基因科學與認同政治：原住民DNA、台灣人起源與生物多元文化主義的興起

Genetic Science and Identity Politics: Indigenous DNA, the Origin of the Taiwanese, and the Emergence of Bio-multiculturalism

在全球化過程中，當代基因科技、知識與在地的認同政治之間，經常形成所謂「生物政治典範」的發展。台灣的生物政治典範，不僅牽涉種族／族群的爭議，也與國族認同緊密相連。九Ｏ年代解嚴之後，台灣祖先起源與台灣人基因組成的科學研究逐漸浮現，其知識旨趣在於指出台灣人血源上的多樣混雜，以及擁有原本被鄙視的原住民血統的可貴，這也展現了二十世紀末全球認同政治的普遍特色之一，亦即一種企圖去殖民的「反論述」性質。本文採用「共構」（coproduction）的取徑，進一步從科學知識生產的「內滲」與「外溢」兩面向分析，內文指出台灣祖先起源與組成的科學知識生產，以及在實驗室外被消費及造成的社會後果，都鑲嵌在台灣社會認同政治（四大族群、多元文化主義與台灣民族主義的出現）中，深受其中人群分類認同與差異形構過程的影響。實驗室內生產的科學知識以及科學家之間的爭議，透過九年代以來的族群學術研討會、科學專業期刊、媒體報導、公共輿論等社會機制，逐漸從科學專業圈外溢而持續發酵，造成相當的社會後果，是「生物醫學的族群化」與「族群的生物醫學化」的重要現象之一。最後，本文從「反身性的生物社會性」立場，強調社會學家應探究當代社會認同「生物醫學化」的科學知識生產過程，科學家也必須對這種過程進行方法論上的反省。

In the global age, the close connection of genetic knowledge and technology with local identity politics has stimulated the development of a “biopolitical paradigm.” In Taiwan, the biopolitical paradigm shaped by the intimate relationship between the development of biomedicine and identity politics has involved not only racial/ethnic issues but also national identity. Scientific research regarding the ancestral origins and genetic attributes of the Taiwanese emerged in the early 1990s after the rule by martial law ended. This research has focused on mixed-blood hybridity of the Taiwanese and the percentage of indigenous blood in their genes. This research interest represents a common feature of global identity politics since the late twentieth century: a counter-discourse shaped by decolonialism. Based on Sheila Jasanoff’s idea of “co-production,” this article explores the “inward invasion” of social factors into the production of scientific knowledge and the “outward spillover” of scientific knowledge to the society. It analyzes how the production and consumption of scientific knowledge about the ancestral origins and genetic attributes of the Taiwanese have been embedded in local identity politics, including the emergence of the “four great ethnic groups” categorization, multiculturalism, and Taiwanese nationalism, and shaped by the identity and difference based on specific human classification. The article also examines how the scientific knowledge produced in the lab has spilled over to the Taiwanese society in general through conferences, journals, media, and the like since the 1990s and brought about significant social impacts as part of the phenomena of the “ethnicization of biomedicine” and the“biomedicalization of ethnicity.” Taking the perspective of “reflexive biosociality,” the article concludes with the suggestion that it is necessary for sociologists to investigate the contemporary production of biomedicalized knowledge about identity and that scientists themselves should take a reflexive view of this production methodologically.