Monthly Archives: April 2017

Greetings from our Sosiologipäivät STS -working group (23-24.3.2017)

Around three months ago, we published a call for papers for the “Science, technology and society” working group that the STS Helsinki group organized at the Annual Conference of the Westermarck Society, more commonly known as Sosiologipäivät (Sociology Days in Finnish). We were happy to receive quite many abstracts, which resulted in two very fruitful and intense sessions with a total of 17 presentations taking place during the 23rd and 24th of March at the University of Tampere.

We divided our working group into five smaller thematic sessions.

Session 1: ANT and technology

Elina Paju, Minna Ruckenstein and Päivi Berg explored in their paper children’s physical activity as an issue of neoliberal government through the products of ReimaGo activity sensor for kids and the Pokemon GO game. Mervi Jalonen focused on the notion of experiment in an innovation-based society, discussing various examples of experiments aimed to facilitate sustainability transitions. Meanwhile Oskari Lappalainen presented ongoing work on the development of personal data economy through the social movement called MyData.

Session 2: Fertility and reproduction

Elina Helosvuori discussed her ethnographic study on infertility, deploying the notion of excess to grasp the personal experiences generated through IVF. Riikka Homanen turned the focus on transnational egg donation where enacting Nordicness, whiteness and kinness is at play. Lise Eriksson presented a paper on surrogacy and uterus transplantation from the point of view of medical knowledge production.

Session 3: Social research, impact and policy

Reetta Muhonen presented a project tracking research in social sciences and humanities with a practical side by following projects from different sites in Europe. Kamilla Karhunmaa talked about energy policy and different expectations in the field in the Finnish context. Juha-Pekka Lauronen discussed how social research’s impact in society is understood among policymakers, researchers and science administrators. Johanna Hokka introduced research on orthodox definitions of sociology among Finnish and Swedish professors.

Session 4: Knowledge production

Salla Sariola’s presentation discussed the governance of international clinical trials in India, showing how civil society activists managed to negotiate changes in the regulations guiding them. Minna Ruckenstein analysed breakages and gaps in data and the practices of repair involved in using such data for research. Annika Lonkila’s theme was the use and non-use of genomic knowledge on dairy farms, specifically the practices involved in the selection of animals for breeding. Anuradha Nayak presented the case of cryo-preserved life and the legal problems regarding the status and ownership of the preserved ‘material’.

Session 5: Genes and molecular life

Mianna Meskus, explored craftsmanship as a way to describe the use of cutting-edge biotechnology in the field of stem cell research. Secondly, Heta Tarkkala introduced her work on the Finnish biobanking scene, in which genetic uniqueness and difference appear as sources of value for the use of Finnish samples in international biological research. Finally, our last presentation had Venla Oikkonen present some ideas related to how genomes and DNA relate to temporality, belonging and nostalgia.

Finally, we were happy to see that so many scholars with such varied topics, but still many common interests, came together and shared ideas. Hopefully, this was only the first of many other encounters to come in which the STS community in Finland starts to take shape. We would like to especially thank all the presenters for their work and willingness to participate. See you all next year!

Join the the Finnish Reproductive Studies Network (FireSNet)

The Finnish Reproductive Studies Network (FireSNet) brings together scholars from fields of social and political sciences, humanities, law, health sciences and medicine exploring reproduction not merely as physical birth but more broadly as an agent of bodily, biological, viral, sexual and cultural transformation. The common commitment of the researchers in the network is to inquire into the historical and current complexities of reproductive practices and policies. This commitment on reproduction studies derivers from women’s health movements and a long scholarly interest in developing a toolkit to grasp sociotechnical webs that constitute reproductive practice. In short, studies on reproduction not only show how perceptions and practices of reproduction are multiple and contested, but also how questions of power relations, resources, skills, suffering, hope, meaning, and lives are always at stake.

The Finnish Reproductive Studies Network is founded on the need to establish a common discussion forum for scholars scattered in different higher education institutions in Finland, looking at reproduction from various perspectives. The purpose of the network is to support, develop and inspire different collaborative efforts in research and teaching. We will be arranging seminars with international speakers, workshops, and provide a platform for joint funding applications. The network will also distribute research publications authored by its members. The network also has an email list, FiReSNet@uta.fi.

The network invites scholars from all career stages exploring the following questions and more: How does reproduction matter in social life and society? How are our futures, origins, selves and kin organized by societal and institutional power relations? What are the changing conditions for reproductive freedom and justice, and for whom? How are gendered, racialized, sexed and classed human and non-human bodies, body parts and tissue reproduced, commodified, transported, governed and cared for in local and transnational spaces?

The network launch meeting with members from Finland is planned to take place November 17, 2017.

The network is organized by Academy of Finland Postdoctoral Researcher Dr. Riikka Homanen from the University of Tampere and Academy Research Fellow Dr. Mianna Meskus from the University of Helsinki.

If you would like to join the network and the email list, please contact Riikka Homanen, Riikka.Homanen@uta.fi or Mianna Meskus, Mianna.Meskus@helsinki.fi. Also please feel free to distribute this call for members in your own networks.

Avoimia kysymyksiä tulevaisuuden terveydestä ja yhteiskunnasta

Kliininen päätöksenteko perustuu tutkittuun tietoon. Tiedon tarkentuessa sairausluokitukset tulevat paremmiksi, diagnostiikka ja hoitotulokset paranevat ja potilaat hyötyvät. Myös lääkeaineiden aiheuttamat haitat vähenevät. Potilaan autonomia kasvaa, kun palvelut ottavat paremmin yksilön tarpeet huomioon. Koko terveydenhuoltojärjestelmä sekä tehostuu että tulee vaikuttavammaksi. Ennaltaehkäisevät toimet voidaan kohdistaa niihin, jotka todella hyötyvät niistä. Kansalaisten ymmärrys genetiikasta ja terveydestä parantuu, jolloin he pystyvät huolehtimaan itsestään entistä paremmin. Ja lista jatkuu…

Yllä olevan kappaleen lupaukset on poimittu brittiläisen terveysalan think-thankin PHG Foundation huhtikuussa 2017 julkaisemasta raportista ”Personalised healthcare: bringing the future into focus”. Raportissa esitetään tulevaisuudennäkymiä siitä, mitä henkilökohtainen lääketiede oikeastaan tulee tarkoittamaan. Lisäksi raportissa nostetaan esille, mitä eettisiä ja yhteiskunnallisia kysymyksiä terveydenhuollon mahdollisesti radikaaliinkin muutokseen liittyy. Tässä merkinnässä nostan esiin joitakin niistä huolista ja kysymyksistä, jotka tulevat samassa paketissa lupausten kanssa. Kirjoitus perustuu raportin sisältöön.

On tärkeää muistaa, että tiede etenee hitaasti ja uusi tieto on aina osittaista ja rajallista. Uuden tiedon vieminen potilaiden hoitoon ja terveydenhoitojärjestelmään hyödyllisellä tavalla tulee jatkossakin olemaan haastavaa. Edes terveydenhuoltohenkilökunnan ymmärtämys ja tietämys aiheesta ei kenties aina ole riittävällä tasolla. Genetiikkaan ja genomiikkaan liittyvä lukutaito onkin keskeinen haaste koko yhteiskunnalle.

”Personalised Healtcare” -raportissa huomautetaan, että on mahdollista, ettei genomitieto voimaannuta kansalaisia tai tee heistä yhtään enempää valmiita ottamaan suurempaa vastuuta omasta terveydestään. Muutenkaan ei ole aivan selvää, miten visio perimää koskevan tiedon lisääntyvästä käytöstä terveydenhuollossa ja sairaanhoidossa oikeasti vaikuttaa ihmisten terveyttä koskeviin asenteisiin. Voiko tiedon liian suuri määrä johtaa vain välinpitämättömyyteen? Tietoon ja dataan keskittyminen voi myös johtaa siihen, että hoito, hoiva ja ihmisen yksilöllinen kohtaaminen sekä kuuntelu sivuutetaan, kun ihminen näyttäytyy vain terveysdatansa summana. Toisaalta pelkona on, että lisääntyvän tiedon kautta luodaan suuri joukko terveydestään erittäin huolestuneita tai ahdistuneita kansalaisia, joilla ei todellisuudessa ole minkäänlaista akuuttia terveysongelmaa. Ylipäätään ero terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin välillä voi hämärtyä, mikä voi luoda jälleen uusia palvelutarpeita.

Iso potentiaalinen haaste on sekin, minkälaisia yhteyksiä tulevaisuudessa mahdollisesti luodaan geneettisten riskitekijöiden, sosiaalisen vastuun ja perheen perustamisen välille. Johtaako perimää koskevan tiedon lisääntyminen pahimmillaan hedelmällisessä iässä olevien naisten elintapojen ja terveyden entistä tarkempaan kontrolloimiseen? Samoin perhe- ja sukulaissuhteisiin terveyden ja perimän kysymyksillä on vaikutusta. Terveydenhuollon perusteiden mahdollinen radikaali muutos voi myös muilta osin merkittävästi vaikuttaa siihen, miten jatkossa ymmärrämme toisaalta sosiaalisen ja toisaalta yksilön oman vastuun suhteessa terveyteen. Huolena on, lisääntyvätkö epätasa-arvo ja ihmisten syrjintä – eli kääntäen esiin nousee kysymys siitä, ketkä konkreettisesti hyötyvät geenitiedosta ja keitä nämä lääketieteen uudet lupaukset koskevat?

Hallinnon ja palvelujärjestelmän kannalta haasteena on löytää parhaat toimintatavat. Uhkana on järjestelmän tehottomuus ja liiallinen monimutkaisuus. Raportin mukaan usein nojataan liikaa ajatuksiin innovaatioista palveluihin keskittymisen sijaan. Toisaalta juuri lisääntyvä yhteistyö julkisen ja yksityisen samoin kuin hoidon ja tutkimuksen välillä, nähdään oleellisina osina henkilökohtaisen lääketieteen toteutumista.

Lopulta kysymys on myös siitä, kuinka tuleva terveydenhuoltojärjestelmä kykenee vastaamaan yhä enemmän omasta hoidostaan vastuuta ottavien yksilöiden odotuksiin ja toiveisiin. On ratkaistava, millaisten palvelujen kautta vastataan toisaalta ihmisten haluihin ja odotuksiin, ja toisaalta ihmisten tarpeisiin. Tullaanko potilaita esimerkiksi ylidiagnosoimaan? Odotetaanko meidän kaikkien kykenevän jatkossa toimimaan oman terveytemme ja hyvinvointimme projektipäällikköinä, olemaan yhä enemmän vastuussa omasta terveydestämme, ja yhä lukutaitoisempina geenitietomme suhteen?

Research diving – or understanding one’s way of working in isolation

The Pomodoro technique.

Three hours of writing before checking your e-mail.

The procrastination notebook.

Social media blockers

These have become relatively common techniques to fight the lack of concentration in writing research. At the same time, many lunch conversations drift towards this topic in the hope of finding yet new ones. They usually work for a while, they fail, then we take up a new one. Once we run out of them, we go back to the one that worked for that very productive week. It is almost like remembering an old forgotten love. We go around them in cycles of productivity. It is common to blame the lack of productivity on everyday life annoyances, whether they are work related or not. The objective of those techniques is to build temporary walls between oneself and those disturbances. However, the collapse of those walls is generally one click away and it seems that, as soon as we become too familiar with them, we sort of stop respecting them too.

The procrastination book: every time you remember something you need to do, write it down and do it after you are finished.

During January and February I had the chance to use a technique a bit more radical than those everyday life ones. I went to a two-month writing retreat at the Saari Residence, located in Mynämäki, one of the perks of being funded by Kone Foundation. I had wanted to do something like this since I started my PhD back in 2013 and I thought of it as an isolating experience, like building a huge spatial wall between me and the rest of the world. However, I suddenly realized that isolation was not exactly the word to describe it. As Internet lurks nowadays everywhere (and is even a basic tool for the process of writing), I found out that many of those annoyances were still present. It was rather a diving process: I managed to dive into my research and be surrounded by it from morning to evening. This does not mean that I worked 24/7 (is that even possible or sane) but that I would allow myself to write uninterruptedly when I was at my most productive moment. I realized the huge role that social commitments and responsibilities play in my writing and how many times I must leave the office at the end of working hours despite being at the best moment of the day. The retreat was useful in order to let those moments (of inspiration, of focus) come in in full force and embrace them until they are gone.

Surroundings of the Saari Residence

My isolation was not complete, I was surrounded by a great group of people in a similar state of mind, which helped share the experience and understand it. Company is important, for the sake of sanity. This sort of isolation worked for me in a very different way than other techniques. Instead of disciplining my time, I let time discipline my work. This is probably not doable as a long-term venture. Research outside a research community becomes a bit more futile in my opinion, and so everything I wrote did not fully make sense until I went back to civilization. However, I find that such retreats (even shorter ones) can be extremely helpful not only for the sake of productivity but also for the sake of understanding one’s work and connecting with one’s research through immersion.

Perhaps those walls are not so much about blocking annoyances out but about how much space we leave inside for us to work comfortably.