{"title":"What to do with the new molecular publics: the vernacularization of pathogen genomics and the future of infectious disease biosocialities","authors":"Stephen Molldrem","doi":"10.1057/s41292-024-00326-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent decades have seen expansions in the subfield of pathogen genomic epidemiology, also called ‘molecular epidemiology.’ Practitioners in this area analyze pathogen genetic sequence data to identify the emergence of pathogen subtypes or ‘variants,’ including ones that have evolved to have problematic biological characteristics such as greater transmissibility or treatment resistance. The field’s prominence has led to public controversies surrounding applications of pathogen genomics in disease control. The most highly visible examples occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the designation of SARS-CoV-2 ‘Variants of Concern’ by the World Health Organization shaped public health strategies, media stories, and everyday talk about the pandemic. Drawing on several cases, I argue that controversies around uses of pathogen genomics have driven the emergence of a novel kind of socio-technical form, which I call a ‘molecular public.’ Molecular publics materialize when pathogen genomic science enters public discourse through news media or similar means, followed by people recognizing themselves as being potentially at risk of becoming infected with a particular pathogen subtype or affected by policy responses to a variant. I present molecular publics as a useful analytic for social studies of infectious disease and a vector through which novel biosocialities mediated by pathogens can emerge.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":"111 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-024-00326-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Recent decades have seen expansions in the subfield of pathogen genomic epidemiology, also called ‘molecular epidemiology.’ Practitioners in this area analyze pathogen genetic sequence data to identify the emergence of pathogen subtypes or ‘variants,’ including ones that have evolved to have problematic biological characteristics such as greater transmissibility or treatment resistance. The field’s prominence has led to public controversies surrounding applications of pathogen genomics in disease control. The most highly visible examples occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the designation of SARS-CoV-2 ‘Variants of Concern’ by the World Health Organization shaped public health strategies, media stories, and everyday talk about the pandemic. Drawing on several cases, I argue that controversies around uses of pathogen genomics have driven the emergence of a novel kind of socio-technical form, which I call a ‘molecular public.’ Molecular publics materialize when pathogen genomic science enters public discourse through news media or similar means, followed by people recognizing themselves as being potentially at risk of becoming infected with a particular pathogen subtype or affected by policy responses to a variant. I present molecular publics as a useful analytic for social studies of infectious disease and a vector through which novel biosocialities mediated by pathogens can emerge.
期刊介绍:
BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society.
BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances.
As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe.
BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.