“Genomic data could be used by resource-poor laboratories in Africa. Also, although genomic and other -omic big sciences are expensive (though prices are dropping rapidly), they can be used to develop very basic and cheap technologies. Therefore one would expect that unlike molecular biology, the fruits of genomics would fall into Africa or that at the very least, some of their juices would trickle in. This is happening in some cases but not in others.” (460)
Hecht writes: "He lambasts me for not single-handedly preserving the archive myself. In fact, I did my best to persuade the mine director to keep and organize that collection. But the company was never going to let me manage (or even influence) such preservation. When the mine finally did shut down, some (unknown) portion of those documents were kept . . . and sent to Areva headquarters in France, where they are now utterly in- accessible to researchers. Should I have declined to use these documents simply because they weren’t pre-organized into a tidy collection and because the company might not, in the future, preserve them for others to see? If historians limited themselves to documentation made permanently and publicly accessible by powerful institutions, our discipline would be mightily impoverished."
van Sittart responds:
"...why the failure to systematically work or digitize a condemned African mine archive to which the author was given unrestricted access is of no consequence. No such defense is offered on any of these fronts by either the author or her many defenders."
AO: this raises important questions about the responsibility of the researcher in preserving the data sources they use for the future. This seems to be much easier to discuss/lombast historians for because they are part of an ongoing disciplinary norm to have public archives. But what about other qualitative data that is generated daily as part of research work that goes on. Few if any discussions are going on about how this data should be archived/digitized and preserved for sharing and future inquiry. Might be worth reaching out to van Sittert to get his thoughts on my project. According to his university website, he is currently engaged in the creation of online databases inventorying the colonial and national gazette series for environmental and social history.
Hecht's responds to van Sittart by highlighting the following:
"He dismissively notes the twenty-six archival collections that I consulted for the project, then falsely claims that my arguments are built primarily on interviews rather than archives. Even a cursory glance at the footnotes reveals the deep archival foundation of my claims. A more sustained examination shows that many nuances in my arguments emerged by placing interviews and archives in dialogue."
"I faced secretive institutions that actively sought to keep their records from public view. In both, I interviewed workers, managers, and technical experts to discern patterns and narratives invisible in the written record."
"my main archival sources consisted of uncatalogued, disorganized collections located on in- dustrial sites, buried in dusty closets"
"van Sittert sarcastically wonders whether I’d written mine companies in advance of arriving. Of course I wrote— they would never have let me onsite otherwise. But any- one who has conducted comparable research knows that one does not persuade such corporations to pro- vide access to documentation with written queries. One needs to show up in person, to painstakingly explain why documents that managers consider outdated rub- bish actually have historical value. This is equally true for French nuclear reactors and for Gabonese uranium mines."
"He lambasts me for not single-handedly preserving the archive myself. In fact, I did my best to persuade the mine director to keep and organize that collection. But the company was never going to let me manage (or even influence) such preservation. When the mine finally did shut down, some (unknown) portion of those documents were kept . . . and sent to Areva headquarters in France, where they are now utterly in- accessible to researchers. Should I have declined to use these documents simply because they weren’t pre-organized into a tidy collection and because the company might not, in the future, preserve them for others to see? If historians limited themselves to documentation made permanently and publicly accessible by powerful institutions, our discipline would be mightily impoverished."
It is interesting that Gabrielle Hecht leverages the idea of "intellectual dishonesty" (several times) in her rebuttal against van Sittert (in comparison to his framing of Hecht as an (unethical) neocolonialist at the same level as extractive mining companies).
Lance van Sittert implies that Hecht assumped that because this was Africa, no archive would exist. This is in line with broader discourse about "no data in Africa" as noted elsewhere.
This is not related to data per say but Chapter Two especially focuses on the subject formation of Africans as scientists, looking at how postcolonial leaders such as Senghor and Diop viewed Africa’s emergence and path towards “modernity.” Tousignant notes: “For Senghor as for Diop, then, being scientific was not just about being modern as a form of mimicry, but about (re)setting African history in motion: for Africans to (once again) become active transformers of their society and place in the world.” (chapter 2)
The author doesn’t talk explicitly about flows of data but does note that the Gates Foundation grants presume a unidirectionality of global knowledge flows. Majority of grants are given to scientists working in North America. System is set to organize technical objects but not technical subjects. (854)
Pollock includes a quote from interlocutor to demonstrate how ethical value, economic value, and epistemological value comingle (and draws on Ann Kelly and Wenzel Geissler’s (2012) evocative triad) (866).
Self-reliance emerges as a theme that the South African interlocutors desired. Not just independence or reparations but “a place in the world” (quoting Ferguson 2006). (866).
Quoting her interlocutors, Pollock discusses how they saw the importance of ‘taking responsibility for AIDS’ and other infectious diseases is often linked with the moral imperative for South African scientists to focus on the needs not only of the global or even the South African elite, but also of the poor and black South African majority.” (866)
Quote from interlocutor: “we haven’t seen much of science responding the actual needs. What it means for science to address the needs down in my home town, where they are facing [TB and HIV]. And so that is where my social aspect comes from, is how to do you make science respond. Science and education needs to address what we are facing in this country.” (867)
Tilley is thinking about the legacy of colonialism and how it shaped the role of science on the continent.
Citing Folayan and Allman (2011), Biruk notes that whereas researchers earn money, status, and accolades for their work, research participants are expected to understand their role as volunary, altruistic, and towards the collective good (103).