Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Classifying, Constructing, and Identifying Life: Standards as Transformations of "The Biological"

dc.contributor.authorMackenzie, Adrianen
dc.contributor.authorWaterton, Claireen
dc.contributor.authorEllis, Rebeccaen
dc.contributor.authorFrow, Emma K.en
dc.contributor.authorMcNally, Ruthen
dc.contributor.authorBusch, Lawrenceen
dc.contributor.authorWynne, Brianen
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-30T15:29:50Z
dc.date.available2025-05-30T15:29:50Z
dc.date.issued2013en
dc.description.abstractRecent 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.en
dc.description.statusPeer-revieweden
dc.format.extent22en
dc.identifier.issn0162-2439en
dc.identifier.otherORCID:/0000-0002-2174-4645/work/163628335en
dc.identifier.scopus84881153954en
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84881153954&partnerID=8YFLogxKen
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1885/733755113
dc.language.isoenen
dc.sourceScience Technology and Human Valuesen
dc.subjectbiologyen
dc.subjectinfrastructuresen
dc.subjectproteomicsen
dc.subjectpublicsen
dc.subjectstandardsen
dc.subjectsynthetic biologyen
dc.subjecttaxonomyen
dc.titleClassifying, Constructing, and Identifying Life: Standards as Transformations of "The Biological"en
dc.typeJournal articleen
dspace.entity.typePublicationen
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage722en
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage701en
local.contributor.affiliationMackenzie, Adrian; ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen)en
local.contributor.affiliationWaterton, Claire; Lancaster Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationEllis, Rebecca; Lancaster Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationFrow, Emma K.; University of Edinburghen
local.contributor.affiliationMcNally, Ruth; Anglia Ruskin Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationBusch, Lawrence; Michigan State Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationWynne, Brian; Lancaster Universityen
local.identifier.citationvolume38en
local.identifier.doi10.1177/0162243912474324en
local.identifier.puredf2a3e08-5f4a-44f9-bb93-6a57a66ae2caen
local.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84881153954en
local.type.statusPublisheden

Downloads