Abstract:Epigenetics stands in a complex relationship to issues of sex and gender. As a scientific field, it has been heavily criticized for disproportionately targeting the maternal body and reproducing deterministic views of biological sex (Kenney and Müller, 2017; Lappé, 2018; Richardson et al., 2014). And yet, it also represents the culmination of a long tradition of engaging with developmental biology as a feminist cause, because of the dispersal of the supposed ‘master code’ of DNA among wider cellular, organismi… Show more
“…In effect, contemporary efforts to understand phenotypic plasticity and stability have yielded multiscalar findings that support the conclusions of Paillard and others: organisms' phenotypic plasticity and stabilityor their tendency to move onto, stay in, or move off of a trajectorycan result from passive or active processes, continuous or discontinuous changes, and adaptive or nonadaptive responses to environments that may or may not be reversible (see Morange, 2009: 495; see also Lawson-Boyd and Meloni, 2021). In other words, plasticity at a discrete level among scales of biological organization (e.g.…”
Section: Rethinking Trajectories and Models Of Canalization Between H...mentioning
What sets someone on a life trajectory? This question is at the heart of studies of 21st-century neurosciences that build on scientific models developed over the last 150 years that attempt to link psychopathology risk and human development. Historically, this research has documented persistent effects of singular, negative life experiences of people's subsequent development. More recently, studies have documented neuromolecular effects of early life adversity on subsequent life trajectories, resulting in models that frame lives as disproportionately affected by early negative experiences. This view is dominant despite little evidence of the stability of the presumably early-developed molecular traits and their potential effects on phenotypes. We argue that in the context of gaps in knowledge and the need for scientists to reason across molecular and phenotypic scales, as well as time spans that can extend beyond an individual's life, specific interpretative frameworks shape the ways in which individual scientific findings are assessed. In the process, scientific reasoning slides between understandings of cellular homeostasis and organisms' homeorhesis, or life trajectory. Biologist and historian François Jacob described this framework as the "attitude" that researchers bring to bear on their "objects" of study. Through an analysis of, first, historical and contemporary scientific literature and then ethnographic research with neuroscientists, we consider how early life trauma came to be associated with specific psychological and neurobiological effects grounded in understandings of life trajectories. We conclude with a consideration of the conceptual, ontological, and ethical implications of interpreting life trajectories as the result of the persistence of long-embodied biological traits, persistent life environments, or both.
“…In effect, contemporary efforts to understand phenotypic plasticity and stability have yielded multiscalar findings that support the conclusions of Paillard and others: organisms' phenotypic plasticity and stabilityor their tendency to move onto, stay in, or move off of a trajectorycan result from passive or active processes, continuous or discontinuous changes, and adaptive or nonadaptive responses to environments that may or may not be reversible (see Morange, 2009: 495; see also Lawson-Boyd and Meloni, 2021). In other words, plasticity at a discrete level among scales of biological organization (e.g.…”
Section: Rethinking Trajectories and Models Of Canalization Between H...mentioning
What sets someone on a life trajectory? This question is at the heart of studies of 21st-century neurosciences that build on scientific models developed over the last 150 years that attempt to link psychopathology risk and human development. Historically, this research has documented persistent effects of singular, negative life experiences of people's subsequent development. More recently, studies have documented neuromolecular effects of early life adversity on subsequent life trajectories, resulting in models that frame lives as disproportionately affected by early negative experiences. This view is dominant despite little evidence of the stability of the presumably early-developed molecular traits and their potential effects on phenotypes. We argue that in the context of gaps in knowledge and the need for scientists to reason across molecular and phenotypic scales, as well as time spans that can extend beyond an individual's life, specific interpretative frameworks shape the ways in which individual scientific findings are assessed. In the process, scientific reasoning slides between understandings of cellular homeostasis and organisms' homeorhesis, or life trajectory. Biologist and historian François Jacob described this framework as the "attitude" that researchers bring to bear on their "objects" of study. Through an analysis of, first, historical and contemporary scientific literature and then ethnographic research with neuroscientists, we consider how early life trauma came to be associated with specific psychological and neurobiological effects grounded in understandings of life trajectories. We conclude with a consideration of the conceptual, ontological, and ethical implications of interpreting life trajectories as the result of the persistence of long-embodied biological traits, persistent life environments, or both.
“…[13] [and] suggest that epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation, may be a window into the brain's memory". [14] They and others are interested in how memory may be traced through epigenetic modifications in the brain, at a molecular level. Drawing mostly on research on model organisms, Day and Sweatt further argue that:…”
Section: Text Box 1: On the History Of The Concept Of Traumatic Memoriesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 13 ] [and] suggest that epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation, may be a window into the brain's memory”. [ 14 ] They and others are interested in how memory may be traced through epigenetic modifications in the brain, at a molecular level. Drawing mostly on research on model organisms, Day and Sweatt further argue that: An interesting new understanding has emerged: developmental regulation of cell division and cell terminal differentiation involve many of the same molecular signaling cascades that are employed in learning and memory storage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this understanding of molecular memory, the epigenome is “a crucial ‘missing link’ between life experiences and gene expression, which in turn will influence the ways in which neuronal circuitry and brain structures develop”. [ 14 ]…”
Just over 20 years ago, molecular biologists Leonie Ringrose and Renato Paro published an article with a provocative title, "Remembering Silence", in BioEssays. The article focused on how epigenetic elements could return to their silent state, operationally defined as their epigenetic status before their modulation by experimental or environmental factors. Though Ringrose and Paro's article was on fruit flies and factors affecting embryological growth, the article asked a question of considerable importance to rapidly expanding research in neuroepigenetics on the correlation between trauma and neuropsychiatric risk: If you experience a traumatic event and, as a result, acquire an epigenetic trait that is considered pathological, can you free yourself of that trait? Ultimately, we are interested in how a return to silence is envisioned in neuroepigenetics research, how interventions purported to bring about that silence might function, and what this might mean for people who live in the aftermath of trauma.
“…Postgenomic science offers rich biological accounts to inform new biosocial models of reproduction, kinship, and inheritance. Developments in epigenetics, microbiomics, and metabolomics can be seen as “the culmination of a long tradition of engaging with developmental biology as a feminist cause, because of the dispersal of the supposed ‘master code’ of DNA among wider cellular, organismic and ecological contexts” (Lawson-Boyd and Meloni 2021, 2; see also Keller 1997; Jablonka 2013). For scholars working in feminist science studies, postgenomics has offered useful scientific data to inform new stories about social identity and reproduction beyond the pernicious reductionism of a longstanding discourse of woman-as-womb (Clare 2019; Yoshizawa 2016).…”
Section: Reproductive Bodies and The Biosocial Imaginarymentioning
In this Introduction, we present a collection of articles under the topic “the reproductive bodies of postgenomics.” Through individual and collective research, the articles explore—sociologically, ethnographically, and philosophically—how bioscience in the postgenomic age is changing our understanding of reproductive bodies, and more broadly, how it is challenging existing ideas of heredity, embodiment, kinship, and identity. Feminist and postcolonial theories of technoscience are at the heart of this collection, and our aim is to further biosocial thinking while being cognizant that practices of postgenomics also continue to reproduce deterministic paradigms. The concepts of “knowledge,” “experience,” and “justice” form the reference points animating our investigations. We bring these concepts into conversation with one another to disentangle how postgenomics operate differently on the reproductive body, namely on the levels of practice, discourse, and norms. This is an important exercise as it will enable social science and humanities scholars to evaluate the political capacities of postgenomics for the future study of reproduction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
