The paradox of care in behavioral epigenetics: Constructing early-life adversity in the lab
- 110 Downloads
Many epigenetic studies focus on how stress, trauma, and care become molecularly embodied, affect gene expression without changing DNA sequence, and produce changes that influence the health and behavior of individuals, their offspring, and future generations. This article describes how care has become central in research on the epigenetic effects of early-life adversity. My analysis draws on ethnographic research in a behavioral epigenetics laboratory in the United States. Building on traditions in feminist science studies, I document how care is enacted with research samples, experimental protocols, and behavioral endpoints in experiments with model organisms. My findings point to tensions between researchers’ care for the data and their measurement of adversity as a discrete variable in the form of maternal interaction, neglect, and abuse in mice. I argue that these tensions suggest a ‘paradox of care’ that is actively shaping how epigenetic knowledge is produced and its impacts both within and beyond the lab, including for understandings of how early-life experiences shape human health, and our social expectations of mothers. This study suggests that more complex explanations of health and development promised by epigenetics are simultaneously constructed and constrained by caring practices in the laboratory.
KeywordsBehavioral epigenetics Care Early-life adversity Knowledge production Feminist science studies Laboratory ethnography
Research for this article was supported by National Human Genome Research Institute Grants P50HG007257 and K99HG009154.
- Curley, J.P. and Champagne, F.A. (2016) Influence of maternal care on the developing brain: Mechanisms, temporal dynamics and sensitive periods. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 40: 52–66Google Scholar
- Daniels, C. (2006) Exposing Fathers: The Science and Politics of Male Reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
- Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Martin, A., Myers, N. and Viseu, A. (2015) The politics of care in technoscience. Social Studies of Science 45(5): 625–641Google Scholar
- Meloni, M., Williams, S. and Martin, P. (2016) The biosocial: Sociological themes and issues. The Sociological Review Monograph Series: Biosocial Matters: Rethinking Sociology-Biology Relations in the Twenty-First Century, 64: 7–25Google Scholar
- Mukherjee, S. (2016) Same but different: How epigenetics can blur the line between nature and nurture. The New Yorker: May 2, 2016, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/02/breakthroughs-in-epigenetics, accessed 1 August 2016.
- Nishi, M., Horii-Hayashi, N., Sasagwa, T. (2014) Effects of early-life adverse experiences on the brain: Implications from maternal separation models in rodents. Frontiers in Neuroscience 8(166): 1–6Google Scholar
- Pickersgill, M. (2018) Epistemic modesty, ostentatiousness and the uncertainties of epigenetics: On the knowledge machinery of (social) science. Sociological Review Google Scholar
- Rheinberger, H.J. (1997) Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Richardson, S. (forthcoming) Plasticity and programming: Feminism and the epigenetic imaginary. Signs Google Scholar
- Star, S.L. (1991) Power, technologies, and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. In: J. Law (ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, technology and Domination. London: Routledge, pp. 26–56Google Scholar
- Tata, D.A. (2012) Maternal separation as a model of early stress: Effects on aspects of emotional behavior and neuroendocrine function. Hellenic Journal of Psychiatry 9: 84–101Google Scholar
- Thompson, C. (2013) Good Science: The Ethical Choreography of Stem Cell Research. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
- Tractenberg, S.G., Levandowski, M.L., de Azeredo, L.A., Orso, R., Roithmann, L.G., Hoffman, E.S., Brenhouse, H., Grassi-Oliverira, R. (2016) An overview of maternal separation effects on behavioral outcomes in mice: Evidence from a four-stage methodological systemic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 18(68): 489–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Waggoner, M.R. (2015) Cultivating the maternal future: Public health and the pre-pregnant self. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 40(4): 939–962Google Scholar