To refer to this page use:
|Abstract:||This article addresses the politics of genomics through three diagnoses: The first, diagnosing objectivity, discusses how researchers involved in a large-scale population mapping initiative distinguish genomics as relatively objective, compared to other forms of knowledge production. The second case, diagnosing nationality, examines an attempt by the UK Border Agency to use genetic ancestry testing to vet asylum claims. The third case, diagnosing indigeneity, considers how indigenous councils in southern Africa engage genomic science in their struggle for state recognition and rights. I argue that genomics’ allure of objectivity lends itself to such diagnostic attempts among both powerful and subaltern social actors and suggest that developing “technologies of humility” may provide one safeguard against the increasing uptake of genomics as the authority on human difference.|
|Citation:||Benjamin, Ruha. "The emperor’s new genes: Science, public policy, and the allure of objectivity." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 661, no. 1 (2015): 130-142.|
|Pages:||130 - 142|
|Type of Material:||Journal Article|
|Journal/Proceeding Title:||ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science|
|Version:||Final published version. This is an open access article.|
Items in OAR@Princeton are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.