Author:
García-Sancho Miguel,Lowe James
Abstract
AbstractIn this concluding chapter, we explore the implications of our historical investigation for research and policies pertaining to genomic data. We outline the particular form of ‘epistemic iteration’ that operates in genomics and further develop the idea of ‘webs of reference’. Through this, we address one of the main consequences of our overarching argument: that problems in bridging ‘translational gaps’ are to a significant extent rooted in the specific model of the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. Conversely, the alternative models of genomics that we have explored in the book provide indications as to how to configure work in the life sciences to avoid such gaps between the results of genomics research and outcomes in medicine, agriculture or other spheres of activity. Our consideration of different communities of genomicists and their heterogeneous ways of interacting with their target genomes helps in uncovering the diversity of genomics and comprehending a variety of modes of translation.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference38 articles.
1. Agar, J. (2020). What is science for? The Lighthill report on artificial intelligence reinterpreted. The British Journal for the History of Science, 53(3), 289–310.
2. Ankeny, R. A. (2000). Fashioning descriptive models in biology: Of worms and wiring diagrams. Philosophy of Science, 67(Proceedings), S260–S272.
3. Ankeny, R. A. (2007). Wormy logic: Model organisms as case-based reasoning. In A. N. H. Creager, E. Lunbeck, & M. N. Wise (Eds.), Science without laws: Model systems, cases, exemplary narratives (pp. 46–58). Duke University Press.
4. Ankeny, R. A., & Leonelli, S. (2011). What’s so special about model organisms? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(2), 313–323.
5. Ballouz, S., Dobin, A., & Gillis, J. A. (2019). Is it time to change the reference genome? Genome Biology, 20, 159.