Classifying, Constructing, and Identifying Life Standards as Transformations of “The Biological”. Mackenzie, A., Waterton, C., Ellis, R., Frow, E. K., McNally, R., Busch, L., & Wynne, B. 38(5):701–722. 00001
Classifying, Constructing, and Identifying Life Standards as Transformations of “The Biological” [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Recent accounts of “the biological” emphasize its thoroughgoing transformation. Accounts of biomedicalization, biotechnology, biopower, biocapital, and bioeconomy tend to agree that twentieth- and twenty-first-century life sciences transform the object of biology, the biological. Amidst so much transformation, we explore attempts to stabilize the biological through standards. We ask: how do standards handle the biological in transformation? Based on ethnographic research, the article discusses three contemporary postgenomic standards that classify, construct, or identify biological forms: the Barcoding of Life Initiative, the BioBricks Assembly Standard, and the Proteomics Standards Initiative. We rely on recent critical analyses of standardization to suggest that any attempt to attribute a fixed property to the biological actually multiplies dependencies between values, materials, and human and nonhuman agents. We highlight ways in which these biological standards cross-validate life forms with forms of life such as publics, infrastructures, and forms of disciplinary compromise. Attempts to standardize the biological, we suggest, offer a good way to see how a life form is always also a form of life.
@article{Mackenzie_2013d,
  langid = {english},
  title = {Classifying, {{Constructing}}, and {{Identifying Life Standards}} as {{Transformations}} of “{{The Biological}}”},
  volume = {38},
  issn = {0162-2439, 1552-8251},
  url = {http://sth.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/content/38/5/701},
  doi = {10.1177/0162243912474324},
  abstract = {Recent accounts of “the biological” emphasize its thoroughgoing transformation. Accounts of biomedicalization, biotechnology, biopower, biocapital, and bioeconomy tend to agree that twentieth- and twenty-first-century life sciences transform the object of biology, the biological. Amidst so much transformation, we explore attempts to stabilize the biological through standards. We ask: how do standards handle the biological in transformation? Based on ethnographic research, the article discusses three contemporary postgenomic standards that classify, construct, or identify biological forms: the Barcoding of Life Initiative, the BioBricks Assembly Standard, and the Proteomics Standards Initiative. We rely on recent critical analyses of standardization to suggest that any attempt to attribute a fixed property to the biological actually multiplies dependencies between values, materials, and human and nonhuman agents. We highlight ways in which these biological standards cross-validate life forms with forms of life such as publics, infrastructures, and forms of disciplinary compromise. Attempts to standardize the biological, we suggest, offer a good way to see how a life form is always also a form of life.},
  number = {5},
  journaltitle = {Science, Technology \& Human Values},
  shortjournal = {Science Technology Human Values},
  urldate = {2013-11-28},
  date = {2013-09-01},
  pages = {701--722},
  keywords = {Proteomics,standards,publics,infrastructures,Biology,taxonomy,Synthetic Biology},
  author = {Mackenzie, Adrian and Waterton, Claire and Ellis, Rebecca and Frow, Emma K. and McNally, Ruth and Busch, Lawrence and Wynne, Brian},
  file = {/home/mackenza/.zotero/zotero/zl26h2qh.default/zotero/storage/T46URANV/Mackenzie et al. - 2013 - Classifying, Constructing, and Identifying Life St.pdf;/home/mackenza/.zotero/zotero/zl26h2qh.default/zotero/storage/JQ58JIRK/701.html},
  note = {00001}
}

Downloads: 0