Search

Biomedical research is increasingly informed by expectations of "translation," which call for the production of scientific knowledge that can be used to create services and products that improve health outcomes. In this paper, we ask how translation, in particular the idea of social responsibility, is understood and enacted in the post-genomic life sciences. Drawing on theories examining what constitutes "good science," and interviews with 35 investigators who study the role of gene-environment interactions in the etiology of cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, we describe the dynamic and unsettled ethics of translational science through which the expected social value of scientific knowledge about complex disease causation is negotiated. To describe how this ethics is formed, we first discuss the politics of knowledge production in interdisciplinary research collectives. Researchers described a commitment to working across disciplines to examine a wide range of possible causes of disease, but they also pointed to persistent disciplinary and ontological divisions that rest on the dominance of molecular conceptions of disease risk. The privileging of molecular-level causation shapes and constrains the kinds of knowledge that can be created about gene-environment interactions. We then turn to scientists' ideas about how this knowledge should be used, including personalized prevention strategies, targeted therapeutics, and public policy interventions. Consensus about the relative value of these anticipated translations was elusive, and many scientists agreed that gene-environment interaction research is part of a shift in biomedical research away from considering important social, economic, political and historical causes of disease and disease disparities. We conclude by urging more explicit engagement with questions about the ethics of translational science in the post-genomic life sciences. This would include a consideration of who will benefit from emerging scientific knowledge, how benefits will accrue, and the ways in which normative assumptions about the public good come to be embedded in scientific objects and procedures.

Despite a proclaimed shift from 'nature versus nurture' to 'genes and environment' paradigms within biomedical and genomic science, capturing the environment and identifying gene-environment interactions (GEIs) has remained a challenge. What does 'the environment' mean in the post-genomic age? In this paper, we present qualitative data from a study of 33 principal investigators funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health to conduct etiological research on three complex diseases (cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes). We examine their research practices and perspectives on the environment through the concept of molecularization: the social processes and transformations through which phenomena (diseases, identities, pollution, food, racial/ethnic classifications) are re-defined in terms of their molecular components and described in the language of molecular biology. We show how GEI researchers' expansive conceptualizations of the environment ultimately yield to the imperative to molecularize and personalize the environment. They seek to 'go into the body' and re-work the boundaries between bodies and environments. In the process, they create epistemic hinges to facilitate a turn from efforts to understand social and environmental exposures outside the body, to quantifying their effects inside the body. GEI researchers respond to these emergent imperatives with a mixture of excitement, ambivalence and frustration. We reflect on how GEI researchers struggle to make meaning of molecules in their work, and how they grapple with molecularization as a methodological and rhetorical imperative as well as a process transforming biomedical research practices.

Scientists now agree that common diseases arise through interactions of genetic and environmental factors, but there is less agreement about how scientific research should account for these interactions. This paper examines the politics of quantification in gene-environment interaction (GEI) research. Drawing on interviews and observations with GEI researchers who study common, complex diseases, we describe quantification as an unfolding moral economy of science, in which researchers collectively enact competing ''virtues.'' Dominant virtues include molecular precision, in which behavioral and social risk factors are moved into the body, and ''harmonization,'' in which scientists create large data sets and common interests in multisited consortia. We describe the negotiations and trade-offs scientists enact in order to produce credible knowledge and the forms of (self-)discipline that shape researchers, their practices, and objects of study. We describe how prevailing techniques of quantification are premised on the shrinking of the environment in the interest of producing harmonized data and harmonious scientists, leading some scientists to argue that social, economic, and political influences on disease patterns are sidelined in postgenomic research. We consider how a variety of GEI researchers navigate quantification's productive and limiting effects on the science of etiological complexity.

Scientists now agree that common diseases arise through interactions of genetic and environmental factors, but there is less agreement about how scientific research should account for these interactions. This paper examines the politics of quantification in gene-environment interaction (GEI) research. Drawing on interviews and observations with GEI researchers who study common, complex diseases, we describe quantification as an unfolding moral economy of science, in which researchers collectively enact competing ''virtues.'' Dominant virtues include molecular precision, in which behavioral and social risk factors are moved into the body, and ''harmonization,'' in which scientists create large data sets and common interests in multisited consortia. We describe the negotiations and trade-offs scientists enact in order to produce credible knowledge and the forms of (self-)discipline that shape researchers, their practices, and objects of study. We describe how prevailing techniques of quantification are premised on the shrinking of the environment in the interest of producing harmonized data and harmonious scientists, leading some scientists to argue that social, economic, and political influences on disease patterns are sidelined in postgenomic research. We consider how a variety of GEI researchers navigate quantification's productive and limiting effects on the science of etiological complexity.

This article examines how race and ancestry are taken up in gene-environment interaction (GEI) research on complex diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Using 54 in-depth interviews of 33 scientists and over 200 hours of observation at scientific conferences, we explore how GEI researchers use and interpret race, ethnicity, and ancestry in their work. We find that the use of self-identified race and ethnicity (SIRE) exists alongside ancestry informative markers (AIMs) to ascertain genetic ancestry. Our participants assess the utility of these two techniques in relative terms, downplaying the accuracy and value of SIRE compared to the precision and necessity of AIMs. In doing so, we argue that post-genomic scientists seeking to understand the interactions of genetic and environmental disease determinants actually undermine their ability to do so by valorizing precise characterizations of individuals' genetic ancestry over measurement of the social processes and relations that differentiate social groups.

In this article, we explore current thinking and practices around the logics of difference in gene-environment interaction research in the post-genomic era. We find that scientists conducting gene-environment interaction research continue to invoke well-worn notions of racial difference and diversity, but use them strategically to try to examine other kinds of etiologically significant differences among populations. Scientists do this by seeing populations not as inherently homogeneous or heterogeneous, but rather by actively working to produce homogeneity along some dimensions and heterogeneity along others in their study populations. Thus we argue that homogeneity and heterogeneity are situational properties--properties that scientists seek to achieve in their study populations, the available data, and other aspects of the research situation they are confronting, and then leverage to advance post-genomic science. Pointing to the situatedness of homogeneity and heterogeneity in gene-environment interaction research underscores the work that these properties do and the contingencies that shape decisions about research procedures. Through a focus on the situational production of homogeneity and heterogeneity more broadly, we find that gene-environment interaction research attempts to shift the logic of difference from solely racial terms as explanatory ends unto themselves, to racial and other dimensions of difference that may be important clues to the causes of complex diseases.

STS theories of biocapital conceptualize how biomedical knowledge and capital form together. Though these formations of biocapital often are located in large urban centers, few scholars have attended to how they are transforming urban spaces and places. In this paper we argue that the twinned technological development of cells and cities concentrates economic and symbolic capital and sets in motion contentious practices we name urban biopolitics . We draw on archival research and a nearly decade-long ethnography of the expansion of biomedical campuses in a major American city to show how the speculative logics of land development and biomedical innovation become bound together in a process we describe as speculative revitalization . We examine how the logics of speculative revitalization imagine a future in which cities and biomedicine produce wealth and health harmoniously together. However, in practice-as buildings of new biomedical urban campuses get built-the dreams of billionaire philanthrocapitalists to create global cities clash with the plans of biomedical researchers to create global health. We document the reproduction of stratified and racialized biomedical exclusions that result while also highlighting the unlikely opportunities for creating alliances committed to creating equitable biomedical research and healthcare in urban communities.