In the space of little more than a decade, ideas of the human genome have shifted significantly, with the emergence of the notion that the genome an individual changes with development, age, disease, environmental inputs, and time. This paper examines the emergence of the genome with a life span, one that experiences drift, instability and mutability, and a host of other temporal changes. We argue that developments in chromatin biology have provided the basis for this genomic embodiment of experience and exposure. We analyze how time has come to matter for the genome through chromatin, providing analysis of examples in which the human life course is being explored as a set of material changes to chromatin. A genome with a lifespan aligns the molecular and the experiential in new ways, shifting ideas of life stages, their interrelation, and the temporality of health and disease.

OBJECTIVES Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by challenges in social communication and interaction and restricted or repetitive behavior, interests, or activities. Although ASD symptoms generally manifest in early childhood, many individuals experience delays accessing an autism diagnosis and related services. In this study, we identify the individual, social, and structural factors that influence parents’ experiences of children’s ASD diagnosis. METHODS Parents of 25 children with autism participated in 60- to 90-minute semistructured in-person interviews. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using the method of grounded theory. This inductive method allowed analysts to identify key themes related to participants’ experiences of children’s ASD diagnosis. RESULTS The process of ASD diagnosis reflects an odyssey that includes 3 key phases: the prediagnosis phase, in which “Making Sense of Child Difference” is a primary characteristic of participants’ experiences; the during-diagnosis phase, when “Navigating Diagnosis” suggests systematic barriers that influence the timing of ASD diagnosis; and the postdiagnosis phase, when participants’ experiences of “Connecting to Services” point to the important role that personal efforts play in gaining access to care. CONCLUSIONS In this study, we highlight individual, social, and structural factors that influence parent experiences before, during, and after their child’s autism diagnosis. Our findings indicate the need for more consistent and continuous support for autistic individuals and their families during the diagnostic odyssey, as well as resources that better represent the diversity of experiences and symptoms associated with autism across the life course.

Research on autism and environmental risk factors has expanded substantially in recent years. My analysis draws attention to the regimes of perceptibility that shape how the environment is materialized in post-genomic science. I focus on how more complex narratives of autism’s causes and social anxieties surrounding child development have helped situate autism risk in women’s bodies before and during pregnancy. This has resulted in what I call the maternal body as environment in autism science. I show that this figure involves three characteristics: the molecularization of the environment, an individualization of risk, and the internalization of responsibility. I argue that these three features point to a new spatial and temporal politics of risk and responsibility that may heighten social and medical surveillance of women’s bodies and decisions, eclipsing larger questions about the uneven distribution of exposures in society and more holistic understandings of health that include neurodiversity. I conclude by considering what the maternal body as environment signals for women, social justice, and the politics of environmental health in the post-genomic era.

What constitutes “human reproduction” is under negotiation as its biology, social nature, and cultural valences are increasingly perceived as bound up in environmental issues. This review maps the growing overlap between formerly rather separate domains of reproductive politics and environmental politics, examining three interrelated areas. The first is the emergence of an intersectional environmental reproductive justice framework in activism and environmental health science. The second is the biomedical delineation of the environment of reproduction and development as an object of growing research and intervention, as well as the marking off of early-life environments as an “exposed biology” consequential to the entire life span. Third is researchers’ critical engagement with the reproductive subject of environmental politics and the lived experience of reproduction in environmentally dystopic times. Efforts to rethink the intersections of reproductive and environmental politics are found throughout these three areas.