Bioinformatics, a specialism propelled into relevance by the Human Genome Project and the subsequent -omic turn in the life science, is an interdisciplinary field of research. Qualitative work on the disciplinary identities of bioinformaticians has revealed the tensions involved in work in this "borderland." As part of our ongoing work on the emergence of bioinformatics, between 2010 and 2011, we conducted a survey of United Kingdom-based academic bioinformaticians. Building on insights drawn from our fieldwork over the past decade, we present results from this survey relevant to a discussion of disciplinary generation and stabilization. Not only is there evidence of an attitudinal divide between the different disciplinary cultures that make up bioinformatics, but there are distinctions between the forerunners, founders and the followers; as inter/disciplines mature, they face challenges that are both inter-disciplinary and inter-generational in nature.

Richard Lewontin proposed that the ability of a scientific field to create a narrative for public understanding garners it social relevance. This article applies Lewontin's conceptual framework of the functions of science (manipulatory and explanatory) to compare and explain the current differences in perceived societal relevance of genetics/genomics and proteomics. We provide three examples to illustrate the social relevance and strong cultural narrative of genetics/genomics for which no counterpart exists for proteomics. We argue that the major difference between genetics/genomics and proteomics is that genomics has a strong explanatory function, due to the strong cultural narrative of heredity. Based on qualitative interviews and observations of proteomics conferences, we suggest that the nature of proteins, lack of public understanding, and theoretical complexity exacerbates this difference for proteomics. Lewontin's framework suggests that social scientists may find that omics sciences affect social relations in different ways than past analyses of genetics.

Biobanks are increasingly being established to act as mediators between patient-donors and researchers. In practice, some of these will close. This paper details the experiences of one such bank. We report interviews with the bank's staff and oversight group during the period when the bank ceased biobanking activity, reconfigured as a disseminator of best practice, before then closing altogether. The paper makes three distinct contributions: (i) to provide a detailed account of the establishment, operational challenges, and eventual closure of the bank, which makes clear the rapid turnover in a cycle of promise and disappointment; (ii) to explore this in terms of a novel analytical focus upon field, institutional, and individual expectations; and (iii) to use this typology to demonstrate how, even after the bank's closure, aspects of its work were reconfigured and reused in new contexts. This provides a unique empirical analysis of the under-reported issue of biobank closure.

The epigenetic "revolution" in science cuts across many disciplines, and it is now one of the fastest growing research areas in biology. Increasingly, claims are made that epigenetics research represents a move away from the genetic determinism that has been prominent both in biological research and in understandings of the impact of biology on society. We discuss to what extent an epigenetic framework actually supports these claims. We show that, in contrast to the received view, epigenetics research is often couched in language as deterministic as genetics research in both science and the popular press. We engage the rapidly emerging conversation about the impact of epigenetics on public discourse and scientific practice, and we contend that the notion of epigenetic determinism - or the belief that epigenetic mechanisms determine the expression of human traits and behaviors - matters for understandings of the influence of biology and society on population health.

Biological kin share up to half of their genetic material, including predisposition to disease. Thus, variants of clinical significance identified in each individual's genome can implicate an exponential number of relatives at potential risk. This has renewed the dilemma over family access to research participant's genetic results, since prevailing U.S. practices treat these as private, controlled by the individual. These individual-based ethics contrast with the family-based ethics- in which genetic information, privacy, and autonomy are considered to be familial- endorsed in UK genomic medicine and by participants in a multi-method study of U.S. research participants presented here. The dilemma reflects a conflict between U.S. legal and ethical frameworks that privilege "the individual" and exclude "the family" versus actual human genetics that are simultaneously individual familial. Can human genetics succeed in challenging bioethics' hegemonic individualism to recognize and place the family at the center of the room where bioethics happens?

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.

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project, there have been pitched debates about its implications and the research it enables. One prominent thread of concern focuses on the role of post-genomic science on technically enabling and generating interest in genetic ancestry testing (GAT). Critical analyses of GAT have pointed to multiple issues, raising the alarm on consumers' experiences with such technologies. This paper describes the results of a pilot study in which we tracked women's experiences receiving their genetic ancestry results, and their understandings of, reactions to, and valuing of this information over time. Overwhelmingly, our participants reported a curious combination of anticipation and satisfaction yet no discernable impact on their sense of self or racial identity. We elaborate on the effects and non-effects of GAT for the women in our study, and how we make sense of their simultaneous experiences of 'knowing something' but not 'feeling different.'

The UK's 100,000 Genomes Project has the aim of sequencing 100,000 genomes from UK National Health Service (NHS) patients while concomitantly transforming clinical care such that whole genome sequencing becomes routine clinical practice in the UK. Policymakers claim that the project will revolutionize NHS care. We wished to explore the 100,000 Genomes Project, and in particular, the extent to which policymaker claims have helped or hindered the work of those associated with Genomics England - the company established by the Department of Health to deliver the project. We interviewed 20 individuals linked to, or working for Genomics England. Interviewees had double-edged views about the context within which they were working. On the one hand, policymakers' expectations attached to the venture were considered vacuous "genohype"; on the other hand, they were considered the impetus needed for those trying to advance genomic research into clinical practice. Findings should be considered for future genomes projects.

The first French clinical trial using human embryonic stem cells for regenerative purposes was launched in 2014, using the I6 stem cell line that was imported from Israel. From Israel to France, national reproductive policies and practices inform how basic scientists produce, manage and circulate cells across countries. Building on an interdisciplinary co-production involving two social scientists and a life scientist, this article suggests that biobanks cells from in vitro fertilization to stem cell science and from country to country by modifying their reproductive meaning. Four passages are described: the absence of cells in 2005 when the research started in France; the presence of supernumerary embryos available for research in Israeli IVF biobanks; the production of the I6 stem cell bank in Israel; the importation and laboratory biobanking of the cells in France. Human embryonic stem cell lines can never be completely disentangled from reproduction.

Sociological literature has explored how shifts in the point at which individuals may be designated as diseased impact upon experiences of ill health. Research has shown that experiences of being genetically "at risk" are shaped by and shape familial relations, coping strategies, and new forms of biosociality. Less is known about how living with genetic risk is negotiated in the everyday and over time, and the wider forms of identity, communities and care this involves. This article explores these arrangements drawing on online bloggers' accounts of Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP). We show how accounts of genetic risk co-exist with more palpable experiences of FAP in everyday life, notably the consequences of prophylactic surgeries. We consider how the act of blogging represents but also constitutes everyday experiences of hereditary cancer syndrome as simultaneously ordinary and exceptional, and reflect on the implications of our analysis for understanding experiences of genetic cancer risk.

In recent years, discourses around "personalized," "stratified," and "precision" medicine have proliferated. These concepts broadly refer to the translational potential carried by new data-intensive biomedical research modes. Each describes expectations about the future of medicine and healthcare that data-intensive innovation promises to bring forth. The definitions and uses of the concepts are, however, plural, contested and characterized by diverse ideas about the kinds of futures that are desired and desirable. In this paper, we unpack key disputes around the "personalized," "stratified," and "precision" terms, and map the epistemic, political and economic contexts that structure them as well as the different roles attributed to patients and citizens in competing future imaginaries. We show the ethical and value baggage embedded within the promises that are manufactured through terminological choices and argue that the context and future-oriented nature of these choices helps to understanding how data-intensive biomedical innovations are made socially meaningful.

This paper explores clinicians' and scientists' accounts of genomic research in cancer care and the complexities and challenges involved with delivering this work. Contributing to the sociology of (low) expectations, we draw on sociological studies of uncertainty in medicine to explore their accounts of working with uncertainty as part of the management of patient and institutional expectations. We consider their appeals to the importance of modest inquiry and framing of the uncertainties of genomic medicine as normal and at times welcome as they sought to configure professional autonomy and jurisdictions and cultivate an experimental ethos amongst their patients. We argue that these types of uncertainty work [Star, S. L. 1985. "Scientific Work and Uncertainty." 15 (3): 391-427] are a key feature of managing expectations at the intersections of genomic research and clinical care.

Metaphors have been crucial in making genetics and genomics public, from the code and the book of life to genetic scissors and gene surgery. A new field is emerging called "gene drive" - a range of controversial technologies that can potentially be used for the eradication or conservation of animal species. At the same time, metaphors are emerging to talk about the promises and dangers of "gene drive". In this article we use thematic analysis to examine thirty interviews with gene drive science and communication experts, and stakeholders, focusing on how they talk about their lived experience of metaphor use in the context of gene drive communication, including their struggle to remember salient metaphors and their reflections on which metaphors to use and which to avoid. We discuss the significance of our findings for research and practice of responsible science communication.

Genomic Tumour Testing (GTT) is an emerging site of "experimental care" in oncology [Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, Etienne Vignola-Gagné, Sylvain Besle, and Pascale Bourret. 2018a. "Extending Experimentation: Oncology's Fading Boundary Bbetween Research and Care." 37 (3): 207-226. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2018.1487281]. Few efforts to implement GTT have reached community oncology practices or patients living in rural communities within the US. Drawing on interdisciplinary research on a state-wide cancer genomics initiative in the rural US state of Maine, this paper explores the valuation practices within community oncologist and cancer stakeholders accounts of "doing good" within genomic science and care. We contribute to STS literatures on the bio-economy by highlighting the affective dimensions of strategies for managing economic and non-economic values. Clinician and stakeholders negotiated de-economizing and capitalizing modes of doing good as they built local genomic platforms "for Maine." These situated modes of doing good and feeling good via cancer genomics shaped how they navigated the ethical ambiguities of US biomedical markets across the boundaries of research and care.

In this paper I examine how the promissory value of genetics is constituted through processes of scale and scaling, focussing on the relationship between "rare" and "common" forms of disease. I highlight the bodies and spaces involved in the production of post-genomic knowledge and technologies of Alzheimer's disease and the development of new disease-modifying drugs. I focus on the example of the development of a monoclonal antibody therapy for Alzheimer's disease. I argue that the process of therapeutic innovation, from genetic studies and animal models to phase III clinical trials, reflects the persistent importance of a genetic imaginary and a mutually constitutive relationship between the rare and the common in in shaping visions of Alzheimer's disease medicine. Approaching this relationship as a question of scale, I suggest the importance of attending to how and where genomic knowledge is "scaled" or proves resistant to scaling.

Social scientists have observed previously that patient support groups began to have significant influence over both research and clinical services of medical genetics in the early 2000s. This observation led to the idea of genetic citizenship, suggesting that the active participation and intervention of patient support groups in the rapidly growing field of medicine marked the emergence of a new form of citizenship. To understand how this citizenship emerged, this paper examines the development of umbrella organizations of genetic support groups in the USA and the UK. The historical analysis demonstrates that the ways in which these organizations developed differ considerably, and that their visions and activities reflected the different structural and cultural organizations of medical genetics in their respective countries. By recognizing the early work of these organizations as citizenship projects, this article argues that they helped rather different forms of genetic citizenship to emerge in the two countries.

As precision oncology has evolved, patients and their families have become more involved in efforts to access these treatments via fundraising and campaigning that take place outside of the larger cancer charities. In this paper, we explore the solidarities, networks, and emotional work of the UK-based access advocates, drawing on the stories of nine advocates, which included interviews and content analyses of their social media posts and coverage of their case in news, commentary, and fundraising websites. We consider the emotional and knowledge work of building networks that spanned consumerist and activist agendas, forged individual and collective goals, and orientations toward the public, private, and third sectors as part of securing support and access. Through these various practices, the actors we have studied cultivated personal advantage and solidarities with other patients and advocates, and in so doing engaged in self and collective advocacy alongside and beyond mainstream cancer charities.

Adaptive pragmatic clinical trials offer an innovative approach that integrates clinical care and research. Yet, blurring the boundaries between research and clinical care raises questions about how clinicians and investigators balance their caregiving and research roles and what types of knowledge and risk assessment are most valued. This paper presents findings from an ethnographic ELSI (Ethical, Legal, Social Implications) study of an innovative clinical trial of risk-based breast cancer screening that utilizes genomics to stratify risk and recommend a breast cancer screening commensurate with the assessed risk. We argue that the trial demonstrates a fundamental tension between the promissory ideals of personalized medicine, and the reality of implementing risk stratified care on a population scale. We examine the development of a Screening Assignment Review Board in response to this tension which allows clinician-investigators to negotiate, but never fully resolve, the inherent contradiction of 'precision population screening'.

Addressing health disparities has become a central remit for conducting health research. In the following paper, we explore the conceptual and methodological challenges posed by the call to recruit medically underserved populations. This exploration of challenges is undertaken from the perspective of social science researchers embedded in a large within a clinical genomics research study. We suggest that these challenges are found in respect to the development of recruiting strategies, analysis of the data in respect to understanding and interpreting the experiences of being medically underserved, and in comparing the experiences of being medically underserved compared to not being underserved. By way of conclusion, it is argued that there is important role for social scientists with large health research studies which, if achieved successfully, can benefit study teams and society as a whole.

Genetic ancestry testing (GAT) is marketed as a way to make up for missing knowledge about one's ancestry. Previous research questions the GAT industry's ability to fulfill this promise in terms of the validity and reliability of test results. We instead explore the demand side of GAT, evaluating who is most and least likely to express interest in GAT. Using data from an original, nationwide survey of over 100,000 American adults, we find that GAT interest is related to both self-identified race and immigrant generation, with Asian Americans and first-generation immigrants expressing the least interest. Our quantitative and qualitative evidence suggests interest is further shaped by a pre-existing sense of ancestral certainty, leading some individuals to decline GAT, even if it were free. How interest and ancestral certainty are patterned has implications for who is included in - and thus for the conclusions that can be drawn from - genetic ancestry databases.

The perspectives of genomic citizen scientists on ownership of research outputs are not well understood, yet they are useful for identifying alignment of participant expectations and project practices and can help guide efforts to develop innovative tools and strategies for managing ownership claims. Here, we report findings from 52 interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019 to understand genomic citizen science stakeholders' conceptualizations of, experiences with, and preferences for ownership of research outputs. Interviewees identified four approaches for recognizing genomic citizen scientists' ownership and related credit interests in research outputs: shared governance via commons models; fractional ownership of benefits; full and creative attribution; and offensive and defensive patenting. Interviewees also agreed that the model selected by any project should at least maximize access to research outputs and, as appropriate and to the extent possible, broadly distribute rights of control and entitlements to research benefits.