In this introduction to the Handbook of DOHaD and Society, we provide an overview of the biosocial research field of the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD). We first trace the evolution of this interdisciplinary field over the past two decades, charting the historical conditions that have brought DOHaD to a critical moment when the field is at a threshold of interdisciplinary innovation across both life and social sciences. We then discuss the biosocial perspective that DOHaD offers as its central premise and promise, allowing for questions of socio-environmental justice, discrimination, and equity to be centred in science and biomedicine. We explore the challenges that complicate this biosocial agenda in practice and attend to questions of research translation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the socio-cultural dimensions of DOHaD-based health interventions. We end by highlighting the transformational potential of the DOHaD research paradigm and how this handbook offers a toolkit for robust interdisciplinary research in this field.

This chapter, written by a founder of the field and a historian with a long-term interest in DOHaD, examines the key (long) decade in the history of DOHaD, bookended by two conferences: one in 1989 and the other in 2003. At the 1989 workshop, David Barker presented his retrospective epidemiological research to an audience of fetal physiologists and clinicians. Discussions about the plausibility and underlying mechanisms of Barker’s findings fostered new research collaborations, methodologies, and projects, which over the next decade produced a new field. By 2003, DOHaD had grown sufficiently in both numbers and ambitions to host a major global conference. This chapter argues that to understand the objectives, methods, research questions, and intellectual networks making the field of DOHaD, the reactions that it provoked, and how it responded to them, we must understand the historical and geographical context in which it was created, first in Europe, especially the United Kingdom, and then globally. Here we identify and explain three key drivers that shaped the field: interdisciplinarity, the history of social class and attempts to address health inequalities in the United Kingdom, and the globalisation of the 1990s informing the intellectual underpinnings of the global health agenda.

Demystifying Treaty Interpretation doesn’t just tell you how treaties are commonly interpreted. It helps you understand the process of treaty interpretation and its outcomes. The idea that rules of treaty interpretation can guide us to the meaning of treaty provisions, in a simple and straightforward manner, is a myth to be dispelled. This book aims to capture some of the complex and nuanced processes involved in treaty interpretation. It spurs further reflection about how interpretation takes place against the background of concepts, categories, and insights from other disciplines. A useful tool for scholars, practitioners, and researchers engaging with treaty interpretation at all levels, the book aims to enhance the reader’s knowledge and mastery of the interpretive process in all its elements, with a view to making them more skilled and effective players in the game of interpretation.

The relationship between academic freedom and knowledge production is examined in in this chapter. Various contested constructions of knowledge within and across the different geographical contexts and by discipline are critically interrogated, and the implications of these constructions are considered for pedagogy, research, and understanding of academic freedom. As such, conceptions of knowledge invoke particular conceptions of the value of education and its aims. This is examined in relation to neoliberal discourses of skills, impact and marketability, positionality, and decolonisation of knowledge initiatives. The temporal and geographical positionality of knowledge is critically interrogated, recognising the Western hegemony of knowledge and its production, calling for the need to situate knowledge sociopolitically and historically. This necessitates the recognition that academic freedom is similarly situated in space and time, with discussions of examples across the four national contexts. Debates surrounding the organisation and gatekeeping of knowledge through the disciplines and the rise of interdisciplinarity are also addressed in this chapter.

What might the medical humanities be capable of doing?’ asked Viney, Callard, and Woods in their 2015 call for a critical medical humanities. This chapter endeavours to answer that question by investigating how ‘the literary’ is mobilized in health-focused projects whose commitment to interdisciplinary entanglement renders them exemplary of the field’s critical turn. We interviewed seven UK-based literary studies scholars about their work in two or more such projects in order to understand how ‘the literary’ (as discipline, approach, and praxis) features within project design and delivery, the roles taken up by the literary studies scholar, and the consequent effects on shared understandings about the functions of the literary text. One of the most striking findings of this exploratory study was the interviewees’ determination for the literary text to be considered in non-representational terms and concurrent commitment to championing novel articulations of the value and ‘use’ of literary endeavour.

This chapter revisits Thomas Kuhn’s argument about an essential tension between tradition and innovation as a driver of scientific progress. It shows that Kuhn’s argument builds on a number of assumptions about the practices of science that held for past science conducted by individuals working within isolated disciplines, and argues that it does therefore not necessarily hold for the increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary science we see today. Examining different types of organization into teams, the chapter discusses how changes in the granularity of collaboration affect Kuhn’s essential tension argument.

This chapter is an account of my experiences as a member of the faculty in different universities. I taught at Caltech where I was a member of an interdisciplinary group of faculty in the humanities and social sciences and came to know prominent humanists in other fields as well as scientists such as Richard Feynman, Murray Gel Man, and Max Delbruck. I then moved to the University of Michigan where I joined an active group of interdisciplinary scholars, encountered the attractions and problems of cultural studies, and then began to do institutional work by creating a new interdepartmental PhD program in Anthropology and History. Because of the success of that program, I was invited to Columbia University to chair the Anthropology Department and become the Franz Boas Professor at Columbia.

Clark Kerr, President of the University of California, famously coined the term the “multiversity” to capture the expansion of universities in mid twentieth-century America to the point that they contained multiple and often competing (and indeed conflicting) goals, interests, and trajectories. While Kerr waxed eloquent about the value of the multiversity, he worried about the loss of community and purpose he associated with the smaller undergraduate college – especially in relation to undergraduate education. In particular, he worried that incentive structures for faculty led them to focus on narrow research as well as their own entrepreneurial opportunities outside the university, while they became more detached from undergraduate teaching on the one side, and more resistant to administrative leadership and guidance on the other. I follow up on the tensions between administrators and faculty and the ways in which disciplinary structures impede both intellectual openness and institutional experimentation.

In this chapter, I introduce the methodological choices adopted in this book and present the results of the content analysis carried out on all Article 3 decisions issued between 1967 and 2016. Instead of studying norms as unitary phenomena, I disaggregate them to do this analysis. I focus on each and every obligation that a norm contains and trace the norm’s transformation by taking these separate obligations as a reference. The chapter demonstrates the distinct obligations that the norm against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment entailed during the period under study. It then explains why looking at these obligations separately helps us better understand the pace and the magnitude of change. The chapter also introduces some preliminary analysis probing the dominant tendencies of the European Court’s different incarnations, which range from audacity, selective audacity, selective forbearance, and forbearance. This chapter thus presents a bird’s-eye-view analysis, providing an overview before turning to more in-depth analyses of different change episodes in the following chapters.

Collaboration between researchers has become increasingly common, enabling a level of discovery and innovation that is difficult to achieve by a single person. But how can one establish and maintain an environment that fosters successful collaboration within a research group? In this case study, I use my own experience when directing the ABC Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin. I describe the heuristic principles for setting up a research group, including (i) common topic and multiple disciplines, (ii) open culture, (iii) spatial proximity, and (iv) temporal proximity. I then describe heuristics for maintaining the open culture, such as setting collective goals, including contrarians, distributing responsibility, making bets, the cake rule, and side-by-side writing. These heuristics form an adaptive toolbox that shapes the intellectual and social climate. They create a culture of friendly but rigorous discussion, embedded in a family-like climate of trust where everyone is willing to expose their ignorance and learn from the other members. Feeling accepted and trusted encourages taking the necessary risks to achieve progress in science.