What’s in a name? The three genealogies of the social in social epigenetics

Abstract

Social epigenetics – the study of the epigenetic mechanisms through which social environments become biologically embodied – epitomizes recent claims that the boundaries between the natural and the social sciences should be reduced. Relying on a bibliometric study and on a qualitative analysis of publications in social epigenetics, this article investigates how this research area defines and operationalizes the social dimensions that may have an impact on health status and disease risk. The article also addresses how the social sciences engage with social epigenetics. First, the article traces social epigenetics back to five epistemic backgrounds – two in animal research (on social defeat and early-life adversity) and three in human studies (on trauma, early-life nutrition and social adversity over the life-course). Second, it outlines the quest for epigenetic markers of social environments, and the associated expectations and controversies. Third, it analyses the three modes of engagement of the social sciences with human studies in social epigenetics: rejection (social epigenetics trapped in the quest for a ‘social brain’); warning and call for responsibility (social epigenetics has shifted from socioeconomic contexts to individual behaviors); and support and active contribution (social epigenetics may strengthen social studies of health). This article argues that recent developments in social epigenetics could strengthen this third mode of engagement and expand the scope of interdisciplinary collaboration between the natural and the social sciences.

Biological embedding vs. embodiment of social experiences: How these two concepts form distinct thought styles around the social production of health inequalities

“…In this article, we argue that it does matter whether one chooses the term "embedding" or the term "embodiment". Following previous studies in the philosophy and the sociology of science (Bailer Jones, 2002;Keller, 1995;Louvel, 2020), we suggest that studying which concept is used, and in which papers, is an integral part of the study of scientific practices. We draw on the notion of thought style (Fleck, 1935(Fleck, /2008 to relate the uses of the concepts of embedding and embodiment to ways of doing research.…”

Epigenetic citizenship and political claims-making: the ethics of molecularizing structural racism

“…By contrast, members of these communities express a belief that epigenetic evidence merely corroborates what might already be understood from listening to their family and life histories (Nelson 2016 ). In between the two, science studies scholars have urged caution regarding the risks of social epigenetics to contract complex and dynamic social environments and to individualize structural and political forces (Louvel 2020 ; Saldaña-Tejeda 2018 ).…”

Walk on the wild side: a response to Zaina

“…Zaina's reading of the relationship between genetics and epigenetics contains several elements of truth. Although often overlooked, these can be found as well in a thread of well-known philosophical, historical, and sociological work [3][4][5]: epigenetic differences may not just be the marks, the product, or the biological correlates of one's unique exposures to the (ecological, material, and social) environment(s). The epigenome is the result of developmental trajectories (i.e., timing) and individual genetic differences too (i.e., variation).…”