{"title":"What Counts as the Environment in Epigenetics? Knowledge and Ignorance in the Entrepreneurial University","authors":"C. Pinel","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2043840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Epigenetics research is well-known for its attention to the ‘environment,’ as it explores how what surrounds the genes impacts gene regulation. In addition, epigenetics has commonly been described as the new socio-biology capable of capturing how the broadly defined social environment, structured by social inequalities, shapes biology. Yet, this vision is not realised in the context of the entrepreneurial university. In the two laboratories where ethnographic fieldwork was conducted, scientists focus their research on narrow articulations of the notion of environment, around individual ‘lifestyle’ or micro-environments within which tumours develop. While the entrepreneurial university is characterised by multiple authoritative agencies evaluating and legitimising research, the narrowing of research priorities in epigenetics can be explained by the overlap of multiple scales of environment in which such authoritative agencies exercise authority: a disciplinary environment with peer-reviewed journals, an institutional environment with research managers, a market environment with funding bodies and commercial firms. In a general context of precarity, these environmental scales successively shape the content of research, by imposing filters on researchers’ practices, while implementing incentives encouraging certain forms of research. In particular, it favours a certain type of epigenetics research that is individualised and clinically centred, while leaving unexplored the social determinants of health and its biological corollary. This article adds to existing scholarship by, first, operationalising the broad concept of entrepreneurial university through the analysis of authoritative agencies and their role on research practices, and second, by providing empirical evidence of the interplay between research content and research environment.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"311 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science As Culture","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2043840","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
ABSTRACT Epigenetics research is well-known for its attention to the ‘environment,’ as it explores how what surrounds the genes impacts gene regulation. In addition, epigenetics has commonly been described as the new socio-biology capable of capturing how the broadly defined social environment, structured by social inequalities, shapes biology. Yet, this vision is not realised in the context of the entrepreneurial university. In the two laboratories where ethnographic fieldwork was conducted, scientists focus their research on narrow articulations of the notion of environment, around individual ‘lifestyle’ or micro-environments within which tumours develop. While the entrepreneurial university is characterised by multiple authoritative agencies evaluating and legitimising research, the narrowing of research priorities in epigenetics can be explained by the overlap of multiple scales of environment in which such authoritative agencies exercise authority: a disciplinary environment with peer-reviewed journals, an institutional environment with research managers, a market environment with funding bodies and commercial firms. In a general context of precarity, these environmental scales successively shape the content of research, by imposing filters on researchers’ practices, while implementing incentives encouraging certain forms of research. In particular, it favours a certain type of epigenetics research that is individualised and clinically centred, while leaving unexplored the social determinants of health and its biological corollary. This article adds to existing scholarship by, first, operationalising the broad concept of entrepreneurial university through the analysis of authoritative agencies and their role on research practices, and second, by providing empirical evidence of the interplay between research content and research environment.
期刊介绍:
Our culture is a scientific one, defining what is natural and what is rational. Its values can be seen in what are sought out as facts and made as artefacts, what are designed as processes and products, and what are forged as weapons and filmed as wonders. In our daily experience, power is exercised through expertise, e.g. in science, technology and medicine. Science as Culture explores how all these shape the values which contend for influence over the wider society. Science mediates our cultural experience. It increasingly defines what it is to be a person, through genetics, medicine and information technology. Its values get embodied and naturalized in concepts, techniques, research priorities, gadgets and advertising. Many films, artworks and novels express popular concerns about these developments. In a society where icons of progress are drawn from science, technology and medicine, they are either celebrated or demonised. Often their progress is feared as ’unnatural’, while their critics are labelled ’irrational’. Public concerns are rebuffed by ostensibly value-neutral experts and positivist polemics. Yet the culture of science is open to study like any other culture. Cultural studies analyses the role of expertise throughout society. Many journals address the history, philosophy and social studies of science, its popularisation, and the public understanding of society.