al-mofhariz

I like how this conversation is taking shape.It might be possible to see my contribution as taking up Lukas’ second methodological point – about the ongoing negotiation of the epistemic boundaries of scientific disciplines.
One of the first sessions of our Summer School dealt with research whereby members of various human communities were asked to “donate” genetic material. We read about a multi-faceted anthropological study in Brazil that attempted to discredit particular ideas about race in the service of taking a stand regarding the State’s position on affirmative action.(1)In this particular project, high school students were asked to assess their own racial makeup and to reflect on culturally held ideas about race.Then, they submitted genetic material to be analyzed for ancestry informative markers.There is much to be said about the merits and limitations of this project (including science in the service of politics). For the purposes of this conversation, however, I want only to …

One thing I like about HANK's post is that it questions the utility of both categories -- biology & the public -- by suggesting that their application to 16th century exploration, say, is anachronistic.  There was no such thing as a unified discipline of biology at the time.  Moreover, the relationship between natural history and its various publics were nothing like that between biomedicine and modern citizens.  So is it foolhardy to attempt a relatively longue durée history of biology and the public?

I'm not sure that it is.  It is indeed tricky -- risky even -- but I think the potential payoff of such a project outweighs its considerable pitfalls.

I'll restrict myself to two points, one methodological and the other more substantive.  First, a point on historical method:

I grant it is very important not to confuse actor's and analyst's categories when doing history.  It would be a grave error to import our modern notions about the relationship between biology an…