Hypatia, Inc.

Feminist Theory in Science: Working toward a Practical Transformation

Author(s): Deboleena Roy
Source: Hypatia, Vol. 19, No. 1, Feminist Science Studies (Winter, 2004), pp. 255-279
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Hypatia, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810940 .
Accessed: 05/01/2014 19:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Hypatia, Inc. and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hypatia.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FeministTheoryin Science:Working
Towarda PracticalTransformation
DEBOLEENA ROY

Althougha richtraditionof feministcritiquesof scienceexists,it is oftendifficultfor

feministswho are scientiststo bridgethesecritiqueswithpracticaltransformations
in scientificknowledgeproduction.In thispaper,I go beyondthe generalbasesof
feministcritiquesof scienceby usingfeministtheoryin scienceto illustratehow a
practicaltransformation in methodologycanchangemolecularbiologybasedresearch
in thereproductivesciences.

REFLECTION

Having recently completed my Ph.D. in reproductiveneuroendocrinology,I

have experiencedfirst-handthe difficultiesin keepingthe words"feminist"and
"scientist"side by side. I spent my graduateyearsin a lab, workingon a bench,
using the principlesand techniques of molecular biology to create scientific
knowledge.My goal, however,was to become a feminist scientist. More easily
said than done. In the process of developing a career as a scientist trying to
be a feminist, I managedto create another careerpath for myself in a parallel
universeas a feminist trying to be a scientist. Followingthe completion of my
degree, I left the lab bench and have since found a new home in a Women's
Studies department as the resident feminist scientist. It's all very confusing
and exciting. But beforethe lab smells of LB broth and TEMEDfade from my
memory,I think that sharingmyexperiencewill be usefulforfeministscientists,
students,and others.
In my undergraduateyears as a microbiologymajor,the biggest problemI
faced was the resistanceon the part of my professorsto make room for a femi-
nist perspectivein the classroom.The underlyingsentiment was that feminist

Hypatia vol. 19, no. 1 (Winter 2004) ? by Deboleena Roy

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
256 Hypatia

thought and science were completelydifferentareasof scholarshipthat would

not and shouldnot ever meet. I used to joke about it, but now I think it was no
coincidence that the Women'sStudies and the Medical Sciences departments
at my universitywere as far awayfrom each other on campusas was physically
possible. I actuallyhad one professorin a fourth-yearHuman Diseases course
tell me that if I wantedto spend class time talking aboutwomen'shealth issues,
I had better go to the "FemaleStudies department."
When I gatheredthe courageto continue studyingbiology at the graduate
level, the predicamentI found myselfin was very common among other femi-
nists who enter scientific fields.As is often the case, "in an effort to create a
successfulcareerin science,unfortunatelymanyscholarseitherleave theirviews
at the lab door or afteryearsof strugglingto find a place within the patricentric
ivorytower,they cannot sustain their criticalfeministperspective"(Christian-
sen-Ruffman1993, 19). In my undergraduateyears,at least I had the nerve to
raise my hand in class and push some buttons by trying to include a feminist
perspectivein our class discussions.This was not so easy to do at the graduate
level as an increasingnumber of barriersappearedbefore me. As a graduate
studentin the sciences,I quicklylearnedthat "radical"and "nonscientific"ideas
would not be toleratedand that intellectual conformityseemed to be the key
to success. Feministshave repeatedlyemphasizedthe need for more feminists
to become scientists and for women to keep informedof the technologies that
shape our lives (Hubbard1995;Franklin 1990; Benston 1982). In my opinion,
the issue is not simplyaboutfeministslearningmore abouttechnology or more
feminists becoming scientists. In orderfor feminists to thrive in science and
develop careers in science they need immediate role models and supportive
mentors who are not afraidof including feminist thought in the creation of
scientificknowledge.In addition,they need to receive a science educationthat
is not basedon the use of sexist, classist,and racistparadigms.I was encouraged
to pursuea doctoral degree in reproductivescience by many feminists outside
of science whom I respectedand admired,but the truth is the more I tried to
become a scientist, the harderit became for me to applyfeminist critiquesof
science to my daily practice.
As difficultas it all seemed,I realizedthat in orderto do a Ph.D. in reproduc-
tive biology and use molecularbiology techniques, it was no longer sufficient
for me to simplyengage in feminist critiquesof science. I needed to formulate
a concrete feminist model of scientificinquirythat spokedirectlyto my experi-
ences. I didn'thave a name for it then, but what I was in pursuitof wasfeminist
theoryin science.This emergingfieldof scholarshipbridgesfeministcritiquesof
science with practicaltransformationsof science and is being developedmostly
by feminist scientists.With their first-handexperience,they have broughtnew
insights into how feminist approachescan influence the creation of scientific
knowledge.In the second year of my Ph.D. studies, when I was really starting

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 257

to grapple with the definition of feminist scientist, I had two life-changing

experiences. The first was that I picked up a book called the The Real World
of Technology(1990) written by experimental physicist Dr. Ursula Franklin.
When I realizedthat she was ProfessorEmeritusat my own university,I decided
I needed to speak to her. Perhapsshe had alreadyworkedout a model for femi-
nist science in physics.I was looking for a recipe from her that I could tweak
for the biologicalsciences. When I posed my question to her, Dr. Franklinwas
both brilliantand vague. She gave me one clue and told me that the rest would
come. That clue was an essay written by MargaretBenston called "Feminism
and the Critiqueof Scientific Method" (1982).
In this essay,Benston was workingtowarda differentscience by formulating
her questions of scientific inquirywithin a context of community (Christian-
sen-Ruffman1993). Benston felt that what was needed in a new science was a
sense of the limits of appropriatenessof reductionism,a considerationof the
connections between the knower and the known, and an understandingof
appropriatelevels of discourse(Benston 1982,64). After readingBenston'swork
on developinga new science, I realizedthat in orderto take myfirststepstoward
a feminist science, I would have to formulatemy own questions of scientific
inquiryin a context relevantto me. And just as I was aboutto sail out into this
uncharted territory,the second life-changingevent occurred.
I rememberit so clearly.I had just spent twelve frustratinghours working
in the lab and finally decided to head home. On my way home, I was telling
myselfthat I was foolish to think that I could pull off this degree and lead this
secret life as a feminist spy,when there it was. Shining underthe front window
displaylights of the Women'sBookstore,I saw beforeme a reason to go on. It
was a copy of Bonnie Spanier'sIm/partialScience(1995). I think I stood frozen
in front of that window wondering if my eyes were playing tricks on me. For
beforeme was the most obscurebut relevantsubtitlethat I had everread:Gender
Ideologyin MolecularBiology.Although I am not mentioned in the dedication,
I am convinced that this book was written with me in mind. Now I not only
had a vision of formulatingmy own questionsof scientificinquiryin a context
that was relevantto me but I also had a feminist frameworkin molecularbiol-
ogy to follow.

FEMINIST THEORY IN SCIENCE: WHERE CAN IT TAKE Us?

Feministcritiquesof sciencehave focusedon the ideologies,politics,epistemolo-

gies, economics, and metaphysicsof traditionalscience and broughtour atten-
tion to biases based on sex, race, class, sexual orientation, and other arbitrary
categories (Fausto-Sterling1985;Tuana 1989; Martin 1987). Although a rich
traditionof feminist critiquesof science exists for feminists who are scientists
working within scientific establishments,it is difficult to bridge the ideas of

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258 Hypatia

these critiqueswith practicaltransformationsin scientificknowledgeproduc-

tion. For example, how should a feminist scientist conduct experiments?The
actual transformationsbased on feminist critiquesof science are left up to the
individualscientist.
In this paper, I go beyond the general bases of feminist critiques of sci-
ence. I will attempt to extend these critiquesby drawingupon an emerging
field of scholarshipreferredto as feministtheoryin science(Rosser 1989). I will
use feminist theory in science to illustratehow a practicaltransformationin
methodologycan change scientificknowledgeproduction.More specifically,I
will demonstratehow a feminist model of inquirycan change how we conduct
molecularbiology researchin the reproductivesciences. My work is based on
a feminist approachof inquiryproposedby Sandra Harding (1987) and later
describedin the context of molecularbiology researchby Spanier (1995).
This model of feminist inquiryhas some similaritiesto, but is also distinct
from, the model of inquirytraditionallyused in science. In the lab and in the
classroom, young scientists are taught how to produce and report scientific
knowledge in a powerfullyuniform way. This is one of the great strengths
of modern Western science. As early as grade six, I recall being taught that
scientists use Scientific Method with a capital "S"and a capital "M"as both
their guide for and their means of knowledge production.The frameworkof
Scientific Method consists of the hypothesis, materialsand methods, results,
and discussion.This frameworkmayseem verysimplistic,but its powerlies in its
simplicity.Those of us who know betterrealizethat the productionof scientific
knowledgecannot occur within the confinesof these fourcomponents.YetI do
not recall a single instance throughoutmy undergraduateor graduatescience
training where a professorpulled me aside and told me that there was more
to Scientific Method than these four components. In fact, it is not likely that
most feministsstartingtheir careersas scientistswouldbe exposed to critiques
or in-depth analysesof the Scientific Method. They would have been taught,
as I was, that the scientist begins her journeyby formulatinga Hypothesis. In
orderto proveor disprovethis hypothesis,the scientistoutlinesan experimental
plan and calls this materialsand methods.She then conductsexperimentsand
recordsthe data. These are her results.Once the data has been collected, the
resultsare then placed into a discussionwhere supportingtheories and para-
digms are used to bring relevance to her findings.According to the Scientific
Method, scientistsmustreporttheir findingsand discusstheir workusing these
four strict headings and most of the time in a specificorder.
In the lab and classroom,scientificepistemology,scientificmethodology,and
scientificmethod are all conflatedinto one entity and given the name Scientific
Method. The feminist scientist must thereforelearn to take a step back from
this monolith called Scientific Method and appreciatethe distinction between
epistemology,methodology,and method. To makethis distinction, I wouldlike

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 259

to turn to some of the discussionsthat have evolvedout of the "methoddebates"

amongfeministsocial scientistsin the late 1980sas they raisedissuesvery simi-
lar to those raisedin the biologicalsciences. In these discussions,epistemology
is describedas a theory of knowledge, methodology as the broad theoretical
basis that informsand shapes the characterof various methods, and method
as a technique for gatheringevidence or conducting research(Harding 1987;
Eichler1997).Upon learningthese distinctions, it becomespossibleto imagine
how feministepistemologiesand feministmethodologiescould be usedto create
scientificknowledge.The problemarisesfor the feminist scientist in trying to
understandwhat a feminist method in science would look like.
Therefore, before I go any further, I would like to addressthe "feminist
method in science"question. When it is said that feminist theory in science
will lead to practicaltransformations,what exactly do we mean?We can think
in terms of curriculumchanges, integratingfeminist perspectivesinto science
education, and continued sexist-paradigmbusting. But can practicaltransfor-
mations of science occur, both at the metaphysicallevels of epistemological
and methodologicalchanges, and at the more mundane level of method?Can
feminist theory in science be used to create a feminist methodin science?And
is this the same question as whether feminist theory in science can influence
how we "practice"or "do"science in the lab?Others beforeme have addressed
the feminist method in science question and come up with variousanswers.I
would like to addressthe issue of a feminist method in science and contribute
to this debatefrom the other side as a scientist, and up until recently,as a lab-
dweller.
However, I must make a comment before I proceed. I believe that when
asking the feminist method in science question, one must have alreadypre-
supposedthe existence of a feminist science in the epistemologicaland meth-
odological senses and must also be careful not to equate the meaning of the
feminist method question with either of these.
In her essay"CanThere Be a FeministScience?"Helen Longino arguesfora
process-basedapproachand rejectsa content-basedapproachto characterizing
feminist science. In her contribution to the method debates, Longino states,
"Iwant to suggestthat we focus on science as practiceratherthan content, as
processratherthan product;hence, not on feministscience,but on doingscience
as a feminist"( 1989,47). Her rejectionof a content-basedapproachis basedon
the idea that theories of feminist science conflate "feminist"with "feminine."
She arguesthat such theories "encode a particularworld view, characterized
by complexity, interaction and wholism,"thus portrayingfeminist science as
"the expressionand valorizationof female sensitivity and cognitive tempera-
ment" (1989,46). She also claims that feminist science cannot emergefrom a
"feministstandpoint,"which she considersto be an essentialist notion. After
having made this distinction between a content-based"feministscience"and a

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260 Hypatia

process-based"doingscience as a feminist,"Longino arrivesat the main point

of her argument.She poses the question:"[C]an there be a feminist science?
If this means: is it in principlepossibleto do science as a feminist?,the answer
must be: yes. If this means: can we in practice do science as a feminist?,the
answermust be: not until we change the social and political context in which
science is done" (Longino 1989,56).
These statementsraise two issuesfor me as a feminist scientist. Firstof all,
what exactly does she mean when she says"to do science as a feminist?"Does
this "do"implymethod?And if it does, does this mean that until one definesa
feministmethod in science they cannot, in principle,"do"science as a feminist?
Secondly, must this change that she speaksof occur at the level of the institu-
tion, or can the individualscientist act as an agent of change and bringa social
and political context into the science that they "do"?
In feminist critiquesof science, terms such as "do"and "practice"are com-
monlyusedto describethe processof scientificknowledgeproduction.They flow
freely among the different levels of epistemology,methodology,and method.
However,as a scientist I find it confusing when these wordsare used while the
level of the process to which they are meant to referis not clearlydefined. In
her essay,Longino also writes:"The doing of science involves many practices:
how one structuresa laboratory(hierarchicallyor collectively),how one relates
to other scientists (competitively or cooperatively),how and whether one
engages in political strugglesover affirmativeaction. It extends also to intel-
lectual practices,to the activities of scientific inquiry,such as observationand
reasoning"(Longino 1989,47). It appearsthat the feminist "doingof science"
and the "practices"to which she refershere lie at the levels of epistemologyand
methodology,but not method. Yetearlierin her essay,she dismissestheories of
feminist science, which presumablyinclude feminist epistemologyand meth-
odology,on the groundsthat they are content-based.In an attemptto support
her process-basedapproach,Longino thus reconfiguresthe questionCan there
be a feministscience?into Is it possible,in principleandin practice,to do scienceas
a feminist?In this way,her choice of terminologyboth includesand masksthe
feminist method in science question. To "do"science would seem to involve
the technical aspects of conducting scientific researchbelonging to the level
of method, such as conducting experimentsand gatheringevidence. However,
Longino neglects to addressthe relationshipbetween "doing"and scientific
knowledgeproductionat this very level. Longino'sprocess-basedapproachfails
to make a cleardistinction between the differentlevels of scientificknowledge
productionon which the "doing"of science can occur.
Harding has dealt with the question of developing a feminist method for
the social sciences and biology,and suggeststhat the effort "is misguidedand
furthermoreshould be abandoned"(1989, 17).She is right. She arguesagainst
a distinctivefeminist method of researchin the social sciences and biologyand

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 261

suggeststhat what distinguisheswhat feministresearchers"do"fromwhat non-

feminist researchers"do"involves analyzinggendercritically,taking women's
experiences into account and including them as valid scientificevidence, and
identifying the complex subjectivitiesin ourselvesand what we observe."Do"
in this sense refersto the doing of researchat the levels of epistemologyand
methodology.So, is there a feminist method in science?I would have to agree
that the answeris no. Speakingfromthe perspectiveof a biologist,method has
a veryspecificmeaning.It refersto lab work-the nuts and bolts of experimenta-
tion. Now, if one was to ask whetherthere is a feminist way of "doing"science,
the answeris yes and no. There is not a feminist way to pipette, centrifuge,or
run a statistical test. However,one can still be "doing"feminist science if the
reasonfor pipetting, centrifuging,and running a statistical analysisoriginates
from a feminist epistemologicaland methodologicalbasis.
For the feminist scientist, then, feminismcan exist as an epistemologyand
as a methodology, but not as a method. But for the benefit of the feminist
scientist, I have one further piece of advice. In the end, it does come down
to the method question and you must be armed with the correct answer in
order to explain yourselfand what you do to both the scientists who are not
feminists and the feminists who are not scientists. Inasmuchas feminism can
exist as an epistemologyand methodologyin science, for the feminist scientist
the science that you do can exist only as a method. This method is not to be
confused with the capital "M"Method. When you are practicingscience as a
feminist, you arenot engagingin science as a methodologyor epistemology.So
after learning that the Method in Scientific Method really includes scientific
epistemology,methodology,and method, you have to stop doing what you did
not realizeyou were doing and start thinking of science as a method only, not
also as a methodologyor an epistemology.
Let me returnto an earlierquestion:Can feminist theory in science be used
to create a feminist method in science?Since there can be no feminist method
in science, the question no longer carries meaning. However, now we can
appreciatethat this question is not the same as, can feminist theory in science
influence how we "practice" or "do"science in the lab?This question begs to
be rephrased.We must now ask, can feminist theory in science influence the
productionof scientificknowledgeat the level of epistemologyand methodol-
ogy?The answershould be a resounding"Yes!"But now let me consider the
caveat presentedby Longino when she comments on whetheror not there can
be a feminist science. She saysthat "if this question means can we in practice
do science as feminists?,the answermustbe not until we change the social and
political context in which science is done" (1989, 56). She also states:"Doing
science differentlyrequiresmore than just the will to do so and it would be
disingenuousto pretend that our philosophies of science are the only barrier.
Scientific inquirytakesplace in a social, political and economic context which

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262 Hypatia

imposesa varietyof institutionalobstaclesto innovation, let alone to the intel-

lectual workingout of oppositionaland political commitments"(55).
It is true that scientificinquirydoes not occur in isolation and that a scien-
tist, his or her supervisor,department,institution, and governmentalgranting
agency all have a greatdeal of influenceover the scientificenterprise.But does
this mean that although we can now see that feminist theory in science may
be used to create a feminist science whose knowledgewouldbe basedon femi-
nist epistemologyand methodology,we can not proceed any furtheruntil the
social and political context in which the science is "done"changes?This raises
severalissues.Is science "done"by the individualscientist workingin a lab, or
is it "done"by the supervisor,the department,the institution, or the granting
agency that providesthe funds?If the answer is that science is done by all of
the above, then whose social and political context has to be changed?The
individualscientist'scontext?The scientific institution'scontext?Everybody's
context?The real question is, is it all or nothing?Or can an individualtry to do
feminist science even if the social and political context of the institution(s) in
which it is done is not completelychanged to reflecta feminist vision?
Forthe scientist workingawayat her lab bench who also considersherselfa
feminist, how I addressthis last question will determine the status of her cur-
rent existence. I think the answer is obvious. One has to try. The individual
has to try to do feminist science even if her context and the context of the
institution in which she worksdo not resonatewith each other. This is where
feminist theory in science comes in, by bridgingfeminist critiquesof science
with practicaltransformationsof science. If we want the feminist scientist to
thrive, the least that feminist theory in science can do is to try to provideher
with concrete strategieson how to "do"feminist science. This sets the stage for
my own attempt at realizingthe potential of feminist theory in science.

PRACTICAL TRANSFORMATION: CONDUCTING MOLECULAR

BIOLOGYRESEARCH IN THE REPRODUCTIVE SCIENCES

For the feminist scientist, feminism may not be able to exist as a method, but
it can and does exist as a methodologyand an epistemology.So how do we use
feminist methodologyand epistemologyfor the productionof scientificknowl-
edge?The answerto this question is not so simple.There appearto be several
differentand sometimescontradictoryideas as to how feminist ethical theory
in science application would evolve. But the common element among these
differentideas is the pursuitof a science that recognizesthe needs of, and treats
with respect,those who areoppressedand whose voices either cannot be heard
or cannot be understood(Birke 1994;Messingand Mergler1995).
In my attemptto put feministtheory in science into practice,I have replaced
Scientific Method's methodology with a feminist methodology.For the femi-

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 263

nist scientists out there this means that I want to stop thinking in terms of
hypothesis, materialsand methods, results and discussion. As an alternative
methodology,I want to use a model of feminist inquiryproposedby Harding
(1987) for the social sciences. Spanierhas taken up this model and appliedit
to her researchrevealingthe sexist paradigmsused in molecularbiology.The
components of this methodologyinclude (i) locating the Originsof Problemat-
ics; (ii) uncoveringthe Purposesof Inquiry;(iii) interpretingthe Hypothesisand
Evidence;and (iv) establishing a Relationshipbetweenthe Inquirerand her/his
Subjectof Inquiry(Spanier 1995,41). I must point out that this is not the only
feminist model of inquiry availablebut I think that by using the framework
of this model I can illustraterealisticallyboth the promisesand perils of put-
ting feminist theory in science into practice.In orderto demonstratehow this
feminist methodologycan be used to change molecularbiology-basedresearch
in the reproductivesciences, I will use examplesfrom currentresearchin the
field as well as from my own Ph.D. work.

ORIGINS OF PROBLEMATICS

Scientific Method does not recognizeany events priorto the derivationof the
Hypothesis.This omissionis purposeful.In orderto obey the doctrineof "objec-
tivity" in the Scientific Method, any form of influence, whether personal or
environmental,mustbe removedfromthe mind of the scientist."Scientists,and
the informationthey collect are treatedas though they are culture-free,class-
less, apolitical;as though the scientist'sattemptsat objectivitywere routinely
successful"(Namenwirth1986,34). Feministsarguethat no scientificevidence
or interpretationis without influence by cultural and social biases (Hubbard
1989; Haraway1986; Lewontin 1991;Fox Keller 1996). Envisioningscientific
knowledge that is valid despite this recognition is key in order for feminist
theory in science to be able to change how it is that we practicescience.
The firstcomponent of feminist inquiry,which asks where the idea of the
researchto be conducted originatesand what it is influencedby, is referredto
as the Origins of Problematics:

Ideally,feministresearchoriginatesin the materialand political

concernsof women-centeredeffortsto improvethe qualityof life
for women, children and hence, the planet. [I would note that
improvingthe quality of life for men should not be excluded].
Women'sconcernsaboutwhat is wrongwith society,such as vio-
lence, poverty,sexualabuse,and the misuseof poweroverpeople
and resources,are placed at the center of a feminist approach,
in contrast to conventional scientific motivations, such as the
accrualof knowledgefor its own sake, the advancementof capi-

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264 Hypatia

talism, or personal ambition. Explicitlystated feminist values

may reorderfunding prioritiesfor research,question metaphors
chosen and promotedforbiologicallife, and re-visionwho should
be recruitedin to the profession(Spanier 1995,41).

Therefore, in this feminist model of inquiry,in starting with the Origins of

Problematics,a scientist is forced to think not only about her hypothesis but
about what factorshave influencedher to arriveat this particularhypothesis.
The factors that influence a scientist, in turn, depend on who they are. An
example of how the Origins of Problematicswould change how and what
molecularbiology-basedresearchis conducted in reproductivescience can be
demonstratedusing the technology of embryonicgenetic screening.
Once we recognize that scientists bring with them certain biases based on
their gender,race, and class, we must then acknowledgethat the direction of
research in reproductivebiology in North America largely depends on the
gender,race, and class perspectivesof white, middle-to-upper-class men. The
predominanceof white upper-classmale doctorsand scientistsparticipatingin
reproductivebiology researchover the last century has been associatedwith
increasedmedicalinterventionin the processesof pregnancyand femalerepro-
ductivehealth care (Corea 1986;Ehrenreichand English 1978).Societies, and
the scientists within these societies, have repeatedlyused science to rational-
ize, justify,and naturalizedominant ideologiesand to maintain the status quo
(Namenwirth1986).In this way,researchin reproductivebiologyhas been used
by the institutions of science and medicine to justify the misuseof powerover
women, regardlessof their race and class, in the name of their "well-being."
Turning to the example of embryonicgenetic screening, we must ask why
this molecularbiologybasedtechnology has been grantedsuch prominence.In
embryonicgenetic screening,cells from a developingembryoare isolatedfrom
maternalperipheralblood. The DNA in the nuclei of these cells is extracted
and analyzedforcertaingenes thought to be associatedwith diseases(see Steele
et al. 1996). What dominant ideologiesare being rationalizedin this research?
The promiseof perfectionand "well-being"is now offeredthroughtechniques
such as genetic screeningof embryosfor people who can affordto pay for "per-
fect"babies.In these cases, genetic screeningwould select against a fetus with
anything that is perceivedas a physicalor mental disability.What value does
that place on the lives of people who live with these challenges in our society
today?Who has the power and desire to formulatea hypothesis that leads to
more researchon embryonicgenetic screening?
As a Ph.D. student, the directorof my departmentwas an upper-classwhite
male. His (sub)?/consciousOrigins of Problematicsintimatelyinfluencedwhat
type of researchwas funded in our department,which scientistsgot to practice
that research,and ultimately,how women received reproductivehealth care.

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 265

This observationis not made to suggest,however,that simplyreplacingmale

scientists with female scientists would rectify the existing problem within
reproductivebiology research.Feminist epistemologiesmust replacethe exist-
ing epistemologies,and this can be done by either women or men. Beforethe
embryonicgeneticscreeningexperimentsbegin we have to ask,Why do we want
to screen genes?The intentions and motives of the scientist should be made
known. This processcan begin when scientists start their scientificinquiryby
locating the Origins of Problematicsin their research.
As I was doing my Ph.D. researchand thesis writing,I faced the daily chal-
lenge of practicingfeminist science. Had I not been awareof Spanier'swork
and Harding'smodel of feminist inquiry,I know that I would not have been
able to finish my degree.Now, having completedmy Ph.D., I thought it would
be interesting and only fair that I put my own researchon the spot. In this
paperI claim to providea practicaltransformationof how experimentscan be
conducted in reproductivebiology research,but can I show to both feminists
and scientists that my own researchcounts as feminist science?
My Ph.D. thesis examined the effect of a hormone called melatonin on
reproductionat the level of Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) neurons
of the brain. Melatonin is a hormone that is naturallysynthesizedin humans
and other animalsat nighttimeby the pineal gland,which is located at the base
of the brain.Melatonin is best known for its regulationof circadianrhythmic-
ity, but has also been shown to have antioxidantpropertiesand to play a role
in the reproductivecontrol of seasonallybreeding animals (Arendt 1995). In
humans,the sleepcycle effectsof this hormonearebetterunderstood,but there
is also a great deal of interest in melatonin'spossible role in the regulationof
reproduction.Clinical trials indicate that at high doses (levels that the body
would not normally encounter), melatonin can be used as a contraceptive
in women (Voordouwet al. 1992). GnRH, on the other hand, is a hormone
producedby less than 1000 neurons in the hypothalamusof all mammalsand
which is known to play a crucial role in reproductionby regulatingthe levels
of other gonadal hormones such as estrogen and testosteronein both women
and men (Yen 1991).The neurons that produceGnRH are referredto as the
GnRH neurons. My research involved trying to connect melatonin'srole in
reproductionwith GnRH neurons of the hypothalamus.The real question,
however,is whether or not my researchqualifiesas feminist science. It is time
to put my own work to the test. A good place to start would be to locate the
Origin of Problematicsin my research.
(i) Did my thesisoriginatein thematerialand politicalconcernsof women-cen-
teredeffortsto improvethequalityof lifefor thosewhoareoppressed?
It is possiblethat researchon melatonin may help to improvethe qualityof
life for both women and men by addressingmaterialhealth concerns involv-
ing sleep disordersand cancer prevention.But from a point of view of holistic

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266 Hypatia

medicine,administrationof melatoninwouldonly help to treatsymptoms.The

preferableoption wouldbe to createa healthy environmentin which stressand
environmentaltoxins leadingto these disordersand diseaseswouldbe removed.
But many would arguethat the reality of that kind of healthy environment is
unattainableat present.So in the meantime, there are those who would wish
to treat their symptomswith the most nonintrusive,naturallybasedremedyas
possible.Melatonin-mediatedtherapyforsleepdisordersand cancer treatments
may thereforerepresenta preferablealternativeto other chemotherapies.
The material concern of women with regardsto the access of melatonin
for oral contraception is more complicated. For those who wish to use oral
contraceptives,melatonin maybe viewed as a possible"natural"contraceptive,
but no more naturalthan estrogenand progesterone-basedcontraceptives.As
it stands,very little is understoodregardingthe totality of effects of melatonin
on reproduction.My thesis was based on a concern to better understandthe
broadereffects of melatonin on reproduction,apart from its ability to block
ovulation in women. By examining the neuroendocrinologicaleffects of mela-
tonin, I demonstratedthat melatonin mayhave farther-reachingsystemicanti-
gonadotropiceffects (Roy et al. 2001). In other words,melatonin inhibits many
other hormonesinvolvedin the positive control of reproductionand prolonged
overdosingmay be detrimentalto women'sreproductivehealth.
In melatonin research,the bodies of animals and women have been used as
materialsto test yet another type of contraceptive.In this fieldof science, the
political concern of whether or not oral contraceptivesrepresentreproductive
freedomfor women is not addressed.Why is it that science and medicine are
so fascinated with reproductivecontrol over women'sbodies? However, the
more immediatereality is that oral contraceptivesare being used by millions
of women around the world.Therefore,the political concern becomes more
aboutwhetheror not there exists a need foryet anotherformof oral contracep-
tion for women. No doubt that pharmaceuticalcompanieswho will distribute
melatonin-basedcontraceptiveswill enjoy financial gain. But in terms of the
political concerns from which my thesis originated,by studying the effects of
melatonin from the perspective that reproductionis comprisedof a series of
hormonal feedbackloops in the body, I showed that melatonin not only shuts
down ovulation at the level of the gonads but has antigonadotropiceffects at
the level of the brain as well (Roy et al. 2001). I have tried to build a case that
as far as contraceptionis concerned, melatonin should not be used.

PURPOSES OF INQUIRY

In scientific discourse,the term "purpose"is often used interchangeablywith

the term hypothesis.As will become evident, the two wordsdo not share the
same meaning in the context of a feminist inquiry.In a scientificexperiment,

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 267

the assumptionis often made that a purposefor the researchobviouslyexists,

even if it goes unsaid. At other times, the purpose is stated by way of refer-
encing a particularsubjectarea, thus suggestingthat the researchconducted
contributesto knowledge in that field, and that the accrual of knowledge is
the sole purposeof the research.By not having to state a defined purposefor
the particularscientificexperiment,researchersare not requiredto reveal the
social forces prompting their research,or the biases that may exist in their
reasoningfor conducting the researchin the firstplace. In terms of a feminist
model of inquiry,this is unacceptable.The second component of this feminist
inquirystates that:

An inquiry'sorigin and its purpose are closely intertwined.

Originating in concerns for women'squality of life, a central
purposein feminist inquiryis to eliminate constraintsbasedon
sex, race,class,sexualorientation,and other arbitrarycategories,
in orderto change society for the better.Identifyingbias in lan-
guage,concepts,paradigms,applications,and personnelpolicies
of science acknowledgesthe harmdone to science and to society
by scientificstudiesbasedon questionableassumptionsaboutthe
meaning of gender,race, and sexual orientation.If one purpose
of scientific inquiryis to gain more accurateunderstandingsof
the worldand anotheris to improvethe qualityof life forpeople,
then feminist inquiry,with its rigorousattention to eliminating
the consequencesof genderideology,can offercorrectionsthat
expunge inaccuraciesand distortionsas well as encouragestrict
scientificstandards(Spanier 1995,42).

Therefore,in this feminist methodology,the processof defining the Purposes

of Inquiryin a scientificexperimentforcesthe scientist to considerthe impact
of her researchin a broadercontext. The scientist would then be requiredto
investigatewhatwouldbe the totalityof effectsof a scientificinterventionwould
be, priorto its widespreadapplication.The point here is that even if the totality
of effects cannot be fully realized,at least an attemptto considerall the effects,
whether desirableor not, should be made on the part of the researcher.This
requirementcan only improvethe currentstandardof scientificexperimenta-
tion. An example of how the Purposes of Inquiry would change molecular
biologybasedresearchin the reproductivesciences can be demonstratedusing
the technologies of in vitrofertilization(IVF).
Consider the vast amounts of funds and time being spent on the develop-
ment of IVF technologies based on molecular biology research.As feminist
inquirers,we must question the Purposesof these Inquiries.In a recent review
on IVF,the authorstates:

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268 Hypatia

Genetic disordersare a major cause of miscarriageand fetal

death. Pre-implantationgenetic diagnosis (PGD) can be used
to diagnose genetic defects before[emphasisadded]pregnancy
has occurredby creatingembryosby IVF,then removingsingle
cells which are genetically analyzed. . . . Newer techniques,
however,can rapidlydiagnose multipledefects including chro-
mosomal aneuploidy,sex and single gene defects. Embryonic
cells can also be DNA fingerprinted.... As embryoscreening
can increase IVF success rates and decrease miscarriagerates,
it will be increasinglyoffered in routine IVF... These new,
low-cost techniques may ultimatelyallow PGD to be offeredto
all IVF patients regardlessof risk (Findlay2000, 672).
Is the goal of this researchto eliminate constraints based on sex, race, class,
sexualorientation,and othercategories,in orderto changesocietyforthe better?
Or will the newest molecular biology based IVF technologies be developed
in orderto select for the participatingscientist'sinterpretationof the perfect
humanbeing?In termsof the accessibilityissue,which classesof peoplewill reap
the so-calledbenefitsof these technologies?If desired,will everyonehave equal
access to these technologies?How manysubsidized"innercity"IVFclinics will
we see? A feminist model of inquirycan expose the Purposesof Inquirythat
scientists either want to hide or are not even awareof. Having said this, does
my own researchaddressthis component of a feminist inquiry?
(ii) Was it a centralpurposeof my inquiryto eliminateconstraintsbasedon sex
in orderto changesocietyfor the better?
Women have repeatedlybeen targetsfor contraceptivetechnologies. Male
contraception does not seem to receive the same amount of attention. The
Purpose of Inquiryof my thesis was to examine the effects of melatonin on
GnRH, which is a hormoneinvolvedin regulatingboth male and femalerepro-
ductive systems.Since I found that melatonindownregulatesGnRH, I showed
that no scientific basis exists for why both male and female contraceptionby
melatonin cannot be envisioned. This would help to eliminate some of the
existing constraintsbased on sex that are blatantlyapparentin contraceptive
technologies.However,since I foundthat melatoninmayhave antigonadotropic
effects at the level of the brain,and despite the health riskswomen have taken
for the sake of contraception, I did not advise the use of melatonin for male
contraceptioneither.This is a case in point for the benefitsof feminist science
for men as well as for women.
(iii) Did my inquiryimprovethequalityof lifefor peopleby expunginginaccura-
cies and distortionsof biasedparadigms?
In orderto make my researchqualify as feminist science, it was critical to
identify and avoid the biases in paradigmscommonly used in reproductive

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 269

neuroendocrinologyresearch. This was by far the hardest task for me. For
example, researchin this field has been deeply influencedby the paradigmof
biologicalreductionism.It is true that not all formsof reductionismareevil and
that sometimesbiologicalreductionismis necessaryin orderto fully appreciate
the complexityof an organism.But to echo Benston's(1982) thoughts, a sense
of the limits of appropriatenessof reductionismhas to exist. Reductionism
becomes a problemwhen it leadsto oversimplifiedmodelsand simplisticcausal
thinking, which is the tendency in biological research.While caught up in
the reductionismparadigm,it becomes very difficultto determinethe limits of
appropriateness.But this is not the fault of reductionistthinking in itself.The
inability to keep sight of the broaderconsequences,connections, and implica-
tions of one'sresearchstemsfromscientificisolationismand fromthe idea that
scientists should not have to think about the broaderconsequences of their
work.Therefore,in orderfor my researchto pass as feminist science, I had to
critically evaluate whether or not studying melatonin-mediatedregulationof
GnRH really answeredany broaderquestions. The influences of reductionist
paradigmsin my workwere innumerable,and I realizedearly on that I would
be unable to justifyor eliminate each and everyone of them. I knew that I had
to choose my battles and not let the fact that I was not completelysatisfying
this component of the feminist model of inquiryinterferewith my attempt to
practicefeminist science.
One of the main Purposesof my Inquirywas to examine the effect of mela-
tonin on GnRH neurons at the level of their gene expression.In other words,
my projectconstantly requiredme to work at a molecularlevel and deal with
the reductionistparadigmthat leads us to believe that the gene is the master
molecule.To workmy waythroughthis, I had to realizethat althoughdiscover-
ing melatonin-mediatedeffects on GnRH gene expressionmayhave very little
meaning on its own, there could be broaderimpactsof my researchin termsof
appreciatingsystemicreproductiveinfluencesof hormonestraditionallythought
to have confined physiologicaltargets.In this case, I wouldnot have been able
to make this scientificclaim had I not workedat the level of the isolatedGnRH
neurons. I also forced my researchto go in a certain direction. After finding
the result that melatonin regulatesGnRH gene expression,I made it a point
to study the effects of melatonin on other cellularcomponents such as energy
productionby mitochondria,GnRH secretion,expressionof some key proteins
involvedin cellularactivation,and the cellularsignalingpathwaysin the GnRH
neurons (Roy and Belsham 2002). In the end, my findings suggestedthat the
cooperativityof all these factorsmust be responsiblefor the cellulareffects of
melatonin on GnRH neurons.

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
270 Hypatia

HYPOTHESIS AND EVIDENCE

According to Scientific Method, we can see that it is here that the processof
experimentationis supposedto begin. Instead of searchingfor the Origins of
Problematicsand the Purposesof Inquiry,the processof experimentationbegins
with the derivationof a Hypothesis. By eliminating the need to recognizethe
broaderinfluencesand reasonsfor conducting the experiment and the biases
in the paradigmsto be used, the scientist can formulatea Hypothesis with
all ideological assumptionsintact. In a feminist inquiry,the Hypothesis and
Evidence component would replace the hypothesis, results, and discussion
components of the traditionalscientific inquiry.Furthermore,the derivation
of a Hypothesis, followed by the gatheringof Evidence and interpretationof
this Evidence,would occur along a differentline:
The discipline of biology turns to "biological"explanations
first, so the assumptionsbuilt into the meaning of "biology"
shape what are considered plausible theories, explanations,
or legitimate evidence. Feminismturns to a broaderand more
interdisciplinaryrange of knowledgeand theories for explana-
tions and formsof evidence, taking into account cross-cultural
and intraculturalevidence for the plasticityof human behavior
and physicality.Furthermore,the long historyof erroneousand
harmfultheories about sex, race and class differencescreatesa
justifiableskepticismabouthypothesesand evidence that ignore
the dynamics of culture that shape both behavior and biology
(Spanier 1995, 42).
In the discipline of biology,certain ideologicalassumptionsare built into the
meaningof biologyitself.These assumptionsintimatelyshapethe derivationof a
Hypothesisand the interpretationof Results.A commonideologicalassumption,
for example,is that biologycan be separatedfrominfluencessuch as the "envi-
ronment"or "culture" (Lewontin1991;Shiva 1995;Hubbard1988;Spanier1995).
Another powerfulideologicalassumptionis that the scientist can approacha
researchquestionwith "pure"objectivity.It is thoughtthat only pureobjectivity
can produceaccuracyin the collection and interpretationof Results.
In a feminist inquiry there would be no claims to pure objectivity.But at
the same time, we cannot dismissobjectivityall together.Forwhen objectivity
impliesquantitativeresearch,statistics,and accuracy,there may still be some-
thing to gain from its practice. Of course, feminist science would also strive
for accuracybut would not assumethat this could be achieved by pure objec-
tivity alone. Therefore, instead of dismissingobjectivity completely,Margrit
Eichler arguesthat "[i]tseems useful to think of objectivity as an asymptoti-
cally approachablebut unreachablegoal" (1991, 14). Forthe feminist scientist,

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 271

however,clearlya tension arisesbetween striving for accuracyand the desire

to avoid achieving this accuracyby formingHypotheses laden with incorrect
ideologicalassumptions.This tension maybe resolvedif one were to approach
the scientific inquiry with what Harding has called "strongobjectivity."She
states,"Wecan think of strongobjectivityas extending the notion of scientific
researchto includesystematicexaminationof... powerfulbackgroundbeliefs.
It must do so in orderto be competent at maximizingobjectivity"(1991, 149).
Therefore, by examining the ideological assumptionsbuilt into the actual
Hypothesis itself, the feminist scientist only increasesthe level of objectivity
in her inquiry,therebyincreasingthe accuracyin the interpretationof her Evi-
dence. An example of how a Hypothesisoriginatingfrom this feminist model
of inquiry would alter how experiments are conducted and how Evidence is
interpretedin currentreproductivebiologyresearchcan be demonstratedusing
the new technology of intracytoplasmicsperminjection (ICSI).
As in the fieldsof cognitive science (Fausto-Sterling1985), neuroanatomy
(Bleier 1986; Hubbard1988), and primatology(Haraway1986), most research
in reproductivebiologyappearsto be framedin orderto echo incorrectassump-
tions of genderdifferences.In ICSI, the spermhead from immaturespermato-
cytes are microinjectedinto the cytoplasm of an egg (see Van Steirteghem,
Devroey, and Liebaers2002). This procedure is performedwhen the male
partnerin a heterosexualcouple cannot producemotile sperm.Fornow, let us
put aside the issue that the female partnerin this arrangementmay very well
be fertile, but for the sake of this proceduremay have to undergosuperovula-
tory drug treatments.Take, for example, a recently published paper in this
field, the abstractof which reads:"Degenerationof oocytes occurs even when
maximumcare is exercisedduringICSI, especiallywhen the oolemma is very
fragile and/or the zona pellucida is resistant. In orderto be able to minimize
the riskof degenerationassociatedwith microinjectionthis studyapplieda new
method: a microhole on the zona pellucidaof the oocyte was drilled by laser
beam just priorto ICSI to permit the penetrationof the microneedlewithout
any trauma"(Abdelmassihet al. 2002).
The hypothesismadeby these traditionalscientists,then, is that since fragile
eggsoften do not survivemicroinjectionduringICSI,maybedrillinga hole into
the outer membraneof the egg with a laser beam would allow easierpenetra-
tion of the egg by the spermatocyteand lead to less degeneration.Ideological
assumptionsof genderdifferenceshave driventhe derivationof the Hypothesis
in this experimentwherebya scientist aggressivelypenetratesa fragile egg to
allow a spermto enter.In comparison,the feminist Hypothesiswouldtake into
account the fact that an egg is not usuallyfertilizedby an immaturesperm,and
that biological mechanisms are in place so that this does not occur naturally
in a woman'sbody. Instead, the feminist Hypothesis might ask why the eggs
are degenerating,why the zona pellucida is resistant,and determine whether

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272 Hypatia

or not it is in the best interestof the patient undergoingthe ICSI procedureto

have these eggs injected with immaturespermatocytes.
The Resultsand Discussionpresentedin the same paperread:"Afterlaser-
assistedICSI comparedwith conventional ICSI, survivalratesof oocytes were
99.6 and 84% (P<0.0001, n=32) ... [Therefore]creating a microhole on the
zona pellucidaof the oocyte by laser beam priorto ICSI providesa less trau-
maticpenetrationof the injectionneedle in to the ooplasmand resultsin lower
degenerationand higher embryodevelopmentratesthan conventional ICSI in
patients with fragile oocytes" (Abdelmassihet al. 2002). It is not completely
clearhere if the "traumaticpenetration"referredto is felt by the egg, the sperm,
the needle, or the scientist doing the microinjection.In any case, as gender-
biased assumptionswould dictate, scientists have spent inordinateamountsof
time and money to recreatea scenario of "aggressively" insertinga spermhead
into a "fragile"egg in a petri dish. These assumptionslead scientists to focus
on waysto increasethe sperm'sactivation of the egg for successfulfertilization
and downgradethe importance of the female contribution in fertility. Since
a Hypothesisderivedfrom the feminist model of inquirywould never ask the
samequestionas above,obviouslythe Evidencegatheredand then discussedby
the scientistwould also be different.Instead,a feminist inquirywouldproduce
Evidencethat wouldenhance ourunderstandingof not only the male contribu-
tion but also the female contributionto fertility.Turningto my own work,was
I able to incorporatea broaderrangeof knowledgeinto my research?
(iv)Didmy Hypothesisand Evidenceincorporatedynamicsof culturethatshape
bothbehaviorand biology?
In recentyears,melatoninhas gainedpopularityas a cureforjet lag and sleep
disorders.Although the sale of melatonin is illegal in some countries such as
Canada, it is easily availablein the United States. A few yearsago, melatonin
wasbeingmarketedas a wonderdrugthat could improvesleepinghabits,prevent
cancer, and even reversethe aging process.Whether or not all these benefits
are true remains to be seen. However,evidence showed that people felt great
after taking melatonin. It was due to this increasein public interestthat some
scientists, includingmyself,became interestedin studyingmelatonin.
Becausemelatoninhas been shown to have effectson both human behavior
and physicality,I attempted to develop a better understandingof melatonin
through non-traditionalforms of evidence. Yet whenever I tried to design a
Hypothesis that incorporatedculturaldynamics, I was told that the question
I was askingwas non-scientific.In hindsight, I realizethat it was not necessar-
ily the culturalcontext itself but ratherthe languagethat I used to formulate
my Hypothesisthat was consideredto be "non-scientific." Despite this fact, for
a broaderrange of knowledge beyond the "scientific"I did learn about some
herbalremediesthat have been used for the treatmentof both sleep disorders
and contraceptionforcenturies.This informationnevermade it into my thesis.

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 273

I learned that in orderto substantiatethe use of crossculturalor intracultural

dynamicsI had to presentthis informationwith a traditionallyscientificspin.
For example, in some countries distinct patterns in the numberof births are
observedamong humans who live in regionswith fewerhoursof daylightyear-
round. I tried to draw out the importance of these events by formulatinga
Hypothesisthat wouldallowme to examine the correlationbetweenmelatonin,
reproduction,and circadianrhythmicityin GnRH neurons.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INQUIRER

AND HER/HIS SUBJECT OF INQUIRY

In Scientific Method, the materialsand methods component describeswhat

animals,plants,cells, chemicals,and machineswereused to conduct an experi-
ment and how the experimentswere done. Often the descriptionsare in great
detail, which is necessaryfor the replicationof the same experimentby other
researchers.This is a commendablefeatureof the ScientificMethod. However,
at the same time this is also one of the greatestlimitations of the traditional
Scientific Method, as the materialsand the methods used are never connected
directly to the user. In addition, when documenting this component of the
traditionalscientificinquiry,it is written in the past tense, so as to furtherdis-
sociate the experimenterfrom any immediaterelationshipto the information
beingproduced.In a feministinquiry,the Relationshipbetweenthe Inquirerand
her/his Subjectof Inquirywouldreplacethe materialand methods section. As
discussedpreviously,although the methods used in a feminist inquirywill not
be differentthan a traditionalscientific inquiry,the relationshipbetween the
scientist and the subjectof examination must be recognizedand articulated:
One of the tenets of feminist scholarshipis that the researcher
should be in the same critical plane as the subject matter. By
making her conceptual frameworkclear, the researcherplaces
herselfon a mutualfootingwith the material.This helpsto make
visible the researcher'sactual relationshipto the information
and interpretationsof the researchand promotesa self-reflexive
search for researcherbias, something that is rarelyconsidered
necessaryin conventional research(Spanier 1995,43).
In reproductivebiology research,it is not only animals and cells that are used
as materialsbut women as well. A strongtheme in feminist critiquesof science
has been to see animals as "fellowsufferers"(Birke 1994, 14). This sentiment
is nowhere truerthan in the fieldof reproductivebiology.An exampleof how
the Relationship between the Inquirerand her/his Subject of Inquirywould
change what researchis conductedin reproductivebiologycan be demonstrated
by examining how lab animals are treated.

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
274 Hypatia

The parallel histories of violence toward animals and toward women in

reproductivebiologyhave been justifiedin the name of taming "nature."Femi-
nists such as VandanaShiva (1995) recognizethat biology is not separatefrom
the environmentalplane. To correctthe standardassumptionthat the two are
separate,feministshave called forthe "democratization" and "(re)invention"of
a biologythat wouldcreatenovel knowledgesystemsbasedon justifiedlevels of
appropriatenessby using sensitive, noninvasive techniques (Shiva 1995, 1997;
Birke 1994). Animals, particularlylaboratory-bredanimals such as mice and
rats,are constantlybeing used to studyreproductivephysiologyon the grounds
that they providemodels for human physiology.Yetscientistsjustifythe use of
animals to the public by stating that animals are significantlydifferentfrom
us so that they may be used for experimentation(Birke 1994). If requiredto
analyzethe Relationshipbetween the Inquirerand his/her Subjectof Inquiry,
a scientist conducting experimentson animals would have to recognize that
the real "difference"between animals and humans is that a lowerethical value
has been placed on the lives of animals. Does my researchmeet this criterion
of a feminist inquiry?
(v) Did I as theresearchermakemyconceptualframeworkclearandplacemyself
on a mutualfootingwith thematerialI used?
When I was interviewingfor my Ph.D. position, I made it a point to let my
supervisorknow that I would not do animal work.This was almost unheard
of in my area of research,but I knew that if I did not make this clear from the
beginning I wouldnot be able to take the position. In a fieldwheremy options
wererestrictedto whole animalstudiesor in vitrocell line studies,I chose to work
in vitro.This was the level of appropriateness that I felt justifiedin using in order
to create scientific knowledge. But these neurons originally came from mice
whose lives were sacrificedto create the neuronalcells that I used. I know that
I was indebted to those mice, but faced with the choice of having to kill more
animalsor kill cells to do my research,I chose to kill cells. Honestly,I found it
verydifficultto try to place myselfon a mutualfooting with these neurons.How
could I when I knew that I was still going to kill them for their DNA, RNA,
and proteins?In this respect, I failed to incorporatethis element of feminist
inquiry into my own research.But while the cells were alive, I acknowledged
them as life forms,not simplyas materialsin my study.
As for making my conceptual frameworkclear, I tried to do this at every
turn. An interestingcase in point deals with the issue of the use of neuronal
cells in vitroformy research.By workingat the level of the cell and not with the
whole animal, my researchcould have easilybeen influencedby the reduction-
ist paradigmthat holds that we can understandthe biology of an organismas
a whole from the informationwe gatherabout that organismat the level of its
cells. In using an in vitrocell line for my study, I knew that I had to be aware

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 275

of this when I interpretedmy data and be carefulnot to assumethat the same

effects wouldoccur in the whole animal. I had to remindmyselfof the broader
picture. Curiouslythough, it was the nonfeminist scientists who warned me
over and over again of the biases involved in doing in vitroresearchand the
inaccuraciesthat could result.They urgedme to back up my findingsby doing
whole animalstudies.One mightthink that this was a step in the rightdirection
on the part of traditionalscience, but let me here give a beautiful illustration
of how the feminist scientist is caught between the drive for accuracyand the
desireto avoidparadigmsladen with biasedideology.The traditionalscientists
criticizedmy in vitroresearchbecause in a typical laboratorywhere drugsor
hormones are being examined for their effects on reproductivefunctions, the
most common models used for testing are rats, mice, or sheep. However,the
normal reproductivesystemsof these animals are not trustedenough to guar-
antee normalizedor uniform results. For this reason, animals whose ovaries
have been removed (and which thus have no endogenoussource of estrogen)
are administereduniformdoses of estrogenand then tested with an unknown
drugor hormone. Scientists do not want variabilityin their rawmaterial.The
ideological assumptionhere is that animal physiologyneeds to be standard-
ized in orderto achieve accuracyin the results.At least I acknowledgedthe
limitationsof my in vitroresearchand still achieved accuracy.Most traditional
scientistshave convinced themselvesthat studieswith whole animalsare more
accuratein developingour understandingof reproductivebiology,but they do
not question the ideologicalassumptionsbuilt into their own work.

CONCLUSION

I would like to return again to the question, can feminist theory in science
influence the productionof scientific knowledge at the level of epistemology
and methodology?It appearsto me that it can. But perhapsthe real question
is, Are we readyfor feminist theory in science to influence the productionof
scientific knowledge?If the social and political context in which science is
done is not compatiblewith the vision of feminist science, is it fair to say to
the feminist scientist that she must still try to do feminist science?Feminist
scientist EvelynFox Kellerwrites:

Is there a conflict between our commitment to feminism and

our commitmentto science?As both a feminist and a scientist,
I am morefamiliarthan I might wish with the nervousnessand
defensivenessthat such a potential conflictevokes.As scientists,
we have veryrealdifficultiesin thinking aboutthe kindsof issues
that, as feminists, we have been raising.These difficultiesmay,

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
276 Hypatia

however,ultimatelybe productive.... those elementsof feminist

criticism that seem to conflict most with at least conventional
conceptions of science may, in fact carrya liberatingpotential
for science (1996, 28).

My experience as a Ph.D. student was extremelyrewardingfor me. Not so

much for the science, but instead for the challenge of conducting scientific
researchand still calling myselfa feminist. Having comparedthe components
of this feministinquiryto the componentsof the ScientificMethod,I wouldnot
saythat they aremutuallyexclusive.In fact, all the componentsof the Scientific
Method are included within the feminist inquiry.What the feminist inquiry
does, however,is to ask the scientist to uncover the social and political forces
driving their researchquestionsas well as to establisha relationshipwith their
researchsubject(s).Perhapsthe realproblemthat traditionalscientistshave with
feminism is that they are not up to the intellectual challenge presentedby the
feminist inquiry.Until feministepistemologyand methodologyinfluencethose
who hold positionsof powerin the currentscientificestablishments,perhapsthe
feminist science inquirycan be thought to exist like the curve of objectivity,as
an "asymptoticallyapproachablebut unreachablegoal" (Eichler 1991, 14).
I know that in orderto complete my degree, I had to make a lot of compro-
mises. According to the feminist model of inquirythat I have outlined as the
practical transformationin this paper,I do not think that my own research
completelymet the criteriaof this inquiry.My supervisorsnever criticizedmy
research,or the data that I produced,only how I interpretedmy work.This was
due to a differenceof opinion between what they and I consideredimportant
and worth mentioning.I located the Originsof Problematicsin my work.They
said this was irrelevant.I stated the Purposesof my Inquiry.They said this too
was irrelevant.However,they weremost annoyedwith my effortsto recordthe
Relationshipbetween myself and my Subject of Inquiry.If I tried to drawout
any researchbiases, or even to write my methods sections in the firstperson,
they found this unacceptable.I was told to make the appropriatechanges if I
wanted to be taken seriously.The chaptersof my thesis were written as papers
that weresubmittedforpublicationin peer-reviewedscientificjournals.In order
to graduateand finish my Ph.D. successfully,I had to write and rewritethese
papersso many times that there were hardlyany traces of a feminist inquiry
left in them.
The reality of my situation was that as a graduatestudent, I workedwith
scientistsnot in the least bit interestedin or supportiveof my feminist science
work.But just becausemy workwas not supported,does this mean that I failed
to practicefeministscience?I think that feministscience can be practicedon an
individuallevel, but with muchdifficulty.An individualcan still ask"different"
questions.Nobody can take that awayfromthe feminist scientist. She can still

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 277

try to analyzegendercritically,to take women'sexperiencesinto account, and

to identifythe complexsubjectivitiesin herselfand what she observes(Harding
1989). Of course it would be less difficultto do feminist science if it were seen
as something that should be a coordinatedeffort on the part of the student,
supervisor,department,university,and granting agency.However,it was this
very difficultythat was ultimatelyproductivein my case. It forcedme to search
for a practicaltransformationof traditionalscience. What should other femi-
nist scientists do when faced with this difficulty?Whatever the answerto this
question might be, there is still a need forfeminist theory in science to provide
the practicaltransformations.It is up to the scientist whetheror not she wants
to try to do feminist science.
So, are we ready?The answer is yes, if we are willing. If we are willing to
accept and recognize the limitations of our own work without letting these
limitationsstop us fromdoing science, or forthat matterfromcreatingfeminist
science. It is a strengthof feminismto set high standards,but at the same time,
we cannot dismiss the effortsand small degreesof progressmade by the indi-
vidual.And so to the feminist scientistworkingat the lab bench I say,READY.
... SET.... PROCEEDWITH CAUTION!

NOTE

I amgratefulto MargritEichlerforencouraging meto writethisessay,andto members

of the BAITWoRM(BiologyAs If The WorldMattered)networkforallowingme to
presenta veryearlyversionof thispaperat the May2000conference.

REFERENCES

S.,J.Cardoso,
Abdelmassih, V.Abdelmassih,
J.A. Dias,R.Abdelmassih,andZ.P.Nagy.
2002.Laser-assisted
ICSI:A novelapproachto obtainhigheroocytesurvivaland
embryoqualityrates.HumanReproduction
17(10):2694-99.
Arendt, Josephine. 1995.Melatoninand themammalianpinealgland.Cambridge:Chap-
man& Hall.
1982.Feminismandthe critiqueof the scientificmethod.In Femi-
Benston,Margaret.
nismin Canada,ed.AngelaMilesandGeraldineFinn.Montreal:BlackRose.
Birke,Lynda.1994.Feminism,animalsandscience:The namingof theshrew.Buckingham,
U.K:OpenUniversityPress.
Bleier,Ruth.1986.Sexdifferences
research:
Scienceorbelief?In Feminist
approachesto
science,ed.RuthBleier.NewYork:Pergamon Press.
Linda.1993.Community
Christiansen-Ruffman, baseandfeministvision:Theessential
groundingof sciencein women'scommunity.CanadianWomen's Studies13 (2):
16-20.

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
278 Hypatia

Corea, Gena. 1986. The mothermachine:Reproductive technologiesfromartificialinsemi-

nation to artificialwombs.New York:Harperand Row.
Ehrenreich,Barbara,and DeirdreEnglish.1978.Forherowngood:150yearsof theexperts'
adviceto women.New York:Anchor Books.
Eichler,Margrit.1991.Nonsexistresearchmethods:A practicalguide.New York:Rout-
ledge.
. 1997. Feminist methodology.CurrentSociology45 (2): 9-36.
Fausto-Sterling,Anne. 1985.Mythsof gender:Biologicaltheoriesaboutwomenand men.
New York:HarperCollins Publishers.
Findlay,Ian 2000. Pre-implantationgenetic diagnosis. BritishMedicalBulletin56 (3):
672-90.
Franklin,Ursula. 1990. The realworldof technology.Concord, Canada:Anansi.
Haraway,D. 1986. Primatologyis politics by other means. In Feministapproachesto
science,ed. Ruth Bleier.New York:PergamonPress.
Harding, Sandra. 1987. Feminismand methodology:Social science issues, ed. Sandra
Harding.Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
. 1989. Is there a feminist method?In Feminismand science,ed. Nancy Tuana.
Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
. 1991.Whosescience?whoseknowledge?Thinkingfromwomen'slives.New York:
Cornell University Press.
Hubbard,Ruth. 1989.Science, facts, and feminism. In Feminismand science,ed. Nancy
Tuana. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
. 1995.The logos of life. In Reinventingbiology:Respectfor lifeand thecreationof
knowledge,ed. Linda Birkeand Ruth Hubbard.Bloomington: IndianaUniversity
Press.
Keller,Evelyn Fox. 1996. Feminism and science. In Feminismand science.New York:
OxfordUniversity Press.
Lewontin,Richard.C. 1991.Biologyas ideology:Thedoctrineof DNA. Concord,Canada:
Anansi.
Longino, Helen. 1989. Can there be a feminist science? In Feminismand science,ed.
Nancy Tuana. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Martin, Emily.1987.The womanin thebody:A culturalanalysisof reproduction.Boston:
Beacon Press.
Messing, Karen, and Donna Mergler. 1995. "The rat couldn't speak, but we can":
Inhumanityin occupationalhealth research.In Reinventingbiology:Respectforlife
and the creationof knowledge,ed. LyndaBirke and Ruth Hubbard.Bloomington:
IndianaUniversity Press.
Namenwirth, Marion. 1986. Science seen through a feminist prism. In Feminist
approachesto science,ed. Ruth Bleier.New York:PergamonPress.
Rosser,Sue. 1989. Feminist scholarshipin the sciences: Where are we now and when
can we expect a theoretical breakthrough?In Feminismand science, ed. Nancy
Tuana. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
Roy, Deboleena, Nadia Angelini, Hiroki Fujieda, Greg M. Brown, and Denise D.
Belsham. 2001. Melatonin-mediated repression of gonadotropin-releasinghor-
mone (GnRH) gene expression and secretion in GnRH neurons. Endocrinology
142 (11):4711-20.

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Deboleena Roy 279

Roy,Deboleena, and Denise D. Belsham.2002. Melatonin receptoractivationregulates

gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) gene expressionand secretionin GT1-7
GnRH neurons:Signal transductionmechanisms.Journalof BiologicalChemistry
277 (1): 251-58.
Shiva, Vandana. 1995. Democratizingbiology: Reinventing biology from a feminist,
ecological, and third world perspective. In Reinventingbiology:Respectfor life
and the creationof knowledge,ed. LyndaBirke and Ruth Hubbard.Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
.1997. Biopiracy:Theplunderof natureandknowledge.Toronto,Canada:Between
the Lines.
Spanier, Bonnie. 1995. Im/partialscience:Genderideologyin molecularbiology.Bloom-
ington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Steele, C. Danae, RonaldJ. Wapner,J. BruceSmith, MarkK. Haynes,LairdG. Jackson.
1996. Prenataldiagnosisusing fetal cells isolatedfrom maternalperipheralblood:
A review.ClinicalObstetricsand Gynecology39 (4): 801-13.
Tuana,Nancy. 1989.The weakerseed: The sexist bias of reproductivetheory. In Femi-
nismand science,ed. Nancy Tuana. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press.
Van Steirteghem, Andre, Paul Devroey, Inge Liebaers.2002. Intracytoplasmicsperm
injection. Molecularand CellularEndocrinology186 (2002): 199-203.
Voordouw,Bettie C. G., RobertEuser,Rene E. Verdonk,Bert T. Alberda,FrankH. de
Jong, Aat C. Drogendijk,Bart C. J. M. Fauser,Michael Cohen. 1992. Melatonin
and melatonin-progestincombinationsalterpituitary-ovarianfunction in women
and can inhibit ovulation. Journalof Clinical Endocrinologyand Metabolism74
(1): 108-17.
Yen, Samuel S.C. 1991. Hypothalamic gonadotropin-releasinghormone: Basic and
clinical aspects. In BrainEndocrinology,ed. Marcella Motta. New York:Raven
Press,245-80.

This content downloaded from 140.141.130.137 on Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:36:03 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions