The Canadian writer Margaret Atwood has been internationally noted for her sharp feminist perspective shown in her previous fictional creations. Oryx and Crake published in 2003 marks a great transition to a male perspective and a new thematic concern about biotechnology. In this light, this thesis investigates the representation of biotechnology in Oryx and Crake. In addition to situating this novel in the modern context of the boom of biotechnological findings and modernity, this thesis argues that Oryx and Crake highlights the urgent issue of current manipulation of biotechnology and calls for more contemplation and participation in the making of science policy.
Chapter One tries to point out the insufficiencies of current interpretations. Critics tend to discuss Atwood’s fiction in relation to intertextuality or theories to the neglect of Oryx and Crake’s practical concern about the manipulation of biotechnology by biotech giants. Atwood’s fiction in fact presents an alarming critique that biotechnology is employed by First World nations and biotech companies to reap profits, exploit the less powerful nations and increase the local and global inequality.
Chapter Two emphasizes several episodes of economic exploitation by the biotech giants and their strategies to manipulate and bend science. Instead of merely pointing out the cooperation between capitalism and genetics, this chapter asks what makes possible and justifies this kind of exploitation. By digging into the historical formation of patents on life forms, the alignment between educational programs and companies, the rhetorical advertisement of biotech problems and other strategies to bend science, I argue that these strategies are in fact historical constructs and in need of more debates and public attention..
Chapter Three proceeds to discuss the ethics of reading and the ethics revealed in the novel. Oryx and Crake’s negative depiction of biotechnology has been met with harsh critiques. However, this thesis contends that many discomforting episodes in this speculative fiction could be seen as a strategy to let the readers compare the imagine world and their personal experience and knowledge on life science. The text invites the readers to listen to and understand the protagonist’s trauma, witness of the past, and responsibility to many forms of others.
Chapter Four concludes this thesis. I contend that Atwood’s attempt to tackle science is important because this novel provides a critical stance and witness to the practices of science, a seemingly opposite field to humanities. By comparing words from C. P. Snow to Stanley Fish, AHRC’s 2008 report, and Oryx and Crake, on the question, “why funding arts and humanities research” when facing the challenges posed by the practical and profitable science, we can see that this novel does not exist for pure useless pleasure, but provides useful critiques and suggestions to the society.

加拿大女作家瑪格麗特．艾特伍向來以其深刻的女性視角展現於其小說創作中而聞名。然而，其在2003年出版之《末世男女》中所關注的議題與其男性視角可說是一重大轉折。因此，本文探討的是艾特伍於生物科技此一議題的呈現，並強調應將小說置於當代生物科技蓬勃發展與現代性的脈絡，關注小說中跨國公司操弄生物科技以獲取龐大利益的問題，並探討小說所彰顯的倫理層面。
第一章先就艾特伍的作家定位以及小說的研究現況作簡扼整理及回顧，並指出其尚待詮釋的空間。多數研究探討此一小說的互文性或由不同理論視角切入，卻忽視其較為實際層面的議題，亦即文本當中對生物科技被先進國家與跨國公司用來謀利、剝削、深化國際間不平等權力之批判。
第二章探討小說所呈現出跨國公司操弄(manipulation)生物科技作為謀利的手段。與其指出生物科技與資本主義的結合，本章討論的是支持此剝削行為背後的機制為何。藉由研究生技研發專利的歷史、產學合作、生技產品之行銷語言等，本章主張這些策略皆為歷史與社會建構下的產物，並非毫無疑義，而是需要更多辯論與關注。
第三章進而討論《末世男女》之閱讀倫理。文本中對於生物科技的負面呈現遭致許多科幻迷與科學家的猛烈抨擊，而本文主張這種使讀者不安的敘事策略旨在引起讀者對於自身經驗與文本之間的對照，並嘗試傾聽與理解主角所遭受的創傷，對過去的見證，及主角所承擔之對死者、過去、與他者的責任與關懷。這種對於各形式他者的關心是當代面臨諸多科技運用與發展決策上必須多加深思的。
末章為全文的總結，我要強調的是艾特伍在題材上轉向生物科技的重要性， C. P. Snow於1959年在《兩種文化》裡認為人文與科學的鴻溝有礙英國的發展，但他更關注的是當時科學在實務上的重要性未受到重視。然而本世紀面臨的是科技所帶來的效益，著實令人文領域面臨了很大的考驗。本文加以對照Stanley Fish與AHRC(英國藝術與人文研究委員會)對人文領域的討論，進而主張艾特伍的小說不僅企圖在兩種文化間築起一座橋樑，更帶出了新的見解，反映人文創作與閱讀有其批判與反省社會問題的力量。

Abraham, Itty. “Postcolonial Science, Big Science, and Landscape.” Doing Science+Culture. Ed. Roddy Reid and Sharon Traweek. NY: Routledge, 2000.
AHRC. “Leading the World: The Economic Impact of Arts and Humanities.” Bristol: AHRC, 2008.
Anderson, Warwick. “Postcolonial Technoscience.” Social Studies of Science 32 (2002): 643-58.
Anderson, Warwick, and and Vincanne Adams. “Pramoedya's Chickens: Postcolonial Studies of Technoscience.” The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Ed. Olga Amsterdamska Edward J. Mackett. 3rd. ed. London: MIT P, 2007. 181-204.
Arnold, David. Colonizing the Body: State Medicine and Epidemic Disease in Nineteenth-Century India. Berkeley: U of California P, 1993.
Atwood, Margaret. Curious Pursuits. London: Virago, 2005.
---. “The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake in Context.” PMLA 119.3 (2004): 513-17.
---. Negotiating with the Dead: A Writer on Writing. NY: Cambridge U P, 2002.
---. Oryx and Crake. New York: Anchor, 2003.
---. Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth Toronto: Anansi, 2008.
---. “Writing Oryx and Crake.” Writing with Intent: Essays, Reviews, Personal Prose, 1983-2005. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005. 284-86.
Barzilai, Shuli. “Tell My Story: Remembrance and Revenge in Atwood's Oryx and Crake and Shakespeare's Hamlet.” Critique 50.1 (2008): 87-112.
Basalla, George. “The Spread on Western Science.” Scientific Aspects of European Expansion. Ed. William K. Storey. Aldershot: Variorum, 1967. 1-21
Bethune, Brian. “Book Review: Atwood’s Oryx and Crake.” Maclean's Magazine. Nov. 5 2008. <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012467>.
Bishop, Jerry E., and Michael Waldholz. Genome: The Story of the Most Astonishing Scientific Adventure of Our Time-the Attempt to Map All the Genes in the Human Body. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.
Bouson, Brooks J. “It’s Game over Forever: Atwood’s Satiric Vision of a Bioengineered Posthuman Future in Oryx and Crake.” Journal of Commonwealth Literature 39.3 (2004): 139-56.
Brockes, Emma. “Do Keep Up.” Guardian on the Web. 17 Sep. 2008 <http://books.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4899810-99930,00.html>.
Buctuanon, Elisa Mutia. “Globalization of Biotechnology: The Agglomenration of Dispersed Knowledge and Information and Its Implications for the Political Economy of Technology in Developing Countries.” New Genetics and Society 20.1 (2001): 25-41.
Caruth, Cathy. Introduction. American Imago 48.1 (1991): 1-12.
---. Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1996.
Chambers, David Wade. “Period and Process in Colonial and National Science.” Scientific Colonialism: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Ed. Nathan Reingold and Marc Rothenberg. Washington: Smithsonian, 1987. 297-321.
Chen, Cheng-liang. “Science, Technology and Socio-Culture: Reflections on Science Views.” Taiwanese Journal for Studies of Science, Technology and Medicine 6 (2008): 145-200.
Clay, Carolyn. “Grave New World: Margaret Atwood Talks Oryx and Crake.” <http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/arts/books/documents/03691842.asp>.
Clute, John. “Croaked.” Rev. of Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood. Sci Fi.Com1 Nov 2008. <http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue325/excess.html>.
Clute, John, and Peter Nicholls. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. NY: St. Martin’s, 1995.
Cohen, Patricia. “Doctoral Candidates Anticipate Hard Times.” NY: The New York Times. Mar. 6 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/arts/07grad.html?_r=1&emc=eta1>.
Cooke, Grayson. “Technics and the Human at Zero-Hour: Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake.” Studies in Canadian Literature 31.2 (2006): 105-25.
Davies, Madeleine. “Margaret Atwood's Female Bodies.” The Cambridge Companion to Margaret Atwood. Ed. Coral Ann Howells. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. 58-71
DiMarco, Danette. “Paradice Lost, Paradise Regained: Homo Faber and the Makings of a New Beginning in Oryx and Crake.” Papers on Language and Literature 41.2 (2005): 170-95.
Dunning, Stephen. “Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake: The Terror of the Therapeutic.” Canadian Literature 186 (2005): 86-103.
Engdahl, F. William. Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Montreal: Global Research, 2007.
Fang, Hong. “Oryx and Crake: A Postmodernist Science Fiction.” Foreign Literature Studies 28.5 (2005): 105-12.
Fish, Stanley. “Will the Humanities Save Us?” NY, 2008. The New York Times. Jun. 10 2009. <http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/will-the-humanities-save-us/>.
---. “The Uses of the Humanities, Part Two”. NY, 2008. The New York Times. Jun. 10 2009. <http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/the-uses-of-the-humanities-part-two/>.
Frodeman, Robert, Carl Mitcham, and Arthur B. Sacks. “Questioning Interdisciplinarity.” Science, Technology and Society Newsletter 126&127 (2001): 1-5.
Greer, W. R. “If at First You Don't Succeed…” Rev. of Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood. ReviewsOfBooks.com. Jun. 1 2009. <http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/oryx_and_crake/review/>.
Griffiths, Tony. “Genetics According to Oryx and Crake.” Canadian Literature 181 (2004): 192-95.
Haraway, Donna. How Like a Leaf: An Interview with Thyrza Nichols Goodeve. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Harding, Sandra. Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1998.
---. Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2006.
---. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1991.
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2000.
Harrison, Niall. “Margaret Atwood Vs Sf”. Nov 20 2008. <http://urchin.earth.li/cgi-bin/twic/wiki/view.pl?page=MargaretAtwoodVsSF>.
Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Trans. William Lovitt. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
Hollinger, Veronica. “Stories About the Future: From Patterns of Expectation to Pattern Recognition.” Science Fiction Studies 33.3 (2006): 452-72.
Hollinger, Veronica, and Joan Gordon. Introduction. Edging into the Future: Science Fiction and Contemporary Cultural Transformation. Ed. Veronica Hollinger and Joan Gordon. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2002.
Howells, Coral Ann. Introduction. The Cambridge Companion to Margaret Atwood. Ed. Coral Ann Howells. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. 1-11
---. “Margaret Atwood's Dystopian Visions: The Handmaid's Tale and Oryx and Crake.” The Cambridge Companion to Margaret Atwood. Ed. Coral Ann Howells. N Y: Cambridge U P, 2006. 161-175
Hubbard, Ruth. “Genes as Causes.” Biopolitics: A Feminist and Ecological Reader on Biotechnology. Ed. Vandana Shiva and Ingunn Moser. London: Zed Books, 1995. 38-51.
---. “Human Nature.” Biopolitics: A Feminist and Ecological Reader on Biotechnology. Ed. Vandana Shiva and Ingunn Moser. London: Zed Books, 1995. 27-37.
Jauss, Hans Robert. Toward an Aesthetic Reception. Brighton: Harvester, 1982.
Keenan, Catherine. “She Who Laughs Last.” The Sydney Morning Herald on the Web. 3 May 2003. 8 Aug. 2008 <http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/02/1051382088211.html?oneclick=true>.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. “Nature, Nurture, and the Human Genome Project.” The Code of Codes. Ed. Daniel J. Kevles and Leroy Hood. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992. 281-99.
Kenney, Martin. Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven: Yale UP, 1986.
Kevles, Daniel J. “Out of Eugenics: The Historical Politics of the Human Genome.” The Code of Codes. Ed. Daniel J. Kevles and Leroy Hood. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992. 3-36.
Kimbrell, Andrew. The Human Body Shop: The Engineering and Marketing of Life. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.
Ku, Chung-hao. “Of Monster and Man: Transgenics and Transgression in Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake.” Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies 32.1 (2006): 107-33.
Latour, Bruno. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.” Science Observed. Ed. Karen Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay. London: Sage, 1983. 141-70.
---. The Pasteurization of France. Trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1988.
---. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1983.
Lele, Uma. “Biotechnology: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85.5 (2003): 1119-25.
Levidow, Les. “Utilitarian Bioethics? Market Fetishism in the Gm Crops Debate.” New Genetics and Society 20.1 (2001): 75-84.
Liao, Ping-hui. “Does Tsing Hua University Have Humanities?” (清大有人文嗎) Hsinchu, 2006. Epaper of Humanities and Social Sciences Department, NTHU. Jun. 1 2008. <http://epaper.hss.nthu.edu.tw/29/f.htm>.
McGarity, Thomas O., and Wendy E. Wagner. Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2008.
Merrick, Helen. “Gender in Science Fiction.” The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Ed. Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. 241-52
Newton, Adam Zachary. Narrative Ethics. London: Harvard UP, 1995.
Oliver, Richard W. The Coming Biotech Age: The Business of Bio-Materials New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Parrinder, Patrick. Introduction. Science Fiction: A Critical Guide. Ed. Patrick Parrinder. London: Longman, 1979. viii-xi.
---. Science Fiction: Its Criticism and Teaching. London: Routledge, 2003.
Paul, Helena, and Devlin Kuyek Ricarda Steinbrecher, Lucy Michaels. Hungry Corporations: How Transnational Biotech Companies Colonise the Food Chain. New York: Zed Books, 2003.
Penley, Constance, and Andrew Ross. Introduction. Technoculture. Ed. Constance Penley and Andrew Ross. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1991.
Posner, Richard A. “The End Is Near.” Rev. of Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood. New Republic 22 September 2003: 31-36. <http://www.powells.com/review/2003_09_18>.
Ricouer, Paul. “The Model of the Text.” Social Research 5.1 (1984): 185-218.
Rifkin, Jeremy. The Biotech Century: How Genetic Commerce Will Change the World. London: Phoenix, 1998.
Sawyer, Robert J. “Atwood's Depressing Future: A Review of Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake.” SFWRITER.COM. 25 Oct. 2008. <http://www.sfwriter.com/broryx2.htm>.
Sharp, Lesley. “The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts.” Annual Review of Anthropology 29.1 (2000): 287-328.
Shiva, Vandana. “The Suicide Economy of Corporate Globalization.” Jan. 16 2009. <http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/1865>.
---. Tomorrow's Biodiversity. London: Thames & Hudson, 2000.
Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Canto, 1959.
Squier, Susan M. “A Tale Meant to Inform, Not to Amuse.” Science 2003: 1154-55.
Stableford, Brian. The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature. Lanham: Scarecrow, 2004.
Strauss, Victoria. Ed. Rodger Turner. Rev. of Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood. The SF Site: The Home Page for Science Fiction and Fantasy. 12 Aug. 2008. <http://www.sfsite.com/10a/oc161.htm>.
Sunder, Kaushik. “Genomic Capital: Public Cultures and Market Logics of Corporate Biotechnology.” Science as Culture 12.1 (2003): 87-121.
Traweek, Sharon and Roddy Reid. “Introduction.” Doing Science+Culture. Ed. Roddy Reid and Sharon Traweek. New York: Routledge, 2000. 1-18.
Wang, Chia-Huang. “Bio-Capitalism: A Marxist Critique.” Taiwanese Journal for Studies of Science, Technology and Medicine 4 (2007): 17-64.
Whitt, Laurie Anne. “Biocolonialism and the Commodification of Knowledge.” Science as Culture 7.1 (1998): 33-67.
Winner, Langdon. The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986.
Wolfe, Gary K. Critical Terms for Science Fiction and Fantasy. NY: Greenwood, 1986.
Yen, Shu-chun. “Are Humans 'Monkeys'? Margaret Atwood's Satirical Criticism of Biological Reductionism in Oryx and Crake.” MA Thesis. Tamkang University, 2005.