A high profile context in which physics and biology meet today is in the new field of systems biology. Systems biology is a fascinating subject for sociological investigation because the demands of interdisciplinary collaboration have brought epistemological issues and debates front and centre in discussions amongst systems biologists in conference settings, in publications, and in laboratory coffee rooms. One could argue that systems biologists are conducting their own philosophy of science. This paper explores the epistemic aspirations of the field by (...) drawing on interviews with scientists working in systems biology, attendance at systems biology conferences and workshops, and visits to systems biology laboratories. It examines the discourses of systems biologists, looking at how they position their work in relation to previous types of biological inquiry, particularly molecular biology. For example, they raise the issue of reductionism to distinguish systems biology from molecular biology. This comparison with molecular biology leads to discussions about the goals and aspirations of systems biology, including epistemic commitments to quantification, rigor and predictability. Some systems biologists aspire to make biology more similar to physics and engineering by making living systems calculable, modelable and ultimately predictable—a research programme that is perhaps taken to its most extreme form in systems biology’s sister discipline: synthetic biology. Other systems biologists, however, do not think that the standards of the physical sciences are the standards by which we should measure the achievements of systems biology, and doubt whether such standards will ever be applicable to ‘dirty, unruly living systems’. This paper explores these epistemic tensions and reflects on their sociological dimensions and their consequences for future work in the life sciences. (shrink)

In this article we examine the history of the production of microarray technologies and their role in constructing and operationalizing views of human genetic difference in contemporary genomics. Rather than the “turn to difference” emerging as a post-Human Genome Project phenomenon, interest in individual and group differences was a central, motivating concept in human genetics throughout the twentieth century. This interest was entwined with efforts to develop polymorphic “genetic markers” for studying human traits and diseases. We trace the technological, methodological (...) and conceptual strategies in the late twentieth century that established single nucleotide polymorphisms as key focal points for locating difference in the genome. By embedding SNPs in microarrays, researchers created a technology that they used to catalog and assess human genetic variation. In the process of making genetic markers and array-based technologies to track variation, scientists also made commitments to ways of describing, cataloging and “knowing” human genetic differences that refracted difference through a continental geographic lens. We show how difference came to matter in both senses of the term: difference was made salient to, and inscribed on, genetic matter, as a result of the decisions, assessments and choices of collaborative and hybrid research collectives in medical genomics research. (shrink)

This paper presents a narrative history of technologies in cancer research circa 1920-1978 and a theoretical perspective on the complex, intertwined relationships between scientific problems, material practices and technologies, concepts and theories, and other historical circumstances. The history presents several active lines of research and technology development in the genetics of cancer in the United States which were constitutive of protooncogene work in its current form. I write this history from the perspective of technology development. Scientists participating in cancer research (...) created tools with which to study their problems of interest, but the development of the tools also influenced the questions asked and answered in the form of concepts and theories developed. These tools included genetic ideas of the 1920s, inbred mouse colonies, chemicals and antibiotics developed during World War Two, tissue cultures and their technical procedures, and viruses. I examine these tools as standardized experimental systems that standardized materials as well as practices in laboratories. Inbred animals, tissue culture materials and methods, and tumor viruses as experimental systems gave materiality to 'genes' and 'cancer'. They are technical-natural objects that stand-in for nature in the laboratory. (shrink)