4.4 Faire des sciences autrement? Genre, sciences et citoyenneté

Loading...

En provenance du cours de University of Geneva

Genre : quels enjeux ? Violences, globalisation, biomédecine, sexualités.

65 notes

University of Geneva

Genre : quels enjeux ? Violences, globalisation, biomédecine, sexualités.

65 notes

Ce cours propose une introduction au champ interdisciplinaire des études sur le genre, qui depuis 40 ans sont devenues un outil incontournable des sciences sociales. En proposant pour la première fois une initiation en langue française, il s’agit de faire connaître l’apport des études genre aux sciences sociales et plus généralement de faire œuvre citoyenne, en sensibilisant les participant.e.s et les étudiant.e.s aux inégalités sociales entre les hommes et les femmes et aux formes de discriminations directes ou indirectes qui les concernent dans leur diversité. Le cours utilise différentes théories et matériaux empiriques et s’inscrit dans une perspective interdisciplinaire en mobilisant l’histoire, la sociologie, l’anthropologie et les sciences politiques. Il valorise une lecture transversale et approfondie de phénomènes contemporains complexes, telle que la question des différences et des identités sexuelles, celle des inégalités à l’échelle locale et globale et celle de l’intersection des rapports de pouvoir. En mobilisant les travaux consacrés à ce qu’on appelle « l’intersectionalité », c’est-à-dire la combinaison des divers clivages sociaux et rapports de pouvoir, il met en effet l’accent sur les processus qui participent de la fabrication des différences (qu’elles soient liées au genre, à la classe, à la “race”, à la sexualité, à la religion) et analyse leurs interconnexions. A l'aide d’exemples variés tirés de recherches disponibles en français et en anglais, de media, d’enquêtes ou d’archives, il cherche à comprendre et expliquer dans leurs contextes spécifiques, les multiples ressorts des logiques de genre qui structurent les sociétés contemporaines.

À partir de la leçon

Techniques, sciences et biomédecine

Ce module se propose d’introduire à l’étude des sciences et des techniques dans une perspective de genre. Il s’agit d’apprendre à questionner nos relations aux techniques et aux sciences et la place qu’elles occupent dans les sociétés contemporaines. Il est aussi question de l’engagement des techniques et des sciences dans ce qui fonde les sociétés, les relations sociales, le genre, et les corps et d’analyser les enjeux sociaux et politiques qui sont liés aux transformations biomédicales contemporaines. La 1ère leçon s’intéresse à la question de la neutralité des techniques en focalisant sur les rôles sociaux et professionnels et la division technique du travail. La 2ème leçon s’interroge sur la question de la neutralité des sciences en tant qu’espace institutionnalisé de production des savoirs et de transformation du monde. La 3ème leçon revient sur le partage nature/culture et sur la façon dont les sciences du vivant on contribué à étudier et définir la différence de sexe. Le questionnement sur les frontières contemporaines du sexe et du genre est poursuivi et approfondi en leçon 4 autour de la façon dont la biomédecine transforme les frontières des corps et du vivant.

4.1 Technologie et médecine de la sexualité10:08

4.2 Technologie et médecine de la gestation et de l'accouchement8:16

4.3 Faire des sciences autrement? Le rôle des collectifs de patientes4:14

4.4 Faire des sciences autrement? Genre, sciences et citoyenneté9:03

4.5 Conclusion3:11

Rencontrer les enseignants

Delphine Gardey
Directrice et professeure ordinaire
Institut en Etudes genre
Marylène Lieber
Professeure Associée
Institut en Etudes genre
Lorena Parini
Professeure Associée
Institut en Etudes genre
Julien Debonneville
Maître assistant, sociologue, docteur en études genre
Institut en Etudes genre

[MUSIQUE] [MUSIQUE] Dans la prochaine séquence consacrée à genre, sciences et

citoyenneté, aux questions de participation,

c'est Bruno Strasser, historien des

sciences à l'université de Genève,

qui me remplacera et qui conduira un entretien en anglais avec Dana Mahr, qui

travaille avec lui comme post-doctorante autour d'un grand projet sur

sciences, citoyenneté et participation.

>> So Delphine Gardey and

Madeleine Akrich started discussing the role of patient organizations and the interplay

between lay and expert knowledge in the production of biomedical knowledge.

Today, we're going to continue the discussion,

just looking at more deeply the role of participation and

public participation in the production of biomedical knowledge.

First, however, I would like to discuss more broadly how gender plays the role

in our studies of science, and especially the biomedical sciences.

So that at least three levels where gender is an important perspective.

In the previous course, we discussed how biomedical knowledge can be

specifically affected by gendered assumptions.

And we took the example of the SRY gene, which is only present in male embryos and

was long thought to be a single gene determining sex determination.

Today I think we're just going to discuss two other elements.

The second element, which is just as interesting, is to kind of broaden

the perspective and see how gender is also influencing epistemology at large.

How what the norms of what counts as reliable evidence are, what counts as

a good knowledge and safe knowledge are affected by gendered assumptions.

So, one classic example here is the view that the cell,

the cell in biology is something

directed by your master molecule DNA which directs everything happening in the cell.

So this view has been fought by scholars as embodying gendered assumptions about

a central authority directing what's happening around it, and

that there are alternative ways of describing the cell.

For example, as a community of pieces interacting with each other and

much more collaborating in the production of the life of a cell if you want.

Another key example is Barbara McClintock, the American geneticist, who had a very

different view of epistemology of what it means to produce scientific knowledge.

Instead of embracing a form of objectivity which meant detachment,

which meant control over her object of study, she tried to feel for the organism.

And her organism was an interesting organism, it was corn.

And she had this strong feeling for corn, she even felt empathy for corn.

And she tried to understand what it means to be corn and to develop as corn.

And doing so, she discovered extremely important elements in genetics

that regulate the life of a corn.

And for that, she received the noble prize in the 1980s.

So that is just a second example of how even the outside the biology of sex or

reproduction, gender might influence the production of biomedical knowledge.

The third level at which gender plays a role in the production of biomedical

knowledge is perhaps simply the presence or

absence of women in the faculty level as researchers.

As we know, there's still a minority, or only a minority of women who are holding

tenured faculty positions in biomedical research.

Now that has probably an influence in the kind of questions that are being asked.

And this is precisely why public participation or in large in public

participation in biomedical research is seen as a promising way,

if not to break the glass ceiling, but at least to work around it to make

a more broader set of questions asked by men and women researchers.

However, our preliminary studies of public participation in research shows that

actually there's still a wide majority of men who are actually participating and

asking the questions.

However there are great differences among different fields.

Most famously in the 1970s, the women's health group,

our bodies, our selves, was starting to ask new questions about menstruation,

about abortion and about reproduction.

Trying to set a new agenda for a biomedical research.

And this is still happening probably today as we will talk in a few seconds with

Dana Mahr, specialist of Women's Health Movement in the 1970s and 80s.

So now I'd like to maybe turn to you.

And so Dana Mahr, she is a Post Doc and a specialist in Women's Health Movement,

and she's working here in a project which is trying to understand the kind of long

duree of public participation in science, specifically in the field of biomedicine.

And so could you tell us a little bit more about how gender

informs your perspective on participation?

>> Thank you, if you have a close historical or

sociological look on how diseases get conceptualized, you will see

that gender questions are always negotiated between different actors,

like medical experts, like scientists, like families, like patients,

like illness affiliation groups or patient organizations.

And I will give you a short example for this.

Until the 1970s and 1980s,

chronic inflammatory bowel diseases like Chrohn's Disease or

Ulcerative Colitis were framed by experts as psychosomatic conditions.

And psychosomatic conditions were seen as typically women's issues.

A man having Chrohn's or colitis was unthinkable.

Furthermore, having this kind of condition was a prove of personal failure to handle

the own life, a bodily compensation seen as a typical female characteristic.

To challenge this gendered and sexist view,

patient's organizations like the Crohn's and Colitis organization in the UK,

comprising more than let's say, 80% by women in this time,

actively promoted ultimative models by actively participating

in research studies mounting PR operations, etc.

In the late 1990s due to this activism and

alternative explanatory model, the paradigm emerged.

While ending the feminization of inflammatory bowel diseases,

entirely will count for this by patient organizations.

Since it postulated that's a genetic setup of human bowels,

there's almost no gender differences.

But more recently and that's a twist, generating of these disease reemerged,

thus increasing the evidence that Chron's and other inflammatory bowel diseases

are also triggered by imbalances within the microbiome of a person,

which can be actively manipulated by dietary, etc.

So, now inflammatory bowel diseases can be addressed through

health care regimes again.

And here's the twist.

Since women supposedly are more self-caring,

these diseases become once again gendered.

If you take a closer look at the images and

discourse of direct to consumer genetic testing companies, like uBiome or

23andMe, you will notice that the mainly represent women

steering the individual bowel problems to self care.

But here, I think is huge difference between

these two moments of feminization of the diseases.

In the 1970s and 1980s, it was male medical

professionals who constructed bowel diseases as femine.

Today, it is more like small bio companies

doing it with a clear idea of

economization of biomedical knowledge and self caring.

So here you can find two different stages of intention.

>> I think that's a very eliminating example of how the gendering of disease

can evolve very rapidly over time depending on the changes and modes of

participation or the types of actors which are involved in biomedical research.

So with that Dana Mahr, thank you very much for your interaction.

>> Thank you for the invitation.

>> Thanks.

[MUSIC]

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play