POCO
The Post-Genomic Era – How does increasing complexity change the debate on genetics?
Genomics comes up with complex and sometimes contradictory insights. Not only scientists but also doctors, teachers or journalists have to cope with ever-new concepts of what a gene is.
Defining a gene, or how genes are regulated, meaning the relation between genotype and phenotype, turned out to be more complex than expected. The complexity of the debate startled even experts, needless to say that it confused everyone else. If and how the new insights in the field of genomics are perceived outside the science-community, and what strategies are used to master understanding of them, was the central question of the project POCO (The Post-Genomic Era: How does increasing complexity change the debate on genetics?).
Seven explorative investigations dealt with
- paradigm change in genomics,
- genome Research in Science and Technology Studies and Gender Studies,
- the doctor-patient relationship,
- whether and how the complexity was perceived by stakeholders,
- the public perceptions of complex technology,
- genetic privacy and
- policy advice.
ITA coordinated the project and contributed the parts on the science base, genetic privacy and policy advice.
The results
showed that in some instances the issue did not seem to have registered at all; for example, insights from genomics did not seem to have any influence on the doctor-patient relationship. In many areas outside of a medical context, even conventional genetics appeared to be too complex to warrant dealing with it.
Also, while natural sciences accept multiple definitions of a gene, large parts of the public and the social sciences cling to the understanding of a gene being a piece of DNA, uniquely defining a property of the organism. Announcements of new discoveries of “genes for” this and that are supporting this misperception. In fact, what a gene really is, is of little relevance for non-experts. What counts are the benefits, risks and moral implications of research results, especially for those groups of people who are to some extent confronted with these results in their daily lives.
When it comes to communicating the latest research results, a more realistic rhetoric could eliminate many misconceptions. Take for example the issue of data privacy: Many still think that gene sequences convey information about particular persons. But it’s just not that simple. It seems that a more grounded communication strategy, which not only emphasises the potentials of new technology but also the limits to explanatory power, is needed.
Publikationen
Publikationen
- . (2010). Perception of Complexity, Trust, Knowledge and Communication Skills in Gene Science: A Survey Among Different Stakeholders in Austria. In J. G. Lavino & Neumann, R. B. (Eds.), Psychology of Risk Perception. Nova Science Publishers.RISENWBIB Abstract
The complete sequencing of the human genome marked the onset of the postgenomics era that was accompanied by the establishment of a variety of science branches, such as functional genomics, proteomics, and systems biology. Recent scientific insights on the complexity of gene networks have finally replaced the traditional nderstanding of “one gene-one protein-one function”. In our study we investigated if and how these changes were perceived and communicated by different stakeholders (scientists, teachers, NGO, journalists, public relation officials and the general public). By means of a quantitative survey with 918 participants from Austria, we analysed what the term “complexity” in gene science meant for different stakeholders, whether complexity in gene research is perceived to have increased in the last 15 years, and how stakeholders judged themselves and others in terms of trust, knowledge, ability to communicate, and as valid information source. Finally we analysed what kind of information channels were used by the different stakeholders. Our results show that complexity is not understood as a decrease in controllability, and that the sequencing of the Human Genome does not seem to have specifically increased perceived complexity in gene science. We also found that some stakeholders, especially scientists, NGOs and science journalists, have a somehow distorted view of their own capabilities and status among other stakeholders. This misperception could be a consequence of the different importance assigned to scientific, political, social, ethical and ecological aspects, and unless made transparent will hamper any communication effort between these stakeholders.
- . (2009). Fuzzy Genes – Epistemic tensions in genomics. Science As Culture, 65-87.RISENWBIB Abstract
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.
- . (2007). POCO - Wie wird die Komplexität in der Genomforschung vermittelt?. Ita-Newsletter, 5. Retrieved from https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/ita/ita-newsletter/NL0307.pdf#5
- . (2007). Post-Genomics and Complexity (POCO) – The Post-Genomic Era: How does increasing complexity change the debate on genetics? GEN-AU/ELSA project final report. Wien.
- . (2006). Welche Rationalität durch Verfahren?. Teorie Vedy/Theory Of Science, 15, 245-264.
- . (2006). Wissen und Werte als Verhandlungsform. Ethikexpertise in der Regulation der Stammzellenforschung. In R. Wink (Ed.), Deutsche Stammzellenpolitik im Zeitalter der Transnationalität (pp. 141-163). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Konferenzbeiträge/Vorträge
Konferenzbeiträge/Vorträge
-
25/11/2004
Alexander Bogner:
Technikbewertung durch Laien und Experten am Beispiel der Biomedizin
NTA1 Konfernz "Technik in einer fragilen Welt. Die Rolle der Technikfolgenabschätzung", Berlin, 25.-26. November
Other Lecture
Duration
11/2003 - 11/2006
Team
- Helge Torgersen
- Walter Peissl