Epigenetics for the social sciences: justice,embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age

In this paper, I firstly situate the current rise of interest in epigenetics in the broader history of attempts to go “beyond the gene” in twentieth-century biology. In the second part, after a summary of the main differences between epigenetic and genetic mutations, I consider what kind of implications the sui generis features of epigenetic mutations may have for the social sciences. I focus in particular on two sites of investigation: (a) the blurring of the boundaries between natural and social inequalities in theories of justice and their possible implications for public policy and public health and (b) a deepening of the notion that the constitution of the body is deeply dependent on its material and socially shaped surroundings (“embodied constructivism”). In conclusion, I advance some cautionary reflections on some of the (known and unprecedented) problems that the circulation of epigenetics in wider society may present.     

Metaphors in search of a target: the curious case of epigenetics

Carrying out research in genetics and genomics and communicating about them would not be possible without metaphors such as “information,” “code,” “letter” or “book.” Genetic and genomic metaphors have remained relatively stable for a long time but are now beginning to shift in the context of synthetic biology and epigenetics. This article charts the emergence of metaphors in the context of epigenetics, first through collecting some examples of metaphors in scientific and popular writing and second through a systematic analysis of metaphors used in two UK broadsheets. Findings show that while source domains for metaphors can be identified, such as our knowledge of electrical switches or of bookmarks, it is difficult to pinpoint target domains for such metaphors. This may be indicative both of struggles over what epigenetics means for scientists (natural and social) and of difficulties associated with talking about this, as yet, young field in the popular press.     

Can social research paradigms justify the diversity of approaches to social life cycle assessment?

Purpose

The present paper aims to offer an explanation for the diversity of methodological approaches proposed up to the present for social life cycle assessment (sLCA), tracking down its roots in the cultural and scientific heritage of social sciences and especially management sciences. A second aim is to shift the current debate on methodologies to an epistemological level, presenting the first results of an ongoing critical review about which underlying paradigms have been applied in sLCA literature.

Methods

This paper moves from the hypothesis that the diversity of positions in philosophy of science and the “multiparadigmatic” character of social sciences have had repercussions on sLCA literature since its beginnings, probably in an unconscious manner. Therefore, a discriminating reflection on the scientific and disciplinary inheritance that can represent the roots of sLCA has been conducted. The philosophy of science and the role of different research paradigms in social sciences have been deepened to provide an overview of the main elements of a paradigm (in terms of ontology, epistemology, and methodology). Finally, a brief but critical review of 133 selected scientific contributions on sLCA has been conducted to highlight which paradigms have been applied in sLCA studies.

Results and discussion

Recognizing that boundaries between paradigms are subtle and that researchers are rarely conscious of which paradigm underpins their works, a distinction between the interpretivist and post-positivist approaches used by the studies has been carried out on the basis of a text analysis conducted by identifying the main “literal” criteria. From an initial population of 209 studies, we excluded those concerning reviews of sLCA literature and those with selected criteria that were insufficient to catch the epistemological viewpoint of the authors. Among the remaining papers (133), 73 % has been ascribed to the group of interpretivism-oriented paradigms and only 24 % could be ascribed to the post-positivist one; the remaining 3 % is represented by studies with both characteristics. This data deserves some attention because, since the beginnings of sLCA methodologies, most sLCA publications explicitly suggest having the same underlying perspectives as environmental life cycle assessment (eLCA).

Conclusions

In light of the reflections carried out, we argue that it is important, before going into methodological questioning issues, to be aware of which paradigm is underlying. Indeed, in this phase of sLCA development, scholars should go beyond the simple methodological debate and recognize the “multilayered” nature of social phenomena and the multiparadigmatic characteristics of social and management sciences.

     

表观遗传学及其研究方法

表观遗传学是一门重要的生命学科,主要包括DNA的甲基化、组蛋白修饰以及非编码RNA等内容,其中任何一方面的表观遗传学变化对生物体的生命过程都有重要的影响。近年来随着生命科学的快速发展,表观遗传学越来越受到人们的关注,各种先进科技的应用也使得表观遗传学实验技术得到快速的发展。本文对DNA甲基化、组蛋白修饰及非编码RNA的基本内容及实验方法进行了综述,并对不同的研究方法进行分析,有利于表观遗传学的深入研究。     

Identity,Subjectivity, and Disorders of Self in Psychosis

Alterations in self-experience are increasingly attended to as relevant and important aspects of schizophrenia, and psychosis more broadly, through a burgeoning self-disorders (SD) literature. At the same time, issues of self, subject, and subjectivity within schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses have also gained attention from researchers across the social sciences and humanities, and from ethnographic research especially. This paper examines the subjective experience of disruptions in self-identity within a cohort of first episode psychosis (FEP) service users, critically engaging with the SD literature and bringing it into conversation with social sciences and humanities scholarship on self and schizophrenia. Drawing findings from an ongoing ethnographic study of young peoples’ experiences with psychosis, we explore meanings of mental distress relating to psychotic episodes and attend to issues of self, identity, and subjectivity. We critique the division between “normal” and “pathological” self-experience that is endorsed within the SD literature, arguing against the notion that fragmentation of self-experience in schizophrenia-spectrum illnesses is indicative of psychopathology. We highlight how experiences categorized as psychosis are also important and complete aspects of one’s social world and inner life and explore the ways in which at least some aspects of disruptions of self-identity stem from clinical situations themselves—in particular, from asymmetries of power within the mental health system. Relating our findings to feminist, postcolonial, and disability studies’ approaches to the “self,” we emphasize the complex interplay between interpersonal, cultural, and structural aspects of self-experience within FEP.

     

Citizen Science

Citizen science Citizen science is performed on a honorary basis. Citizen scientists (”Citizen Science proper“) have no professional employment in the relevant field of research and differ very much in their educational background, specific knowledge and amount of time dedicated to the subject of research. Today, citizen science has become especially important in some fields neglected by professional science, e.g. regional research. Recently, another form of citizen science has gained much attention, in which usually many citizen scientist are active (”Citizen Science light“). Internet, smartphone and georeferencing by GPS are important tools for collecting, documenting and communicating the observation data. Besides the scientific results, social relevance through participation and information of citizens (e.g. for conservation issues) play a very important role in these projects. The recently strongly increasing interest in and contribution to citizen science plays an important role to strengthen the link and communication between science and society.     

Epigenetic metaphors: an interdisciplinary translation of encoding and decoding

Looking at the new and often disputed science of epigenetics, we examined the challenges faced by scientists when they communicate scientific research to the public. We focused on the use of metaphors to illustrate notions of epigenetics and genetics. We studied the “encoding” by epigeneticists and “decoding” in focus groups with diverse backgrounds. We observed considerable overlap in the dominant metaphors favored by both researchers and the lay public. However, the groups differed markedly in their interpretations of which metaphors aided understanding or not. We conclude by discussing the role of metaphors and their interpretations in the context of a shift from pre-deterministic genomic metaphors to more active, dynamic and nuanced epigenetic metaphors. These reflections on the choice of metaphors and differences in encoding/decoding are important for science communication and scientific boundary-maintenance.     

Evolution and literary theory

Presupposing that all knowledge is the study of a unitary order of nature, the author maintains that the study of literature should be included within the larger field of evolutionary theory. He outlines four elementary concepts in evolutionary theory, and he argues that these concepts should regulate our understanding of literature. On the basis of these concepts, he repudiates the antirealist and irrationalist views that, under the aegis of “poststructuralism,” have dominated academic literary studies for the past two decades. He examines the linkage between poststructuralism and standard social science, and he speculates about the ideological and disciplinary motives that have hitherto impeded evolutionary study in both the social sciences and the humanities. Finally, he distinguishes literature from science and argues that literary criticism integrates elements of both.     

Combining field work and laboratory work in the study of financial risk-taking

A contribution to a special issue on Hormones and Human Competition.Financial markets are periodically destabilized by bubbles and crashes during which investors display respectively what has been called “irrational exuberance” and “irrational pessimism”. How can we best study these pathologies in competitive and risk-taking behaviours? In this article, we argue that a science of risk-taking and of the financial markets needs to draw heavily on physiology and especially endocrinology, due to their central roles in moderating human behaviour. Importantly, this science of competition and risk requires the same spectrum of research protocols as is found in mature biological and medical sciences, a spectrum running from field work conducted within financial institutions themselves to more controlled laboratory studies, which permit cause to be distinguished from effect. Such a spectrum of studies is especially important for translational behavioural science.     

We don't make WEIRD faces: A brief history of emotion expression research in small-scale societies

Research in the social sciences has largely relied on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) participants, yet scholars tend to use findings from such WEIRD samples to draw conclusions about human psychology at large. There is, however, one prominent area of psychological science drawing on evolutionary theory that marks a major exception to this trend: research on the nonverbal expression of emotion. We briefly review the major findings from this literature, highlighting the ways in which researchers have effectively used participant samples from “maximally divergent populations” to address questions about universality and, in turn, the evolutionary basis of nonverbal displays.     

Social and ethical checkpoints for bottom-up synthetic biology, or protocells

An alternative to creating novel organisms through the traditional “top-down” approach to synthetic biology involves creating them from the “bottom up” by assembling them from non-living components; the products of this approach are called “protocells.” In this paper we describe how bottom-up and top-down synthetic biology differ, review the current state of protocell research and development, and examine the unique ethical, social, and regulatory issues raised by bottom-up synthetic biology. Protocells have not yet been developed, but many expect this to happen within the next five to ten years. Accordingly, we identify six key checkpoints in protocell development at which particular attention should be given to specific ethical, social and regulatory issues concerning bottom-up synthetic biology, and make ten recommendations for responsible protocell science that are tied to the achievement of these checkpoints.     

Invasion ecology goes to town: from disdain to sympathy

How can one understand the increasing interest in “urban invasions”, or biological invasions in urban environments? We argue that interest in urban invasions echoes a broader evolution in how ecologists view “the city” in relation to “the natural”. Previously stark categorical distinctions between urban and natural, human and wild, city and ecology have floundered. Drawing on conceptual material and an analysis of key texts, we first show how the ecological sciences in general—and then invasion science in particular—previously had a blind spot for cities, despite a number of important historical and continental European exceptions. Then, we document the advent of an urban turn in ecology and, more recently, in invasion ecology, and how this has challenged fundamental concepts about “nativity”, “naturalness”, and human agency in nature. The urban turn necessitates more explicit and direct attention to human roles and judgements. Ecology has moved from contempt (or indifference) for cities, towards interest or even sympathy.     

Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers: Human–Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography

One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at “preserving the integrity” of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in “human–wildlife conflict” or more recently “human–wildlife interactions” and compare it to what anthropology terms “multispecies ethnography.” In the biological sciences, human–wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human–nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary “multispecies lens” in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human–primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.     

Multibiologism: An anthropological and bioethical framework for moving beyond medicalization

Recent approaches in the medical and social sciences have begun to lay stress on “plasticity” as a key feature of human physiological experiences. Plasticity helps to account for significant differences within and between populations, particularly in relation to variations in basic physiological processes, such as brain development, and, in the context of this article, daily sleep needs. This article proposes a novel basis for the redevelopment of institutions in accordance with growing awareness of human variation in physiological needs, and articulates a theory of multibiologism. This approach seeks to expand the range of “normal” physiological experiences to respond to human plasticity, but also to move beyond critiques of medical practice that see medicine as simply responding to capitalist demands through the medicalization of “natural” processes. Instead, by focusing on how the institutions of U.S. everyday life—work, family, and school—structure the lives of individuals and produce certain forms of sleep as pathological, this article proposes that minor alterations in institutions could result in less pathologization for individuals and communities. Multibiologism provides a foundation for shared priorities in the social sciences, in bioethics, and in medical practice, and may lay the groundwork for emergent collaborations in institutional reform.     

Organization and functions of cells responsive to faces in the temporal cortex.

Cells selectively responsive to the face have been found in several visual sub-areas of temporal cortex in the macaque brain. These include the lateral and ventral surfaces of inferior temporal cortex and the upper bank, lower bank and fundus of the superior temporal sulcus (STS). Cells in the different regions may contribute in different ways to the processing of the facial image. Within the upper bank of the STS different populations of cells are selective for different views of the face and head. These cells occur in functionally discrete patches (3-5 mm across) within the STS cortex. Studies of output connections from the STS also reveal a modular anatomical organization of repeating 3-5 mm patches connected to the parietal cortex, an area thought to be involved in spatial awareness and in the control of attention. The properties of some cells suggest a role in the discrimination of heads from other objects, and in the recognition of familiar individuals. The selectivity for view suggests that the neural operations underlying face or head recognition rely on parallel analyses of different characteristic views of the head, the outputs of these view-specific analyses being subsequently combined to support view-independent (object-centred) recognition. An alternative functional interpretation of the sensitivity to head view is that the cells enable an analysis of 'social attention', i.e. they signal where other individuals are directing their attention. A cell maximally responsive to the left profile thus provides a signal that the attention (of another individual) is directed to the observer's left. Such information is useful for analysing social interactions between other individuals.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Guidelines for Teaching Cross-Cultural Clinical Ethics: Critiquing Ideology and Confronting Power in the Service of a Principles-Based Pedagogy

This paper presents a pedagogical framework for teaching cross-cultural clinical ethics. The approach, offered at the intersection of anthropology and bioethics, is innovative in that it takes on the “social sciences versus bioethics” debate that has been ongoing in North America for three decades. The argument is made that this debate is flawed on both sides and, moreover, that the application of cross-cultural thinking to clinical ethics requires using the tools of the social sciences (such as the critique of the universality of the Euro-American construct of “autonomy”) within (rather than in opposition to) a principles-based framework for clinical ethics. This paper introduces the curriculum and provides guidelines for how to teach cross-cultural clinical ethics. The learning points that are introduced emphasize culture in its relation to power and underscore the importance of viewing both biomedicine and bioethics as culturally constructed.     

Epigenetic determinism in science and society

The epigenetic “revolution” in science cuts across many disciplines, and it is now one of the fastest-growing research areas in biology. Increasingly, claims are made that epigenetics research represents a move away from the genetic determinism that has been prominent both in biological research and in understandings of the impact of biology on society. We discuss to what extent an epigenetic framework actually supports these claims. We show that, in contrast to the received view, epigenetics research is often couched in language as deterministic as genetics research in both science and the popular press. We engage the rapidly emerging conversation about the impact of epigenetics on public discourse and scientific practice, and we contend that the notion of epigenetic determinism – or the belief that epigenetic mechanisms determine the expression of human traits and behaviors – matters for understandings of the influence of biology and society on population health.     

Epigenetics: localizing biology through co-laboration

This paper reports on a co-laborative laboratory ethnography in a molecular biology laboratory conducting research on environmental epigenetics. It focuses on a single study concerned with the material implications of social differentiation. The analysis briefly raises biopolitical concerns. Its main concern lies with an understanding of the human body as local in its working infrastructure or “inner laboratory”, an understanding that emerges from the co-laborative inquiry between biologists and anthropologist. This co-laborative mode of inquiry raises productive tensions within biology as to the universal or local nature of human nature and within anthropology as to the status of human biology within social theory. The paper cannot resolve this tension. Rather it explores it as an epistemic object in the context of interdisciplinarity, ontography and co-laboration. In concluding, it specifies co-laboration as temporary, non-teleological joint epistemic work aimed at producing new kinds of reflexivity.     

Doctors on Status and Respect: A Qualitative Study

While doctors generally enjoy considerable status, some believe that this is increasingly threatened by consumerism, managerialism, and competition from other health professions. Research into doctors’ perceptions of the changes occurring in medicine has provided some insights into how they perceive and respond to these changes but has generally failed to distinguish clearly between concerns about “status,” related to the entitlements associated with one’s position in a social hierarchy, and concerns about “respect,” related to being held in high regard for one’s moral qualities. In this article we explore doctors’ perceptions of the degree to which they are respected and their explanations for, and responses to, instances of perceived lack of respect. We conclude that doctors’ concerns about loss of respect need to be clearly distinguished from concerns about loss of status and that medical students need to be prepared for a changing social field in which others’ respect cannot be taken for granted.