Of missing fathers and Big Fish: reconstructive tendencies after postmodernism

Many things have been said about literature after postmodernism, but one point there seems to be some agreement on is that it does not turn its back radically on its postmodernist forerunner, but rather generally continues to heed and value their insights. There seems to be something strikingly non-oedipal about the recent aesthetic shift. It is a project of reconstruction that remains deeply rooted in postmodernist tenets. Such an essentially non-oedipal attitude, I would argue, is central to the nature of the reconstructive shift. This, however, also raises questions about the wider cultural context from which such an aesthetic stance arises. If postmodernism was nurtured by the revolutionary spirits of the late 1960s, reconstruction faces a different world with different strategies. Instead of the postmodernist urge to subvert, expose and undermine, reconstruction yearns towards tentative and fragile intersubjective understanding, towards responsibility and community. Instead of revolt and rebellion it explores reconciliation and compromise. One instance in which this becomes visible in reconstructive narratives is the recurring figure of the lost father. Missing father figures abound in recent novels by authors like Mark Z. Danielewski, Dave Eggers, Yann Mantel, David Mitchell etc. It almost seems like a younger generation is yearning for the fathers which postmodernism has struggled hard to do away with. My paper will focus on one particularly striking example to explore the implications of this development: Daniel Wallace’s novel Big Fish and Tim Burton’s well-known film adaptation of the same. In their negotiation of fact and fiction, of doubt and belief, of freedom and responsibility, all of which converge in a father-son relationship, they serve well to illustrate central characteristics and concerns of recent attempts to leave postmodernism behind.

The state of in vitro science for use in bioaccumulation assessments for fish

Through the concerted evaluations of thousands of commercial substances for the qualities of persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity as a result of the United Nations Environment Program's Stockholm Convention, it has become apparent that fewer empirical data are available on bioaccumulation than other endpoints and that bioaccumulation models were not designed to accommodate all chemical classes. Due to the number of chemicals that may require further assessment, in vivo testing is cost prohibitive and discouraged due to the large number of animals needed. Although in vitro systems are less developed and characterized for fish, multiple high-throughput in vitro assays have been used to explore the dietary uptake and elimination of pharmaceuticals and other xenobiotics by mammals. While similar processes determine bioaccumulation in mammalian species, a review of methods to measure chemical bioavailability in fish screening systems, such as chemical biotransformation or metabolism in tissue slices, perfused tissues, fish embryos, primary and immortalized cell lines, and subcellular fractions, suggest quantitative and qualitative differences between fish and mammals exist. Using in vitro data in assessments for whole organisms or populations requires certain considerations and assumptions to scale data from a test tube to a fish, and across fish species. Also, different models may incorporate the predominant site of metabolism, such as the liver, and significant presystemic metabolism by the gill or gastrointestinal system to help accurately convert in vitro data into representative whole-animal metabolism and subsequent bioaccumulation potential. The development of animal alternative tests for fish bioaccumulation assessment is framed in the context of in vitro data requirements for regulatory assessments in Europe and Canada.