Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enrolling the Toggle Switch: Visionary Claims and the Capability of Modeling Objects in the Disciplinary Formation of Synthetic Biology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Synthetic biology is a research field that has grown rapidly and attracted considerable attention. Most prominently, it has been labelled the ‘engineering of biology’. While other attempts to label the field have been also pursued, the program of engineering can be considered the core of the field’s disciplinary program, of its identity. This article addresses the success of the ‘engineering program’ in synthetic biology and argues that its success can partly be explained by distinct practices of persuasion that aim at persuading scientific, but also non-scientific audiences. The article explores two different modes of persuasion:, building tools as heuristic models and posing visionary claims. Objects such as the toggle switch or the synthetic oscillator in synthetic biology can more adequately be described as heuristic models of engineering instead of simply as prototypes of ‘tools’. Posing visionary claims can be also understood as a persuasion practice, since the claims are used to construct the societal relevance of the field. Drawing upon Michel Callon’s ‘sociology of translation’, I argue that both practices of persuasion aim at ‘enrolling’ entities into the disciplinary identity. The article is based on the textual analysis of rhetorical practices in three synthetic biology review articles which are considered seminal for the history of the field.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although such visionary practices can be attributed to only a few approaches in the field, these are especially important for the legitimization of the field.

  2. In some accounts that aim at proposing the disciplinary program of synthetic biology one refers to a ‘prehistory of synthetic biology’ [2; 8]. Such a claim of continuity can often be found in scientific fields in early phases of their formation [54, 55]. This ‘prehistory’ is identified with the first occurrence of the term synthetic biology in the early 20th century [56: 50]. Most of these usages date even back to the time before 1920 [57: 230]. At that time, Jacques Loeb and Stephane Leduc aimed at establishing a ‘technical biology’ with the ultimate goal of constructing synthetic organisms [58, 59]. Biological organisms in this respect were thought of as ‚chemical machines’ [59]. The thoughts of Leduc and Loeb, however, were mostly refuted by their peers at that time [see 57]. Nevertheless, this small episode is exploited to speak of a ‘renaissance of synthetic biology’ in the very recent development of the field [60].

  3. The ‘persuasiveness’ of objects should not be considered a strategic and intentional action of synthetic biologists but rather the outcome of a techno-scientific practice. I am grateful to reviewer comments for this clarification.

  4. Very recently, a new approach at the boundaries between conceptual history and STS has emerged that focuses on the epistemic quality and performativity of such heuristic models [68, 69]. Drawing on examples of different scientific fields, Benoit Godin argues that such models have many more functions than just translating research questions into propositions that provide a model of reality. On the contrary, heuristic models can be understood as a means of persuasion that relate their phenomenality to a specific semantic repertoire.

  5. See methods section for further details.

  6. These are particularly strong, for instance, in introductions and conclusions of review articles. (Swales 1990; Swales 1989). By the time this paper was being drafted, the article by Gardner et al. (2000) had been cited more than 1,750 times (Source: Web of Knowledge), 1,692 citations being listed in the Web of Science Core collection (provided by Thomson Reuters). According to the Web of Knowledge User Interface, 283 of these citations stem from articles with the document type ‘Review Article’. (Date:10/12/2015).

  7. These are complemented by attempts to baptize the field. Notions of control have influenced considerations as to how this new approach can be legitimately named. The first scientific actors therefore labeled these efforts as ‘intentional biology’ in order to demonstrate that nature can be transformed into a resource by constructionist approaches.

  8. The Article has been cited 283 times according to Web of Science. See footnote 5 for details.

  9. One very recent example is an article entitled: ‘Designer cell signal processing circuits for biotechnology ‘(Bradley et al. 2015) In its abstract it says: ‘Great progress has been made in expanding the categories of characterized biological components that can be used for cellular signal manipulation, thereby allowing synthetic biologists to more rationally program increasingly complex behaviours into living cells. Here I present a current overview of the components and strategies that exist for designer cell signal processing and decision making, discuss how these have been implemented in prototype systems for therapeutic, environmental, and industrial biotechnological applications, and examine emerging challenges in this promising field.’ Consequently, the article shows how the term ‘characterization’ becomes legitimately introduced in synthetic biology through the exemplification of the toggle switch and the oscillator to which the article refers.

  10. Michel Callon labeled such a mechanism the ‘obligatory passage point’ in his ‘sociology of translation’ [16].

  11. The main goal of this step is not to describe all publications but to identify the review documents for a detailed analysis. The criterion for the identification of the review articles should be their influence on the scientific community. I chose ‘times cited’ (as offered by web of Science) as the main criterion for selection. Although it is often contested in the bibliometric community, citations are still the main indicator for that attribute. Furthermore, citations are also the main focus of attention for scientific publications in extra scientific audiences.

  12. It is known from studies of scientific popularization and public understanding of science that citations also influence media coverage and will consequently also reach other, non-scientific audiences [see, for instance 80]. That may be an explanation for why visionary claims can be often found in review articles in synthetic biology which are usually much more often cited than other forms of scientific texts [81, 82]. In synthetic biology, review papers make up an untypically huge part of the publications in the field [44].

  13. In a similar vein, Elena Simakova interpreted the engagement of researchers in interviews as the settings about future stories in nanotechnology as a means of ‘making nano matter’ [39].

  14. Results of the study are not presented here, but the methods section provides an overview of the general approach.

  15. Other approaches dealing with the textual aspects of persuasion are [41–43, 87].

  16. According to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, this refers to the ‘choice of presentation’ which is one element by which the persuasiveness of the discourse might be improved. They argue that the presentation of the arguments, their style and interpretation needs to relate to the audience’s preferences [88]. Of course, again, such an effect on the audience cannot directly be studied in textual analysis alone but needs to be complemented by analyses of how the audience reacts to the presentations of claims [76: 868].

  17. The results suggest that audiences are more willing to accept normative evaluations from narratives than from logical or scientific arguments [91: 13616].

  18. Temporality is an important aspect of building future expectations. Cynthia Selin in her study on the emergence of the nanotechnology discourse holds that the temporal distance is only implicitly incorporated in visionary claims: ‘The recourse to time built into an expectation can be short or longer term, yet is rarely made explicit’ [31: 211].

  19. Examples of these ‘grand narratives’ are typically legitimating narrations such as ‘the natural state’ treaty in the 17th century.

  20. The label ‘synthetic biology’ emerged as a term to conquer that niche of disciplinary transformation. Campos explored how the term ‘synthetic biology developed among biologists and biotechnologists to establish a transformation of biology. Initially, the new program was supposed to be labeled ‘intentional biology’, a concept which was put forward particularly by Drew Endy and Robert Carlson [61]. As biologists refused to accept that all previous biological research might be labeled ‘unintentional, the term’ ‘ synthetic biology’ was introduced. Hence, the initial aim to underline the engineering effort is less obvious.

  21. Bensaude-Vincent has uncovered that besides ‘putting engineering into biology’, ‘chemical biology’ was another disciplinary project by way of which synthetic biology was supposed to be be oriented to follow the model of Synthetic Organic Chemistry [95]. Benner and Sismour are the main scientific actors that pushed forward these ideas, but others followed them by relating synthetic biology to its envisioned disciplinary ancestors [21].

  22. Similarly, Law and Williams interpret the opening paragraphs of the DIVEMA group article as a tool to bind to the program: ‚The aim is to mobilize those with an interest in chemotherapy. An array of claims and hypotheses about Divema and its compounds is so designed as to be attractive to those concerned with the chemical treatment of cancer [41: 540].

  23. This might contradict Cynthia Selin’s observations regarding the strategies for acquiring legitimacy in nanotechnology [2]. Selin claimed a two-headed strategy of visionary communication: Scientists use the distant future and its promises to gain funding and legitimacy with politicians, but continue to reject the vision when seeking legitimacy within their own communities of practice (…) [2: 213].

  24. The term ‘persuasion tale’ was used in order to refer to the ‘tale of emergence’ of synthetic biology, a term employed by Molyneux-Hodgson and Meyer [28].

  25. In an interview with a leading scholar in the field, the interviewee complained about this writing practice in synthetic biology. ‘Even in the first PhD papers’, he admitted, (…)’you will find these sentences about what synthetic biology aims at and how it seeks to contribute to certain problems. If you think of cancer research, you will soon find how strange that is: No one would expect you to begin an article by ‘cancer research aims’ or ‘cancer research contributes to” [113].

  26. This does even more apply to ‘Converging Technologies’ [115] as another concept that has been introduced to the science policy interface with the attempt to follow the footsteps of nanotechnology. Whereas many technological developments can be related to the concept (1202008), no dedicated epistemic practice has been established.

  27. Simakova explored various sites where such societal relevance can be addressed, most of them not oriented only towards scientific but other societal audiences such as instance technology transfer offices or educational programs.

  28. According to Calvert and Fujimura [117: 160], the search for a binding disciplinary program in the realm of other sciences can be interpreted as a means to achieve greater epistemic credibility.

References

  1. Heinemann M, Panke S (2006) Synthetic biology - putting engineering into biology. Bioinformatics 22(22):2790–2799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andrianantoandro E, Basu S, Karig DK et al (2006) Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Mol Syst Biol 16:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  3. McDaniel R, Weiss R (2005) Advances in synthetic biology: on the path from prototypes to applications. Curr Opin Biotechnol 17:476–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Endy D (2005) Foundations for engineering biology. Nature 438:449–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cserer A, Seiringer A (2009) Pictures of synthetic biology: a reflective discussion of the representation of synthetic biology in the German Media and by SB Experts. Syst Synth Biol 3(1–4):27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Deplazes A (2009) Piecing together a puzzle: an exposition of synthetic biology. EMBO Rep 10:428–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. O'Malley MA, Powell A, Davies J et al (2008) Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. Bioessays 30:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kastenhofer K (2013) Synthetic biology as understanding, control, construction, and creation? Techno-epistemic and socio-political implications of different stances in talking and doing technoscience. Futures 48:13–22. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kastenhofer K (2013) Two sides of the same coin? The (techno) epistemic cultures of systems and synthetic biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(2):130–140. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Frow E, Calvert J (2013) Opening up the future(s) of synthetic biology. Futures 48:32–43. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gelfert A (2013) Synthetic biology between technoscience and thing knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(2):141–149. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brigandt I (2013) Systems biology and the integration of mechanistic explanation and mathematical explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(4):477–492. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. O'Malley MA (2009) Making knowledge in synthetic biology: design meets kludge. Biol Theory 4(4):378–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Oldham P, Hall S, Burton G et al (2012) Synthetic biology: mapping the scientific landscape. PLoS One 7(4):e34368. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cameron ED, Bashor CJ, Collins JJ (2014) A brief history of synthetic biology. Nat Rev Microbiol 12:381–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Callon M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law J (ed) Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? Routledge, London, pp 196–223

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bensaude-Vincent B, Loeve S, Nordmann A et al (2011) Matters of interest: the objects of research in science and technoscience. J Gen Philos Sci 42(2):365–383. doi:10.1007/s10838-011-9172-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts with a new postscript and index by the authors. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lenoir T (1997) Instituting science: the cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brenner K, You L, Arnold FH (2008) Engineering microbial consortia: a new frontier in synthetic biology. Trends Biotechnol 26:483–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yeh BJ, Lim WA (2007) Synthetic biology: lessons from the history of synthetic organic chemistry. Nat Chem Biol 3(9):521–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ro DK et al (2006) Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artimisin acid in engineered yeast. Nature 440:940–943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Keasling JD (2012) Synthetic biology and the development of tools for metabolic engineering. Metab Eng 14(3):189–195. doi:10.1016/j.ymben.2012.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tyo K, Alper S, Stephanopoulos GN (2007) Expanding the metabolic engineering toolbox: more options to engineer cells. Trends Biotechnol 25(3):132–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bensaude Vincent B (2013) Between the possible and the actual: philosophical perspectives on the design of synthetic organisms. Futures 48:23–31. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bensaude Vincent B (2013) Discipline-building in synthetic biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(2):122–129. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Balmer A, Martin P (2008) Synthetic biology: social and ethical challenges. Institute for Science and Society, University of Nottingham, Nottingham

    Google Scholar 

  28. Molyneux-Hodgson S, Meyer M (2009) Tales of emergence—synthetic biology as a scientific community in the making. BioSocieties 4(2–3):129–145. doi:10.1017/S1745855209990019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kearnes M (2013) Performing synthetic worlds: situating the bioeconomy. Sci Public Policy 40(4):453–465. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. de Vriend H, Walhout B (2006) Constructing life: Early reflections on the emerging field of synthetic biology. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag

  31. Selin C (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–220. doi:10.1177/0162243906296918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K et al (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Brown N (2003) A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Tech Anal Strat Manag 15(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Brown M, Rappert B, Webster A (2000) Contested futures: a sociology of prospective technoscience. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hedgecoe A, Martin P (2003) The drugs dont work: expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Soc Stud Sci 33(3):327–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Konrad K (2006) The social dynamics of expectations: the interaction of collective and actor-specific expectations on electronic commerce and interactive television. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3–4):429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. van Lente H, Rip A (1998) Expectations in technological developments: an example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In: van Lente H, Rip A (eds) Getting new technologies together: studies in making sociotechnical order. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 203–231

    Google Scholar 

  38. van Lente H, Rip A (eds) (1998) Getting new technologies together: studies in making sociotechnical order. de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  39. Simakova E (2012) Making nano matter: an inquiry into the discourses of governable science. Sci Technol Hum Values 37(6):604–626. doi:10.1177/0162243911429334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Callon M, Law J (1982) On interests and their transformation: enrolment and counter-enrolment. Soc Stud Sci 12:615–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Law J, Williams R (1982) Putting facts together: a study of scientific persuasion. Soc Stud Sci 12(4):535–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bazerman C (1989) Introduction: rhetoricians on the rhetoric of science. Sci Technol Hum Values 14(1):3–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Myers G (1985) Texts as knowledge claims: the social construction of two biology articles. Soc Stud Sci 15(4):593–630. doi:10.1177/030631285015004002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Blümel C (2014) Strategies of legitimization in synthetic biology: recent findings of publication practices. European Consortium of Political Research, Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kuckartz U (2014) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schmidt M, Krelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A et al (eds) (2009) Synthetic biology: the technoscience and its societal consequences. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schmidt JC (2008) Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. Poiesis Prax 5(1):53–69. doi:10.1007/s10202-007-0037-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kastenhofer K (2011) Risk assessment of emerging technologies and post-normal science. Sci Technol Hum Values 36(3):307–333. doi:10.1177/0162243910385787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Haraway D (ed) (1985) Simians, cyborgs and women: the reinvention of nature. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  50. Weber J (2010) Making worlds: epistemological, ontological and political dimensions of technoscience. Poiesis Prax 7(1–2):17–36. doi:10.1007/s10202-010-0076-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Nordmann A (2006) Collapse of distance: epistemic strategies of science and technoscience. Dan Yearb Philos 41:7–34

  52. Benner SA, Sismour AM (2005) Synthetic biology. Nat Rev Genet 6:533–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Keller EF (2009) What does synthetic biology have to do with biology? BioSocieties 4(2–3):291–302. doi:10.1017/S1745855209990123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Graham L, Lepenies W, Weingart P (eds) (1983) The functions and uses of disciplinary histories. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  55. Abir-Am P (1985) Themes, genres and orders of legitimation in the consolidation of new scientific disciplines: deconstructing the historiography of molecular biology. Hist Sci 23:73–117

  56. Morange M (2009) A new revolution?: The place of systems biology and synthetic biology in the history of biology. EMBO Rep 10:50–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Fangerau H (2009) From Mephistopheles to Isaiah: Jaques Loeb, technical biology and war. Soc Stud Sci 39(2):229–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Loeb J (1912) The mechanistic conception of life. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Leduc S (1912) La biologie synthétique. Poinot, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  60. Peretó J, Català J (2007) The renaissance of synthetic biology. Biol Theory 2(2):128–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Campos L (2009) That was the synthetic biology that was. In: Schmidt M, Krelle A, Ganguli-Mitra A et al (eds) Synthetic biology: the technoscience and its societal consequences. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 5–21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. Morange M (2009) A critical perspective on synthetic biology. HYLE - International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 15(1):21–30

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hartwell LH, Hopfield JJ, Leibler SA et al (1999) From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402:C47–C52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Gardner TS et al (2000) Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia Coli. Nature 403:339–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Elowitz M, Leibler SA (2000) A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature 403:335–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sprinzak D, Elowitz M (2005) Reconstruction of genetic circuits. Nature 438:443–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Singh V (2014) Recent advances and opportunities in synthetic logic gates engineering in living cells. Syst Synth Biol 8:271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Godin B (2015) Models in Innovation Research, presentation at the CASTI meeting, June 2015, Berlin

  69. Schauz D (2014) Wissenschaftspolitische Sprache als Gegenstand von Forschung und disziplinärer Selbstreflexion - Das Programm des Forschungsnetzwerkes CASTI. E-Journal - Forum Interdisziplinäre Begriffsgeschichte 3(2):49–61

    Google Scholar 

  70. Martin V (2003) Engineering a mevalonate pathway in Escherichia Coli for production of terpenoids. Nat Biotechnol 21:796–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Dhar P, Giuliani A (2010) Laws of biology: why so few? Syst Synth Biol 4:7–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Zimmer M (2002) Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP): applications structure and related photophysical behavior. Chem Rev 102:759–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Dierkes M, Hoffmann U, Marz L (1992) Leitbild und Technik. Zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen. Edition Sigma, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  74. Konrad K (2001) Electronic Commerce: Erwartungsdynamiken, Leitbilder, Szenarien - Zwei Fallstudien zu Entwicklung und Einsatz von Anwendungen im Business-to-Business-Bereich (Electronic Commerce: Expectation Dynamics, Leitbilder, Scenarios – Two Case Studies on the Development and Implementation of Business-to-Business Applications). Arbeitsbericht der Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung

  75. van Lente H, Rip A (1998) The rise of membrane technology: from rhetorics to social reality. Soc Stud Sci 28(2):221–254. doi:10.1177/030631298028002002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Godin B (1997) The rhetoric of a health technology: the microprocessor patient card. Soc Stud Sci 27(6):865–902. doi:10.1177/030631297027006002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Sovacool BK, Ramana MV (2014) Back to the future: small modular reactors, nuclear fantasies, and symbolic convergence. Sci Technol Hum Values. doi:10.1177/0162243914542350

    Google Scholar 

  78. Calvert J (2006) What’s special about basic research? Sci Technol Hum Values 31(2):199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Jasanoff S (2004) Science and citizenship: a new synergy. Sci Public Policy 31(2):90–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kiernan V (2003) Diffusion of news about research. Sci Commun 25:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Jokic M, Ball R (2006) Qualität und Quantität wissenschaftlicher Veröffentlichungen.: Bibliometrische Aspekte der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Jülich

    Google Scholar 

  82. Michon F, Tummers M (2009) The dynamic interest in topics within the biomedical scientific community. PLoS One 4(8):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rieke R, Sillars M, Peterson T (2012) Argumentation and critical decision making, 6th edn. Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  84. Gusfield J (1976) The literary rhetoric of science: comedy and pathos in drinking driver research. Am Sociol Rev 41(1):16–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Overington MA (1977) The scientific community as audience: toward a rhetorical analysis of science. Philos Rhetor 10(3):143–164

    Google Scholar 

  86. Kaufer D, Geisler C (1989) Novelty in academic writing. Writ Commun 6(5):286–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Bazerman C (1988) Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madisin

    Google Scholar 

  88. Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: a treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  89. Fahnestock J (2011) Rhetorical style: the uses of language in persuasion. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  90. Arnold M (2012) Erzählen. Die ethisch-politische Funktion narrativerDiskurse. In: Arnold M, Dressel G, Viehöver W (eds) Erzählungen im Öffentlichen: Über die Wirkung narrativer Diskurse. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp 17–64

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  91. Dahlstrom MF (2014) Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(Supplement_4):13614–13620. doi:10.1073/pnas.1320645111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Eriksson A, Olbricht T, Übelacker W (eds) (2002) Rhetorical argumentation in biblical texts: essays from the Lund 2000 Conference. Trinity Press International, Harrisburg

    Google Scholar 

  93. Bastide F, Courtial JP, Callon M (1989) The use of review articles in the analysis of a research area. Scientometrics 15:535–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Carlson R (2003) The pace and proliferation of biological technologies. Accessed 28 Nov 2014

  95. Bensaude Vincent B (2009) Synthetic biology as a replica of synthetic chemistry? Uses and misuses of history. Biol Theory 4(4):314–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Shapin S (2001) How to be antiscientific? In: Labinger JK, Collins HM (eds) The one culture? A conversation about science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 99–115

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  97. Boden M, Johnston R, Scapolo F (2012) The role of FTA in responding to grand challenges: a new approach for STI policy? Sci Public Policy 39(2):135–139. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Foray D, Mowery DC, Nelson R (2012) Public R&D and social challenges: what lessons from mission R&D programs? Res Policy 41(10):1697–1702. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Cagnin C, Amanatidou E, Keenan M (2012) Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play. Sci Public Policy 39(2):140–152. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Lyall C, Fletcher I (2013) Experiments in interdisciplinary capacity-building: the successes and challenges of large-scale interdisciplinary investments. Sci Public Policy 40(1):1–7. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Bhan A, Singh JA, Upshur REG et al (2007) Grand challenges in global health: engaging civil society organizations in biomedical research in developing countries. PLoS Med 4(9):e272. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Porcar M, Danchin A, de Lorenzo V et al (2011) The ten grand challenges of synthetic life. Syst Synth Biol 5(1–2):1–9. doi:10.1007/s11693-011-9084-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Douglas C, Stemerding D (2013) Special issue editorial: synthetic biology, global health, and its global governance. Syst Synth Biol 7:63–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Kwok R (2010) Five hard truths for synthetic biology. Nature 463:288–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Hyland K (1996) Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics 17(4):433–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Gibbons M (1994) Introduction. In: Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H et al (eds) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  107. Slaughter S, Rhoades G (1996) The emergence of a competetiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 21:303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Slaughter S (1997) Academic capitalism: politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  109. Latour B, Woolgar S (1987) Science in action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  110. Schauz D (2015) Wissenschaftsgeschichte und das Revival der Begriffsgeschichte. N.T.M. 23: 53–63

  111. Hyland K (2000) Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  112. Callon M, Law J, Rip A (eds) (1986) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: sociology of science in the real world. The Macmillan Press, Houndmill

    Google Scholar 

  113. ‘Interview A’ with a scholar at a conference (September 2014)

  114. Am H (2013) ‘Don’t make nanotechnology sexy, ensure its benefits, and be neutral’: studying the logics of new intermediary institutions in ambiguous governance contexts. Sci Public Policy 40(4):466–478. doi:10.1093/scipol/sct054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Roco MC (2003) Nanotechnology: convergence with modern biology and medicine. Curr Opin Biotechnol 14(3):337–346. doi:10.1016/S0958-1669(03)00068-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C et al (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M et al (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000

    Google Scholar 

  117. Calvert J, Fujimura J (2011) Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42:155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Myers G (1996) Strategic vagueness in academic writing. In: Ventola E, Mauranen A (eds) Academic writing: intercultural and textual issues. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 3–19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  119. Mowery DC (2012) Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies. Res Policy 41(10):1703–1715. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Stephanopoulos G (2012) Synthetic biology and metabolic engineering. ACS Synth Biol 1(11):514–525. doi:10.1021/sb300094q

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been funded by the German Research Foundation in the context of the project “Reviews als Legitimationsressource neuer Forschungsfelder. Die Rolle von wissenschaftlichen Reviews als strategischem Medium im Legitimationsprozess zwischen Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft am Beispiel der Synthetischen Biologie“ which is part of a priority program on “Science and the Public” (SPP 1409). I am grateful to Stephan Gauch and Martin Reinhart for helpful recommendations. Furthermore, I am indebted to communications with participants of the European Summer School on Technology Assessment which took place in Berlin, 14–19th September 2014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Clemens Blümel

Authors
  1. Clemens Blümel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clemens Blümel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blümel, C. Enrolling the Toggle Switch: Visionary Claims and the Capability of Modeling Objects in the Disciplinary Formation of Synthetic Biology. Nanoethics 10, 269–287 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0276-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-016-0276-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation