Biología de sistemas y biología sintética como tecnociencias emergentes

Karen Kastenhofer

doi:10.3989/isegoria.2016.055.07

Authors

Karen Kastenhofer Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2016.055.07

Keywords:

systems biology, synthetic biology, technoscience, techno-epistemic culture, techno-epistemic community

Abstract

Systems and synthetic biology can be understood as emerging technosciences. Both are characteristically shaped by promises and visions, a certain logic and function of labelling, specific forms of social organisation, an embedding in specific regimes of funding and innovation as well as a characteristic matrix of orientations within research practice. This characteristic constitution of systems and synthetic biology has fundamental consequences for scientific practice, its analysis and its governance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aumann, P., 2011, Die Automatisierung des Denkens, Sehens und hörens. Kybernetik und Bionik als alte neue Technologien, en: Kehrt, C., Schüler, P., Weitze M.-D. (Eds.): Neue Technologien in der Gesellschaft. Akteure, Erwartungen, Kontroversen und Konjunkturen, Bielefeld: transcript, 207-222.

Bensaude Vincent, B., 2013, Discipline-building in synthetic biology, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(2), 122-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.007 PMid:23566941

Blümel 2011, Dynamiken förderpolitischen Wandels in der nanotechnologie, en: Kehrt, C., Schüler, P., Weitze M.-D. (Eds.): Neue Technologien in der Gesellschaft. Akteure, Erwartungen, Kontroversen und Konjunkturen, Bielefeld: transcript, 287-302.

Brigandt, I., 2010, The epistemic goal of a concept: accounting for the rationality of semantic change and variation, Synthese 177(1), 19-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9623-8

Calvert, J., 2008, The Commodification of Emergence: Systems Biology, Synthetic Biology and Intellectual Property, BioSocieties 3, 383-398. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855208006303

Calvert, J., 2013, Engineering Biology and Society: reflections on Synthetic Biology, Science, Technology & Society 18(3), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721813498501

Demeritt, D., 2000, The new Social Contract for Science: Accountability, relevance, and Value in US and UK Science and research Policy, Antipode 32(3), 308-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00137

Forman, P., 2007, The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the history of Technology, History and Technology 23(1/2), 1-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/07341510601092191

Gibbons, M., 1999, Science's new social contract with society, Nature Supp 402(Supp Dec 1999), C81-C84.

Gill, B., 1994, Die Vorverlegung der Folgenerkenntnis. Science Assessment als Selbstreflexion der Wissenschaft, Soziale Welt 45(4), 430-454.

Guston, D. H., 2000, Between Politics and Science. Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571480

Grin, J. y Grunwald, A. (Eds), 2000, Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society, Heidelberg: Springer.

Grunwald, A., 2013, Techno-visionary Sciences: Challenges to Policy Advice, Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2), 21-38.

Hacking, I., 1983, Representing and Intervening, New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814563

Kastenhofer, K., 2010, Do we need a specific kind of technoscience assessment? Taking the convergence of science and technology seriously, Poiesis & Praxis 7(1-2), 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-010-0077-3

Kastenhofer, K., 2013a, Die Governance neuer Technowissenschaften zwischen risikound Ethik-Frame, in: Bogner, A. (Ed.): Ethisierung der Technik - Technisierung der Ethik, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 69-94. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845245621-67

Kastenhofer, K., 2013b, Synthetic biology as understanding, control, construction and creation? Techno-epistemic and socio-political implications of different stances in talking and doing technoscience, Futures 48, 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.001

Kastenhofer, K., 2013c, Two sides of the same coin? The (techno)epistemic cultures of systems and synthetic biology, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(2), 130-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.008 PMid:23582486

Kastenhofer, K. y Schmidt, J. C., 2011, 'Technoscientia est Potentia'? Contemplative, interventionist, constructionist and creationist idea(l)s in technoscience, Poiesis & Praxis 8(2-3), 125-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0101-2 PMid:22207830 PMCid:PMC3234353

Kastenhofer, K., Torgersen, H., Klein, F. y Klement, L.-L., 2012, Systems Biology in Austria 2011. The establishment of a new field in a national context (project report), commissioned by: Institute of Technology Assessment, Vienna: Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) <http://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-projektberichte/e2-2c28.pdf>.

Lubchenco, J., 1998, Entering the Century of the Environment: A new Social Contract for Science, Science 279(23 January), 491-497.

Nature Biotechnology 2009: What's in a name?, Nature Biotechnology 27(12), 1071-1073.

Nordmann, A., 2015, Synthetic Biology at the Limits of Science, en: Giese, B., Pade, C., Wigger, H. y Von Gleich, A. (Eds): Synthetic Biology: Character and Impact, Berlin: Springer, 31-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02783-8_2

Paddon, C. J. y Keasling, J. D., 2014, Semi-synthetic artemisinin: a model for the use of synthetic biology in pharmaceutical development, Nat Rev Micro 12(5), 355-367. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3240 PMid:24686413

Pickstone, J. V., 2001, Ways of Knowing. A New History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Powell, A., o'Malley, M., Müller-Wille, S., Calvert, J. y Dupré, J., 2007, Disciplinary baptisms: a comparison of the naming stories of genetics, molecular biology, genomics, and systems biology, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29(1), 5-32. PMid:18411835

Rai, A. y Boyle, J., 2007, Synthetic Biology: Caught between Property rights, the Public Domain, and the Commons, PLoS Biol 5(3), 389-393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050058 PMid:17355173 PMCid:PMC1821064

Shorett, P., Rabinow, P. y Billings, P. R., 2003, The changing norms of the life sciences, NatBiotech 21(2), 123-125. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0203-123

Strasser, B.J., Institutionalizing molecular biology in post-war Europe: a comparative study, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33 (2002) 515-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486(02)00016-X

Thiel, K., 2006, Systems Biology, Incorporated?, Nat Biotech 24(9), 1055-1057. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0906-1055 PMid:16964202

Vermeulen, N., 2009, Supersizing science. On building large-scale research projects in biology, Maastricht: Maastricht University Press.

Vermeulen, N., 2011, Growing a cell in silico. On how the creation of a bio-object transforms the organisation of science, in: Vermeulen, N., Tamminen, S. and Webster, A. (Eds): Bio-Objects. Life in the 21st Century, Aldershot: Ashgate, 171-186.

Vermeulen, N., Parker, J. N. y Penders, B., 2010, Big, small or mezzo?, EMBO reports 11(6), 420-423. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2010.67 PMid:20467436 PMCid:PMC2892327

Vermeulen, N., Parker, J. N. y Penders, B., 2013, Understanding life together: A brief history of collaboration in biology, Endeavour 37(3), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2013.03.001 PMid:23578694 PMCid:PMC3878597

Winickoff, D. E. y Neumann, L. B., 2005, Towards a Social Contract for Genomics: Property and the Public in The 'Biotrust' Model, Genomics, Society and Policy 1(3), 8-21.