Dados Bibliográficos

AUTOR(ES) A. Mackenzie , L. Busch , Richard Ellis , Brian Wynne , Rachel McNally , Claire Waterton , Emma K. Frow
AFILIAÇÃO(ÕES) ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen), Lancaster University, Bailrigg, UK, Michigan State University, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Innovation and Technology Management, Anglia Ruskin University, Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK
ANO 2013
TIPO Artigo
PERIÓDICO Science Technology and Human Values
ISSN 0162-2439
E-ISSN 1552-8251
EDITORA Annual Reviews (United States)
DOI 10.1177/0162243912474324
CITAÇÕES 2
ADICIONADO EM 2025-08-18
MD5 43bba864bd9236f2996aa8731a7c55a7

Resumo

Recent accounts of 'the biological' emphasize its thoroughgoing transformation. Accounts of biomedicalization, biotechnology, biopower, biocapital, and bioeconomy tend to agree that twentieth- and twenty-first-century life sciences transform the object of biology, the biological. Amidst so much transformation, we explore attempts to stabilize the biological through standards. We ask: how do standards handle the biological in transformation? Based on ethnographic research, the article discusses three contemporary postgenomic standards that classify, construct, or identify biological forms: the Barcoding of Life Initiative, the BioBricks Assembly Standard, and the Proteomics Standards Initiative. We rely on recent critical analyses of standardization to suggest that any attempt to attribute a fixed property to the biological actually multiplies dependencies between values, materials, and human and nonhuman agents. We highlight ways in which these biological standards cross-validate life forms with forms of life such as publics, infrastructures, and forms of disciplinary compromise. Attempts to standardize the biological, we suggest, offer a good way to see how a life form is always also a form of life.

Ferramentas