Mapping the New Molecular Landscape: Social and Ethical Aspects of Epigenetics. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Epigenetics is one of the most rapidly expanding fields in the life sciences. Its rise is frequently framed as a revolutionary turn that heralds a new epoch both for gene-based epistemology and for the wider discourse on life that pervades knowledge-intensive societies of the molecular age. The fundamentals of this revolution remain however to be scrutinized, and indeed the very contours of what counts as ‘epigenetic’ are often blurred. This is reflected also in the mounting discourse on the societal implications of epigenetics, in which vast expectations coexist with significant uncertainty about what aspects of this science are most relevant for politics or policy alike. This is therefore a suitable time to reflect on the directions that social theory could most productively take in the scrutiny of this revolution. Here we take this opportunity in both its scholarly and normative dimension, that is, proposing a roadmap for social theorizing on epigenetics that does not shy away from, and indeed hopefully guides, the framing of its most socially relevant outputs. To this end, we start with an epistemological reappraisal of epigenetic discourse that valorizes the blurring of meanings as a critical asset for the field and privileged analytical entry point. We then propose three paths of investigation. The first looks at the structuring elements of controversies and visions around epigenetics. The second probes the mutual constitution between the epigenetic reordering of living phenomena and the normative settlements that orient individual and collective responsibilities. The third highlights the material import of epigenetics and the molecularization of culture that it mediates. We suggest that these complementary strands provide both an epistemically and socially self-reflective framework to advance the study of epigenetics as a molecular juncture between nature and nurture and thus as the new critical frontier in the social studies of the life sciences
Epigenetics in the Public Sphere: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Environmental Epigenetics, 2019
Despite the high public interest in epigenetics, few scholars have empirically investigated the forms, reasons and consequences of the public circulation of epigenetics. Using an original database focusing on 'lifestyle' or 'everyday' epigenetics, this article aims to promote an open-minded and interdisciplinary dialogue between the public appropriation of epigenetics and the current scientific state of the art. It raises three main questions: Are there any specific modes of circulation of epige-netics in the general public? Why does epigenetics seem so appealing to the public? Within the public repertoire of epige-netics, is it possible to identify some specific knowledge claims and, if so, given the current state of the art, what is their degree of accuracy? The article argues that the social diffusion of epigenetics frequently carries on beliefs and misconceptions about genetics and epigenetics. The social life of epigenetics fuels a collective 'illusion' of control and empowerment on the basis of which new markets expand. More unexpectedly, this article underlines the emergence of a new scientific culture, i.e. the 'scientifization' of the cultural appropriation of epigenetics. Our analysis can inform the scientific community about the current and evolving state of the public representation of epigenetics and help it frame outreach activities.
Will epigenetics ever be a biosocial science? A reply to Chiapperino and Paneni
Epigenetics Communications
The recent correspondence article by Chiapperino and Paneni in Clinical Epigenetics correctly points to the inability of epigenetics to incorporate fine-grained mapping data of the individual’s surrounding milieu. The authors underline similar shortcomings of genomics. I argue that the tight link between DNA sequence and epigenetic marks is likely to reproduce those shortcomings in epigenetic studies. Moreover, biosocial epigenetics, if ever fully accomplished, would inevitably unmask genetics-based phenomena. The latter would be highly controversial from the viewpoint of dominant identity politics and social constructivism.
A new genetics or an epiphenomenon? Variations in the discourse of epigenetics researchers
Epigenetics is a field on the rise that seeks to explain phenotypic variance despite a stable and enduring DNA sequence. The hopes for the field are high, and claims about its revolutionary potential abound. Some scholars in the humanities and social sciences see the field as potentially replacing reductionism and genetic determinism, bringing social life and environment more firmly into view. This paper attends to the discourses of epigenetics researchers themselves. Through qualitative interviewing and analysis, I classify these scientists into three groups based on the claims they make about the impact and future of their field: champions, those who take the middle ground, and skeptics. The variance in discourse about epigenetics suggests a far more complex and contested trajectory for the field, one that may or may not support anti-deterministic views.
In this paper, I firstly situate the current rise of interest in epigenetics in the broader history of attempts to go “beyond the gene” in twentieth-century biology. In the second part, after a summary of the main differences between epigenetic and genetic mutations, I consider what kind of implications the sui generis features of epigenetic mutations may have for the social sciences. I focus in particular on two sites of investigation: (a) the blurring of the boundaries between natural and social inequalities in theories of justice and their possible implications for public policy and public health and (b) a deepening of the notion that the constitution of the body is deeply dependent on its material and socially shaped surroundings (“embodied constructivism”). In conclusion, I advance some cautionary reflections on some of the (known and unprecedented) problems that the circulation of epigenetics in wider society may present.
Social Studies of Science, 2019
Epigenetics, defined as ‘the study of mitotically and/or meiotically heritable changes in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence’, has emerged as a promissory yet controversial field of scientific inquiry over the past decade. Scholars from many disciplines have formulated both optimistic and cautionary claims regarding its potential normative implications. This article provides a comprehensive review of the nascent literature at the crossroads of epigenetics, ethics, law and society. It describes nine emerging areas of discussion, relating to (1) the impact of epigenetics on the nature versus nurture dualism, (2) the potential resulting biologization of the social, (3) the meaning of epigenetics for public health, its potential influence on (4) reproduction and parenting, (5) political theory and (6) legal proceedings, and concerns regarding (7) stigmatization and discrimination, (8) privacy protection and (9) knowledge translation. While there is some degree of similarity between the nature and content of these areas and the abundant littérature on ethical, legal and social issues in genetics, the potential implications of epigenetics ought not be conflated with the latter. Critical studies on epigenetics are emerging within a separate space of bioethical and biopolitical investigations and claims, with scholars from various epistemological standpoints utilizing distinct yet complementary analytical approaches.
The ambiguous nature of epigenetic responsibility - Journal of Medical Ethics 2016
Over the past decade, epigenetic studies have been providing further evidence of the molecular interplay between gene expression and its health outcomes on one hand, and the physical and social environments in which individuals are conceived, born and live on the other. As knowledge of epigenetic programming expands, a growing body of literature in social sciences and humanities is exploring the implications of this new field of study for contemporary societies. Epigenetics has been mobilised to support political claims, for instance, with regard to collective obligations to address socio-environmental determinants of health. The idea of a moral 'epigenetic responsibility' has been proposed, meaning that individuals and/or governments should be accountable for the epigenetic programming of children and/or citizens. However, these discussions have largely overlooked important biological nuances and ambiguities inherent in the field of epigenetics. In this paper, we argue that the identification and assignment of moral epigenetic responsibilities should reflect the rich diversity and complexity of epigenetic mechanisms, and not rely solely on a gross comparison between epigenetics and genetics. More specifically, we explore how further investigation of the ambiguous notions of epigenetic normality and epigenetic plasticity should play a role in shaping this emerging debate.
2016
Recent findings in epigenetics have been attracting much attention from social scientists and bioethicists because they reveal the molecular mechanisms by which exposure to socioenvironmental factors, such as pollutants and social adversity, can influence the expression of genes throughout life. Most surprisingly, some epigenetic modifications may also be heritable via germ cells across generations. Epigenetics may be the missing molecular evidence of the importance of using preventive strategies at the policy level to reduce the incidence and prevalence of common diseases. But while this “policy translation” of epigenetics introduces new arguments in favor of public health strategies and policy-making, a more “clinical translation” of epigenetics is also emerging. It focuses on the biochemical mechanisms and epigenetic variants at the origin of disease, leading to novel biomedical means of assessing epigenetic susceptibility and reversing detrimental epigenetic variants. In this paper, we argue that the impetus to create new biomedical interventions to manipulate and reverse epigenetic variants is likely to garner more attention than effective social and public health interventions and therefore also to garner a greater share of limited public resources. This is likely to happen because of the current biopolitical context in which scientific findings are translated. This contemporary neoliberal “regime of truth,” to use a term from Michel Foucault, greatly influences the ways in which knowledge is being interpreted and implemented. Building on sociologist Thomas Lemke's Foucauldian “analytics of biopolitics” and on literature from the field of science and technology studies, we present two sociological trends that may impede the policy translation of epigenetics: molecularization and biomedicalization. These trends, we argue, are likely to favor the clinical translation of epigenetics—in other words, the development of new clinical tools fostering what has been called “personalized” or “precision” medicine. In addition, we argue that an overemphasized clinical translation of epigenetics may further reinforce this biopolitical landscape through four processes closely related to neoliberal pathways of thinking: the internalization and isolation (aspects of liberal individualism) of socioenvironmental determinants of health and increased opportunities for commodification and technologicalization (aspects of economic liberalism) of health care interventions.
The Ambiguous Nature of Epigenetic Responsibility
2016
Over the past decade, epigenetic studies have been providing further evidence of the molecular interplay between gene expression and its health outcomes on one hand, and the physical and social environments in which individuals are conceived, born and live on the other. As knowledge of epigenetic programming expands, a growing body of literature in social sciences and humanities is exploring the implications of this new field of study for contemporary societies. Epigenetics as been mobilised to support political claims, for instance, with regard to collective obligations to address socioenvironmental determinants of health. The idea of a moral ‘epigenetic responsibility’ has been proposed, meaning that individuals and/or governments should be accountable for the epigenetic programming of children and/or citizens. However, these discussions have largely overlooked important biological nuances and ambiguities inherent in the field of epigenetics. In this paper, we argue that the identification and assignment of moral epigenetic responsibilities should reflect the rich diversity and complexity of epigenetic mechanisms, and not rely solely on a gross comparison between epigenetics and genetics. More specifically, we explore how further investigation of the ambiguous notions of epigenetic normality and epigenetic plasticity should play a role in shaping this emerging debate.