This article analyses attempts to enact complexity in postgenomic experimentations using the case of epigenetic research on biomarkers of psychosocial stress. Enacting complexity in this research means dissecting multiple so-called biosocial processes of health differentiation in the face of stressful experiences. To characterize enactments of biosocial complexity, the article develops the concepts of and . The former emphasizes the social, technical, and material work that goes into the production of mixed biological and social representations of stress in epigenetics. The latter underlines how complexity can be assembled differently across distinct configurations of experimental work. Specifically, complexification can be defined as producing, stabilizing, and normalizing novel experimental systems that are supposed to improve techno-scientific enactments of complexity. In the case of epigenetics, complexification entails a reconfiguration of postgenomic experimental systems in ways that some actors deem 'better' at enacting health as a biosocial process. This study of complexity work and complexification shows that biosocial complexity is hardly a univocal enterprise in epigenetics. Consequently, the article calls for abandoning analysis of these research practices using clear-cut dichotomies of reductionism vs. holism, as well as simplicity vs. complexity. More broadly, the article suggests the relevance of a sociology of complexification for STS approaches to complexity in scientific practices. Complementing the existing focus on complexity as instrumental rhetoric in contemporary sciences, complexification directs analytical attention to the pragmatic opportunities that alternative (biosocial) complexities offer to collective, societal, and political thinking about science in society.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11409560 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03063127231222613 | DOI Listing |
Front Dement
January 2025
Dementia Research Centre, Research Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Purpose: Rare forms of dementia bring unique difficulties related to age of onset, impact on family commitments, employment and finances, and also bring distinctive needs for support and care. The aim of the present study was to explore and better understand what the concept of support means for people living with different rare dementia (PLwRD) and their care-partners who attend ongoing support groups.
Methods: Representing seven types of rare dementia, source material was collected from 177 PLwRD and care-partners attending in-person support groups, with the goal of developing research-informed group poems, co-constructed by a facilitating poet.
Which biosensing technologies are geographers using in their research, and what exactly do they measure? What are the theoretical origins of geographic interests in biosensing? This article provides an overview of the variety of biosensors applied in biosensing research, tracks the theoretical debates and roots of geographic engagement with biosensing, and discusses the potentials, limitations and ethical implications of applying biosensors. We critically reflect on the varied terminologies that have been used to describe a rapidly evolving array of biosensing technologies and methodologies and suggest a common understanding for key terms such as "biosensing" (technologies or methodologies), "biosensors," "wearable biosensors" and "biosignals." We offer an overview of the broader theoretical debates that have inspired geographers turn to biosensing, including behavioral geography, more-than-representational theory, critical neurogeography, the mobilities and biosociality paradigms, and visual geographies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAppetite
January 2025
School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Queensland, 4122, Australia. Electronic address:
bioRxiv
September 2024
Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
An individual's risk of substance use disorder (SUD) is shaped by a complex interplay of potent biosocial factors. Current neurodevelopmental models posit vulnerability to SUD in youth is due to an overreactive reward system and reduced inhibitory control. Having a family history of SUD is a particularly strong risk factor, yet few studies have explored its impact on brain function and structure prior to substance exposure.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTrends Cancer
August 2024
Department of Surgery, Massey Comprehensive Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Social, environmental, and biological risk factors influence exposures to newly termed 'biosocial determinants of health'. As molecular factors that lie at the intersection between lived experiences and individual biology, biosocial determinants may inform on the enduring complexity of cancer disparity across transdisciplinary studies.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!