MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2603828516 · doi:10.1353/bhm.2017.0021

The Genealogy of a Gene: Patents, HIV/AIDS, and Race by Myles W. Jackson

2017· article· en· W2603828516 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven Epstein

Notice bibliographique

RevueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistory of Science and Medicine
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGenealogyRace (biology)PopulationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ScholarshipGeneticsPoliticsBiologyHistorySociologyVirologyPolitical scienceDemographyLawGender studies

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Genealogy of a Gene: Patents, HIV/AIDS, and Raceby Myles W. Jackson Steven Epstein Myles W. Jackson. The Genealogy of a Gene: Patents, HIV/AIDS, and Race. Transformations: Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2015. 352 pp. Ill. $37.00 (978-0-262-02866-0). “Find Out If You Are Resistant to HIV—NOW ONLY $199.00.” So reads an advertisement from the Canadian company PALFIR Human Genetics (p. 169), promoting its test to detect the presence of an allele that can confer immunity against HIV infection. The genetic variant in question is known as the Δ32mutation of a gene called CCR5, and the topic of Myles W. Jackson’s The Genealogy of a Geneis precisely this gene, but more broadly the recent historical confluence of science, commerce, and politics that makes such an ad both imaginable and significant. Discovered in the 1990s and patented soon afterward, CCR5is important primarily because it codes for a protein that enables HIV to fuse with the cells it infects. In providing a “genealogy” of this gene, Jackson establishes how “the definition and emergence of the CCR5gene were predicated on capital, laboratory practices, computer algorithms, statistical analyses, population genetics and biomedical studies, and historical and sociological studies” (p. 23). In this intriguing and exhaustively researched book, Jackson borrows from, but also distinguishes his work from, the line of historical scholarship that seeks to provide “biographies” of scientific objects. 1Because CCR5’s story is so recent and “is still unfolding” (p. 24), Jackson’s project is not so much a full biography as a genealogy in the sense described by Nietzsche and Foucault, with the goal of providing what the latter termed a “history of the present.” Fundamentally, Jackson uses the multifaceted social embeddedness of this gene as “a heuristic tool to probe the boundaries between science, technology, and society” (p. 15). That is, because of the particular ways in which the recent history of CCR5has intersected with a diverse set of social concerns, each chapter is able to take up a part of the story of the gene and treat it as a window onto a larger world. For example, the history of the patent application for CCR5becomes a way to address the very question of what it means for life forms to be patented, as well as the distinctions among intellectual property regimes in different countries. And the discovery that the resistance-conferring Δ32mutation is unequally distributed among human subpopulations becomes the vehicle to consider the broad topic of how understandings of race are being reconfigured by genomics. The project is not simply to survey various fields, though Jackson does it well. Throughout, Jackson seeks to use contingency and contrast to suggest how things might be otherwise, and he calls on historians to be cognizant of the political implications of their scholarship. Jackson’s knowledge of these various areas of modern bioscience and their sociopolitical dimensions is impressive, and he engages with the existing scholarly literature in useful ways. For example, he takes examples from recent developments in the biotech sector to contest STS scholars’ implicit portrayal of “Bio-capitalism” [End Page 151]as a “united front”: “It is not correct that all for-profit institutions are singing in unison against a unified nonprofit stance” (p. 86). But in the end, Jackson’s overviews, syntheses, and critiques are less helpful than they could be because the book is so oversaturated with technical details that the reader often swims through prose as thick as molasses. Jackson argues for the virtues of his approach. He declares, in a special note to the reader that precedes the main text: “Portions of this book . . . are technical. . . . Without these discussions, the book would be a history of science without the science, a trend that has become all too common of late” (p. ix). This proves to be fair warning. The opening pages of the book include half a page devoted to the distinctions between two different DNA and protein sequence alignment software programs, as well as passages like: “In addition, [Edward Berger’s] lab tested the effects of chemokines on...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,998
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,102

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0060,008
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0300,015

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,217
Écart entre enseignants0,187 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBulletin of the history of medicineMême sujetHistory of Science and MedicineTravaux en français237 207