Science And Biological Citizenship Of India And Ukraine

1120 Words Jun 28th, 2015 5 Pages
Science and Biological Citizenship
While the sociopolitical outcomes for India and Ukraine differ, they find agreement in the experience of biological citizenship. This termed was coined by Adriana Petryna specifically about the Chernobyl sufferers, but elements of it apply equally well to the experience of those post-Bhopal. Biological citizenship is a unique element of technical disasters because technical disasters are made up of two competing logics: “the political logic of risk containment and a personal logic of survival” (Petryna, 2002, 19). Technological disasters are novel; the scope and acting agent probably has not been studied extensively, creating the need for this knowledge post-disaster. Expertise on such tenuous issues is difficult to come by, leading to the bastardization of science and of clinical medicine. Once rigid in their credibility, scientific facts become partial, susceptible to economic, political, and social influences. A new form of capital emerges from a malleable disease status. This is biological citizenship. In areas that have experienced technical disaster, just having survived the disaster is not enough to lay claim to reparations. Instead, one must rely on their disease (gotten from the disaster), and the leverage surrounding such an illness, and a way to negotiate both social and economic survival. “Biological citizenship…speaks to a failure of politics and science to account for human welfare, compounding vulnerability for citizens…
Open Document