Nan Ding Annotations


Wednesday, December 9, 2020 - 12:39am
The writer often used this word as a signifier the mix of two (unusual to pair up) spaces.  For example, “the provision and manipulation of scientific equipment and skills but also the expectations and aspirations in which equipment and buildings are entangled.” There are a couple of more instances such as entangled materialities with emotions or goals (55), entangled power between what the ideal state is and where should invest (67), entangled of the past and the future in the forms of the provision of scientific equipment ( 86-87).
 I mobilize this insight into the relationship between 'roots' and 'tense and subject shifting,' comparatively, in the stories of three individuals whose positions in an African university laboratory were differently rooted in colonial pasts, and who had different expectations for the future of toxicological work in Dakar
Another plant metaphor. Given the context of this book, roots have a closer relation with land which entails a geographical location and its colonial history. Looking from a smaller scale, this implied “land” contains a specific temporal and political context for different individuals’ visions to take root. 
Others, however, have instead traced a remaking of the state as mediator of global health, as it manages its multiple relations of accountability to “stakeholders,” developing strategies to keep resources flowing while projecting its image as a provider of care and opportunity. Indeed, studies from Senegal, where the state has kept tight control over donor-funded programs and increased its own health spending (as well as the contributions made by its people), show that national and global imaginations of citizen’s have become tightly imbricated. This does not mean that the public of public health is defined and cared for inclusively as a national citizenry. The allocation of global health resources to priority problems (those calculated as posing the greatest ‘global burden’) has selectively reanimated nodes of national clinical and laboratory infrastructures while motivating the creation of new hybrid’para-statal’ (trans)national and public-private institutional forms. Along with the growth of private clinics, the landscape of health research and care has thus been fragmented into spaces of ‘abundance and scarcity,’ creating ‘archipelagic’ geographies of globally connected and well-resourced ‘islands’ that are disengaged from contiguous populations and territory. At the same time, ‘island’ such as malaria or HIV treatment programs can have broader, unanticipated impacts in terms of how citizens (patients, health care workers, hospital managers, private pharmacists) make claims on the state, and, conversely, respond to demands they are subjected to.
This paragraph, as well as the book, summarized the dilemma many less developed countries had faced in building their nations. On the one hand, they are trying to catch up with the “global standard” that has established by mostly European countries that might not be suitable for them at all. On the other hand, they try to balance with the local demand and needs with a limited budget. To complicate things more, there was a mismatch between what the international concerned about and what the Senegalese people concerned about which also closely connected with the toxicology they were trying to build. Also, there were conflicts of interests within the Senegalese population as well.   
Creative Commons Licence