Epigenetics and aging research: Between adult malleability and early life programming

Slowing down decay: biological clocks in personalized medicine

This article discusses so-called biological clocks. These technologies, based on aging biomarkers, trace and measure molecular changes in order to monitor individuals' "true" biological age against their chronological age. Drawing on the concept of decay, and building on ethnographic fieldwork in an academic laboratory and a commercial firm, we analyze the implications of the development and commercialization of biological clocks that can identify when decay is "out of tempo." We show how the building of biological clocks rests on particular forms of knowing decay: In the academic laboratory, researchers focus on endo-processes of decay that are internal to the person, but when the technology moves to the market, the focus shifts as staff bracket decay as exo-processes, which are seen as resulting from a person's lifestyle. As the technology of biological clocks travels from the laboratory to the market of online testing of the consumer's biological age, we observe shifting visions of aging: from an inevitable trajectory of decline to a malleable and plastic one. While decay is an inevitable trajectory starting at birth and ending with death, the commercialization of biological clocks points to ways of stretching time between birth and death as individuals "optimize" their biological age through lifestyle changes. Regardless of admitted uncertainties about what is measured and the connection between maintenance and future health outcomes, the aging person is made responsible for their decaying body and for enacting maintenance to slow down decay. We show how the biological clock's way of "knowing" decay turns aging and its maintenance into a life-long concern and highlight the normative implications of framing decay as malleable and in need of intervention.

Caring for biosocial complexity. Articulations of the environment in research on the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease

The research field of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) provides a framework for understanding how a wide range of environmental factors, such as deprivation, nutrition and stress, shape individual and population health over the course of a lifetime. DOHaD researchers face the challenge of how to conceptualize and measure ontologically diverse environments and their interactions with the developing organism over extended periods of time. Based on ethnographic research, I show how DOHaD researchers are often eager to capture what they regard as more 'complex' understandings of the environment in their work. At the same time, they are confronted with established methodological tools, disciplinary infrastructures and institutional contexts that favor simplistic articulations of the environment as distinct and mainly individual-level variables. I show how researchers struggle with these simplistic articulations of nutrition, maternal bodies and social determinants as relevant environments, which are sometimes at odds with the researchers' own normative commitments and aspirations.

Epidemiologists’ ambivalence towards the epigenetics of social adversity

This article studies how social epidemiologists get involved in research carried out on rodent models to explore the biological pathways underpinning exposure to social adversity in early life. We analyze their interdisciplinary exchanges with biologists in a social epigenetics project—i.e., in the experimental study of molecular alterations following social exposures. We argue that social epidemiologists are ambivalent regarding the use of non-human animal models on two levels: first, in terms of whether such models provide scientific evidence useful to social epidemiology, and second, regarding whether such models help promote their conception of public health. While they maintain expectations towards rodent experiments by elevating their functional value over their representational potential, they fear that their research will contribute to a public health approach that focuses on individual responsibility rather than the social causes of health inequalities. This interdisciplinary project demonstrates the difficulties encountered when research in social epigenetics engages with the complexities of laboratory experiments and social environments, as well as the conflicting sociopolitical projects stemming from such research.

Negotiating Novelty: Constructing the Novel within Scientific Accounts of Epigenetics

Epigenetics is regarded by many as a compelling domain of biomedicine. The purported novelty of epigenetics has begun to have various societal ramifications, particularly in relation to processes of responsibilisation. Within sociology, it has stimulated hopeful debate about conceptual rapprochements between the biomedical and social sciences. This article is concerned with how novelty is socially produced and negotiated. The article engages directly with scientists' talk and writings about epigenetics (as process and field of study). I aim to advance an explicitly sociological analysis about the novelty of epigenetics that underscores its social production rather than an account which participates in its reification. I attend to definitional skirmishes, comparisons with genetics, excitement and intrigue, and considerations of the ethical dimensions of epigenetics. Any assertions that epigenetics is exciting or important should not inadvertently elide reflexive consideration of how such characterisations might be part of the machinery by which they become real.

A task that remains before us: Reconsidering inheritance as a biosocial phenomenon

What doesit mean to inherit? Debates about the meaning of inheritance are numerous in the history and the present of the biological and the social sciences. While the majority of contributions in this special issue discuss hitherto unthought of molecular mechanisms of biological inheritance, this review explores the contested territory of inheritance from a social science perspective. Specifically, it examines contemporary biological research on epigenetic forms of inheritance in its historical and social contexts. To that end, the review explores what biology itself has been inheriting when it comes to how it considers inheritance conceptually and experimentally. I delineate three particularly important strands of inheritance: inheriting a history of eugenics; inheriting determinist reasoning; and inheriting experimental reductionism. I approach the social and scientific meaning of these inheritances by following scholars such as Donna Haraway and Jacques Derrida, who frame inheritance not as a passive occurrence but as an active process, as a task that must be undertaken by those who inherit. Such a framing raises the question of what it might mean to inherit something responsibly - particularly when what needs to be inherited is not an object but a difficult history. I argue that in order to become 'response-able' to this question, researchers who investigate biological inheritance today must engage these histories critically and review their legacies in present-day research. This is a task biologists might not want to undertake alone, but in interdisciplinary collaboration with social scientists and humanities scholars, in order to mobilize multiple forms of expertise for understanding the complex biosocial processes of human inheritance.

Biomarkers and brains: situating dementia in the laboratory and in the memory clinic

This paper provides a comparison of how genetic biomarkers are used (or not) in three contexts: clinic-based diagnostic work with people; lab-based research on mice and their marbles; and lab-based research on thrashing nematodes. For all the worldwide drive to find biomarkers that can be used in the detection of early, presymptomatic dementia, there is little research on how or when the association between biomarkers and a definitive disease are being made to "hold." First, we show the disjuncture between the animal modeling that underpins laboratory attempts to stabilize genetic biomarkers and the paradigms that inform clinical diagnosis. Secondly, we develop this theme to show how in our third site, an epigenetics "worm" laboratory, neurodegenerative changes are explored as located in specific gene-environment interactions over time. We speculate whether such an enactment brings us closer to a notion of "situated biology," to undercut possibilities of making genetic biomarkers of preclinical dementia hold.