Standardizing work as a recursive process: shaping the embryonic stem cell field

Abstract

In this paper, we examine processes of standardization and their role in helping to stabilize human embryonic stem cells as biological objects and in building the stem cell field itself. Drawing on empirical data from the emerging embryonic stem cell field, we explore the various arenas within which standardizing work goes on and how these relate to each other as different types of labour within and beyond the lab, one to do with stabilizing the bioobject and a second to do with its comparability and identity within a wider domain. Standardizing work reflects the recursive relation between these processes which are discussed via the concepts of bio-objectification and bio-identification.

Governing the research-care divide in clinical biobanking: Dutch perspectives

“…The emergence of clinical biobanking has gone hand in hand with a blurring of the boundaries between clinical care and medical research. Specific components of that blurring can be understood as bio-objectification, a process through which novel personal and biological entities (in our case tissue and data) come into being and result in a reframing of the roles, responsibilities and agency of other parties, entities and institutions involved (L. Eriksson and Webster 2015 ). In particular, we see three forms of bio-objectification taking place in clinical biobanking, each of which is challenging conventional boundaries between biomedical research and clinical care.…”

“…This is reflected in concerted efforts in PSI to minimize the work and time expended on biobanking for patients, research nurses and clinicians by integrating tissue and data procurement as efficiently as possible in day-to-day clinical care. These adjustments in clinical routines, which also involve mundane aspects such as training of research nurses and timing of clinical appointments, are forms of bio-objectification that allow for patients’ data and tissue to be swiftly transformed into “workable epistemic objects” (Eriksson and Webster 2015 ).…”

Imagining the future of cell therapies: clinical trials, innovation and the intersection of clinical-academic and commercial visions

“…Co-production provides a useful analytical toolkit for the STS researcher, most importantly the four common pathwaysor "ordering instruments"of co-production that Jasanoff identifies: making identities, making institutions, making discourses and making representations. These ordering instruments are reflected in much of the STS literature on regenerative medicine: for instance, the concurrent emergence of science and the institutions that shape it has been highlighted in research on the UK Stem Cell Bank (Stephens, Atkinson, and Glasner 2008a, 2008b, 2011 and the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult (Gardner and Webster 2017); different identitiesand the tensions between themare explored in studies of the translational medicine agenda (such as Brosnan and Michael 2014;Wainwright et al 2006); the making of scientific representations, the ways that these representations travel and the work that they do are explored in studies of the development of standards, norms and shared understandings of cell therapies (Eriksson and Webster 2015;Webster and Eriksson 2008;Webster, Haddad, and Waldby 2011); and discourses are visible in research highlighting how expectations and promissory narratives about the future potential of cell therapies are deployed to create certain realities in the present (Brown and Michael 2003;Kitzinger and Williams 2005;Martin, Brown, and Kraft 2008).…”

Uncertainty and innovation: Understanding the role of cell-based manufacturing facilities in shaping regulatory and commercialization environments

“…One such risk derives from the novelty and manufacturing technicality of CTPs. Canada addresses this in part by investing in facilities that reflect “good manufacturing practices” (GMP) (French et al, 2013, Webster et al, 2011, Eriksson and Webster, 2015, Rosemann, 2014, Webster and Eriksson, 2008). Highly networked, multi-stakeholder initiatives assess regulatory pathways, mobilize knowledge and standardize GMPs across Canada (e.g.…”