Healing Animals - Harvard University
Transcription
Healing Animals - Harvard University
Professor Laura Stark 321 Calhoun 615-343-0916 Healing Animals MHS 290 Spring 2015 M/W 2:35 – 3:50 Buttrick 306 Office hours: Tues. 12-1p & by apt [email protected] DESCRIPTION Some animals are doctors’ best friends. Non-human animals are essential to modern medicine, and play an indispensible role in therapeutics and in research. Animals are also patients in their own right, and fuel veterinary/comparative medicine, as well as concerns about the health of animals as friends, food, entertainment, and vectors of disease. Despite the centrality of animals in medicine, the roles of some animals—and some activities—are often obscured or erased. Through classroom discussion and outside assignments, students will consider the legal, economic, social and emotional techniques people use to both celebrate and conceal the central place of animals in modern medicine. COURSE MATERIALS There will be approximately 50 pages of reading per meeting, which should take students roughly 2.5 hours to complete. There are no required books to purchase for the course. Reading and listening assignments will be available on OAK. COURSE POLICIES Students may use laptops in class with Professor Stark’s permission. Please email a request for permission and schedule a meeting to discuss the possibility. Students may audio or video record lectures for personal use after receiving written permission from Professor Stark. Students who would like to record as part of a learning accommodation should apply through Vanderbilt’s Disability Services Program. Professor Stark is happy to help with the process: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ead/ds_students.html It is mandatory to attend and participate in all class meetings. Excused absences will be accepted with a message from a health clinic or from students’ class deans for illnesses, life events, and observed holidays: http://as.vanderbilt.edu/docs/Religious%20Calendar%202012-13.pdf Late assignments are not accepted. Assignments based on collaborative work are graded individually, and should reflect each student’s original work. The Vanderbilt University Honor Code is available online: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/student_handbook/the-honor-system#honorcode GRADING The course integrates grading with instruction. The aim of the grading process is to give students helpful feedback, evaluate students’ performance, and apply a fair standard of assessment across students and assignments. 1 Written assignments will be evaluated in four areas using the grading scale below. Paper markings will identify patterns of strengths and weaknesses, first through written comments, then through marks showing additional examples of the pattern that students will then be expected to recognize and address in future work. To get feedback on drafts of written assignments before submitting them, please visit Vanderbilt’s Writing Studio: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/writing/ Areas of assessment • Completeness: Are all elements of the assignment fully addressed? Does the paper meet the goals of the assignment? Is the paper appropriately organized—with topic sentences (e.g., summaries, analytic statements, or arguments) followed by evidence (e.g., examples, refinements, or details)? • Analysis: Does the paper synthesize detailed materials into broader points or arguments? Are broader points presented in students’ own words? Are strengths and weaknesses of evidence explored? • Evidence: Is the choice of evidence appropriate? Is the evidence specific (e.g., cases, quotations, or sub-points)? Is the evidence accurate? Are sources of evidence cited? • Writing mechanics: Are shortcomings of previous assignments correct or reduced? Is the paper free of typographical errors? Is the grammar correct? Grading standard A: excellent performance in all areas, and unexpectedly fine performance in some. B: good performance in all or most areas. C: adequate performance in many, but not all, areas. D: inadequate performance in many areas. F: incomplete performance in most areas. Students may request a re-grade of any assignment by emailing a 500-word justification to Professor Stark within one week of receiving the original grade. Final course grades are based on the Vanderbilt University Grading System: http://registrar.vanderbilt.edu/transcripts/transcript-key/grading-systems/ ASSIGNMENTS Reading responses (3 responses: each 5% of final grade) Three reading responses of 500-600 words each are required during the semester. The aims of the assignments are to allow students to explore new concepts and arguments, to document a thorough and thoughtful reading of the texts, and to put readings in dialogue with earlier course material, students’ lived experiences, and current events. At the first class meeting, students will sign up for the days on which they will write responses. The papers should cover all of the reading assignments for one class meeting, and be uploaded to OAK by 11:59PM on the evening before the set of readings will be discussed in class. For an overview of how to read effectively to write a response, please see the Guide to Reading Social Science appended to the syllabus. Responses should accomplish four things: • Summarize the main argument of the reading in one paragraph. What is the author’s main purpose in writing the piece, and what is his/her novel claim? If appropriate, discuss the 2 • • • conventional wisdom, body of scholarship, or scientific evidence that the author is arguing against. Identify the type of evidence the author uses. Does the author base his or her claims on statistics, interviews, observations, historical documents, literature, or philosophical reflection, for example? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence in light of the author’s argument. Reflect on ideas that the piece raises for you, in one of two ways. If there is a reading question (see schedule), attempt to answer it. Alternatively, describe an example or counter-example that relates to the theme of the readings. These may be based on current events, previous readings, or personal experience. Ask a critical or exploratory question for the author(s). In-class quizzes (3 quizzes: each 10% of final grade) Three short quizzes will allow students to demonstrate they have completed the readings, understood course materials, and engaged with class discussions. The quizzes are cumulative: they will cover all lecture and reading materials to date but emphasize material from the most recently completed section. Research exercises (3 assignments: each 5% of final grade) Three short research assignments will be due at the start of class as noted on the schedule. The aims of the assignments are to introduce students to resources for research on the social dimensions of animals in medicine; and to develop the critical skills needed to evaluate the quality of a variety of kinds of scholarly evidence. Detailed instructions will be given in class one week before assignments are due. Research assignments will culminate in the final analysis (see below). Final analysis (30% of final grade) The final analysis includes two parts. A summary of each chapter of a recent book on animals in medicine will be due in class on Monday, April 13, 2015. The summary is 10% of final course grade. A final review of a recent book on animals in medicine will be due on Wednesday, April 22, 2015. The review is 20% of final course grade. Instructions for the review will be available on OAK at mid-term. Students may choose to analyze one of the following two books, which are on reserve at Central Library: • Kirk, Robert G. W., and Neil Pemberton. Leech. London: Reaktion Books, 2013. • Sharp, Lesley A. The Transplant Imaginary: Mechanical Hearts, Animal Parts, and Moral Thinking in Highly Experimental Science. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Participation (10% of final grade) Course participation accounts for students’ efforts to engage in class discussions; contributions to collaborative work; and attention to current events. 3 SCHEDULE January 5: Welcome January 7: Where are the animals? Required Marx, Patricia. “Pets Allowed: How to Take Your Pet Everywhere.” The New Yorker, October 13, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/20/pets-allowed. Reading question: Animals play many roles in medicine. What role(s) do they play in this article; and what additional roles can you think of? What social factors shape and pattern people’s health behavior in relation to animals? Further reading Wallace, David Foster. “Consider the Lobster.” Gourmet Magazine. August, 2004. http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster I. MULTISPECIES MEDICINE Making and unmaking binaries January 12: No class Required Rock, Melanie, and Patricia Babinec. “Diabetes in People, Cats, and Dogs: Biomedicine and Manifold Ontologies.” Medical Anthropology 27, no. 4 (2008): 324–52. Reading question: Diagnosing companion animals with diabetes alongside people affects our understandings of diseases and of selfhood. In what ways are they affected? January 14: Humans / animals Required Braitman, Laurel. “Chapter 5: Animal Pharm,” Animal Madness: How Anxious Dogs, Compulsive Parrots, and Elephants in Recovery Help Us Understand Ourselves. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014. Reading question: In the sciences, what creates the sense that there is a natural boundary or a natural connection between human and nonhuman animals? What political, economic or aesthetic factors might also be served in creating either similarity or difference serve? Further reading Viner, Russell. “Putting Stress in Life: Hans Selye and the Making of Stress Theory.” Social Studies of Science 29, no. 3 (1999): 391–410. 4 Rock, M., Bj Buntain, Jm Hatfield, and B. Hallgrimsson. “Animal-Human Connections, ‘One Health,’ and the Syndemic Approach to Prevention.” Social Science & Medicine 68, no. 6 (2009): 991–95. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.12.047. Wolf, Meike. “Is There Really Such a Thing as ‘One Health’? Thinking about a More than Human World from the Perspective of Cultural Anthropology.” Social Science & Medicine, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.06.018. January 19: MLK Day (no class) Required Gould, Stephen Jay. “Measuring bodies: Two case studies on the apishness of undesireables.” The Mismeasure of Man. Revised & Expanded edition. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1996. Reading question: How have scientific claims about animals embedded political assumptions? Do all scientific claims about animals embed political assumptions? January 21: Nature/society Class visit to Art History collection. Required Mitman, Gregg. “Chapter 5: Disney’s real-life adventures.” Reel Nature: America’s Romance with Wildlife on Film. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009. Reading question: How do visual representations of human and non-human animals create the sense that species are connected or divided? Further reading Serpell, James. “People in disguise: Anthropomorphism and the human-pet relationship,” in Daston, Lorraine and Gregg Mitman eds. Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Approaches January 26: From subjectivity to inter-subjectivity Research assignment 1 due at the start of class. Required Kirk, Robert G.W., and Neil Pemberton “Re-Imagining Bleeders: The Medical Leech in the Nineteenth Century Bloodletting Encounter.” Medical History 55, no. 3 (July 2011): 355–60. Reading question: Let’s face it: leeches are gross. But they were (and are!) used as therapies. Often we think of therapeutic animals as warm and cuddly. Leeches challenge the intuition that pets are the most common or best therapeutic animals and vice versa. How did physicians teach patents to relate to leeches; and what contradictions did this create in their own conceptions of leeches? 5 Further reading Daston, Lorraine. “Intelligences,” in Daston, Lorraine, Gregg Mitman eds. Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Despret, Vinciane. “Responding Bodies and Partial Affinities in Human–Animal Worlds.” Theory, Culture & Society 30, no. 7–8 (December 1, 2013): 51–76. doi:10.1177/0263276413496852. January 28: From individuals to interactions Required Michalko, Rod. “Introduction” and “Chapter: Two-in-one.” The Two-in-One. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998. Further reading Haraway, Donna J. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2007. February 2: From genetics to cybernetics Required Sharp, Lesley A. “Chapter 2: Hybrid bodies and animal science.” The Transplant Imaginary: Mechanical Hearts, Animal Parts, and Moral Thinking in Highly Experimental Science. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Reading question: What is xenotransplanation, and why is it interesting to the author? Further reading Haraway, Donna J. “Part III: Tangled species.” When Species Meet. Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2007. Donna Haraway, ‘A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s’, Socialist Review, 15, 2 (1985), 65–107, 152. Cecilia Åsberg (2010) “Enter cyborg:tracing the historiography and ontological turn of feminist technoscience studies” International Journal of Feminist Technoscience, 30. Cyborgs Wakefield, J. (June 10, 2013). "TEDGlobal welcomes robot cockroaches". BBC News Technology. February 4: Quiz 1 Required Explore website Aesop’s Anthropology <aesopsanthropology.com> 6 II. ANIMAL EXCHANGES Networks February 9: Expert systems Required Pages 19-29; 50-53. Mitchell, Timothy. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002. Reading question: Mitchell asks, Is there an overarching explanation of social changes that could otherwise be attributed to single factors, including epidemic, war, or famine? What kind of explanation can bring together these factors? How does Mitchell conceptualize the mosquitoes— in what ways are mosquitoes (biological systems) similar or different from the weapons or fertilizers (political and chemical systems) that Mitchell writes about? What is “agency”? February 11: Actor-network theory Required Latour, Bruno. The Pasteurization of France. Translated by Alan Sheridan and John Law. Harvard University Press, 1993: selections. Markets February 16: Economies Todes, Daniel Philip. “From dog to digestive factory.” Pavlov’s Physiology Factory, 2002. Further reading Sharp, Leslie. 2011 “Monkey business.” Social Text 29 (106):43–69. Daston, Lorraine. “The Moral Economy of Science.” Osiris 10 (1995): 3–24. Kirk, Robert G. W. “‘Wanted-Standard Guinea Pigs’: Standardisation and the Experimental Animal Market in Britain Ca. 1919-1947.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39, no. 3 (September 2008): 280–91. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.06.002. Models February 18: Model organism Required Kohler, Robert E. Selections from Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. 7 Reading question: What are “model organisms” and how do they differ from other kinds of animals? Further reading Ankeny, Rachel and Sabina Lionelli. “What’s so special about model organisms?” Unpublished paper. <https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/> Rader, Karen Ann. Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900 - 1955. Princeton University Press, 2004. Creager, Angela N. H. The Life of a Virus: Tobacco Mosaic Virus as an Experimental Model, 1930-1965. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Endersby, James. “Chapter 7: Cavia porcellus: Mathematical Guinea Pigs.” A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology. Harvard University Press. February 23: Constituting communities Required Leonelli, Sabina, Rachel A. Ankeny, Nicole C. Nelson, and Edward Ramsden, "Making Organisms Model Humans: Situated Models in Alcohol Research," Science in Context 27:3 (2014), 485-509. Further reading Mitchell, Sandra. “Anthropomorphism and cross-species modeling,” in Daston, Lorraine and Gregg Mitman, eds. Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Friese, Carrie, and Adele E. Clarke. “Transposing Bodies of Knowledge and Technique: Animal Models at Work in Reproductive Sciences.” Social Studies of Science 42, no. 1 (2012): 31–52. doi:10.1177/0306312711429995. Nelson, Nicole C., "Modeling Mouse, Human, and Discipline: Epistemic Scaffolds in Animal Behavior Genetics," Social Studies of Science 43:1 (2013), 3-29. February 25: Quiz 2 Required Explore website of the American Association of Veterinary Medicine. <https://www.avma.org/> March 1-8: Spring break 8 III. RE-FIGURING ANIMALS Language March 9: Metaphor, euphemism and other language techniques Class visit from Professor Phillip Ackerman-Lieberman, Jewish Studies Research assignment 2 due at the start of class. Required: Lynch, Michael E. “Sacrifice and the Transformation of the Animal Body into a Scientific Object: Laboratory Culture and Ritual Practice in the Neurosciences.” Social Studies of Science 18, no. 2 (May 1, 1988): 265–89. Pp1-6. Ackerman-Lieberman, Phillip, and Rakefet Zalashik, eds. A Jew’s Best Friend?: The Image of the Dog Throughout Jewish History. Brighton ; Portland, Or: Sussex Academic Press, 2013. March 11: Communication Required Pearson, Susan. “Speaking Bodies, Speaking Minds: Animals, Language, History.” History and Theory 52, no. 4 (2013): 91–108. doi:10.1111/hith.10689. Further reading Crist, Eileen. “Can an Insect Speak? The Case of the Honeybee Dance Language.” Social Studies of Science 34, no. 1 (2004): 7–43. doi:10.1177/0306312704040611. Radick, Gregory. The Simian Tongue: The Long Debate about Animal Language. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2008. Myers, Shirley Shultz, and Jane K. Fernandes. “Deaf Studies: A Critique of the Predominant U.S. Theoretical Direction.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 15, no. 1 (2010): 30–49. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/10.1093/deafed/enp017. Materiality March 16: When the world bites back Required Turkel, William J. Spark from the Deep: How Shocking Experiments with Strongly Electric Fish Powered Scientific Discovery. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013: pages 93-122. Further reading Barad, Karen. “Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 3 (March 2003): 801–31. doi:10.1086/345321. 9 Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. An epistemology of the concrete: twentieth-century histories of life. Durham [NC]: Duke University Press, 2010. Law & ethics March 18: Bioethics Required Franklin, Sarah B. “Chapter 5: Death.” Dolly Mixtures: The Remaking of Genealogy. Durham: Duke University Press Books, 2007. Further reading White, Paul. “The experimental animal in Victorian Britain,” in Daston, Lorraine and Gregg Haraway, Donna J. “Chapter 3: Shared Suffering: Instrumental Relations between Laboratory Animals and their People.” When Species Meet. Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Press, 2007. March 23: Policy Visit from Professor Ron Emeson, Dept of Pharmacology and Chair IACUC Required Kirk, Robert G. W. “A Brave New Animal for a Brave New World: The British Laboratory Animals Bureau and the Constitution of International Standards of Laboratory Animal Production and Use, circa 1947-1968.” Isis. 101, no. 1 (March 2010): 62–94. Further reading Michael, Mike, and Lynda Birke. “Enrolling the Core Set: The Case of the Animal Experimentation Controversy.” Social Studies of Science 24, no. 1 (1994): 81. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Washington: National Academies of Science Press, 2011. < grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/Guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals.pdf> March 25: Moral sensibilities Required Kirk, Robert G. W. “In Dogs We Trust? Intersubjectivity, Response-Able Relations, and the Making of Mine Detector Dogs: RESPONSE-ABLE RELATIONS.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 50, no. 1 (January 2014): 1–36. doi:10.1002/jhbs.21642. Further reading Sharp, Lesley A. “Perils before Swine.” BioInsecurity and Vulnerability, edited with Nancy N. Chen SAR Press, Santa Fe, 2014. Guenther, Lisa. “Chapter 6: Beyond Dehumanization.” Solitary Confinement. 10 Emotion March 30: Second nature? Required MacLeod, Alec. “Dog as Self and Other.” Language and Ecology Vol. 3 No. 1 (2009). Reading question: How do activities with animals come to be culturally accepted? Is it possible to change people’s visceral, gut feelings? If so, how? April 1: Learning to feel Required Sanders, Clinton R. “Killing with kindness: Veterinary euthanasia and the social construction of personhood,” Sociological Forum, 1995, vol 10.2: 195-214. Space April 6: Labs and fields Required Asdal, Kristin. “Subjected to Parliament The Laboratory of Experimental Medicine and the Animal Body.” Social Studies of Science 38, no. 6 (December 1, 2008). Further reading Bont, Raf De. Stations in the Field: A History of Place-Based Animal Research, 1870-1930. Chicago ; London: University Of Chicago Press, 2015. April 8: Civic space as intimate spaces Required Jerolmac, C. Chapter 2 “Do Not Feed the Pigeons”: Cultural Heritage and the Politics of Place in Venice and London. The Urban Pigeon. Reading question: Jerolmac uses the phrase the “social experience of animals.” How does physical space affect the social experience of animals? How does medical spaces affect the social experience of animals? Further reading Michalko, Rod. The Two-in-One. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998. 11 Professions April 13: Veterinary medicine Chapter summary (final analysis section I) due at the start of class. Required Jones, Susan D. “Chapter 3: The value of animal health for human health.” Valuing Animals: Veterinarians and Their Patients in Modern America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Further reading Irvine, Leslie, and Jenny R. Vermilya. “Gender Work in a Feminized Profession The Case of Veterinary Medicine.” Gender & Society 24, no. 1 (February 1, 2010): 56–82. doi:10.1177/0891243209355978. April 15: Interviews with authors Research assignment 3 due at the start of class. April 20: Quiz 3 and wrap up April 22: Final analysis due 12