Normative implications of postgenomic deterministic narratives: the case study of epigenetic harm.

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.1007/s40656-024-00636-4
Emma Moormann
{"title":"Normative implications of postgenomic deterministic narratives: the case study of epigenetic harm.","authors":"Emma Moormann","doi":"10.1007/s40656-024-00636-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What do we mean when we talk about epigenetic harm? This paper presents a multidimensional view of epigenetic harm. It is a plea to take a step back from discussions of epigenetic responsibility distributions prevalent in ELSA literature on epigenetics. Instead, it urges researchers to take a closer look at the normative role played by the concept of epigenetic harm. It starts out by showing that the ways in which the object of epigenetic responsibility has already been conceptualized are all related to 'epigenetic harm': something negative that happens in which epigenetic mechanisms play a role, or rather something that needs to be avoided. Epigenetic harm is then characterized as a bridging concept between relatively neutral findings on epigenetics on the one side, and potential ethical and societal implications of those findings, primarily in terms of responsibility ascriptions and distributions, on the other. The paper proposes that a sufficiently nuanced account of epigenetic harm should include at least three dimensions. The dimension of causation alone leads to an overly narrow understanding of harm, and a wrong understanding of this dimension might prompt researchers to support an excessively simplistic epigenetic determinism. It is argued that a multidimensional analysis of epigenetic harm is less vulnerable to this threat and more reflective of the various kinds of harm that may be experienced by the subjects of epigenetic alterations. The paper applies insights from disability studies and feminist philosophy to draw attention to two other dimensions of epigenetic harm, namely lived experiences and relationality. The paper concludes by exploring what a shift towards a multidimensional approach to epigenetic harm might mean for epigenetic research and responsibility ascriptions by formulating some concrete implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-024-00636-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What do we mean when we talk about epigenetic harm? This paper presents a multidimensional view of epigenetic harm. It is a plea to take a step back from discussions of epigenetic responsibility distributions prevalent in ELSA literature on epigenetics. Instead, it urges researchers to take a closer look at the normative role played by the concept of epigenetic harm. It starts out by showing that the ways in which the object of epigenetic responsibility has already been conceptualized are all related to 'epigenetic harm': something negative that happens in which epigenetic mechanisms play a role, or rather something that needs to be avoided. Epigenetic harm is then characterized as a bridging concept between relatively neutral findings on epigenetics on the one side, and potential ethical and societal implications of those findings, primarily in terms of responsibility ascriptions and distributions, on the other. The paper proposes that a sufficiently nuanced account of epigenetic harm should include at least three dimensions. The dimension of causation alone leads to an overly narrow understanding of harm, and a wrong understanding of this dimension might prompt researchers to support an excessively simplistic epigenetic determinism. It is argued that a multidimensional analysis of epigenetic harm is less vulnerable to this threat and more reflective of the various kinds of harm that may be experienced by the subjects of epigenetic alterations. The paper applies insights from disability studies and feminist philosophy to draw attention to two other dimensions of epigenetic harm, namely lived experiences and relationality. The paper concludes by exploring what a shift towards a multidimensional approach to epigenetic harm might mean for epigenetic research and responsibility ascriptions by formulating some concrete implications.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
后基因组决定论叙事的规范意义:表观遗传危害案例研究。
当我们谈论表观遗传危害时,我们指的是什么?本文从多个维度阐述了表观遗传危害。它呼吁人们从ELSA关于表观遗传学的文献中盛行的表观遗传学责任分配讨论中后退一步。相反,它敦促研究人员更仔细地审视表观遗传危害概念所发挥的规范作用。文章首先指出,表观遗传学责任对象的概念化方式都与 "表观遗传学伤害 "有关:表观遗传学机制在其中发挥作用的负面事件,或者说需要避免的事件。因此,表观遗传学危害的特点是,它是表观遗传学相对中性的研究结果与这些研究结果潜在的伦理和社会影响(主要是在责任描述和分配方面)之间的一个桥梁概念。本文提出,对表观遗传学危害的充分细致的解释至少应包括三个维度。仅从因果关系的维度出发会导致对危害的理解过于狭隘,对这一维度的错误理解可能会促使研究人员支持过于简单化的表观遗传决定论。本文认为,对表观遗传危害进行多维分析不容易受到这种威胁,而且更能反映表观遗传改变主体可能经历的各种危害。本文运用残疾研究和女性主义哲学的见解,提请人们注意表观遗传危害的另外两个方面,即生活经验和关系性。最后,本文通过提出一些具体的影响,探讨了转向多维度的表观遗传伤害方法对表观遗传研究和责任描述可能意味着什么。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
期刊最新文献
Matteo Vagelli, Reconsidering historical epistemology: French and anglophone styles in history and philosophy of science, 2024. Springer. Normative implications of postgenomic deterministic narratives: the case study of epigenetic harm. Seeking the first phylogenetic method-Edvard A. Vainio (1853-1929) and his troubled endeavour towards a natural lichen classification in the late nineteenth century Finland. The modern synthesis and "Progress" in evolution: a view from the journal literature. Snait B. Gissis, Lamarckism and the emergence of 'scientific' social sciences in nineteenth-century Britain and France, Springer, 2024.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1