Calculable bodies: Analysing the enactment of bodies in bioinformatics

Abstract

In this paper, we analyse how human bodies are understood and viewed in bioinformatics, partly based on participant observations of a basic bioinformatics course and interviews with bioinformatics researchers. With the proliferation of genomic data, bioinformatics has come to play a crucial role in developments in the biological and biomedical sciences. It is thus worth looking at the role of bioinformatics in current understandings of human bodies. Our analysis shows that bodies in this context can be understood as networked and calculable, along the lines of the analytical logic of informatics. Central to this view are the genome sequences that do not, as in earlier narratives on genes as essentially informational, contain bodies completely. Rather, bodies are enacted as accessible through these sequences. In the process, bodies are continuously matched to the digital image of a normal body. This normal body is an ideal rather than an average body, an ideal that arises from the possibilities and restrictions of science and computer technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    We will focus on molecular biology, genetics and genomics as the specific sites of developments within biology that we describe in this paper. There is a difference between those fields. Molecular biology has a broader focus on biological processes on the molecular level, genetics specifically looks at single genes or sets of genes and genomics looks at entire genomes or large parts of it. Since these fields greatly overlap in their approaches and are intertwined in their history and since the differences are not the focus of our research, we do use them more or less as interchangeable. That is to say, reference to one of them may include the others.

  2. 2.

    These are notes from Jan van Baren-Nawrocka, who is the ‘I’ in these observations.

  3. 3.

    The ‘we’ in these observations refer to the students that follow the classes.

  4. 4.

    See http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P61626.txt.

  5. 5.

    Those bioinformatics skills were tested later in a small project that involved using the bioinformatics tools they had familiarised ourselves with during the course.

References

  1. Agar, J. 2006. What difference did computers make? Social Studies of Science 36 (6): 869–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bencard, A. 2009. Life beyond information: Contesting life and the body in history and molecular biology. In Contested categories: Life sciences in society, ed. S. Bauer and A. Wahlberg, 135–154. Ashgate Pub.: Burlington.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chow-White, P.A., and M. Garcia-Sancho. 2012. Bidirectional shaping and spaces of convergence: Interactions between biology and computing from the first DNA Sequencers to global genome databases. Science, Technology and Human Values 37 (1): 124–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Darling, K.W., S.L. Ackerman, R.H. Hiatt, S.S.J. Lee, and J.K. Shim. 2016. Enacting the molecular imperative: How gene-environment interaction research links bodies and environments in the post-genomic age. Social Science and Medicine 155: 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de Mul, J. 1999. The informatization of the worldview. Information, communication & society 2: 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Haraway, D.J. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hayles, N.K. 1999. How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hine, C. 2006. Databases as scientific instruments and their role in the ordering of scientific work. Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 269–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hood, L. 2003. Systems biology: Integrating technology, biology, and computation. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 124 (1): 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hood, L., and M. Flores. 2012. A personal view on systems medicine and the emergence of proactive P4 medicine: predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory. New Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2012.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hood, L., and D. Galas. 2003. The digital code of DNA. Nature 421 (6921): 444–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kay, L.E. 2000. Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Keller, E.F. 1995. Refiguring life: Metaphors of twentieth-century biology. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Keller, E.F. 2014. From gene action to reactive genomes. Journal of Physiology-London 592 (11): 2423–2429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Knorr Cetina, K. 1995. Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson, and T. Pinch, 140–166. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lenoir, T. 1999. Shaping biomedicine as an information Science. Proceedings of the 1998 conference on the history and heritage of science information systems, Pittsburgh, PA, 23–25 October 1998, 27–45. Ann Arbor, MI: The American Society for Information Science and the Chemical Heritage Foundation.

  17. Leonelli, S. 2012. When humans are the exception: Cross-species databases at the interface of biological and clinical research. Social Studies of Science 42 (2): 214–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Leonelli, S., and R.A. Ankeny. 2012. Re-thinking organisms: The impact of databases on model organism biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (1): 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. M’charek, A. 2005. The human genome diversity project: An ethnography of scientific practice. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mackenzie, A. 2003. Bringing sequences to life: How bioinformatics corporealizes sequence data. New Genetics and Society 22 (3): 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mackenzie, A. 2015. Machine learning and genomic dimensionality: From features to landscapes. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on biology after the genome, ed. S.S. Richardson and H. Stevens, 1–8. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mansfield, B., and J. Guthman. 2015. Epigenetic life: Biological plasticity, abnormality, and new configurations of race and reproduction. Cultural Geographies 22 (1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mol, A. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Niewöhner, J. 2011. Epigenetics: Embedded bodies and the molecularisation of biography and milieu. Biosocieties 6 (3): 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Novas, C., and N. Rose. 2000. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society 29 (4): 485–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Richardson, S.S., and H. Stevens. 2015. Approaching postgenomics. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on biology after the genome, ed. S.S. Richardson and H. Stevens, 1–8. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rose, N. 2009. Normality and pathology in a biomedical age. Sociological Review 57: 66–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stevens, H. 2013. Life out of sequence: A data-driven history of bioinformatics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stevens, H. 2015. Networks: Representations and tools in postgenomics. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on biology after the genome, ed. S.S. Richardson and H. Stevens, 103–125. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stevens, H. 2017. A feeling for the algorithm: Working knowledge and big data in biology. Osiris 32 (1): 151–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stevens, H., and S.S. Richardson. 2015. Beyond the genome. In Postgenomics: Perspectives on biology after the genome, ed. S.S. Richardson and H. Stevens, 1–8. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Thacker, E. 2003. Data made flesh: Biotechnology and the discourse of the posthuman. Cultural Critique 53 (53): 72–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van Baren-Nawrocka, Jan. 2013. The bioinformatics of genetic origins: how identities become embedded in the tools and practices of bioinformatics. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 9 (1): 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The manuscript is comprised of original material that is not under review elsewhere. All interviewees have been informed that the interview data would be anonymised and used for a research project on bioinformatics and human identity. None of the authors have any competing interests—intellectual or financial—in the research detailed in the manuscript.

Funding

Funding was provided by Centre for Society and Genomics (NL).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan van Baren-Nawrocka.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: amino acid table

Table 1

Appendix 2: example question

Table 2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Baren-Nawrocka, J., Consoli, L. & Zwart, H. Calculable bodies: Analysing the enactment of bodies in bioinformatics. BioSocieties 15, 90–114 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-019-00143-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bioinformatics
  • Genomics
  • Sequence data
  • Human bodies
  • Calculable bodies
  • Normality