The research and publication practices by which scientists produce biomedical knowledge about race and ethnicity remain largely unexamined despite increasing interest in biological explanations for health disparities by race, as well as prominent critiques by social scientists highlighting the implications of conceptualizing race as a biological category. Although a growing number of studies on lab and research practices are helping to map meanings of race and ethnicity on notions of difference and health, we still have very little understanding of the (...) earlier funding application stage or of the resulting publications. We know that knowledge production can involve a range of different processes, including consensus building, strategic and instrumental decision making, as well as conscious and subconscious cognitive filtering, through which we direct analytic attention only to those aspects of a problem or topic that are defined as “relevant” and “important.” These processes also involve the “translation” of ideas such as race and ethnicity for different audiences, which occurs in broader contexts of cultural norms and institutional rules and practices. (shrink)

As nation-states make greater efforts to regulate the flow of people on the move—refugees, economic migrants, and international travelers alike—advocates of DNA profiling technologies claim DNA testing provides a reliable and objective way of revealing a person’s true identity for immigration procedures. This article examines the use of DNA testing for family reunification in immigration cases in Finland, Germany, and the United States—the first transatlantic analysis of such cases—to explore the relationship between technology, the meaning of family, and immigration. Drawing (...) on our analyses of archival records, government documents, and interviews with immigration stakeholders, we argue that DNA testing is not conclusive about the meaning of family. While the technology may facilitate decision making for both would-be immigrants and state officials, our study shows hesitancy among the latter to let DNA testing make the final determination. We introduce the concept of social validity—whether the interpretation of test results matches social or political meanings in a given local context—in order to make sense of the complexities and challenges of DNA testing in practice. We show that DNA testing is not just a technology of belonging or a way to claim citizenship rights. It may also enable exclusion and denial of rights. (shrink)

Salman Rushdie posed the question, ?What kind of idea are you?? We have borrowed his provoking question and held it up to ?Europe.? In this article, we suggest that ?Europe? cannot be primarily identified or located in terms of geographies, histories, religions, cultures or values, and that attempts to do so diminish the idea of ?Europe.? We also contest the vision of ?Europe? as a series of concentric circles emanating from Brussels and suggest that this conception indefensibly marginalizes vital portions (...) of ?Europe.? We propose that, while the European Union (EU) is attempting to define core concepts of ?Europe,? ?Europe's? frontiers and borders (wherever or whatever they may be, inside or outside ?Europe?) are actively constructing, contesting and resisting ?Europe.? The peripheries and perimeters are no less important than the core. On the contrary, they give substance to the idea of ?Europe.? Finally, we argue that ?Europe? can best be understood as a non-teleological construct, a narrative à la Roland Barthes. Inspired by Barthes, we propose a ?Europe? Theory of Classification operating at the levels of functions, actions and narration. (shrink)