The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon

Preface to the First Edition

refacetotheFirstEdition P PR[fA([ TO TH[ fiRST [DITION sumed that images that appear so consistently in so many unrelated forums reflect important cultural expectations. As we quickly discovered, popular culture is, practically speaking, an infinite resource. Our notion of popular culture is broad. It includes textual and visual materials as well as the often fragmented elements of oral culture such as jokes, musical lyrics, radio talk shows, and cliches.2 Our collection includes hundreds of stories and representations of the gene, not least ubiquitous images from the everyday detritus of soundbites, slogans, and snippets. We have dealt with the problem of excessive material in four ways. First, whenever possible we availed ourselves of the databanks through which materials (in mass-circulation publications on genes and behavior, for example) could be retrieved . Second, we took advantage of the special knowledge of individuals who occupy particular niches of popular culture . We interviewed a sperm-bank founder, clerks in comicbook stores, journalists, geneticists, fertility specialists, and serious science-fiction and television fans. Third, we systematically reviewed the publications disseminated by specialinterest groups including disability support foundations, infertility and adoption organizations, neo-Nazis, the religious right, and the population control movement. We read specialty publications such as Soap Opera Digest; and we canvassed child-care books, women's magazines, self-help books, and popular biographies for references to genes and heredity. Fourth, we attended discussions and debates on topics like the meaning of genetic definitions of homosexuality , the consequences of behavioral genetics for law and social policy, and the ethical, legal, and social implications of the Human Genome Project. In these ways we attempted to sample, both broadly and strategically, a vast, quixotic data base. But perhaps of equal importance to our study was a less systematic network of informants-colleagues, family members, friends, and acquaintances -who heard of our project and immediately began pointing out examples and sending us jokes, clippings, movie recommendations, and copies of advertisements. We drew particularly on the special expertise of our students, xxx PREfACE TO THE fiRST EDITION well versed in popular culture, who often returned from their weekends with sightings (and citations). This is not, therefore, a statistical study but an analysis of folklore. Our intention was to consider a broad range of sources and to explore many different forms of popular culture . Although we can show that images have changed through time, we have not compiled quantitative data and do not think it would have been appropriate or meaningful to do so. Nor is this a study that explicitly addresses ongoing debates in cultural studies about the relative passivity or activity of media audiences. We assume that the images and stories of genes in popular culture are not isolated artifacts but social products that both reflect and affect the cultural ethos; we assume, moreover, an active interaction between text and reader, media and audience. Indeed, we stress the diversity of people's interpretations and uses of the gene.3 We show that many groups appropriate the gene to serve their needs-to promote their products, proclaim their solidarity, explain success or failure, deride or justify a cause-and we therefore construct popular culture as both an influence and a resource , a set of images to be accepted and to be reshaped to fit social agendas. This kind of project relies on help from many people. The research assistance of Elizabeth Weinberg, a graduate student at New York University and an amazing connoisseur of popular culture, was especially helpful in collecting and keeping track of a large quantity of material. Other graduate students who helped collect material in specific areas included Mark Hamel, Betsy Hanson, Margo Hoffman, Lissa Hunt, Douglas Keen, Rosann Kosta, Ellen Kruger, Howard Lune, Neda Pourang, and Kevin Tucker. Many colleagues helped in providing material and critiquing drafts: Jon Beckwith , Paul Billings, Jo Dixon, Rochelle Dreyfuss, Chris Feudtner , Sarah Franklin, David Garland, Laura Lee Hall, Elizabeth Knoll, Mark Nelkin, Robert Proctor, Rayna Rapp, Charles Rosenberg, Brett Skakun, Ann Snitow, Christina Spellman, Sherry Turkle, and Keith Wailoo. Our editor, Jonathan Cobb, was a relentless and valuable critic. Christine Hastings cheerfully guided our manuscript into print. xxxi PREfACE TO THE fiRST EDITION Program officers at the ELSI (Ethical, Legal and Social Implications ) Program of the Center for Human Genome Research of the National Institutes of Health were very helpful. Eric Juengst, Elizabeth Thomson, and Betty Graham sent comic strips and cartoons. We wish to...