感知不平等:技术解决方案主义、生物多样性保护和环境DNA

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL
Elaine W. Shen, Jessica M. Vandenberg, Amelia Moore
{"title":"感知不平等:技术解决方案主义、生物多样性保护和环境DNA","authors":"Elaine W. Shen, Jessica M. Vandenberg, Amelia Moore","doi":"10.1057/s41292-023-00315-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) has risen in popularity as a genetically-based method to enumerate species in natural ecosystems, and it is well positioned to be integrated into biodiversity monitoring and conservation initiatives. While the field has made great strides in methodological development, it has largely avoided discussion of its potential inequitable social outcomes. In this paper, we argue that the social asymmetries of eDNA are under-addressed precisely because of how it is framed and valued by powerful actors who may benefit from the technology’s proliferation. We use a framework of representational rhetorics to articulate the discursive process by which the biodiversity crisis is distilled into problems of data-deficiency and inefficiency in scientific articles such that eDNA offers the exact corresponding technological solution. This framing helps justify eDNA’s implementation in local, global, and corporate spheres, despite the methodology’s uncertainties and limitations. It may also enable future inequitable outcomes through sidelining other forms of biodiversity knowledge and enclosing biodiversity information through processes of genetic commodification and privatization. We engage with critiques of neoliberal conservation, big data, and (biodiversity) genomics made by political ecologists and feminist science and technology studies scholars to help reorient the eDNA field towards more equity-oriented discursive practices and implementations.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensing inequity: technological solutionism, biodiversity conservation, and environmental DNA\",\"authors\":\"Elaine W. Shen, Jessica M. Vandenberg, Amelia Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41292-023-00315-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Environmental DNA (eDNA) has risen in popularity as a genetically-based method to enumerate species in natural ecosystems, and it is well positioned to be integrated into biodiversity monitoring and conservation initiatives. While the field has made great strides in methodological development, it has largely avoided discussion of its potential inequitable social outcomes. In this paper, we argue that the social asymmetries of eDNA are under-addressed precisely because of how it is framed and valued by powerful actors who may benefit from the technology’s proliferation. We use a framework of representational rhetorics to articulate the discursive process by which the biodiversity crisis is distilled into problems of data-deficiency and inefficiency in scientific articles such that eDNA offers the exact corresponding technological solution. This framing helps justify eDNA’s implementation in local, global, and corporate spheres, despite the methodology’s uncertainties and limitations. It may also enable future inequitable outcomes through sidelining other forms of biodiversity knowledge and enclosing biodiversity information through processes of genetic commodification and privatization. We engage with critiques of neoliberal conservation, big data, and (biodiversity) genomics made by political ecologists and feminist science and technology studies scholars to help reorient the eDNA field towards more equity-oriented discursive practices and implementations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biosocieties\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biosocieties\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-023-00315-w\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-023-00315-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境DNA (Environmental DNA, eDNA)作为一种基于遗传学的自然生态系统物种枚举方法越来越受欢迎,并且它很好地定位于生物多样性监测和保护倡议中。虽然该领域在方法论发展方面取得了巨大进步,但它在很大程度上避免了对其潜在的不公平社会结果的讨论。在本文中,我们认为eDNA的社会不对称性没有得到充分解决,正是因为它是如何被可能从技术扩散中受益的强大参与者所构建和重视的。我们使用表征修辞学框架来阐明话语过程,通过该过程,生物多样性危机被提炼为科学文章中数据缺乏和效率低下的问题,例如eDNA提供了完全相应的技术解决方案。这一框架有助于证明eDNA在地方、全球和企业领域的实施是合理的,尽管该方法存在不确定性和局限性。它还可能使其他形式的生物多样性知识靠边站,并通过遗传商品化和私有化进程封闭生物多样性信息,从而造成未来不公平的结果。我们参与了政治生态学家和女权主义科学技术研究学者对新自由主义保护、大数据和(生物多样性)基因组学的批评,以帮助将eDNA领域重新定位为更加以公平为导向的话语实践和实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensing inequity: technological solutionism, biodiversity conservation, and environmental DNA

Environmental DNA (eDNA) has risen in popularity as a genetically-based method to enumerate species in natural ecosystems, and it is well positioned to be integrated into biodiversity monitoring and conservation initiatives. While the field has made great strides in methodological development, it has largely avoided discussion of its potential inequitable social outcomes. In this paper, we argue that the social asymmetries of eDNA are under-addressed precisely because of how it is framed and valued by powerful actors who may benefit from the technology’s proliferation. We use a framework of representational rhetorics to articulate the discursive process by which the biodiversity crisis is distilled into problems of data-deficiency and inefficiency in scientific articles such that eDNA offers the exact corresponding technological solution. This framing helps justify eDNA’s implementation in local, global, and corporate spheres, despite the methodology’s uncertainties and limitations. It may also enable future inequitable outcomes through sidelining other forms of biodiversity knowledge and enclosing biodiversity information through processes of genetic commodification and privatization. We engage with critiques of neoliberal conservation, big data, and (biodiversity) genomics made by political ecologists and feminist science and technology studies scholars to help reorient the eDNA field towards more equity-oriented discursive practices and implementations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biosocieties
Biosocieties SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society. BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances. As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe. BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信