Amy Fitzgerald

Developments in genomics, notably the development of transcriptomics, have enabled the “molecularization of life” (Rose, 2001, p.13). Most analyses of these developments focus on human medicine. Other realms warrant attention, specifically applications with nonhuman animals, which are increasingly likely in response to growing concerns regarding their adaptability to rapid environmental changes. Given that public understandings can impact adoption of novel technologies in important ways, and that the public mostly receives information about technologies from news media, this article examines communication of knowledge and socioethical (particularly animal ethics) considerations regarding transcriptomics in news media. One key consideration examined is the potential collapsing of the culture/nature binary in light of transcriptomics developments forecasted in the literature. We find that explicit attention to socioethical implications is least likely when nonhuman animals are involved, whereas it most often occurs in relation to ways transcriptomics could be used to unsettle what constitutes human nature, illustrating the ongoing power of the culture/nature binary.

How did meat emerge to become such an important feature in Western society? In both popular and academic literatures, biophysical and political-economic factors are often cited as the reason for meat’s preeminent status. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive investigation of these claims by reviewing the available evidence on the political-economic and biophysical features of meat over the long arc of Western history. We specifically focus on nine critical epochs: the Paleolithic, early to late Neolithic, antiquity, ancient Israel and early Christian societies, medieval Europe, early modern Europe, colonial America, the American frontier, and the modern industrial era. We find that except under conditions of environmental scarcity, the meaning and value of meat cannot be attributed to intrinsic biophysical value or to the political-economic actors who materially benefit from it. Rather, meat’s status reflects the myriad cultural contexts in which it is socially constructed in people’s everyday lives, particularly with respect to religious, gender, communal, racial, national, and class identity. By deconstructing the normalized/naturalized materialist assumptions circling around meat consumption, this paper clears a space for a more nuanced appreciation of the role that culture has played in the legitimation of meat, and by extension, the possibility of change.