Gendered imaginaries: situating knowledge of epigenetic programming of health

Enacting biosocial complexity: Stress, epigenetic biomarkers and the tools of postgenomics

This article analyses attempts to enact complexity in postgenomic experimentations using the case of epigenetic research on biomarkers of psychosocial stress. Enacting complexity in this research means dissecting multiple so-called biosocial processes of health differentiation in the face of stressful experiences. To characterize enactments of biosocial complexity, the article develops the concepts of complexity work and complexification. The former emphasizes the social, technical, and material work that goes into the production of mixed biological and social representations of stress in epigenetics. The latter underlines how complexity can be assembled differently across distinct configurations of experimental work. Specifically, complexification can be defined as producing, stabilizing, and normalizing novel experimental systems that are supposed to improve techno-scientific enactments of complexity. In the case of epigenetics, complexification entails a reconfiguration of postgenomic experimental systems in ways that some actors deem 'better' at enacting health as a biosocial process. This study of complexity work and complexification shows that biosocial complexity is hardly a univocal enterprise in epigenetics. Consequently, the article calls for abandoning analysis of these research practices using clear-cut dichotomies of reductionism vs. holism, as well as simplicity vs. complexity. More broadly, the article suggests the relevance of a sociology of complexification for STS approaches to complexity in scientific practices. Complementing the existing focus on complexity as instrumental rhetoric in contemporary sciences, complexification directs analytical attention to the pragmatic opportunities that alternative (biosocial) complexities offer to collective, societal, and political thinking about science in society.

Refusing epigenetics: indigeneity and the colonial politics of trauma

Environmental epigenetics is increasingly employed to understand the health outcomes of communities who have experienced historical trauma and structural violence. Epigenetics provides a way to think about traumatic events and sustained deprivation as biological "exposures" that contribute to ill-health across generations. In Australia, some Indigenous researchers and clinicians are embracing epigenetic science as a framework for theorising the slow violence of colonialism as it plays out in intergenerational legacies of trauma and illness. However, there is dispute, contention, and caution as well as enthusiasm among these research communities.In this article, we trace strategies of "refusal" (Simpson, 2014) in response to epigenetics in Indigenous contexts. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Australia with researchers and clinicians in Indigenous health, we explore how some construct epigenetics as useless knowledge and a distraction from implementing anti-colonial change, rather than a tool with which to enact change. Secondly, we explore how epigenetics narrows definitions of colonial harm through the optic of molecular trauma, reproducing conditions in which Indigenous people are made intelligible through a lens of "damaged" bodies. Faced with these two concerns, many turn away from epigenetics altogether, refusing its novelty and supposed benefit for Indigenous health equity and resisting the pull of postgenomics.

Situating the Father: Strengthening Interdisciplinary Collaborations between Sociology, History and the Emerging POHaD Paradigm

(1) Background: Albeit the main focus remains largely on mothers, in recent years Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) scientists, including epigeneticists, have started to examine how a father's environment affects disease risk in children and argued that more attention needs to be given to father's health-related behaviors for their influence on offspring at preconception (i.e., sperm health) as well as paternal lifestyle influences over the first 1000 days. This research ushers in a new paternal origins of health and disease (POHaD) paradigm and is considered a welcome equalization to the overemphasis on maternal influences. Epigeneticists are excited by the possibilities of the POHaD paradigm but are also cautious about how to interpret data and avoid biased impression of socio-biological reality. (2) Methods: We review sociological and historical literatures on the intersection of gender, food and diet across different social and historical contexts to enrich our understanding of the father; (3) Results: Sociological and historical research on family food practices and diet show that there are no "fathers" in the abstract or vacuum, but they are differently classed, racialized and exist in socially stratified situations where choices may be constrained or unavailable. This confirms that epigeneticists researching POHaD need to be cautious in interpreting paternal and maternal dietary influences on offspring health; (4) Conclusions: We suggest that interdisciplinary approach to this new paradigm, which draws on sociology, history and public health, can help provide the social and historical context for interpreting and critically understanding paternal lifestyles and influences on offspring health.

You Are What Your Mother Endured: Intergenerational Epigenetics, Early Caregiving, and the Temporal Embedding of Adversity

Environmental epigenetics has become a site of growing attention related to the intergenerational effects of stress, trauma, and adversity. This article draws on a multi-sited ethnography of epigenetic knowledge production in the United States and Canada to document how scientists conceptualize, model, and measure these experiences and their effects on children's neurodevelopmental and behavioral health. We find that scientists' efforts to identify the molecular effects of stress, trauma, and adversity results in a temporal focus on the mother-child dyad during early life. This has the effect of biologizing early childhood adversity, positioning it as a consequence of caregiving, and producing epigenetic findings that often align with individually oriented interventions rather than social and structural change. Our analysis suggests that epigenetic models of stress, trauma, and adversity therefore situate histories of oppression, inequality, and subjugation in discrete and gendered family relations, resulting in the temporal embedding of adversity during early life.

Epidemiologists’ ambivalence towards the epigenetics of social adversity

This article studies how social epidemiologists get involved in research carried out on rodent models to explore the biological pathways underpinning exposure to social adversity in early life. We analyze their interdisciplinary exchanges with biologists in a social epigenetics project—i.e., in the experimental study of molecular alterations following social exposures. We argue that social epidemiologists are ambivalent regarding the use of non-human animal models on two levels: first, in terms of whether such models provide scientific evidence useful to social epidemiology, and second, regarding whether such models help promote their conception of public health. While they maintain expectations towards rodent experiments by elevating their functional value over their representational potential, they fear that their research will contribute to a public health approach that focuses on individual responsibility rather than the social causes of health inequalities. This interdisciplinary project demonstrates the difficulties encountered when research in social epigenetics engages with the complexities of laboratory experiments and social environments, as well as the conflicting sociopolitical projects stemming from such research.

Governing Personalized Health: A Scoping Review

Genetic research is advancing rapidly. One important area for the application of the results from this work is personalized health. These are treatments and preventive interventions tailored to the genetic profile of specific groups or individuals. The inclusion of personalized health in existing health systems is a challenge for policymakers. In this article, we present the results of a thematic scoping review of the literature dealing with governance and policy of personalized health. Our analysis points to four governance challenges that decisionmakers face against the background of personalized health. First, researchers have highlighted the need to further extend and harmonize existing research infrastructures in order to combine different types of genetic data. Second, decisionmakers face the challenge to create trust in personalized health applications, such as genetic tests. Third, scholars have pointed to the importance of the regulation of data production and sharing to avoid discrimination of disadvantaged groups and to facilitate collaboration. Fourth, researchers have discussed the challenge to integrate personalized health into regulatory-, financing-, and service provision structures of existing health systems. Our findings summarize existing research and help to guide further policymaking and research in the field of personalized health governance.

"It's Never Too Early": Preconception Care and Postgenomic Models of Life

In this article, we are concerned with the expanded public health interest in the "preconception period" as a window of opportunity for intervention to improve long-term population health outcomes. While definitions of the "preconception period" remain vague, new classifications and categories of life are becoming formalized as biomedicine begins to conduct research on, and suggest intervention in, this undefined and potentially unlimited time before conception. In particular, we focus on the burgeoning epidemiological interest in epigenetics and Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) research as simultaneously a theoretical spyglass into postgenomic biology and a catalyst toward a public health focus on preconception care. We historicize the notion that there are long-term implications of parental behaviors before conception, illustrating how, as Han and Das have noted, "newness comes to be embedded in older forms even as it transforms them" (Han and Das, 2015, p. 2). We then consider how DOHaD frameworks justify a number of fragmented claims about preconception by making novel evidentiary assertions. Engaging with the philosophy of Georges Canguilhem, we examine the relationship between reproductive risk and revised understandings of biological permeability, and discuss some of the epistemic and political implications of emerging claims in postgenomics.

« Healthy children, healthy nations. » Discipliner les corps reproducteurs pour la santé de qui ?

Cadre de la recherche: À partir d’un cadre théorique et conceptuel issu de la sociologie et des études sur le genre, cet article analyse la promotion d’un récent programme international de santé à l’intention des femmes et des enfants dont l’argumentaire scientifique s’enracine dans le domaine de l’épigénétique. Il serait désormais possible, en intervenant de façon précoce sur l’environnement (nutritionnel) des individus durant les périodes préconceptionelle et périconceptionnelle (la grossesse et les deux premières années de vie des enfants), de prévenir l’apparition de pathologies chroniques à l’âge adulte.

Objectifs: Il s’agit ici de retracer l’historique de cette biopolitique (Foucault, 2004), d’en décrire son processus de légitimation, et ce afin d’interroger d’importants enjeux sociaux qui en découlent notamment sur le plan de nouvelles normes et injonctions autour de la production d’enfants (sains).

Méthodologie: Pour ce faire, nous déployons une méthodologie associant revue de littérature scientifique et grise, ethnographie de l’ONG états-unienne 1,000 Days et entretiens semi-directifs auprès d’experts internationaux (OMS, USAID, Unicef, Sun).

Résultats: Nous montrons que ce programme contribue à l’assise d’une morale profondément inégalitaire qui s’appuie d’abord sur une promesse médicale, mais s’adosse en parallèle à une promesse économique : un corps en meilleure santé serait garant tant de la productivité des enfants, alors pensés comme des adultes en devenir, que des saines finances des nations, notamment les pays des Nords.

Conclusions: En creux d’un programme focalisé sur la santé des jeunes enfants et des nations émerge un « dressage » des corps en gestation, et tout particulièrement des corps des femmes subalternes : obèses, racisées, malades ou pauvres.

Contribution: Cet article démontre les apports de la contribution scientifique des sciences sociales et des études sur le genre, aux recherches médicales sur la santé des enfants ainsi qu’à leur mise en politique.

A task that remains before us: Reconsidering inheritance as a biosocial phenomenon

What doesit mean to inherit? Debates about the meaning of inheritance are numerous in the history and the present of the biological and the social sciences. While the majority of contributions in this special issue discuss hitherto unthought of molecular mechanisms of biological inheritance, this review explores the contested territory of inheritance from a social science perspective. Specifically, it examines contemporary biological research on epigenetic forms of inheritance in its historical and social contexts. To that end, the review explores what biology itself has been inheriting when it comes to how it considers inheritance conceptually and experimentally. I delineate three particularly important strands of inheritance: inheriting a history of eugenics; inheriting determinist reasoning; and inheriting experimental reductionism. I approach the social and scientific meaning of these inheritances by following scholars such as Donna Haraway and Jacques Derrida, who frame inheritance not as a passive occurrence but as an active process, as a task that must be undertaken by those who inherit. Such a framing raises the question of what it might mean to inherit something responsibly - particularly when what needs to be inherited is not an object but a difficult history. I argue that in order to become 'response-able' to this question, researchers who investigate biological inheritance today must engage these histories critically and review their legacies in present-day research. This is a task biologists might not want to undertake alone, but in interdisciplinary collaboration with social scientists and humanities scholars, in order to mobilize multiple forms of expertise for understanding the complex biosocial processes of human inheritance.