What binds biosociality? The collective effervescence of the parent-led conference

The social value of genomic sequencing for disadvantaged families facing rare disease

This study explores parental expectations and value-making processes in respect to pediatric clinical genomic sequencing for socially disadvantaged families. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic observations with parents of children with undiagnosed physical and/or intellectual differences seeking to find whether these differences have a genetic etiology, we explore expectations and parental assessments of the value of genomic sequencing within the context of an ongoing research study. We demonstrate how the value of sequencing to parents goes well beyond finding diagnostic results or receiving prescriptive guidance as to the best care and treatment of their child; instead, value is co-created by parents, clinicians, and genetic counsellors throughout the enrollment and return of results process. Parents in our study found that clinicians and genetic counsellors repeatedly reenforce that parents need to lower their expectations and be prepared to wait for genetic science to provide more definitive answers. At the same time, parents experience that clinical teams validate parents for having made a good choice in their undertaking of genomic sequencing and, no matter the result, that they are not to blame for their child's symptoms. The experience of many parents (although not all) is that genomic science reduces or removes their sense of guilt for their child's condition, providing a platform that affirms them as "good parents." Moreover, rather than being voiceless and isolated, socially disadvantaged parents who enter into diagnostic sequencing find themselves in a familial-biosocial framework wherein they are co-partners in a socially and biologically authoritative vision of the future.

Patient narratives of hope in stem cell technologies: Trust in biomedicine and the body's natural ability to heal itself

The scholarship on patient hope in biomedical technologies describes two narratives of hope: the biomedical and the individual. The biomedical narrative represents patients' beliefs that the institution of science will eventually produce treatment for their disease, whereas the individual narrative represents patients' beliefs that they can alter their prognosis through affective and behavioral modifications. The distinct analytical categories of "biomedical" and "individual," however, fail to account for the fact that patient hope has been found to be much more complex. Building upon extant literature, we contribute to the understanding of the complexity of patient hope in biomedical technologies by examining a case that highlights interdependencies between the biomedical and individual narratives: hope in stem cell technologies (SCTs). We draw upon interviews with patients with Parkinson's Disease, and find two narratives of hope: a biomedical narrative, as captured above, and an additional hybrid narrative, which we call a nature narrative. The nature narrative reflects patients' beliefs that scientists will eventually create SCTs that will allow their individual body to naturally heal itself, which combines a biomedical and an individual narrative.

"A Good Guy" Again: Biosociality in a Cancer Self-help Organization

The notion of biosociality has been employed in the understanding of forging new forms of social groupings and other forms of social solidarity, with its feasibility and basis challenged in non-Western contexts. According to our study of a Chinese cancer self-help organization, an emergent biosociality occurs through an increasingly common diagnostic biomedical category, cancer. But what truly binds these people tighter is the pre-modern local knowledge of qi, as well as state ideology about living a useful life. A new form of biosocial citizenship, "a good guy (haoren yige)," linked to cancer, is thus endowed.

Systematic scoping review of the concept of 'genetic identity' and its relevance for germline modification

EU legislation prohibits clinical trials that modify germ line 'genetic identity'. 'Genetic identity' however, is left undefined. This study aims to identify the use of the term 'genetic identity' in academic literature, and investigate its relevance for debates on genetic modification. A total of 616 articles that contained the term were identified. Content analysis revealed that the term was used in various and contradicting ways and a clear understanding of the term is lacking. This review demonstrates that the EU legislation is open to interpretation, because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is currently used. Because of the diversity of meaning with which 'genetic identity' is used and understood, further reflection is needed. This requires further medical, legal, ethical and social debate and a coordinated response at both a European and a global level.

Doing laboratory ethnography: reflections on method in scientific workplaces

Laboratory ethnography extended the social scientist's gaze into the day-to-day accomplishment of scientific practice. Here we reflect upon our own ethnographies of biomedical scientific workspaces to provoke methodological discussion on the doing of laboratory ethnography. What we provide is less a 'how to' guide and more a commentary on what to look for and what to look at. We draw upon our empirical research with stem cell laboratories and animal houses, teams producing robotic surgical tools, musicians sonifying data science, a psychiatric genetics laboratory, and scientists developing laboratory grown meat. We use these cases to example a set of potential ethnographic themes worthy of pursuit: science epistemics and the extended laboratory, the interaction order of scientific work, sensory realms and the rending of science as sensible, conferences as performative sites, and the spaces, places and temporalities of scientific work.