Fuzzy Genes: Epistemic Tensions in Genomics

• Published in: Science as culture Vol. 18; no. 1; pp. 65 - 87
• Main Author: Torgersen, Helge
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Routledge 01.03.2009
• Subjects: Biology; Certainty; Communication; Computer science; context dependency; Engineering; epistemic cultures; Experiments; Genetics; Genomics; Methodology; Methodology (Data Collection); multi-disciplinary cooperation; News Coverage; post-genomics; Qualitative analysis; science communication; Scientists; systems biology
• ISSN: 0950-5431; 1470-1189
• DOI: 10.1080/09505430802603829

Genomics contributed to making modern biology a prolific multi-disciplinary field leading to new approaches such as systems biology. Reporting in the media reflects the high stakes involved in these changes, but such reporting often appears inconsistent as contradictory claims are made about new applications contrasting with uncertainties from new insights. Such inconsistent claims might relate to different disciplines involved in the field. New approaches from engineering disciplines such as computer science have changed research practices and approaches towards the object; the meaning of genes having become context-dependent. Since disciplines must cooperate, tensions arise over methods, evidence criteria and the significance of hypotheses. The concept of epistemic cultures, developed to highlight differences between distant fields such as high-energy physics and molecular biology, can render insights into the 'cultures' related to practices and approaches within genomics. Qualitative interviews with scientists shed light on how computer science and experimental molecular biology co-operate and which problems arise from epistemic differences as the criteria for relevant findings become subject to the disciplinary context. In addition, genomics-like approaches have entered other fields of biological research, whilst systems biology further challenges hypothesis-driven experimentation. This may lead to a new epistemic culture differing from the one previously described. These findings provide insights into how different accounts arise and shed light on general properties of prolific multi-disciplinary research fields. Inconsistencies in the way such fields appear from outside might be considered normal rather than the exception.