避了批判性分析。“细菌库”和“菌落”等术语在生物医学科学中已成为惯例。然而,这些术语与比较来源(水库——某种东西的来源;殖民地——外国领土上的定居点)之间的历史联系仍然存在于生物医学话语中。因此,这些术语激发了一种将细菌视为来自外国土地和身体的外国行动者的思维方式。对传统隐喻的批判性参与有助于追踪科学思维过程的连续性,这些思维过程将这些隐喻的历史背景与当前的物质实践和科学制作方法联系起来,包括资金分配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science As Culture
Science As Culture Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.80%
发文量
28
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.
期刊最新文献
Reading meatphors in DNA (and RNA): a bio-rhetorical view of genetic text metaphors Outposts of science: placing scientific infrastructures at the margins of French (post)colonial territories Staging interactivity: platform logics at the participatory museum An anticipatory regime of multiplanetary life: on SpaceX, Martian colonisation and terrestrial ruin Strategic science performance and the illusion of consensus about Fukushima’s health effects
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1