SOCIOTECHNICAL REGIME OF GENOME TECHNOLOGIES: INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS ON BIOTECHNOSCIENCE
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2021-3-83-96
The starting point of the theoretical analysis of the article is the concept of a sociotechnical regime, which reveals the relationship between inertial and innovative trends, as well as the mutual influence of intrascientific and sociocultural factors on the development of technoscience. The author focuses on the transformative potential of genetic technologies, which are often described as promising, disruptive, platform, breakthrough, etc. In the center of the author’s research interest are the CRISPR-Cas9 human genome editing technology and preimplantation genetic diagnostics. They have been shaped by the regulations, laboratory practices, academic institutions, markets, infrastructure, etc. of the current sociotechnical regime. In turn, they began to influence the regime gradually. Innovations in genetics affect social ideas about health and disease, about human nature, about the ratio of the hereditary and the social, about ways to prevent and treat many diseases, promising to solve many problems in health care and, in a radical version, to “enhance” human nature. The assessment of innovations by society is largely determined by the socially constructed meanings of genetics – metaphors, myths, images, narratives, which allow comprehending the unknown through familiar discourses and symbols, and embedding it in ideas about the prospects for biotechnology development. The social significance of many technologies and the attention of society to this issue emphasize the need to take into account the social and humanitarian dimensions of modern innovations, avoiding narrowly technological and one-sided approaches. At the same time, communication between science and society should be open and constructive in how the technology is developed and what risks may arise as a result of its use. This communication should take into account the experience of previous polemics and social representations of biotechnoscience, as shown in the article using the example of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technologies and PGD. Bioethics can play a significant role in communication processes, for it is focused on transdisciplinary ways of coordinating different positions that ensure the efficiency and validity of social acceptance of innovations – the admissibility of some technologies and social concerns about others.
Keywords: metaphor, narrative, discourse, biotechnoscience, sociotechnical regime, genome editing, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, bioethics
References:
Baltimore, D. et al. (2015). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348(6230), 36–38.
Brandenburg, K. (2011). Risk, parental autonomy and the epistemic divide: preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the Australian print news media, 1990–2007. New Genetics and Society, 30(1), 115–131.
Carey, N. (2019). Hacking the code of life: How gene editing will rewrite our future. Icon Books.
China National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies. (2016). Chinese Terms in Sciences and Technologies. http://www.termonline.cn/index.htm (Accessed 10.09.2020).
Collins, F. (2015). Statement on NIH funding of research using gene-editing technologies in human embryos. National Institutes of Health. April 28, 2015. http://nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/statement-nih-funding-research-using-gene-editing-technologies-human-embryos
Committee on Bioethics Council of Europe (DH-BIO). (2015). Statement on genome editing technologies. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168049034a
Fuenfschilling, L., & Truffer, B. (2014). The structuration of socio-technical regimes — Conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Research Policy, 43(4), 772–791.
Martin, P. et al. (2020). Genome editing: the dynamics of continuity, convergence, and change in the engineering of life. New Genetics and Society, 39(2), 219–242.
McLeod, C., & Nerlich, B. (2017). Synthetic biology, metaphors and responsibility. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 13(1), 13.
McLeod, C., Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R. (2019). Fecal microbiota transplants: Emerging social representations in the English-language print media. New Genetics and Society, 38(3), 331–351.
Nerlich, B., & Halliday, C. (2007). Avian flu: The creation of expectations in the interplay between science and the media. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(1), 46–65.
Nerlich, B., Johnson, S., & Clarke, D. (2003). The first “designer baby”: The role of narratives, clicheґs and metaphors in the year 2000 media debate. Science as Culture, 12(4), 471–498.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2018). Genome editing and human reproduction: Social and ethical issues. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/genome-editing-and-human-reproduction
O’Keefe, M. et al. (2015). Editing genes: A case study about how language matters in bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(12), 3–10.
Scheufele, D. A. et. al. (2017). US Attitudes on Human Genome Editing. Science, 357(6351), 553–554.
Sedov, A. E. (2019). Logic and history of science, captured in the metaphors of its language: Quantitative and structural analysis of professional terms and statements of genetics. Method: Moscow Yearbook of Proceedings from Social Science Disciplines, 9, 426–445. (In Russian).
Tishchenko, P. D., & Yudin, B. G. (2015). Finest hour of philosophy. Voprosy filosofii, 12, 198–203. (In Russian).
Yudin, B. G. (2016). Technoscience and “human enhancement”. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, XLVIII(2), 18–27. (In Russian).
Zhang, X. N., & Zuo, J. (2017). Genetic disorders in Chinese patients and their families: A call for action on predictive medicine. In M. Gadebusch Bonido, F. Sporing, & J.-S. Gordon (Eds.), Medical ethics, prediction, and prognosis (pp. 121–130). Routledge.
( 306.07 kB ) 
( 302.45 kB )
Issue: 3, 2021
Series of issue: Issue 3
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 83 — 96
Downloads: 646