Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 19

Science Studies 2/2003

Hope Against Hype – Accountability in


Biopasts, Presents and Futures

Nik Brown

We are today wholly accustomed to being daily bombarded with (often competing)
claims about the seemingly limitless potential and promise of transgenics, predic-
tive medicine, reproductive science, bioinformatics and much else besides. Stories of
new breakthroughs and advances mesh with ‘our’ culturally embedded sense of the
steady march of enlightenment progress. Each announcement seems to index a se-
quential pulse in the accomplishment of the ‘biotechnology revolution’. In more
grounded terms, the talking-up of biotechnology prizes open the accounts of fund-
ing agencies and investors, in addition to winning the necessary support of various
critical allies (patients, publics, regulators, etc). In equal measure, hyper-expectations
feed into and fuel the complex counter concerns of oppositional cultures (new so-
cial movements, NGOs, etc). And yet these accounts of revolutionary potentially sit
uncomfortably alongside our equally familiar experiences of unfulfilled promises,
the awkward absence of future benefits, treatments, rewards and profits. This is not
always the case, but more often than not, early hopes are rarely proportionate to
actual future results. This paper charts key features in the ‘dynamics of expectations’,
documenting the relationships between new hopes and emerging disappointments.
It explores the routes of agency in the construction of the present’s future and touches
on the possibilities for greater accountability in the political economy of biotechno-
logical expectations.

Keywords: hype, genomics, expectations

For every age there seems to be a par- logical age at the close of the 20th Cen-
ticular group of activities that are taken tury. Indeed, the opening of the 21st Cen-
to be somehow representative of the fu- tury seems to have fixed its future sights
ture. Whether that be nuclear power dur- on all things small. Champions of the
ing the middle of the 20th century, fol- ‘nanorevolution’ now compete with new
lowed by the information revolution sev- genetics for corporate and public pa-
eral generations later, or the biotechno- tronage. Indeed, the appearance of a cu-

Science Studies, Vol. 16(2003) No.2, 3–21


Science Studies 2/2003

riously new compound term, ‘nano- Promise and risk are together vulnerable
biotech’, nicely expresses the conjoining to the reflexive modern twist of solutions
of otherwise competitive futures. generating unanticipated problems
So it is often the case that, for a time (Beck et al., 1996) and the overall failure
at least, various areas of technological of predictive frameworks to anticipate
innovation become saturated with the unanticipatable. The early promises
stratospherically high expectations of associated with gene therapy have been
immanent and revolutionary change. confronted with unforeseen and highly
Biotech is no exception and is today syn- complex problems, even in single gene
onymous with the language and imagery defects where the approach seemed
of futuristic breakthroughs. The whole relatively straightforward (Martin, 2001).
area is literally spilling over with heated Transpecies transplants, once never very
aspirations, promises, expectations, far from the headlines, have now drifted
hopes, desires and imaginings. to the margins of the biotechnological
To a certain extent, such intense fu- imagination (Brown and Michael, 2003).
ture orientation is essential to the re- The revolutionary futures foreseen for
hearsal of the many possible prospective food production by industry visionaries
presents embedded in biotechnological have had to come to terms with the
research and discourse. And yet it is clear forceful futures of others, particularly
that hype has now become responsible sceptical Western consumers with differ-
for a great many current difficulties in ent aspirations for nature, nutrition and
the legitimacy of biotech. consumption.
First, hype about our radical biotech Biotechnology mirrors familiar pat-
future seems to fuel and enflame wide- terns in the play of expectations and
spread concerns and anxieties about risk technological development. In the short
too. That is, whether and what kind of term we tend to completely overestimate
future we would like our present to be the practical capabilities of technologies.
given that so much opportunity could In the longer-term we tend to get it
easily give rise to so much danger. Risk wrong altogether, with technologies oc-
and opportunity are the flip sides of hy- casionally taking us completely by sur-
perbolic expectations, inflating one an- prise. Just as vulnerable to miscalcula-
other in equal measure. The tendency to tion is the willingness of target markets
attribute incredible potential to biotech- and users to eagerly embrace new appli-
nology enflames concerns that things cations or integrate them into their rou-
will go horribly wrong. And they might. tines, lifestyles and consumption habits.
Nevertheless, our experience to date is The Nobel laureate, Sydney Brenner
that actual events are rarely proportion- recently offered a definition of ‘the
ate to early expectations. biotech firm’ as an organisation that
Second, we are all no doubt familiar ‘takes an idea and turns it into a concept’.
with several or more salient examples of As academics of science and technology,
early ambition giving way to disillusion- as well as participants in life science in-
ment and any number of applications novation, we seem to constantly be buf-
have turned out radically different to the feted between cycles of hype and disap-
way many people once anticipated. pointment, awe and loathing in some-

4
Nik Brown

times bewildering swift succession. locational positions and places within


This might be an exaggerated picture which future abstractions take shape.
of biotechnological expectations but it That is, contrasting expectations reflect
does reflect some of the equally over- differing points within a ‘knowledge
stated and technologically determinis- economy’ of expectations. By ‘knowl-
tic futures associated with both green edge economy’ I mean that expectations
and red biotech. It also expresses our dif- are loaded with value, they are tradable
ficulties in making sense of the futures and therefore form the basis of exchange
and expectations presently in circula- relationships within ‘communities of
tion. In this paper I want to elaborate on promise’. They also reflect asymmetries
what some in Science and Technology between people and groups in their ac-
Studies now call the ‘dynamics of expec- cess to information within the knowl-
tation’ – and use these insights to make edge economy of expectations.
sense of the future-oriented environ- The conclusion will explore a crucial
ment in which biotechnology’s many ac- tension or dilemma in the social man-
tivities are nested (Brown et al., 2003; agement of expectations. On the one
Konrad, 2003). I am going to be drawing hand, expectations and imaginative
empirically on a number of research speculation are understood as funda-
cases with which I have been involved, mentally necessary real-time activities
particularly research monitoring the in order to mobilise the future into the
changing fortunes of transpecies trans- present. That is, hype and the noisy cla-
plantation (Michael and Brown, 2000- mour of future projection are indispen-
20031 ) – in addition to several other sably central to the shaping of technol-
cases drawn from wider genomics. ogy. And yet, on the other hand, we want
To begin with, I want to explore the to avoid the costly price of disillusion-
costs of hype both symbolically and ment, overshoot, hype and overselling.
materially to those who are persuaded The final part of the paper will speculate
by exaggerated futures. I will then out- on how to resolve the tensions between
line ways in which our future-oriented the apparent necessity of high expecta-
speculations of the biotechnological fu- tions and the requirement for a more
ture are embedded in two broad condi- constructive engagement with future
tions. First, the paper explores the tem- imaginings. Or rather, we might ask what
poral conditions and patterns by which are the prospects for reducing the dam-
expectations change flexibly over time aging implications of failed futures?
and the way in which representations of
future-time have their roots in quite spe- Hype’s Costs
cific present day temporalities. That is,
research fields differ radically in terms Futures routinely vary from the expec-
of their relative maturity and the degree tations we once held of them. This is not
to which various problems have had the unusual but indeed is a normal feature
time and opportunity to surface and of the way in which people inhabit the
thus reshape expectations. Second, ex- future and the past. Most of us accept
pectations are also always embedded that our hopes and expectations will
spatially in terms of the different have to adapt to new and emerging cir-

5
Science Studies 2/2003

cumstances. And indeed, failure to ad- erwise. This of course prompts the cen-
just expectations in an ongoing and it- tral analytical question of how it is that
erative way often leads to a widening gulf ‘future scripts are stabilised around a
between rhetoric and more substantive specific set of expectations and prac-
(socio-material, etc) aspects of techno- tices’ (Brown et al., 2000: 5).
logical change. So these then are two key features of
The problem with the biotechnology the dynamics of expectations, particu-
sector is that, like many areas of innova- larly at the opening moments of inno-
tion, expectations are sometimes both vation. First, the requirement to enun-
inflexible and reflect disproportionately ciate a story, a vision of the future and a
exaggerated benefits and risks. This oc- means of getting there (Deuten and Rip,
curs for the very reason that future-ab- 2000). More usually, this will exhibit dif-
stractions are put into circulation in the fering degrees of linearity and flexibility.
first place – to have a ‘performative’ in- Secondly, the promise will, almost nec-
fluence in real time (Michael, 2000). That essarily, be exaggerated in order to com-
is, hype is constitutive, it mobilises the mand sufficient interest to enrol neces-
future into the present. It is part of the sary allies and secure investment. And
repertoire through which a narrative inevitably then, as time passes and cir-
path or story line is constructed for tech- cumstances change, unforeseen prob-
nologies (Deuten and Rip, 2000). And, as lems emerge, and early hype gives way to
with any narrative or story, various ‘ac- varying levels of disillusionment. When
tors’ are scripted into the plot and must this occurs, such hopeful clusterings or
perform their part if the story is to be ‘communities of promise’ fall apart and
successful. Within communities of can be seen to migrate to new fields
promise, expectations structure and or- unsullied by hype’s eventual disappoint-
ganise a whole network of mutually ments.
binding obligations between innovators, However, hype is far from being a
investors, consumers, regulators and so morally neutral activity. The costs of fail-
on (van Lente, 1993; 2000). Technologi- ure arising from overheated expecta-
cal change is therefore a process of con- tions and inflexible objectives have to be
stant oscillation between present and borne by someone, ultimately damaging
future tenses, between present problems reputations and trust. Very often, these
and future solutions. changes in fortune can occur extremely
Now, these performative actions take abruptly. Harro van Lente (1993) shows
place in acutely competitive environ- how these rapid down-turns in expecta-
ments where rival expectations each vie tions take place as a result of advocates
for ascendancy. The most vociferous of a technology having to maintain a
voices are those most likely to have their rhetoric of hype even – or especially – as
expectation disseminated widely enough underlying problems become more ap-
for the story or plot to become a more parent. As doubts increase, so too does
widely shared normative anticipation of the requirement to reinforce more posi-
the future. And equally, the greater is the tive futures. Until suddenly, the effort to
likelihood that competing voices will maintain expectations becomes too high
contend that the future should be oth- leading to an abrupt collapse and a new

6
Nik Brown

round of scapegoating and victim blam- search findings in the web forum. Mate-
ing. rially, it often implies donating part of
Numerous commentators, both di- one’s income towards funding a cure…
rectly and indirectly, have noted the det- [and] willingness to take part in clinical
rimental and costly impact of these dy- trials for potential therapies to cure
namics on the biotechnology sector. One HD…’
recently contended that ‘too much Similarly, innovation into tissue re-
‘genohype hurts everyone’ (Caulfield, placement technologies and transplan-
2002) by detracting from the underlying tation has long been legitimated through
longer-term value of basic science and powerfully emotive representations of
overplaying unrealistic short-term ex- desperately dependent patients. And
pectations. It also tends to produce an yet, in retrospect, patient organisations
artificially polarised form of ethical dis- are now sometimes more ambivalent
course at odds with the practical reali- about having been enrolled into the fu-
ties of the science. ture articulated for technologies that
Of course, these costs differ in quality simply did not fulfil their promise. In re-
and severity across different constituen- search by Mike Michael and myself we
cies. With respect to red biotech, the en- conducted discussion groups with pa-
rolment of patient groups and health tients and explored how people deal
advocacy organisations has been crucial with the difficulties of attaching their
to promoting research trajectories and hopes to promises that often go unful-
winning ethical and financial support. filled (Brown and Michael, 2003). The
Of course, this varies enormously with, following extract is taken from a discus-
in some cases, health advocacy groups sion group involving sufferers of Parkin-
being highly influential in pushing for son’s disease, one of the groups who po-
various avenues of research to be fol- tentially stand to benefit from re-
lowed (Rabinow, 1999). search into dopamine producing stem
On the other hand, close links are of- cells and xenografts. On the one hand,
ten formed by industry with such groups these people are intensely vigilant about
in order to legitimate potentially difficult new and emerging developments in
forms of research. This can be seen to medical technology. Yet they are also
have been strongly influential in the re- enormously sceptical having experi-
cent shaping of embryonic stem cell leg- enced successive episodes where glitter-
islation whereby powerful alliances ing breakthroughs lead up blind alleys.
across patient groups produced highly Rob: A lot of people have come to me
influential policy lobbying. Participation over the last few years and said, “Have
in the research promise is a simultane- you heard the latest breakthrough?”
ously moral and corporeal form of en- And cause I’ve got Parkinson’s I get the
information on it and read it, but some-
gagement (Rabeharisoa and Callon,
how it sort of gets lost and you don’t
2002) and as Novas and Rose (2000: 506) hear of it again.
note in the case of Huntingdon’s Disease
‘… the responsible-genetic subject be- Darren: Yeah.
comes active in the enterprise of science.
This entails posting promising new re- Cathy: You hear about it and then it’s

7
Science Studies 2/2003

gone. DeCode. But since being listed, shares


have slumped to less than a tenth of their
Darren: I can understand them making
original value. As one commentator re-
an announcement in the [Lancet] or
something like that. That if they didn’t cently observed, the talking-up of the
issue it on general release until they ‘wonderful opportunities of Iceland’s
were 12 to 18 months from the actual genetic specialness was both reason to
usage as far as the general public was offer their blood for analysis and reason
concerned, I think psychologically it
would be far better.
to dig into their pockets…. there is some-
thing unusually poignant about the
So the telling of sickness narratives in the DeCode story because those who have
context of technological promotion is a been burned have given the company
powerful means of creating research not just their money but – with the bless-
space, attractive investment and justify- ing of their leaders – their genes’. (The
ing morally challenging research (Mulkay, Guardian, Oct 31 2002).
1993; Brown, 1997). Such stories have As the case illustrates, policy commu-
enormous potency because they tell of nities can become uncritically enrolled
the precarious futures of individuals into unreasonable expectations of future
who are desperate for treatment. In this potential and occasionally at great costs
way, the welding together of painful to those for whom they have duties of
pathological biography and the fate of a responsibility. This paper is being writ-
biotechnological promise takes place at ten as the UK Department of Health
enormous cost to those who, for how- launches its white paper on genetics,
ever long, are persuaded to share in the suitably entitled ‘Our Inheritance, Our
hope. Future’. Amidst strong criticism that it is
The costs of inflated promise can be overly optimistic and distracts attention
seen even at the level of whole popula- from basic service provision, the report
tions as well as patient groups. For ex- promises a £10m commitment to reviv-
ample, the commercialisation of the Ice- ing gene therapy research over the next
landic genetic register was legitimated three years and the suggestion of clini-
on the basis that Icelanders would en- cal licenses being granted within five to
joy privileged access to new drug thera- ten years. This comes only six months
pies in addition to a share in profits from after the suspension of gene therapy tri-
pharmaceutical research and sales als because two patients were found to
(Fortun, 2001; Palsson and Rabinow, have developed leukaemia in a French
1999). In an early attempt to win the sup- study (Science, 17th Oct 2003).
port of the electorate for the initiative, In the contexts of governance and
the government had pressed for com- policy making, the need to produce at-
pany shares to be made available to Ice- tention-grabbing imagery for the
landers on the unregulated ‘grey’ mar- genomics future comes at considerable
ket. On the basis of powerful promo- costs in terms of revenue allocation and
tional rhetoric about future potential, also in terms of appropriate safeguards
many members of the Icelandic popu- against risk. Most regulatory frameworks
lation were sufficiently persuaded to put operate, either explicitly or implicitly, in
large amounts of personal finance into reference to some measure of cost-ben-

8
Nik Brown

efit analysis. That is, risks taken today are on top of the expectations… (UKXIRA
warranted by some perceived notion of member 3).
potential benefit in the future. In the Inevitably, as once distant futures ad-
context of xenotransplantation, for ex- vance towards the present, comparisons
ample, hugely optimistic expectations of are made between past promises and
future benefits have been used to justify present realities. In so many cases, the
proportionately costly animal trial stud- present fails to measure up to the expec-
ies. tations once held of it. This can have dis-
During the mid to late 1990s xeno- astrous consequences for the reputa-
transplantation research involving pri- tions not only of individuals but entire
mates ranked amongst the most severe innovation fields. As it was put recently,
permitted under UK legislation. In the ‘the biggest casualties of the hype could
study by myself and Mike Michael, we be the genomic research community
encouraged respondents to reflect back and the biotechnology industry. The
on that period. One member of the regu- public will soon stop listening. And with-
latory body overseeing the field out public trust and support, genomic
(UKXIRA) expressed concern that ‘harm research will be unable to achieve its le-
done to animals, particularly macaques, gitimate goals’ (Caufield, 2002). Xeno-
by this research is often underplayed, transplantation in the UK followed the
and the potential benefits are grossly trajectory outlined above by Van Lente
overestimated’ (UKXIRA member 1). For whereby the pressure to maintain the
policy actors, operating at a distance promise eventually gave way to a sud-
from the basic research science, xeno- den collapse. It had become increasingly
transplantation seemed ‘… to be just difficult to plaster over poor demonstra-
around the corner… we just had to get tions of efficacy in the animal studies with
over hyperacute rejection and then it future images of limitless supplies of tis-
would all be plain sailing…’ (UKXIRA sues and organs (Brown and Michael,
member 2). Hyping up the benefits and 2002). Almost overnight, funding of the
downplaying the cost was essentially UK company Imutran was withdrawn by
necessary to an enterprise requiring Novartis just as reports were leaked
large-scale financial investment and about the concealment of negative find-
permission to undertake severely pain- ings.
ful animal studies: These are then just some of the ways
in which hype can turn out to have been
I think partly because there was a
prominent scientist involved who counterproductive in the long run,
raised expectations to an unrealistic whilst achieving the near term objectives
level… and had this monocular view of securing various financial and sym-
that… [transgenics] were going to solve bolic investments. The problem is that,
it… clinical trials next week that sort of
over time, the dissonance between rep-
stuff; I think Novartis [pharma com-
pany] bought that thinking… I know it’s resentation and reality becomes more
being wise after the event… I and many apparent to those that have developed a
of my colleagues did not realise it was stake in the promise. Rhetorical repre-
going to be a long haul. You need belts sentations of the future are no doubt
and braces and several other things…

9
Science Studies 2/2003

powerful animators of action and an es- Wynne, 1996). They are reflected in less
sential feature of mobilisation. But at stable market conditions, inhibiting nec-
some point it must become evident that essary investment (Pixley, 2002). In
the imagination has taken on a solid terms of research investment, high ex-
material and substantive form. Materi- pectations result in situations of famine
als and natures, the objects of biotech- and feast for research communities that
nological innovation, must have been might otherwise have benefited from
seen to have behaved in a way that is longer term but more modest forms of
congruent with the scripts once written patronage. Just as importantly, the em-
for them (Akrich, 1992). But of course, phasis of regulatory governance can
the dreams of innovators have to take sometimes be misdirected into areas of
into account the fact that the objects of concern that are in actual fact unrealis-
their innovation often seem to have fu- tic and impracticable.
tures of their own. Actants like immor- So the obvious and logical question is
tal stem lines, genes, species, viral vec- how and whether we might ameliorate
tors, GMOs, all have a certain future-ori- some of these costs, soften the dispari-
entation though of course not in quite ties and volatilities of expectations? The
the same cognitive sense as human ex- first step in this direction must come, I
pectations. Futures are deeply embed- suggest, from a better understanding of
ded in technical processes, species con- the ‘situatedness’ of expectations. That
tinuities, cyclical routines and other is, we need to reflect upon the actual
temporalities which may turn out to re- contexts and conditions in which expec-
sist enrolment into human aspirations tations, hype and future imaginings are
articulated in language, metaphor and embedded. I want to elaborate this
discourse (Adam, 1998; Mackenzie, situatedness according to two param-
2002). When this occurs, the costs can be eters, the temporal and the spatial.
very high for any number of constituen- By the temporal I mean that expecta-
cies that have been enrolled in one way tions, hypes and disappointments usu-
or another into the promise. ally have a temporal patterning. Innova-
tion concepts in biotechnology, as in
Temporally Situated / Embedded other sectors, will vary according to
Expectations whether they are presented as new or old.
Understanding this temporal patterning
Clearly then many of these expectations helps us better appreciate how expecta-
come at great cost to those who pin their tions of the future change over time. That
hopes on various futures whether that be is our presents are situated in relation to
transplantable stem cells and xeno- memories of past futures and future
grafts, or the individualised drug regimes presents. By the spatial, I mean that ex-
of pharmacogenomics, or higher nutri- pectations of a technology will be differ-
tional crops for malnourished popula- ent (at any one time) for the many
tions, or whatever. These costs are ex- groups or constituencies involved, in-
pressed in weakening trust relations be- cluding policy makers, researchers, in-
tween consumers, government policy vestors, patients, and so on. Again, un-
and industry (Irwin and Michael, 2003; derstanding those spatial differences

10
Nik Brown

might be one of the first steps in what That is, the now of a new or novel field is
we might tentatively – even reluctantly - quite different to the now of a field that
call the democratisation of expectations. may already have a track record behind
For now I want to elaborate around it (whether that be a record of failure or
the temporal situatedness of expecta- success). Recent arrivals to the world of
tions and what this might offer in better biotechnology (like nanobiotech, or
understanding the dynamics of hope embryonic stem cell innovation) often
and hype. Some of these patterns have require an incredibly visionary momen-
already been alluded to above but need tum in order to command investment
to be opened up more fully here. and collaboration.
First of all it is clear that our expecta- One of the first points to make in re-
tions are constantly being made and re- lation to the temporal situatedness of
made on a moment by moment basis expectations is that the intensity of ex-
and that futures are never static but al- pectations and their ambitious hyperbole
ways have a changing role in the real is actually indicative of the emergence of
time now. Indeed, one of the emerging new networks and activities (Brown and
constants in the theorisation of futurity Michael, 2003: 16). Hype corresponds to
is that it is only the present which is a particular phase in the career of inno-
genuinely ‘real’ to us whereas the past vations. The whole language of novelty,
and the future are only available to us newness and revolutionary potential is
through imagination and representation actually part and parcel of the hyperbolic
(Adam, 1990; Michael, 2000; Mead, discourse surrounding the early or open-
1932). Though I would suggest that this ing moments of resource and agenda
neglects some of the material and non- building (Campbell, 1998; Brown, 2000).
cognitive ways in which pasts and fu- Second, the idea that an innovation
tures are scripted in the present’s mate- will substitute or replace existing ways of
riality, it’s artefacts, institutions, rou- doing things is another constant charac-
tines, etc (Callon, 1991; Akrich, 1992). So teristic of innovations in their earliest
the past and the future do – in artefactual phases (Geels and Smit, 2000). If we cast
and material terms – have certain reali- our minds back, gene therapy, it was
ties beyond the present. Nevertheless, once thought, would entirely dispense
how we reflect on the past and imagine with the need for pharmaceutical medi-
the future always emerges from the real cines and compounds. The medicinal
time work that we would like those rep- approach to managing symptoms would
resentations to perform in the now. be replaced by a therapeutic framework
So futures are performative (Michael, based on the idea of genes as the cause
2000). They are fundamental to produc- of diseases from within and genes as a
ing the incentives and obligations that means of countering our vulnerability to
will be necessary to mobilise the neces- disease from without.
sary resources for a particular aspiration As it happens, gene therapy has
to be realised. And this performativity turned out to have niche applicability in
will be different for agendas which are terms of expanding our understanding
novel or new, than for those which have of viral vectors and so on. It also illus-
become established or more mundane. trates the way in which biotechnologi-

11
Science Studies 2/2003

cal approaches, over time, move through and say, ‘here is a human being, it’s me’
cycles of legitimation and delegitima- (Gilbert, 1992). ‘Today’, writes Fox Keller
tion. The mixed successes and failures (2000: 6), ‘almost no one would make
of using GT to treat the immune defi- such a provocative claim. Doubts about
ciency syndrome X-SCID in both the UK the adequacy of sequence information
and France is a poignant expression of for an understanding of biological func-
these knife-edge balances between hope tion have become ubiquitous…’. These
and disappointment. It is the second kinds of expectations, and the threat of
time around for stem cells too, building ‘piracy’ by commercial sequencing, may
on once largely discredited ambitions have been instrumental in speeding the
surrounding regenerative medicine HGP towards an announcement of com-
from a decade or more ago. pletion but it remains a far cry from the
To this extent it is almost inevitable expectations of a decade ago in respect
that expectations will be inflated and will to function and variation.
therefore be temporally followed, when Of course few of the ups and downs
reflecting on the past, with some degree in the hype and disappointment cycle
of disillusionment in a promise that have escaped the notice of seasoned
went unfulfilled or turned out quite dif- participants in research and public de-
ferently. When looking back on these bate. Discussions about ‘hype’ itself now
past futures (what Michael and myself seem as common as discussions about
describe as ‘retrospecting prospects’ the whole project of genetic innovation.
[2003]) it often seems to be the case that And many of these half embarrassed re-
hype tends to entirely overestimate the flections on early expectations have given
near or medium term potential of a field many cause to be more cautious about
whilst completely misunderstanding the expectations of genetic innovation
longer term value altogether. that we hold today. Marcus Pembrey re-
There’s probably no better example of cently wrote:
these dynamics than the Human Ge-
There is a tendency, always present, to
nome Project itself. Evelyn Fox Keller re- fall into the trap of thinking that the
cently made the observation that much main elements of understanding life or
of the early promotional thrust of the health have been discovered and that
HGP towards a completion of a ‘draft’ all that is now left is filling in the detail.
was based on the idea that the sequence We feel we have an adequate explana-
tion, partly because people with vested
would itself be the great milestone in interests from teachers to venture capi-
understanding the genetic basis of life talists keep telling us so. Why should we
and disease. And yet of course the con- expect some new discovery to ‘turn
tribution of the sequence to an under- everything on its head’? We are back to
standing of function is far from straight- ‘the secret of life’ claim, in which the
DNA sequence is somehow extracted
forward. She recalls a statement by from the living process to be ‘put in
Walter Gilbert in his ‘Vision of the Grail’ charge’, where conception is reduced to
where he looks forward to a moment the mixing of two sets of genes. It was
when ‘three billion bases of sequence necessary to understand DNA to know
the nature of life, but that doesn’t mean
can be put on a single CD, and one will
it is sufficient. The big impacts on the
be able to pull a CD out of one’s pocket

12
Nik Brown

genetics of common disease in the next pants within the futurority of biotech-
20 years are likely to involve processes nology. This then is part of the difficult
that are currently unknown or barely
hinted at in the daily avalanche of bio-
and challenging business of uncovering
medical research data (Pembrey, 2003). the complex chains of agency that to-
gether contrive to produce various rep-
The point then is that expectations are
resentations of the future, thus guiding
temporally situated and our orientation
action and building agendas. Futures are
to the future needs to take account of
never simply homogenous singular rep-
where we are temporally in relation to a
resentations but are differently inter-
number of key factors. Primarily, re-
preted and engaged across constituen-
search fields differ in respect to their
cies as diverse as the clinic, industry,
temporal maturation and exhibit differ-
policy making, consumers and users.
ing degrees of novelty. That is, the newer
And of course, most of us will inhabit at
or more unfamiliar a research agenda is,
least some of these different identities si-
the greater will be the need to use hype
multaneously.
as a means of defining roles, responsi-
Many of the cases already alluded to
bilities and duties. We can also expect
above demonstrate that expectations are
that hypothetical future benefits will be
far from uniform but are instead the out-
used to legitimate costs in the present,
come of struggles and contests between
that may in the future turn out to have
different voices each vying for control.
been morally unjustifiable. Over time, as
The future – and its associated meta-con-
research agendas mature, we can also
cept of ‘progress’ – emerge through an
expect that various material and social
unstable field of language, practice and
problems will become more apparent.
materiality in which different groups
Much of the early momentum and in-
compete for the right to represent near
vestment will find utility in terms of
and far term developments. And like any
niche and indirect applications in the
other contested field, actors engage in
medium term but will not entirely sub-
such struggles with unequal access to
stitute present ways of doing and think-
the resources with which futures are
ing about things. In the much longer
manufactured. These resources are com-
terms, early expectations are usually
pound mixtures of experimental, evi-
seen to have entirely overlooked the real
dential, material, political and ethical
agents of change.
assets.
Crucially, such spatial unevenness or
Spatially Situated / Embedded ‘lumpiness’ prompts searching ques-
Expectations tions about where different constituen-
cies are located in what we might call the
Now in addition to thinking about the
‘knowledge economy of expectations’?
passage of time and matters of ‘when’
Where do expectations of the future
(past, present and future tenses) we also
originate and by what means do they
have to consider questions of ‘where’
come to take hold of our imaginations
and ‘who’. That is, expectations are al-
and actions? Clearly, in the context of
ways situated in various relationships
this paper, answers to these questions
across whole communities of partici-
are going to be modest. Nevertheless, it

13
Science Studies 2/2003

is possible to offer a few observations, texts is abandoned for the more strident
which together help us understand the language of ‘breakthrough’, ‘the first’, ‘the
spatial situatedness of expectations and best’, ‘never before’. In other words, sci-
which encourage us to reflect on our dif- ence communities suddenly metamor-
ferent placements and positions within phose themselves into the highly com-
future imaginings about the biosciences. petitive news conventions of the media
Now there are any number of routes code. When press releases arrive on the
into a discussion of this kind but the desks of science correspondents there is
opening which appeals most to me is the often precious little time to interrogate
press release, a ubiquitous communica- claims about new cures and revolution-
tions device through which research ary promises.
communities disseminate findings and When we examine the journeys or
claims about the future on a rapid and travel that biotechnology expectations
indeed globalised scale. Press releases make in their passage from laboratory to
traverse the communications conven- the news page, it is absolutely clear that
tions of science on the one hand and the it is no longer possible to go on simply
media on the other. Importantly, they are blaming the media for hyping things up.
points of translation through which Research communities are crucial par-
laboratory practice and peer reviewed ticipants in the production of hype. This
science publishing are transformed such is then a spatial dynamic whereby it is
that they become available to wider pub- possible to see, as we move from the
lic consumption. laboratory to the wider public world, the
In the parlance of Science and Tech- progressive accumulation of expecta-
nology Studies, press releases have an tions around otherwise quite abstract
‘immutable mobility’ (Latour, 1987) in bits of data and knowledge. Although,
that they manage to remain stable as many controversies in science, particu-
they pass across multiple sites within the larly those involving allegations of fraud,
knowledge economy of expectations. arise because research scientists some-
They translate and stabilise information times bypass their lab’s media person-
that might otherwise fail to be noticed nel and release information which might
or picked up in the wider world. Their otherwise have not been sanctioned by
purpose is persuasion. They are the pro- a press office (Hagendijk and Meeus,
ductions of research communities seek- 1993).
ing to raise the profile of their work as a Numerous laboratory studies have
means of persuading potential patrons pointed to the complex uncertainties in
of the benefits of investment or scepti- which the production of new knowledge
cal publics of future benefits. is steeped (Latour and Woolgar, 1979;
Importantly, press releases that Lynch, 1997). Lab work is characterised
emerge from research communities are by difficult decisions about the meaning
characterised by a language and dis- of findings, alternative explanations,
course that would never appear on the whether devices can be relied upon to
pages of peer reviewed science journal function properly and indeed whether
texts (Nelkin, 1995). In particular, much any of the work will eventually add up
of the careful qualification of scientific to anything that has usefulness down

14
Nik Brown

stream and out there in the practical their peers.


world. And yet most of these uncertain- So when we look at the writing of press
ties will be lost the further we move in releases and scientific journal articles
time and space away from the material side by side it is clear to see that the rep-
complexity of bench science (Mac- resentations of what took place in the
Kenzie, 1990; Collins, 1990). There is laboratory are actually quite inconsist-
then a spatial and of course temporal ent and certainly reflect different ver-
patterning to the production of expec- sions of future relevance. Research com-
tations in which we can observe an ac- munities switch sometimes quite effort-
cretion of certainty and confidence lessly between different identities. On
about future claims. the one hand, we have claims to the dis-
So the press release is an important interested neutral observation of labo-
axial point in this process of translation ratory events and cautious propositions
from the conventional codes of scientific couched in some degree of uncertainty.
representation within science commu- On the other hand, we have entrepre-
nities to the codes of news and science neurial claims about the far-reaching
reportage. Thus, news is exactly that, it value and utility of what took place
has to be new – it has to be novel, un- (Brown, 2000).
precedented and recent (van Dijk, 1988). Now, even within the press release it
A scientific paper on the other hand is is sometimes difficult to police the
not necessarily about reporting new boundaries between the uncertainties of
things but about how relatively newish scientific research values and the cer-
evidence either fits into existing frame- tainties of news reportage. What follows
works of knowledge or adapts existing is a wonderfully cryptic formula that is
theory. It is in fact extremely rare for usually attached to most press releases
something completely new to find its issued within the US by biotech compa-
way into Nature or Science. Scientific nies. It makes the admission that whilst
news is more usually old news. Findings the press release makes claims about the
often move painfully slowly through the future, it’s authors would rather not like
mangle of experimental practice, labo- to take responsibility should their prom-
ratory notes, writing up, paper submis- ises not come true.
sion, peer review, successive amend-
Certain statements in this press release
ment, finally to find their way in to a sci- are forward-looking. These may be
entific journal. The end result, a paper identified by the use of forward-looking
in Nature or whatever, bares little resem- words or phrases such as “believe,” “ex-
blance to the kinds of uncertainties that pect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,”
are rampant in the laboratory. But nev- “estimated,” and “potential,” among
others. These forward-looking state-
ertheless, most authors of scientific ar- ments are based on PE Corporation’s
ticles are prepared to include at least current expectations. The Private Secu-
some qualifying clauses - alternative ex- rities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 pro-
planations for the phenomenon being vides a “safe harbor” for such forward-
looking statements. In order to comply
reported. But, notwithstanding these
with the terms of the safe harbor, PE
uncertainties, the authors will offer a Corporation notes that a variety of fac-
main explanation to the judgement of

15
Science Studies 2/2003

tors could cause actual results and ex- tional spaces, press releases about sci-
perience to differ materially from the ence on the whole do not embody such
anticipated results or other expecta-
tions expressed in such forward-look-
highly routinised qualifying statements.
ing statements. The risks and uncer- What I have tried to show here is that
tainties that may affect the operations, expectations have a spatial dynamic
performance, development, and re- whereby the further we travel from the
sults of Celera Genomics’ businesses source of knowledge production, the
include but are not limited to (1) early
stage of operations and uncertainty of more colourful and flamboyant become
operating results; (2) no precedent for the promissory properties of knowledge.
Celera Genomics’ business plan; (3) Gene sequences are translated as secrets
uncertainty of value of polymorphism of life. The complexities of viral vectors
data; (4) initial reliance on pharmaceu- are easily translated as cures for immune
tical industry; (5) high dependence on
key employees; (6) uncertain protec- deficient children. The production of
tion of intellectual property and propri- small neural stem cells are heralded as
etary rights; (7) highly competitive the breakthrough desperately awaited
business; (8) need to manage rapid by dopamine deficient Parkinson’s dis-
growth; and (9) other factors that might
ease patients and the many thousands
be described from time to time in PE
Corporation’s filings with the Securities or more suffering from spinal and brain
and Exchange Commission. (PE-Cor- injuries.
poration January 20, 2000) http:// This then becomes a highly complex
www.celeradiscoverysystem.com environment in which expectations cir-
The uncertainty clause gives the prom- culate, are reinforced or contested in one
ise-maker some insulation or ‘safe way or another. Mutual enrolments
harbor’ from the possibilities of litiga- emerge between research groups, pa-
tion by frustrated investors when prom- tient organisations, NGOs, policy com-
ises go unfulfilled, as they so often do. munities and pharmaceutical compa-
The caveat can just as easily be seen as a nies. It’s clear that we have only just be-
poignant expression of the tension be- gun to understand the ways and means
tween the requirement to communicate through which laboratory entities be-
and envisioned desired future, and the come objects of widely shared specula-
equally necessary requirement to pre- tive promise. But what is just as clear is
pare for other less desirable outcomes of that, as the original contingencies of
present speculation. In such cases, the knowledge production fall from view,
promise makers want their cake and such wider communities are left with
they want to eat it too – they want to gen- few contextual resources with which to
erate a sense of certainty in a future ex- judge the veracity of promissory claims.
pectation whilst also covering their Spatial remoteness drives a wedge be-
backs if and when things turn out differ- tween the privately cautious world of
ently. The uncertainty clause also has an bench science and wider constituencies
important spatial location both within within the knowledge economy of ex-
the text itself buried as it is below the pectations.
main story of the press release, and also
within the US legislature. In other na-

16
Nik Brown

The Hype Dilemma ics and society’.


This ‘constructivist’ approach to ex-
Now, I want to change focus slightly by pectations is quite different from the way
exploring a troubling dilemma that has expectations tend to be framed within
been developing as this story has un- conventional economics. Much of clas-
folded. The future in the present is sical economics, and even ‘rationale eco-
stalked by a catch 22 and it looks some- nomics’ from the 1960s, seems to draw
thing like this: On the one hand, we ac- a realist line or distinction between peo-
cept that expectations are constitutive ple’s expectations on the one hand and
and performative and that hype plays a the ‘real’ underlying fundamentals or
fundamentally important role in organ- worth of something on the other. When
ising our future present/s. On the other hype occurs, it does so because people
hand, hype is a source of ‘overshoot’, ul- start investing in the expectations and
timately damaging credibilities and not the fundamentals. A crash occurs
reputations. Communities of promise when the difference between real and
are constantly presented with the diffi- artificially inflated values becomes ines-
culty of judging the veracity of future capably obvious (Koppl, 2002; Pixley,
claims. And we engage with these proc- 2002). The realist position assumes that
esses of judging whilst knowing that there is a calculable difference in the
things rarely turn out as expected. present between the expectations and
The dilemma is one in which we use the real worth of something such that
our experience to interrogate expecta- expectations can be adjusted ‘rationally’.
tions whilst also recognising that we can- The more rational this process of check-
not place ourselves outside the world of ing becomes, the less susceptible econo-
expectations as if we were objectively mies are to inflationary and deflationary
disinterested observers. Futures are con- pressures.
tingent, they are imagined, fought for, re- Whilst this emphasis on checking is
sisted and embraced in the present – in valuable it is also conceptually problem-
order to draw an imagined future into atic for a number of reasons. If we ac-
the real-time now. But it would be im- cept that anticipation is constitutive of
possible to fully disentangle present value, then we logically cannot differen-
hype from future reality. tiate between our expectations of the
Indeed, as Franklin (349: 2001) points biotechnologies and what in reality
out in respect to the contested expecta- those biotechnologies are, both in the
tions build up around stem cells, ‘… it is present and in the future. Those ‘under-
a mistake to think that we can somehow lying fundamentals’ are themselves fu-
factor out the hype, the media or the ture abstractions, projections that alter
work of the imagination to exaggerate the now. Fundamental value is then
either the promises or the risks of new quite inseparable from expectations in
technology. This is not going to be pos- either conceptual or empirical terms. It
sible, now or in the future, because it is cannot be calculated independently
precisely the importance of imaging a from our expectations in order to deter-
future yet to be that fundamentally de- mine whether or not hype is taking
fines the whole issue of the new genet- place.

17
Science Studies 2/2003

So is there room for better integration stage’ and ‘back stage’. When is it ever
between different expectations, desires possible to say that one’s expectations
and imaginings? On the whole this needs are based on full and unconditional ac-
to stem from a critical understanding of cess to once obscured information, or all
the situatedness of expectations both in the facts? This is especially problematic
terms of time and space. These tempo- as science increasingly exchanges the in-
ral and spatial features of the knowledge stitutional body language of authority
economy of expectations represent an (‘trust me’) for authenticity (‘show me’ or
important step in understanding how rather ‘believe me when I tell you…’)
expectations accumulate value - and in- (Brown and Michael, 2002). Neverthe-
deed sometimes dramatically lose it less, whilst there are undoubtedly en-
again. It is also an important step to- demic problems in the surge to transpar-
wards critiquing the role of future ab- ency, much of its weakness lies in how
stractions in structuring and organising the principle is instituted and therefore
relationships between the different par- whether it can contribute to more cred-
ticipants (both human and nonhuman) ible expectations.
in biotechnological innovation. We also have to recognise that open-
This calls for greater temporal and ing up expectations to greater pluralizing
spatial reflexivity such that we can move pressures will not make biotechnology’s
away from normative futures and to- futures less contested, but will very
wards a position that sees expectations probably make them more so. Again, the
rooted in particular times and places. We ‘democratisation of science’ - and of the
need to do this recognising that a reflex- expectations embedded in science –
ive engagement with expectations can- hinge on their institutionalisation and
not logically rule out hype but only be- whether consumers of promise are sim-
come more sensitive to the many hidden ply being presented with the same old
futures that hype so often silences. hype now dressed up in precautionary
Much of the task lies in greatly rework- rhetoric. To date, democratisation here
ing epistemological asymmetries within seems to point to science increasingly
the knowledge economies of expecta- populating public futures and all too
tions such that private uncertainties rarely the other way around (Elam and
within innovation communities (the Bertilsson, 2002). The ‘post-normal sci-
laboratory in particular) find routes into ence’ thesis (Ravetz, 1999) which sees
wider public spaces and times. What science increasingly dependent on
happens to uncertainty as expectations wider political and public aspirations
make their way from ‘in here’ to ‘out should, it appears, be received with cau-
there’? New discourses and practices tion. The emergence of that highly sus-
clustered around transparency, to some pect figure ‘the scientific citizen’ hints at
extent at least, suggest that these kinds just which way the traffic seems to be
of pressures are now on the agenda for moving and who is driving.
communities of promise. But again, Whatever our answers to these ques-
transparency is far from innocent in con- tions, we can only hope rather than fore-
tributing to the boundaries between tell that our engagement with the dy-
public and private knowledge, ‘front namics of expectations may lead to more

18
Nik Brown

workable desires for the future – and Brown, N. & Michael, M.


who knows? 2003 “A Sociology of Expectations: Retro-
specting Prospects and Prospecting
Retrospects.” Technology Analysis and
Acknowledgements Strategic Management: 15(1): 3-18.
Brown, N., Van Lente, H & Rip A.
Much of the thinking behind this paper 2003 “Expectations In and About Science
arose in the course of long and fruitful and Technology”, Background Paper for
the Expectations in S&T Workshop, 13-
discussions with Harro van Lente, Arie 14 June, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rip, Mike Michael and Andrew Webster. Brown, N. & Michael, M.
I would particularly like to thank organ- 2002 “From Authority to Authenticity: Gov-
isers of the Biotech Society meeting in ernance, Transparency and Biotech-
Helsinki 2003 for inviting me to address nology.” Health, Risk and Society 4(3):
259-272.
the question of hype more directly. Parts Brown, N., Rappert, B. & Webster, A. (eds.)
of this discussion are based on the 2000 Contested Futures: A Sociology of Pro-
project ‘Xenotransplantation: Risk iden- spective Techno-Science. Aldershot:
tities and the Human/Nonhuman inter- Ashgate.
Brown, N.
face’ funded by the UK Economic and
2000 “Organising/disorganising the Break-
Social Research Council [L218 25 2044]. through Motif: Dolly the Cloned Ewe
Meets Astrid the Hybrid Pig,” in Brown
Notes et al. op cit.
1997 Ordering Hope – Xenotransplantation,
1 Michael, M. & Brown, N. 2000-2003 Xeno- an Actant-actor Network Theory Ac-
transplantation: risk identities and the count. PhD thesis, Lancaster Univer-
human/nonhuman interface, research sity.
project funded by the UK Economic and Campbell, C.
Social Research Council. 1998 “Consumption and the Rhetorics of
Need and Want.” Journal of Design His-
tory 11(3): 235-246.
References Collins, H.
1990 Artificial Experts: Social Knowledge
Adam, B. and Intelligent Machines. Cambridge
1998 Timescapes of Modernity: The Envi- Mass.: MIT Press.
ronment and Invisible Hazards. Lon- Callon, M.
don: Routledge. 1991 “Techno-economic Networks and Irre-
Adam, B. versibility”, in Law, J. (ed) Sociology of
1990 Time and Social Theory. Cambridge: Monsters. Essays on Power, Technology
Cambridge University Press. and Domination. London: Routledge.
Akrich, M. Caulfield, T.
1992 “The De-Scription of Technical Ob- 2002 “Science, with a Bang: The hype un-
jects”, in Bijker, W. and J. Law (eds.) leashed in the rush to cash in on the
Shaping Technology/Building Society: genetic revolution threatens to doom
Studies in Sociotechnical Change. important research”, (8 July) Ottawa
Cambridge: MIT Press. Citizen A15; also in the Edmonton Jour-
Beck, U., Giddens, A. & Lash, S. nal as “‘Genohype’ and the Genetic
1996 Reflexive Modernisation. Cambridge: Revolution” (8 July 2002).
Polity Press. Deuten. J. & Rip, A.
2000 “Narrative Infrastructure in Product
Creation Processes.” Organization 7(1):
69-63.

19
Science Studies 2/2003

Elam, M. & Bertilsson, M. Lynch, M.


2002 “Consuming, Engaging and Confront- 1997 Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action:
ing Science: the Emerging Dimensions Ethnomethodology and Social Studies
of Scientific Citizenship.” STAGE (Sci- of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge
ence, Technology and Governance in University Press.
Europe), Discussion Paper One, March. Mackenzie, A.
Fischer, S. (ed.) 2002 Transductions: Bodies and Machines at
1980 Rational Expectations and Economic Speed. London: Continuum.
Policy. MacKenzie, D.
Fortun, M. 1990 Inventing Accuracy: An Historical So-
2001 “Mediated Speculations in the ciology of Ballistic Missile Guidance.
Genomics Futures Markets.” New Ge- Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
netics and Society 20: 139-156. Martin, P. A.
Fox Keller, E. 2001 “Great Expectations: the Construction
2000 The Century of the Gene. Harvard, MT: of Markets, Products and User Needs
Harvard University Press. During the Early Development of Gene
Franklin, S. Therapy in the USA”, in Coombs, R.,
2001 “Culturing Biology: Cells Lines for the Green, K., Richards, A. and Walsh, V.
New Millennium.” Health 5(3): 335- Technology and the Market: Demand,
354. Users and Innovation. Cheltenham:
Geels, F.W. & Smit, W.A. Edward Elgar.
2000 “Failed Technology Futures: Pitfalls and Marvin, C.
Lessons From a Historical Survey”, in 1988 When Old Technologies Were New. Ox-
Brown, et al, op cit. ford: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, W. Mead, G.H.
1992 “Vision of the Grail.” Pp.83-97 in Kelves, 1932 The Philosophy of the Present. Chi-
L. & Hood, L. (eds) The Codes of Codes. cago: Chicago University Press.
Hagendijk, R. & Meeus, J. Michael, M.
1993 “Blind Faith: Fact, Fiction and Fraud in 2000 “Futures of the Present: From Per-
Public Controversies Over Science.” formativity to Prehension.” In Brown,
Public Understanding of Science 2: et al., op cit.
391–415. Mulkay, M.
Irwin, A. & Michael. M. 1993 “Rhetorics of Hope and Fear in the
2003 Science, Social Theory and Public Great Embryo Debate.” Social Studies
Knowledge. Milton Keynes: Open Uni- of Science 23(4): 721-742.
versity Press. Nelkin, D.
Konrad, K. 1995 Selling Science (Revised Edition). Free-
2003 “The Social Dynamics of Expectations man: New York.
on New Information and Communica- Novas, C. & Rose, N.
tion Technologies.” Paper presented at 2000 “Genetic Risk and the Birth of the So-
Expectations in S&T workshop, 13-14 matic Individual.” Economy and Soci-
June, Utrecht, The Netherlands. ety 29(4): 485-513.
Kopple, R. Pálsson, G. & Rabinow, P.
2002 Big players and the Economic Theory 1999 “Iceland: The Case of a National Hu-
of Expectations. Palgrave. man Genome Project.” Anthropology
Latour, B. Today 15(5): 14-18.
1987 Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open Pembrey, M.
University Press. 2003 “Putting Genes in Their Place.”
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. BioNews.org.uk 29th May.
1979 Laboratory Life. Princeton: Princeton Pixley, J.
University Press. 2002 “Finance Organisations, Decisions and
Emotions.” British Journal of Sociology
53(1): 41-65.

20
Nik Brown

Rabeharisoa, V. & Callon, M.


2002 “The Involvement of Patients’ Associa-
tions in Research.” International Social
Science Journal 54(171): 57-63.
Rabinow, P.
1999 French DNA: Trouble in Purgatory. Chi-
cago: Chicago University Press.
Ravetz, J.
1999 “What is Post-normal Science?” Fu-
tures 31: 647-653.
Van Dijk, T.A.
1988 News as Discourse. The Netherlands:
Lawrence and Erlbann Associates.
Van Lente, H.
1993 Promising Technology – The Dynamics
of Expectations in Technological Devel-
opments. Enschede.
2000 “From Promises to Requirement”, in
Brown, et al. op cit.
Wynne, B.
1996 “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflex-
ive View of the Expert-lay Knowledge
Divide.” In Lash, S. Szerszinski, B. and
Wynne, B. (eds) Risk, Environment and
Modernity: Towards a New Ecology.
London: Sage.

Nik Brown
Science and Technology Studies Unit
(SATSU),
Department of Sociology,
University of York
ngfb1@york.ac.uk

21

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi