Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 4, Issue 2–3, pp 129–145 | Cite as

Tales of Emergence—Synthetic Biology as a Scientific Community in the Making

  • Susan Molyneux-Hodgson
  • Morgan Meyer
Article

Abstract

This article locates the beginnings of a synthetic biology network and thereby probes the formation of a potential disciplinary community. We consider the ways that ideas of community are mobilized, both by scientists and policy-makers in building an agenda for new forms of knowledge work, and by social scientists as an analytical device to understand new formations for knowledge production. As participants in, and analysts of, a network in synthetic biology, we describe our current understanding of synthetic biology by telling four tales of community making. The first tale tells of the mobilization of synthetic biology within a European context. The second tale describes the approach to synthetic biology community formation in the UK. The third narrates the creation of an institutionally based, funded ‘network in synthetic biology’. The final tale de-localizes community-making efforts by focussing on ‘devices’ that make communities. In tying together these tales, our analysis suggests that the potential community can be understood in terms of ‘movements’—the (re)orientation and enrolment of people, stories, disciplines and policies; and of ‘stickiness’—the objects and glues that begin to bind together the various constitutive elements of community.

Keywords

Community-making Devices Emergence Identity Scientific Communities Synthetic Biology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank participants in one of the BBSRC-funded Network in Synthetic Biology events for their cooperation, in particular our interview respondents R1, R2 and R3. Thanks also to Dave Phillips for his comments on an earlier draft and to three anonymous referees.

References

  1. Andler D., Barthelme S., Beckert B., Blumel C., Coenen C., Fleischer T. et al. (2007). ‘Converging technologies’ and the social sciences and humanities—An analysis of critical issues and a suggestion for a future research agenda. Final Report. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation, Unpublished.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2008). Beyond the genome: The challenge of synthetic biology. BioSocieties, 3(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  3. Balmer A., & Herreman C. (2009). Craig Venter and the re-programming of life: How metaphors shape and perform ethical discourses in the media presentation of synthetic biology. In Nerlich B. Elliott R., & Larson B. (Eds), Communicating biological sciences: Ethical and metaphorical dimensions, 219–234. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Balmer A., & Martin P. (2008). Synthetic biology: Social and ethical challenges. Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  5. BBSRC (2007). Synthetic biology workshop. Report of a workshop at Alexandra House, Wroughton, Wiltshire, 8–9 February, unpublished.Google Scholar
  6. BBSRC (2008a) Synthetic Biology Networks launch document. URL (accessed April 2009): www.bbsrc.ac.uk/publications/corporate/synthetic_biology.pdf
  7. BBSRC (2008b). New projects to raise UK profile in Synthetic Biology, press release, 29 May, URL (accessed October 2008): www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/releases/2008/080529_synthetic_biology.html
  8. Becker H. (1986). Doing things together: Selected papers. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP.Google Scholar
  9. Benner S.A., & Sismour A.M. (2005). Synthetic biology. Nature Review Genetics, 6, July, 533–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown N. (2003). Hope against hype: Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3–21.Google Scholar
  11. Callon M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In Law J. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, 196–233. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Calvert J. (2008). The commodification of emergence: Systems biology, synthetic biology and intellectual property. BioSocieties, 3, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calvert J., & Martin P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10, 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coenen C. (2008). Konvergierende Technologien und Wissenschaften. Der Stand der Debatte und politischen Aktivitaeten zu ‘Converging Technologies’. Hintergrundpapier Nr. 16. Berlin: TAB.Google Scholar
  15. Collins H.M. (2006). Conferences as knowledge makers. Paper presented at the 4S conference ‘Silence, Suffering and Survival’, Vancouver, 1–5 November.Google Scholar
  16. Collins H.M., & Evans R.J. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: U Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins P., & Pontikakis D. (2006). Innovation systems in the European periphery: The policy approaches of Ireland and Greece. Science and Public Policy, 33, 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conway J.F. (1992). Physics and the rise of scientific research in Canada by Yves Gingras. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 17, 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dubois M. (1999). Introduction à la sociologie des sciences et des connaissances scientifiques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  20. Dupre J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  21. Endy D. (2005). Foundations for engineering biology. Nature, 438, 24 November, 449–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Communities (2005) Synthetic biology: Applying engineering to biology. Report of a NEST high-level expert group. Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
  23. Felt U. (1993). Fabricating scientific success stories. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fujimura J.H. (2000). Transnational genomics in Japan: Transgressing the boundary between the ‘modern/West’ and the ‘pre-modern/East’. In Reid R., & Traweek S. (Eds), Cultural Studies of Science, Technology, and Medicine, 71–92. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Galison P.L., & Stump D.J. (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford UP.Google Scholar
  26. Gingras Y. (1991). Physics and the rise of scientific research in Canada, trans. P. Keating . Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP.Google Scholar
  27. Greener M. (2008). Is the grass greener on the other side? Encouraging the development of synthetic biology in Europe. EMBO Reports, 9, 835–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hacking I. (1983). Representing and intervening—Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hedgecoe A.M. (2003). Terminology and the construction of scientific disciplines: The case of pharmacogenomics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 28, 513–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hetherington K. (1997). In place of geometry: The materiality of place. In Hetherington K., & Munro R. (Eds), Ideas of difference: Social spaces and the labour of division, 183–199. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Hodgson S.M. (2006). Narrating community: History and absence in scientific texts. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 31, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodgson S.M., & Irving Z. (2007). Policy and its exploration. In Hodgson S., & Irving Z. (Eds.), Policy reconsidered: Meanings, politics and practices, 1–18, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Knorr-Cetina K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  34. Lamb R., & Davidson E. (2005). Information and communication technology challenges to scientific professional identity. The Information Society, 21, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latour B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  36. Latour B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  37. Lave J., & Wenger E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Law J. (1986). On the methods of long distance control: Vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In Law J. (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge, 234–263. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  39. Lentzos F., Bennett G., Boeke J., Endy D., & Rabinow P. (2008). Visions and challenges in redesigning life. BioSocieties, 3, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. M.A. (multiple authors) (2007). Unpublished network proposal to BBSRC.Google Scholar
  41. Marcus G.E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  42. Meyer M. (2008). On the boundaries and partial connections between amateurs and professionals. Museum and Society, 6, 38–53.Google Scholar
  43. Meyer M. (2007). Increasing the frame: Interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and representativity. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mody C.M. (2006). Corporations, universities, and instrumental communities: Commercializing probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Technology and Culture, 47, 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Molyneux-Hodgson S., & Facer K. (2003). The textbook as cultural artefact: Reproducing the culture of science. In Sutherland R., Claxton G., & Pollard A. (Eds.), Learning and teaching: Where worldviews meet, 153–74. Stoke: Trentham.Google Scholar
  46. O'Malley M.A., Powell A., Davies J.F., & Calvert J. (2007) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology, BioEssays, 30(19): 57–65.Google Scholar
  47. Pickering A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as practice and culture. London: U Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinch T., & Bijker W. (1992). The social construction of facts and artifacts: or, How the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In Bijker W., & Law J. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society, 17–50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pottage A. (2006). Too much ownership: Bio-prospecting in the age of synthetic biology. BioSocieties, 1, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roco M.C., & Bainbridge W.S. (Eds.) (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Royal Society (2007) Call for views: Synthetic biology, June. URL (accessed May 2009): royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=4297
  52. Simpson B., & Carroll B. (2008). Re-viewing ‘role’ in processes of identity construction. Organization, 15, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vinck D. (1999). Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique. Contribution à la prise en compte des objets dans les dynamiques sociales. Revue française de sociologie, 40, 385–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wenger E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© London School of Economics and Political Science 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Molyneux-Hodgson
    • 1
  • Morgan Meyer
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Sociological StudiesUniversity of Sheffield, ElmfieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.CSI—Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation, MINES ParisTechParisFrance

Personalised recommendations