人类基因组的归一化和变异搜索

IF 0.7 3区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences Pub Date : 2020-11-23 DOI:10.1525/hsns.2020.50.5.578
S. Chadarevian
{"title":"人类基因组的归一化和变异搜索","authors":"S. Chadarevian","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2020.50.5.578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay reflects on the tension between standardization and the search for variation in the human genome. The stabilization of the human chromosome count in the 1920s was based on the consensus that “Whites,” “Negroes,” and “Japanese,” as well as women and men, had the same number of chromosomes. Yet the idea that there might be chromosomal differences between various groups of people was never quite abandoned. When in the mid-1950s the human chromosome number was revised from 48 to 46, the new count was tested in populations around the world. The description of the “normal human karyotype” that was negotiated in the 1960s was driven by the search for a standard against which the genetic variation revealed by the flurry of testing could be measured. And although the human genome project in the 1990s promised to provide the genetic blueprint that all humans shared, it has in fact led to an increased focus on the genetic variation that distinguishes the history, identity, and health outcomes of various human populations. Following concrete examples, this essay investigates the historically contingent quests that have been driving the search for common standards and variation, and the role Pacific and Indigenous populations have played in these endeavors.\n This essay is part of a special issue entitled Pacific Biologies: How Humans Become Genetic, edited by Warwick Anderson and M. Susan Lindee.","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"29 1","pages":"578-595"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Normalization and the Search for Variation in the Human Genome\",\"authors\":\"S. Chadarevian\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/hsns.2020.50.5.578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay reflects on the tension between standardization and the search for variation in the human genome. The stabilization of the human chromosome count in the 1920s was based on the consensus that “Whites,” “Negroes,” and “Japanese,” as well as women and men, had the same number of chromosomes. Yet the idea that there might be chromosomal differences between various groups of people was never quite abandoned. When in the mid-1950s the human chromosome number was revised from 48 to 46, the new count was tested in populations around the world. The description of the “normal human karyotype” that was negotiated in the 1960s was driven by the search for a standard against which the genetic variation revealed by the flurry of testing could be measured. And although the human genome project in the 1990s promised to provide the genetic blueprint that all humans shared, it has in fact led to an increased focus on the genetic variation that distinguishes the history, identity, and health outcomes of various human populations. Following concrete examples, this essay investigates the historically contingent quests that have been driving the search for common standards and variation, and the role Pacific and Indigenous populations have played in these endeavors.\\n This essay is part of a special issue entitled Pacific Biologies: How Humans Become Genetic, edited by Warwick Anderson and M. Susan Lindee.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"578-595\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2020.50.5.578\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2020.50.5.578","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章反映了标准化和寻找人类基因组变异之间的紧张关系。20世纪20年代,人类染色体数量的稳定是基于“白人”、“黑人”和“日本人”以及女性和男性拥有相同数量的染色体这一共识。然而,不同人群之间可能存在染色体差异的想法从未被完全抛弃。在20世纪50年代中期,人类的染色体数目从48个修改为46个,新的计数在世界各地的人群中进行了测试。20世纪60年代,人们就“正常人类核型”的描述进行了协商,目的是寻找一种标准,以衡量一连串测试所揭示的遗传变异。尽管20世纪90年代的人类基因组计划承诺提供所有人类共有的基因蓝图,但它实际上导致了对基因变异的更多关注,这种变异区分了不同人群的历史、身份和健康结果。以下是具体的例子,这篇文章调查了历史上偶然的探索,这些探索一直在推动对共同标准和变化的探索,以及太平洋和土著居民在这些努力中所扮演的角色。这篇文章是沃里克·安德森和M.苏珊·林迪编辑的题为《太平洋生物学:人类是如何遗传的》特刊的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Normalization and the Search for Variation in the Human Genome
This essay reflects on the tension between standardization and the search for variation in the human genome. The stabilization of the human chromosome count in the 1920s was based on the consensus that “Whites,” “Negroes,” and “Japanese,” as well as women and men, had the same number of chromosomes. Yet the idea that there might be chromosomal differences between various groups of people was never quite abandoned. When in the mid-1950s the human chromosome number was revised from 48 to 46, the new count was tested in populations around the world. The description of the “normal human karyotype” that was negotiated in the 1960s was driven by the search for a standard against which the genetic variation revealed by the flurry of testing could be measured. And although the human genome project in the 1990s promised to provide the genetic blueprint that all humans shared, it has in fact led to an increased focus on the genetic variation that distinguishes the history, identity, and health outcomes of various human populations. Following concrete examples, this essay investigates the historically contingent quests that have been driving the search for common standards and variation, and the role Pacific and Indigenous populations have played in these endeavors. This essay is part of a special issue entitled Pacific Biologies: How Humans Become Genetic, edited by Warwick Anderson and M. Susan Lindee.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences
Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Explore the fascinating world of Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, a journal that reveals the history of science as it has developed since the 18th century. HSNS offers in-depth articles on a wide range of scientific fields, their social and cultural histories and supporting institutions, including astronomy, geology, physics, genetics, natural history, chemistry, meteorology, and molecular biology. Widely regarded as a leading journal in the historiography of science and technology, HSNS increased its publication to five times per year in 2012 to expand its roster of pioneering articles and notable reviews by the most influential writers in the field.
期刊最新文献
Oceans of Ooze Discoverer and Methodologist Coded Objects Between the Mountain, the Meadow, the Calm, and the Storm Gaia’s Tissue
×
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