Towards a Novel Discourse on Truth: An Unexpected Call to Action in Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake

8/7/2019 Towards a Novel Discourse on Truth: An Unexpected Call to Action in Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake

1/27

Gonzalez1

TowardsaNovelDiscourseonTruth:An

UnexpectedCalltoActioninMargaretAtwood'sOryxandCrake

ImportantQuestions

In the past 10 to 20 years, significant time and energy has been dedicated to

discussingthe future ofbiotechnology;it iswidely believed that the impact ofthe rapid

expansionoftechnoscienceinthecomingdecadeswillhaveanunprecedentedimpacton

humanity. Interestingly, more recent discussions on the future of biotechnology have

turned to fiction when exploring its implications; in a recently-published positionpaper

titledTheEthicsofGeneticEngineering,DavidKoepsellinvokesMargaretAtwoodsnovel

Oryxand Crake to highlightthe potentially favorable aspects of scientific endeavors like

genetic engineering: Eventually, writes Koepsell, as envisioned in Margaret Atwoods

Oryxand Crake (2003), animal variants used asfood sources might evenbe engineered

withoutanythingmorethananautonomousnervoussystem,arguablyeradicatingmanyof

the ethical concerns involved with the wholesale slaughter of large mammals for food

(12).

Forthose familiar withAtwoods novel, Koepsells reference toOryxand Crakein

optimistic terms will likely come across as odd. In the contemporary controversies

surroundingthefutureofbiotechnology,itisfarmorecommonfornovelslike Oryxand

Crake to be referenced in the interest of exploring technosciences potentially harmful

outcomes,afactthatmembersofthescientificcommunityarekeenlyawareof.In2010,an

article was published by io9, a blog whose primary focuses are the subjects of science

fiction,futurism,andadvancementsinthefieldsofscienceandtechnology. Thearticleis

drivenbytheideathatthereisatendencyinthegenreofsciencefictiontofudgethefacts

for the sake of plot. While the stated goal of the article is to see whether any science


2/27

Gonzalez2

fictiongets[the science]right,severalof thescientists interviewed,including Dr.David

Barash,an evolutionarypsychologistandsociobiologist, neverthelessuse thequestion as

anopportunitytospeakonthedangersofmisinterpretedsciencewhenitisappliedto

discussionssurroundingthefutureofbiotechnology.CitinganothernovelofAtwoods,The

Handmaids Tale, Dr. Barash notes, although evo-psych presumes genetic influence on

behavior,itdefinitelydoesntimplyanythinglikethegeneticdeterminismfoundin[novels

like Atwoods]. Barash argues that, in this sense, these books are not only a

misrepresentation of science, but a mis-use of it as well, that is likely to confirm the

worstfearsofreaderswhodontunderstandthescienceitself.

UnderlyingtheseconversationsiswhatIcharacterizeinthisessayastherecursive

paradoxofhumanitysrelationshipwithnature,whichcanbesummarizedbrieflybythe

idea that humanity, despite its efforts to distance itself from nature, is nevertheless

inextricablyboundtoit.Whilethisparadoxhasalwaysexisted,thestateofcontemporary

science has made a confrontation of this paradox more urgent than ever before. The

frequency withwhich novels like Atwoodsarereferenced during conversations such as

those justmentioned raises important questions about the role that fictionand fiction

about science, in particularplays in our confrontation of this paradox, and our

conceptionsofscience,nature,andtruthinourparticularhistoricalmoment:Whatisit

aboutnovelslikeAtwoodsthatallowforthemtobeincludedinseriousdiscussionsabout

thefutureof biotechnology?Whatis theunderlyingmessageto thesenovelsthatismost

commonlyinvoked? Isthereanythingwecanextractfromthesenovelsthathasyettobe

exploredinthe context of contemporary debate over the future of technoscience? This

essaywillexplorethesequestionsbytakingacloserlookatAtwoodsnovelOryxandCrake.


3/27

Gonzalez3

ThestoryofOryxandCrakeunfoldsthroughtwoparallelnarratives.Eachnarrative

unfoldsoneithersideofabiogeneticsingularitythathasdevastatedhumanity,leaving,as

farasweknow,justonesurvivor.ThatsurvivorisSnowman,ourprotagonist.Through

Snowmansmemoriesweareprovidedaccesstothenovelsparallelstoryline,whichplays

outinthetimepriortothesingularity,ultimatelyleadinguptotheextinctionofhumanity.

The primary character in the novels pre-singularity narrative is Jimmy. Tellingly, the

names Snowman and Jimmy are actually different names for the same person;

Snowman/Jimmy is an identity split by time. The novel opens on the far side of the

singularity, and follows the day-to-day actions of Snowman in a post-apocalyptic world

ravagedbyabioengineeredplaguethatbroughthumanitytoitsknees.Thoughthenovelis

relatedinthethirdperson,thedirectionthatthenarrationtakesatanygivenmomentis

determined, not by the disembodied observer, but by the thoughts and actions of

Snowman.Thisstyleofnarrationlendsthenovelastream-of-consciousqualitythatallows

for jolting shifts in temporal setting. In this way the narrative describes both the

immediate actions of Snowman and the irreversible experiences of Jimmy by constantly

shiftingbetweenthenovelspost-singularitypresentandirrecoverablepast,respectively.

Thereader quicklyrecognizes thatthepre-singularity world ofOryxand Crakeis

modeledcloselyafterhisown.Setinthenot-too-distantfuture,biotechnologicalresearch

andimplementationhasexplodedintoanevenmoresuccessfulfinancialenterprise.Huge

corporationswithstrangelyfamiliar-soundingnameslikeHealthWyzergovernthenovels

socioeconomicspheres.Thesesamecorporationsregularlyannounceimpressive-sounding

scientific innovations, like high-tensile spider silk, many of which sound to Atwoods

audiencelikesomethingtheymightjustassoonreadaboutinthatweeksissueofPopular


4/27

Gonzalez4

Science. The privileged members of society inhabit compounds, sprawling living

communities and centers for biogenetic research with high walls, invasive and militant

securityforces,andstrictsecurityprotocols.Thecompoundsservetoseparatetheelite

from the have-nots, who inhabit crime-ridden pleeblands, poorly-monitored,

underprivileged, andeconomically-crippled cities,home tothe addicts,the muggers,the

paupers,andthecrazies(Atwood27).Jimmyisamemberofthesocioeconomicelite,

which is comprised primarily of scientists. Both of Jimmys parents are accomplished

scientificinvestigators,thoughhismothersrecentobjectionstothedirectioninwhichthe

scienceofthedayisheadinghavecausedhertoceaseconductingresearch.Thedecision

by Jimmys mother to abstain from research is a point of contention between Jimmys

parents, a pointofcontention that underscores much ofthe ethos ofthe pre-singularity

narrative.AsJimmymatures,hefindsthathemustnavigateaminefieldofcontentionsthat

seemtobecenteredlargelyontheissueofpotentiallytransgressivescience.

In the novels present, Snowman must struggle to survive in the aftermath of an

apocalypticeventthathasseveredhimalmostentirelyfromthepre-singularityworld.The

meansbywhichJimmycanaccessthefamiliartruthsofthehumanityheoncebelongedto

are limited: rather than interacting with humans, Jimmy spends his days observing and

reacting to a world densely populated with the ideas and inventions of phantoms

individuals and corporations that existed prior to the singularity. When Snowmans

memories do not shift the narrative into the parallel storyline, they haunt him, as his

conception of everything that once was (culture, art, language, science, truth), in the

absence of any other humans, begins to dissolve. Posthumans that populate the post-

singularityworldexacerbateSnowmanslossofcontactwithhispriorconceptionsoftruth.


5/27

Gonzalez5

TheseCrakers,orChildrenofCrake,areageneticallyidealracebioengineeredbyCrake,

Jimmysgeniusbestfriendand,incidentally,thescientistresponsiblefortheextinctionof

mankind. Snowmanisananachronismtotheposthumans,whowereleftinhischargeby

Crake. Left with the task oflookingafter the Crakers,Snowmanmustconfront the new

systemoftruththatheshareswiththeCrakerswhilehisgrasponhisoldsystemweakens.

GiventhedescriptionofthenovelthatIhaveprovided,theanswertooursecond

questionWhat is the underlying message to Atwoods novel that is most commonly

invoked?prima facie, seems clear: Oryx and Crake appears to be a warning about the

potentiallydestructivecapacityofanaggressivelytechnoscientificculture;byinvestigating

our first questionWhat about Atwoods fiction allows it to be included in serious

discussionsaboutthefutureofbiotechnology?Iwillrevealhowonecaneasilyarriveatthe

conclusionthathascausedmanypeopletoviewOryxandCrakeintheseterms.Beginning

with what I have defined as the recursive paradox defining humanitys strained

relationship with nature, I will explore through the theories of postmodernist Jean

BaudrillardhowAtwoodsnovelcanbecastsoconvincinglyinadystopiclight.Iwillthen

addressourthirdquestionIsthereanythingwecanextractfromAtwoodsnovelthathas

yettobeexploredinthecontextofcontemporarydebateoverthefutureoftechnoscience?

byreexaminingOryxandCrakeusingtheoryborrowedfromtheoristsintheemergingfield

ofsciencestudies.Indoingso,Iwillarriveattheprimaryargumentofthisessay:thatatits

core,OryxandCrakeisnot,despiteappearances,adystopianwarningaboutthepotentially

catastrophiceffectsofunbridledbiologicalengineering.Rather,thenovelworksbycalling

attentiontotheneedforanewwayoftalking,notnecessarilyabout"science"butabout

"truth,"inordertoreclaimthepossibilityofauniquefuture.


6/27

Gonzalez6

TheFutureisNowTemporalCollapseandtheLossofaUniqueFuture

[Ilike]tomakeadistinctionbetweensciencefictionproperforme,

thislabeldenotesbookswiththingsinthemwecantyetdoorbegin

todo,talkingbeingswecannevermeet,andplaceswecantgoand

speculativefiction,whichemploysthemeansalreadymoreorlessto

hand,andtakesplaceonPlanetEarth

-MargaretAtwood

Whilethesentimentiscertainlyonethathasbeenutteredwithvaryingdegreesof

ironyandexaggerationinthelastseveraldecades, thereexistcompellingargumentsthat

the future really isnow more than evernow. In a list of recent scientific and

technological breakthroughs, compiled by social theorists Douglas Kellner and Steven

Best, the validity andimmediate significancebehindthisotherwisehackneyed phrase is

thrownintoperspective:

There has been intense speculation and research concerning black holes,

wormholes, parallel universes, ten-dimensional reality, time travel,

teleportation, antigravity devices, the possibility of life on other planets,cryogenics, and immortality. Moon and Mars landings, genetic and tissue

engineering, cloning, xenotransplantation, artificial birth technologies,animal head transplants, bionics robotics, and eugenics now exist. At the

same time, weighty questions arebeing raised about how many realities

anduniversesmightsimultaneouslyexist,whetherornotnatureislaw-like in its fundamental dynamics, andjusthow exact scientific knowledge

canbe. (103)

WhatKellnerandBestcallindirectattentiontoispreciselywhatVeronicaHollingernotes

in her article Stories about the Future: that many of us who currently live in a world

infused with technoculture have come to experience the present as a kind of future at

which weve inadvertently arrived, oneof themany futures imagined byscience fiction

(452).Thissituation,inandof itself,hardlyseemsawkwardorproblematic,especiallyin

thecontextofwhathumanityisupagainst;disease,poverty,globalfoodshortagesina


7/27

Gonzalez7

renderingofthepresentwhereweapprehendaversionofthefutureinthefeaturesofthe

contemporaryscience-fictionalmoment,aversionwherethedividebetweenthefacticity

ofrealismandthesubjunctivityofsciencefiction(452)isbeginningtovanish,thereare

manywhoareoptimisticaboutthepotentialthatsuchanhistoricalmomentholds.Among

theranksofindividualsexcitedabouttheprospectofafuture-present,however,aremany

who nevertheless question what it means to name the present after a narrative genre

devotedtotheimaginativecreationoffutureworlds.InlightofnovelslikeOryxandCrake,

which turn to science fiction (or, as the epigraph to this section suggests, speculative

fiction) as a means of characterizing the day-to-day experience of a science-and-

technology-infusedpresent,it iseasytoseethatoursocietyisonethatismoreandmore

attunedtotheincreasinglycomplexnatureofthefutureintechnoscience.Inthissection,I

explorehowpostmoderntheoryfromcriticJeanBaudrillardinteractswithsciencefiction

throughtherecursiveparadoxthatwefindinOryxandCrake.InthefollowingsectionIwill

extendthediscussionintotherealmofsciencestudiestoseehowOryxandCrakeinteracts

withscience,orfactproduction,itself.

TherearemanywhobelievethatthepublicationofnovelslikeAtwoodsOryxand

Crake issymptomaticofanincreasinglyintrusivetechnoscientificfuturityon thepresent,

an intrusion so dramatic that the future has collapsed upon the present in a way that

underminesthepossibilityofaconditionalfuture.JayClayton,forexample,contendsthat

our current attitude toward time is so pervasive in the spheres of genetics and

biotechnology that it should be called genome time (33). In genome time, explains

Clayton,onefindsaperpetualpresent,whichparadoxicallytakesaneschatologicalstance

towardthefuturealltimesareinscribedinthepresent,encodedinthemoment(33).In


8/27

Gonzalez8

hisessayFuturisticFlu,IstvanCsicsery-Ronay,Jr.goessofarastorefertotheintrusionof

the future onto the present inpathogenic terms, characterizing the condition asone in

whicha timefurtherinthefuturethantheoneinwhich weexistandchooseinfects the

hostpresent,reproducingitselfinsimulacra,untilitdestroysalltheoriginalchronocytesof

thehostimagination(45).WhatCsicsery-Ronay,Jr.describesasthedestructivepotential

ofthefuturisticflu,andwhatClaytoncharacterizesastheparadoxicalnatureofgenome

times eschatological stance toward the future, get at the heart of what is at stake in a

perpetualfuturepresent:thatwhenchangedefinesthepresent,itrobsthefutureofany

chanceofuniquesignificance.

Csicsery-Ronay, Jr.s invocation of the concept of simulacra draws attention to

theoreticalmodelsofpostmodernitypropoundedbytheoristJeanBaudrillardinhisessay

Simulacra andScienceFiction, who,asearly as the1980s,foresawtheemergence of a

brandofsciencefictiondistinctfromhardsciencefiction. OryxandCrakeispreciselythis

new brand of fiction.Our explorationof the collapseofthe future onto the present will

begin with the recursive paradox from which countless others can be derived: that

humanityis,simultaneously,isolatedfromyetinextricablylinkedtonature.Iwillbeginby

introducingthisparadoxinthecontextofOryxandCrake,thengoontoexploretheoretical

modelspositedbyBaudrillardwhichwillhelpmeplaceOryxandCrakeinamorecentral

positioninthedialoguesurroundingtemporality,science,truth,andchange.

Letusbeginourexaminationwithoneofthequestionsthat OryxandCrakeaimsto

deconstructinitsexplorationoftruthinthecontextofhumanitysrelationshipwithnature:

whatdowedefineasartificial?Formostpeople,artificialitycanonlybethoughtofand

contextualizedasacounterpositiontothenatural.However,mostpeoplewouldagreethat


9/27

Gonzalez9

artificialityisanextensionofthenatural,likethemachineisanextensionofthebody.It

isthenaturallyevolvedcreativecapacityofhumanitythatallowsittosimultaneouslyrival

natureandtriumphantlyremolditinitsownimage.Rocks,sticks,language,plows,yokes,

cotton gins, machines, computers, genetic manipulation: they are all extensions of a

nature destined to encompass one dynamic and organic body. In this rational view,

humanityitselfisjustamediumbywhichnaturemanifestsandexpressesitselfonalarger

canvass,evenwhenthatmediumwouldappeartodistanceitselffromnature.

InOryxandCrake,the(non)dividebetweennatureandman,betweennaturaland

artificial, is illustrated most clearly in the imagery used to describe the post-singularity

world. Here the medium of mankind is revealed as being mixed in confusing and

indiscriminatewayswithnaturesothermediums.IntheopeningpagesofOryxandCrake,

we find that on the latter side of the genetic singularity, the human extensions of the

naturalworld,includingthoseextensionsthatwouldservetoisolateusfromthatworld,

have become indistinguishable from the very aspects of nature that first made them

distinctlyhuman.ThenovelopenswithSnowmanawakingfromsleepbeforesunrise:

Snowmanwakesbeforedawn.Heliesunmoving,listeningtothetidecomingin,waveafterwavesloshingoverthevariousbarricades,wish-wash,wish-

wash,therhythmofheartbeat.Hewouldsoliketobelieveheisstillasleep.(3)

Byinvokingorganismalmetaphorinthecomparisonof thewish-washoftheoceantothe

rhythmofaheartbeat,Atwoodisrelatingthehumanbodytoitsnaturalorigins;doesthe

oceanwish-washlikeaheart,ordoestheheartbeatrhythmicallythewaytheoceanebbs

andflows?ThisimageofSnowmanawakingbeforesunriseisonethatoccursonseveral

occasionsoverthecourseofthenovel,andAtwoodrarelymissestheopportunitytouse

thedescriptiontoconflatethenaturalwiththehuman,orwithhumansextensionofthe


10/27

Gonzalez10

natural:thesunrisesabovethehorizon,liftingsteadilyasifonapulley1(146);thesuns

rays, personifiedas evil,bounce off thewater andget at [Snowman] (37); Snowman

scansthehorizonthroughhisonesunglassedeyeandcallstheseahotmetal,theskya

bleachedblue(11);strainingtohearpasttheheartbeatoftheocean,Snowmanlistens

intentlyastheshrieksofbirdsthatliveindistant,offshoretowers,andthesoundofthe

distant ocean grinding against the ersatz reefs of rusted car parts, jumbled bricks and

assorted rubble combine, sounding almost like holiday traffic (4). Prior to the

singularitythatwipedouthumanity,itwastheuniquelyhumancapacityformantopry

himselfawayfromthenaturalworld,toconfirmitandmasterit,thatprovidedthedistinct

illusionofaseparationorisolationfromnature.Thefactthatthisseparationwasbegotten

bymeansofthingslikegeneticmanipulationhighlightsmanstiebacktonature,thereby

upholding the recursive paradox and compounding the complicated and uncomfortable

relationshipwithnaturethatthecharactersofOryxandCrakeexperience.

It is important to note here thatthe relationshipbetween theartificialityof the

human experience and the natural world is intricately bound up with humanitys

conceptionofrealityreadnatureandmansreconceptionofthatrealityintheformof

simulationandsimulacra.InSimulacraandScienceFiction ,JeanBaudrillardexpandsupon

his seminal discourse on images, signs, and their relationships with contemporaneity,

whichhe began inSimulacraandSimulation.Indoingso,heforetellstheemergenceof

fictionlikeOryxandCrake,andlaystheframeworkforexaminingthepuzzlingrelationship

1Foraninsightfulexaminationofhowchangesinknowledgeaboutthenaturalworldrelatetotheincreasinguseofmechanicalmetaphorstodescribenaturalprocesses,andtheincreasingly

complexrelationshipbetweenhumansubjectsandthenaturalobjectsoftheirobservation,see

StevenShapinsTheScientificRevolution .Shapinsbookrelatesdirectlytothetopicscoveredinthe

secondsectionofthisessay,whichdealmoreexplicitlywiththeemergingfieldofsciencestudies.


11/27

Gonzalez11

between the imaginary and the real by noting that there is no real and no imaginary

exceptatacertaindistance(309).ThedistancethatBaudrillardisreferringtocanbestbe

thought of as a definitive gap separating the real from the imaginary. What makes the

relationship between the real and the imaginary, and by extension the relationship

betweenmanandnature,socomplicatedinOryxandCrakeisthenarrowingofthatgap.

Whatwewitness,bothwithinthepagesofOryxandCrake,aswellasinourrelationshipto

it as a piece of fiction, is the dramatic shrinking of this distance in the novels pre-

singularitysociety,whereintherepeatedcompoundingoftherecursiveparadoxuponitself

parallelshumanitysalienationfromreality,inspiteofhisintrinsiclinktoit.

InSimulacraandScienceFiction,Baudrillardpositstheexistenceofthreeordersof

simulacra,eachofwhichcorrespondstoanunspecified,albeitdistinctlydifferent,distance

inthegapbetweentheimaginaryandthereal.Thefirstisnaturalisticsimulacra,whichis

basedonimage,imitation,andcounterfeiting.Thesecondisproductionistsimulacra,the

aimofwhichisPromethean:world-wideapplication,continuousexpansion,liberationof

indeterminate energy. The third is simulation simulacra, and its aim is maximum

operationality, hyperreality, totalcontrol(309). Baudrillardcontendsthat thecommon

conception of the utopian possibility corresponds to the first order, in the sense that

through this order, the utopia of the future will involve the ideal institution (or

reconstitution) of nature inGods image. Belonging to the second order of simulacra is

hardsciencefictionthebranchofsciencefictionwithwhichAtwoodherselfclaimsno

allegiance(Ireferyou,again,totheepigraphforthissection). Referencingthethirdform

of simulacra, Baudrillard asks, hypothetically: is there yet an imaginary domain which

correspondstothisorder(309)? Inresponsetohisownquestion,Baudrillardcontinues


12/27

Gonzalez12

by surmising that the good old SF imagination is dead, and that something else is

beginningtoemerge(310).Thatsomething,accordingtoBaudrillard,isagenreoffiction

thatis,itself,anapprehensionofthereal,thusleavingnoroomforfictionalextrapolation

(310).Theendproductofthisthirdorderofsimulacraisthesamelossofauniquefuture

thattheoristslikeCsicsery-Ronay,Jr.,Clay,andothershaveemphasizedinrecentyears.

Indeed, what we find in Atwoods novel is the brand of third-order simulacra

fictionwhich Baudrillard saw emerging some thirty years agoin its full form. The

world of Oryx and Crake, and, by Baudrillards estimation, our own, is one where the

fascinationsofthethirdorderhyperrealthatareincreasinglyoverlayingthelostutopia

of thereal, work implosivelyto block thepossibility of anymeaningful future changeor

transformation.Symptomsofthirdordersimulacraaboundinthepre-singularityworldof

OryxandCrake, wheretherecursiveparadoxof nature ismostcompounded. Ina scene

fromJimmyschildhood,hefindsthatheisnotonlyfearfulofbutalsodrawntothesightof

a pile of animals that are being burned to prevent the spread of a biogenetic pathogen

intentionallyplantedbyeco-rightsactivists.Thescenerevealstheimportanceofspectacle

tothecommunityofthecompound,andtheself-referentialnatureofJimmysrelationship

toreality:

Hethoughthecouldseetheanimalslookingathimreproachfullyoutoftheir

burning eyes. Insome way all ofthisthebonfire, the charred smell, butmost of all the lit up, suffering animalswas his fault, because hed done

nothingtorescuethem. Atthesame timehe found the bonfirea beautiful

sightluminous, like a Christmans tree, but a Christmas tree on fire. Hehoped there might be an explosion, as on television.

(Atwood18)

Jimmy,liketherestofthecrowdthathasgatheredtowatchtheanimalsburn,ispartofa

larger system which, in combination with the heap of burning animals, has become a


13/27

Gonzalez13

spectaclelikeonemightseeontelevision. ThefactthatJimmyrelatestohisimmediate

situation through terms of reproduction speaks to the notion of hyperreality that

Baudrillard refers to when describing third order simulacra. The amplification of

simulacrainthebonfirescenemirrorstherecursiveparadoxofnaturethatgivesrisetothe

bonfire inthefirstplace; spurredbya fear ofthe diseases that are a naturalpartof his

existence, man is intrigued by the possibility of harnessing nature in the interest of

controllingitseffects.Insoharnessingnature,heisatonceabdicatinghimselffromhis

involvementwithitandre-implementinghimselfintoitsprocess,playingbynaturesrules,

as it were. In seeing the nature that man has supposedly harnessed turned on him by

individualswhoobjectto itsmanipulation,theabsurdityofthesituationcomesfullcircle,

and we find humanity, once again, simultaneously fearful of, yet drawn to, the natural;

whenJimmysfatherliftshimupintohisarmsastheywatchthebonfire,hebelievesitis

becauseJimmywantstobecomforted,whichhedoes,butalso[he]wantstoseebetter

(18).

Themore wecome to understand aboutlife before the singularity,the morewe

cometorecognizeitsparticipationinthirdordersimulacra.Theoutsideworld,which

Jimmy relates to exclusively through the internet, electronic games, and web-casts, is

simultaneously amplified and estranged due to the nature of the websites themselves.

SpeakingtothestyleoftheperformancesbytheadolescentgirlsontheHottTottswebsite

thatheandCrakefrequentgirlstheyregard,notasreal,butasdigitalclones(90)

Jimmy observes that they are always characterized by at least three layers of

contradictorymakebelieve,oneontopoftheother(90).Thispersistentquestioningof


14/27

Gonzalez14

reality isone that extendsto manyother sites, incitingCrake tostate outrightthatyou

neverknowwhatisreality(83).

This confusion that Jimmy experiences in his relationship with reality is directly

relatedtohumanitysconfusingandintrinsictietonature;asthesocietythatJimmyisa

partofparticipatesingreaterandgreatereffortstodistanceitselffromnature,itbecomes

doubledandtripledbackontonature,buttherelationshipisobscuredoneverysubsequent

connection,furthercomplicatingtherelationship. Thisrecursivequalitycanbe observed

throughoutthenovelinthewaythatthepre-singularityworld,givenitsseeminglylimitless

biogenetic capabilities, cannot envision a utopia that counterposes an ideal alternative

world, but instead adds to the present one, multiplying the worlds own possibilities

(Baudrillard310).Considerthattheworldof OryxandCrakeisnotpopulatedwithtotally

foreignspecies,butratherhybridsofanimalsweareallfamiliarwith;ratsandskunksare

splicedtoformrakunks,andmassivepig-likeanimalsaregrowntoharvesthumanorgans.

Reality has managed to surpass fiction (310); the imagination necessary for the pre-

singularitysocietytoenvisionafuturedifferentthanitspresenthasvanished.Wenowsee

howthecollapseofthefutureontothepresenthasfacilitatedtheadmittanceofAtwoods

novel into serious discussions on the future of technoscience; when combined with

Atwoodsshifttoaspeculativebrandofsciencefiction,OryxandCrakeisremovedfromthe

farcical and unthreatening history of science fiction proper, and is placed firmly into a

realmofgraver,moreurgentconsideration.


15/27

Gonzalez15

AnUnexpectedCalltoActionReframingOryxandCrakeinConstructivistTerms

The aim ofthis section isto undergoa shift inour discussion, from investigating

how postmodernist criticism interacts with Atwoods brand of speculative fiction, to

exploringwhattheemergingfieldofsciencestudiescantellusabouthowOryxandCrake

addresses the issue of truth. I will facilitate this shift by providing an example that

illustratesthecrossoverfromthelossofauniquefutureinOryxandCraketotheperceived

lossofauniquefutureoutsidethefiction.Iwillthenproceedtoexploretheimplicationsof

this crossover by situating it in the larger discussion of fact-production with a brief

introductiontosciencestudies,followedbyaconstructivistreadingofOryxandCrakethat

drawsontheworkofBrunoLatour,asciencestudiestheorist.ThroughthisreadingIwill

argue that Atwoods novel, when framed by the reconception of nature and truth,

opposesthetendencytoplacethedangeroframpanttechnoscienceatthecynosureofall

discoursesurroundingthenovel.

ThepointIconcludedwithintheprevioussectiontheideathatanincreasingly

acutesenseoftheshapeofthingstocomehasalreadybeendetermined,underminingin

theprocessthe[componentsnecessary]tocreateanopen,conditionalfuture(Csicsery-

Ronay,Jr.33)servesasanidealturningpointforguidingourdiscussionfromcriticism

dealingwithAtwoodsbrandofspeculativefictiontocriticismthatexploreshowAtwoods

novel actively engages science and truth directly. To make this transition, I will return

briefly to a discussion that mirrors those referenced at the beginning of this essay to

anchor my overall analysis. In a 2004 article published by the Brookings Institution2,

2TheBrookingsInstitutionisbasedinWashington,D.C.andisoneofthecapitalsoldestthinktanks.Brookingsdescribesitselfasindependentandnon-partisan,isanonprofitpublicpolicy


16/27

Gonzalez16

MichaelJ. Sandel,Harvardphilosophy professor and memberof formerpresidentGeorge

W.BushsCouncilonBioethics,andLeeM.Silver,Princetonprofessorofmolecularbiology

andpublicaffairsandcontroversialauthorofRemakingEden:HowGeneticEngineeringand

CloningWillTransformtheAmericanFamily,weighedinonthetopicoftheethicsbehind

geneticengineering.Thecontrastintheiropinionsisonefamiliartothoseacquaintedwith

thedebate;Sandelarguesthatgeneticenhancementsareunnecessary,andarepartofa

troubling overall trend towards human mastery, the implications of which include an

alteration inthe fundamental principlesof a society builton asenseof community. It

goeswithoutsayingthatSilversresponsetoSandelsconcernsiswhatoneexpectsinthis

type of debate; acknowledging Sandels reservations, Silver nevertheless advocates

prudentadvancementinthefieldofgeneticenhancement. WhatmakesSilversresponse

relevant in the context of our discussion, however, is his outward expression of what I

believetobetheoft-unspokensubtexttoargumentssuchashis:thatwhiletheconcerns

surrounding genetic engineering raised by Sandel may seem worrisome, it is not

clearhowwecanstop[geneticengineeringfromhappening].

In Sandelsstatement, we witnesstheconditions surrounding thelossof anopen

andconditionalfuturemovefromthepagesof OryxandCrakeintotherealworldinthe

form of what Polish microbiologist and philosopherof science Ludwik Fleck referred to

over70yearsagoasaproto-idea.Proto-ideasaredevelopmentalrudimentsofmodern

theories that originate from a socio-cogitative foundation (25). The socio-cogitative

foundationthatFleckisreferringtoiswhathedescribedasaDenkkollective,orthought

collective, a self-sustaining community of persons mutually exchanging ideas or

organization,andconductsresearchandeducationinthesocialsciences,primarilyineconomics,

metropolitanpolicy,governance,foreignpolicy,andglobaleconomyanddevelopment.


17/27

Gonzalez17

maintainingintellectualinteraction. According toFleck,themostsurprisingthingabout

proto-ideasishowoftentheyeventuallygiverisetocontemporaryconceptionsoftruth,

evenasthosecontemporaryconceptionsoftruthlookbackontheproto-ideaandidentify

itspremisesaspatentlyfalseormisguided.Giventhatafactcandevelopfromahazy

proto-idea, which is neither right nor wrong (25), we can envision the proto-idea as,

simultaneously,twothings.Thefirstisavehiclethroughwhichintentionsgreaterthanthe

thought collective that conceives of the proto-idea manifest themselves; the second is a

spacesorepleteinitswillthatitseemstodenyalternativeforcesanypowerwhatsoever.

Sandelstreatmentofgeneticengineeringcanthereforebeequatedtotheconceptofthe

proto-idea3.

The proto-idea is an important component of Flecks seminal work of scientific

philosophy,GenesisandDevelopmentofaScientificFact.Thetextwaswrittenin1935,and

itstitleisuniquebecauseofwhatitsuggests.Thelogicofscientificphilosophyatthetime

thatFleckwrotehisbookcharacterizedtheideaofscienceasdiscoverytheuncoveringof

a truth that is always and already inexistence. This concept embodies, to this day, the

mainstream philosophy of science. The idea that a scientific fact could therefore be

generated,ordevelopedovertime,asFleckstitlesuggests,wasineverywaycontraryto

3Itisworthmentioningherethatthereadingofgeneticengineeringasaproto-ideacouldbeusedtoreinforcereadingsofOryxandCrakeasadystopicwarningofthedestructivecapacityof

uncheckedscience.This,however,ismissingthepoint.TheexampleprovidedisusedfortheexpresspurposeofredirectingourdiscussiontowardshowOryxandCrakeapproachesconceptions

oftruththewaythatsciencestudiesinvestigatestheconstructivistnatureofscience.Whatone

shouldtakeawayfromtheexampleoftheprotoidea,morethansciencesbeliefinthatidea,isthe

factthataproto-ideamustbeconceivedintheframeworkofathoughtcollective.Theimplications

ofthisconceptareexploredingreaterdetaillaterinthissection.Fornow,thesalientpointinthe

contextofourpresentdiscussionliesinunderstandingthatthereexist,atanygivenhistorical

moment,severalcompetingandinharmoniousthoughtcollectives.


18/27

Gonzalez18

scientificepistemologicalthinking.WhatFleckconsidersisthehistoricityoftruth,and,

moreradically,thattherecanbeinstancesintimewhenscientificfactsdonotyetexistor

no longer exist, and that this status is intricately bound up with and driven by the

competingsocialforcesofdifferentthoughtcollectives.

Fleck has since been acknowledged as something of a founding member in the

emergingfieldknownassciencestudies.SinceFleckpublishedhisbook,sciencestudies

has drawn on thinkers from a variety of fields, including historians, sociologists, and

philosophers, who approach the production of science, and, by extension, truth, in

constructivistterms.Thisapproachallowsthemtoobservetheprocessesthatunderlie

thecreationofscientificfactswhiledelineatingthelimitsandpurposesoftheseprocesses.

Utilizing concepts from science studies theorist Bruno Latour, I will here argue the

relevance of Oryx and Crake as a work of fiction that contributes to the discussion

surroundingthefutureof technosciencebyillustratingitscallforareneweddiscourseon

truth. Moreover,I willexplainwhydescribingOryxandCrakeasadystopicwarningrobs

thenovelofthisrelevance.

InLatoursScienceinAction,heexplorestheprocessbywhichfactsaremadeby

enteringscienceandtechnologythroughthebackdoorofscienceinthemaking,rather

thanthroughthemoregrandioseentranceofready-madescience(4). Latourdescribes

ready-madesciencethroughthemetaphorofaclosedblackbox.Thecontentsofaclosed

blackboxcanbethoughtofassomethingthatisreadilyacceptedasaninherenttruth,beit

bymembersofthescientificcommunityormembersofthelargerpopulation.

Theformationofablackboxbeginswithasinglestatement.Thatstatementcanbe

inserted, in itsoriginal form, intovarious other statements that caneither lead it away


19/27

Gonzalez19

from its conditions of production, making it solid enough to render some other

consequences necessary, or toward its conditions of production, explaining in detail

why it is solid or weak instead of using it to render some other consequences more

necessary (23). These sentences, which either qualify or question the veracity of the

original statement, are known as positive and negative modalities, respectively. The

ongoingincorporationofanoriginalstatementintopositiveandnegativemodalitiescanbe

thought of as the process by which a black box is closed or opened (how a statement

becomesacceptedasfactorrejectedas untrue),respectively.Thisconcept,whichLatour

introduces in the first chapter ofScience inAction, has numerous implications, many of

which Latour spends the remainder of the book unpacking. However, the two most

importantthingstotakeawayfromthismodel(accordingnotonlytoLatour,butbasedon

conceptsofhisthatIwillintroducebelow)areasfollows.Thefirstisthatthestatusofa

statement depends entirely on future statementspositive and negativemodalities that

make the original statement more or less of a certainty. The second is something so

critical,notonlytohisdiscussionbuttoours,thatLatourgoessofarastodeemitthefirst

principleofinvestigatingthenatureoftruth:thattheconstructionoffactsisacollective

process(29,emphasisinoriginal).

Inthe aftermath ofOryxandCrakes biogenetic singularity,Snowmanis forced to

suffer an abrupt severance from the collective that once defined his reality while also

realizinghisplaceinanewsystemoftruth;heisperpetuallyconfrontedwithblackboxes

that are opening and closing, often in disorienting and confusing ways. On one hand,

Snowmanmuststrugglewiththefactthatthenetworkofsupportingmodalitiesthatonce

definedhisrealitypriortothesingularityhasbeenreducedtoacollectiveofonehimself.


20/27

Gonzalez20

Nursingahangover,Snowmanwishesaloudthathehadmorealcohol:Hairofthedog,he

saystotheemptybeerbottleinhishand.Theturnofphrasethathemuttersisbeyond

arcane;heis,asfarasheknows,theonlyorganismintheworldwhowouldunderstandthe

reference.Histurnofphraseisfittinggiventhecontextofourdiscussion,especiallywhen

oneconsiderstheself-reflectionthatSnowmanengagesinafewlineslater:

Hewisheshehadsomethingtoread.Toread,toview,tohear,tostudy,to

compile.Ragendsoflanguagearefloatinginhishead:mephitic,metronome,mastitis, metatarsal, maudlin. I used to be erudite, he says out loud.

Erudite. A hopeless word. What are all those things he once thought he

knew,andwherehavetheygone?Whatshappeningtohismind?Hehasavisionofthetopofhisneck,openingupintohisheadlikeabathroomdrain.

Fragmentsofwordsareswirlingdownit,inagreyliquidherealizesishisdissolvingbrain.Timetofacereality. (148-149)

Thisboutofself-reflectionisjustoneofmanythatSnowmanengagesinthroughout

thenovel,whereinheindulgesinthememoryofwordsthatnolongerhavemeaning

andwill belostforever whenhedies. Someherecalls, but cant reachhe cant

attachanythingtothem(39).Thisresultsinadissolutionofmeaning(39)that

leads him to the conclusion that truths, like the various words and phrases, are

fantasiesinthemselves(99).

WhileSnowmanisreelingfromthelossofafirmconceptionoftruththatheldits

forminthepre-singularitytimeframeofthenovel,heissimultaneouslyfacedwiththetask

oflookingovertheCrakers,and,indoingso,establishinganewsystemoftruth.Scenes

depicting Snowmans participation in the generation of truth areoften presented in the

formofhimaddressingCrakerchildren.Heexplainstothemmanythings,rangingfrom

theoverallmythologysurroundingtheircreationtothepurposeofhisbaseballhat,which

theylike,butdonotunderstandtheneedforbecausehehasntyetinventedafictionforit


21/27

Gonzalez21

(8).Whatfictionshehas createdin the timehehasspent lookingoverthem havebeen

accumulated by the Crakers as a stock of lore, of conjecture (8), a stock which, when

combined with their own experiences, has become a system of truths capable of taking

shapeindependentlyofSnowmansparticipation:

Snowman was once a birdbut hes forgotten how to fly and the rest of his

feathersfellout,andsoheiscoldandheneedsasecondskin,andhehasto

wraphimselfup.No:hescoldbecauseheeats fish,andfisharecold. No:he

wrapshimselfupbecausehesmissinghismanthing,andhedoesntwantusto

see. Thats whyhe wont go swimming. Snowmanhaswrinklesbecause he

oncelivedunderwateranditwrinkleduphisskin.Snowmanissadbecausethe

otherslikehimflewawayoverthesea,andnowheisallalone.(8-9)

ThestructureofthedialoguebetweentheCrakersblursthelinesbetweenthefictionsthat

Snowmanhasimparteduponthemandtheconjecturesthattheyhavecomeupwithon

theirown,andalsoshowshowquicklyhisfictionsaretransformedandinstatedasfacts.

HereweseeaparadoxthatarisesoutofLatoursblackboxmodel:byinvolvingtheCrakers

in his process of fact production, Snowman enlists individuals who may pass that truth

along.This,however,isdangerousforSnowman,notonlybecausehemustrememberthe

fictions he is turning into fact, but because each individual who becomes a part of the

collective can behave as what Latour describes as a multiconductor, someone who may

havenointerestwhatsoeverintheclaim,shuntittowardssomeunrelatedtopic,turnit

into an artifact, transform it into something else, drop it altogether, pass it along as is,

confirm it, and soon (Latour 207). The situation signals Snowmans integrationinto a

newcollectiveof dynamicallyformedfacts,evenashisoldconceptionsoftruthareinthe

processofdissolving.

It is here worth investigating what happens when Snowmans old conceptions of

truthcollidewithhisnewones.Themeetingofthetwoisexploredparticularlywellinthe


22/27

Gonzalez22

chaptertitledToast.Snowman,ravagedbyhunger,spiesarabbit,whichfillshimwith

carnivorousdesires;helongstowhackitwitharock,tearitapartwithhisbarehands,

thencramitintohismouth,furandall(Atwood96).However,owingtothemyththathe

hascreatedfortheCrakers(which,youwillrecall,hasbeenintegratedintoacollectiveof

facts), he is unable to do so, because rabbitsare sacred; to kill one would be to risk

offendingtheCrakers(96).Whileberatinghimselfoutloudfornotmakingrabbitsedible,

oneofthechildrenofCrakehearshimtalkingtohimself,whichleadstoseveralchildren

askinghimaseriesofquestions.WhenthechildrenbegintogetonSnowmansnerves,he

threatensthatifthechildrendonotstopbotheringhimtheyllbetoast.Hisutteranceof

the word toast opens a door that Snowman would rather have avoided: Please, oh

Snowman,whatis toast? Snowmans error,as hedescribesit,was his use ofanother

(beyond) arcane metaphor. Snowmans rumination over his slip-up warrants a lengthy

citation:

Whatistoast?Sayssnowmantohimself,once[thechildrenhave]runoff.

ToastiswhenyoutakeapieceofbreadWhatisbread? Breadiswhenyoutake some flourWhat is flour? Well skip that part, its too complicated.

Breadissomethingyoucaneat,madefromaground-upplantandshapedlike

astone. Youcookit. Please,whydoyoucookit?Whydontyoujusteatthe

plant?NevermindthatpartPayattention.Youcookit,andthenyoucutit

intoslices,andyouputasliceintoatoaster,whichisametalboxthatheatsup

withelectricityWhatiselectricity?Dontworryaboutthat.Whilethesliceis

inthetoaster,yougetoutthebutterbutterisayellowgrease,madefromthe

mammaryglandsofskipthebutter.So,thetoasterturnsthesliceofbreadblackonbothsideswithsmokecomingout,andthenthistoastershootsthe

slice up into the air and it falls onto the floorForget it, says Snowman.

Letstryagain.ToastisapointlessinventionfromtheDarkAges.Toastwasanimplementoftorturethatcausedallthosesubjectedtoittoregurgitatein

verbal form the sinsand crimes of their past lives. Toastwas a ritual itemdevoured by fetishists in the belief that it would enhance their kinetic and

sexualpowers.Toastcannotbeexplainedbyanyrationalmeans.(97-98)

ThisdensescenerevealsmuchabouthowAtwoodsnovelconfrontstruthinthesameway


23/27

Gonzalez23

thatsciencestudiesdoes.Snowmanssystemofclassification,histietoaformerreality,has

been violently severed. His memories, his influx of soon-to-be extinct words and

conceptions of truth that once tied him to a larger thought collective, now threaten to

isolatehimfromtheCrakersifhehimselfdoesnotabidebythefactsthathavebeenborne

fromhisfictions.WhileSnowmanmayhavestartedasthesingleauthorityonfactstothe

Crakers,hiscapacityinthatrolesincecontributingtotheformationoftheirconceptionof

truth has been diminished considerably. Why doesnt Snowman just kill the rabbit and

change the truth that hehas laid down for the Crakers? Because, Snowman concedes,

internalconsistencyisbest(96). Ifcaughtinaminorcontradiction,hemightbeableto

recoverbyintroducingnewfictions,orrevisingestablishedfacts.Todothis,however,

would be to risk confronting, either directly or indirectly, what Latour refers to as a

paradigm,thatis:themostsolidpoint(35),theblackboxwhichnoonewoulddareto

open.Indoingso,Snowmanwouldbecomeveryisolated(Latour44),evenmoreisolated

thanhealreadyis;forhimtoriskisolationfromtheonlyotherviablesystemoftruthon

earthwouldbetantamounttoexistentialsuicide.

Snowmans situation inOryxand Crake isarguablyone that wouldbe impossible

outsideofafictitioussettingbecauseitplaceshimatthenexusofwhatLatourcallsThe

Great Divide, which operates via the supposition that there is, on the right hand,

knowledgeembeddedinsociety,andonthelefthand,knowledgeindependentofsociety

(213). If Snowman still had access to the societal forces that once confirmed his

conceptionsof truth,hewouldlikelyconfrontthesystemof truthadoptedby theCrakers

asonethattheyupholdbasedonbelief,ratherthanobjectivejudgment.WhileSnowman

mayinstinctively relateto theinchoatesystem of facts adoptedby theCrakersfromthe


24/27

Gonzalez24

perspective of an objective observer, the realityof his situation is that his prior belief

system does not hold; the line tracing the divide between them (the Crakers) and us

(Snowmans prior collective) has been effaced. In the process, the socially-contingent

natureofthereadersownsystemoffactsarecalledintoquestion.

WhatSnowmanssituationforcesustodoisreconsiderthesuppositionbehindThe

Great Divide. Consequently, we must reflect on how Snowmans collective thoughts on

truthcollideinthepost-singularityworldof OryxandCrake.Indoingso,onecanmore

clearly seehow alternative notions of truth engage oneanotherprior to the singularity,

and,by extension,in his own worldoutside the novel. Inthe pre-singularity world, the

debateoverthepotentiallytransgressivenatureofsciencetakingplacewithinthenovel

mirrorsthecollectiveanxietiessurroundingthesameissueoutsidethenovel.Thisdebate

is reproduced at its most manageable scale in the rift between Jimmys Parents. By

eavesdroppingonhisparentsarguments,Jimmybecomeswell-versedintherhetoricthat

eachoneusestoarticulatehisorherpointsonthedebateinquestion,tothepointthathe

beginsre-enactingthemintheformofhand-puppetmini-dramas,whichhestagesinthe

lunchroomofhisschool:

His right hand was Evil Dad, his left hand was Righteous Mom. Evil Dadblustered and theorized and dished out pompous bullshit, Righteous Mom

complainedandaccused.InRighteousMomscosmology,EvilDadwasthe

sole source of hemorrhoids, kleptomania, global conflict, bad breath,tectonic-plate fault lines, and clogged drains, as well as every migraine

headacheandmenstrualcrampRighteousMomhadeversuffered.(60)

Having traveled from the time frame prior to the singularitywhere the complicated

doublingandtriplingbackoftherecursiveparadoxuponitselfcontributedmoreandmore

to the loss of a unique futureto the post-singularity worldwhere the socially-

contingent nature of the readers system of facts could more effectively be called into


25/27

Gonzalez25

questionandback,wearefinallypoisedtoapproachtheargumentbetweenEvilDadand

Righteous Mom the way Jimmy might have done were he able to straddle the thought

collectives of his mother and father the way Snowman is forced to straddle The Great

Divide ofthe novels post-apocalyptic present. Evil Dad isevil,and Righteous Mom is

righteous because each party, when faced with the accusation of irrationality, simply

contendsthattheotherisirrational;eachfailstoconsidertheangle,direction,movement

andscale(Latour,213)oftheothersremovalfromhisorherownsystemoftruth.

Jimmy confesses to often feeling guilty after his lunchroom puppet shows on

account of what he describes as an uncomfortable truth that he would prefer not to

examine(Atwood60). Iproposethattheuncomfortabletruthbehindtheargumentsof

Jimmysparents,behindthediscourseonthefutureofbiotechnologybothinsidethenovel

and out, is what Barbara Herrnstein Smith describes, in her analysis of contemporary

controversiessuchasthisone,asnormativeand/orepistemicsymmetry,which,contrary

totheideathatalljudgmentsorbeliefsareequallygoodorequallyvalid,istheideathat

all judgments and beliefs, including ones own, are produced and operate equally

contingently, that is, are formed in response to more or less particular and variable

conditions(experiential,historical,cultural,discursive,circumstantial,andsoon)(8).

Inlightofthisconcept,itbecomesclearthatMargaretAtwoodsOryxinCrakeisnot,

at its core, a dystopicwarningabout thepotentially catastrophic outcomes of unbridled

biogenetic engineering,becauseto calluponthisreadingof thenovel fails to contribute

constructivelytothediscourseinwhichitismostcommonlyused.Theemptinessbehind

thisbrandofcriticismisrevealedinoneofJimmysruminations,whereinhewonderswhy

hehadntseenitallcomingandheadeditoff,insteadofplayingatmeanventriloquism


26/27

Gonzalez26

(64)(inreferencetohisEvilDad/RighteousMommini-dramas).Instead,ourexamination

ofAtwoodsnovelhasrevealedwithinitspagesahopefulcalltoattentiveandpragmatic

action,andshownhowbyconfrontingconceptionsoftruth, OryxandCrakecontributes,in

asubstantialway,notjusttothecontemporarydebateofthefutureoftechnoscience,butto

therecoveryofanopen,conditionalfuture.


27/27

Gonzalez27

WorksCited

Atwood,Margaret.OryxandCrake.NewYork:RandomHouse,2004.

.TheHandmaidsTaleandOryxandCrakeinContext. PMLA119.3(2004):513-

517.Baudrillard,Jean.Trans.Evans,ArthurB.SimulacraandScienceFiction.ScienceFiction

Studies18.3(1991):309-313.

Best,Steven,andDouglasKellner.ThePostmodernAdventure:Science,Technology,and

CulturalStudiesatthethirdMillennium.NewYork:Guildford,2001.

Clayton,Jay.GenomeTime.InRe-readingthePresent:TimeandtheLiterary.Ed.

Newman,Clayton,andHirsch.NewYork:Routledge,2002.

Csicsery-Ronay,Jr.,Istvan.FuturisticFlu,or,TheRevengeoftheFuture.Fiction2000:CyberpunkandtheFutureofNarrative,Ed.GeorgeSlusserandTomShippey.Athens,GA:GeorgiaUP,1992.26-45.

EventSummary:ADebateontheEthicsofGeneticEngineering.HealthCare,Technology.

TheBrookingsInstitute,31March2004.Web.

Fleck,Ludwik.GenesisandDevelopmentofaScientificFact.Trans.FredBradleyandThaddeusJ.Trenn.Eds.ThaddeusJ.TrennandRobertK.Merton.Chicago:The

UniversityofChicagoPress,1979.

Hollinger,Veronica.StoriesabouttheFuture:FromPatternsofExpectationtoPattern

Recognition.ScienceFictionStudies33.3(2006):452-472.

Koepsell,David.TheEthicsofGeneticEngineering:APositionPaperfromtheCenterfor

InquiryOfficeofPublicPolicy.CenterforInquiry,Inc.Reviewedby:PaulKurt,AustinDacey,RonaldA.Lindsay,RuthPitchell,JohnShook,ToniVanPelt.

Washington,DC:CenterforInquiry,Inc.,2007.

Latour,Bruno.ScienceinAction.Cambridge:HarvardUP,1987.

Newitz,Annalee.Sixscientiststellusaboutthemostaccuratesciencefictionintheirfields.MadScience.Io9,22Sept.2010.Web..

Shapin,Steven.TheScientificRevolution.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1996.

Smith,BarbaraHerrnstein.Belief&Resistance:DynamicsofContemporaryIntellectual

Controversy.Cambridge:HarvardUP,1997.

Documents

Towards a Novel Discourse on Truth: An Unexpected Call to Action in Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake