Paper short abstract:

From 2006-2011 we participated in a collaborative experiment, with Paul Rabinow, to rethink the role that human sciences play in biological research. Our anthropological experiment, to engage bioscientists on the problem of the ramifications of their work (scientific, political, ethical), was ultimately rejected. The rejection was constituted through a range of affects: hostility, confusion and indifference. In this paper we take up the task of appraising the affective and ethical character of collaborative research in discordant situations.

Paper long abstract:

From 2006-2011 we participated in a collaborative experiment, with Paul Rabinow, to rethink the role that human sciences play in biological research. The Human Practices division of the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center—a facility established to create design standards for the engineering of new genetic elements, cellular sub-systems, and genomic platforms—was designed to integrate anthropology and the biosciences in a more fundamentally interdependent and mutually enriching fashion, an endeavor which required a vigilant refusal of the familiar roles of watchdogs, advisors, or aides to communication. Our anthropological experiment to engage bioscientists on the problem of the ramifications of their work (scientific, political, ethical) was ultimately rejected. The rejection was constituted through a range of affects: hostility, confusion and indifference. In this paper we take up the task of appraising the affective and ethical character of collaborative research in discordant situations. Borrowing a repertoire of terms from moral theology, we ask: what is the vocational price to be paid for undertaking collaboration in situations marked by negligence, self-justification, and malice?