Spliced: boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Spliced : boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy. / Addison, Courtney Page.
In: BioSocieties, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2017, p. 257–281.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Spliced
T2 - boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy
AU - Addison, Courtney Page
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Human gene therapy (HGT) aims to cure disease by inserting or editing the DNA of patients with genetic conditions. Since foundational genetic techniques came into use in the 1970s, the field has developed to the point that now three therapies have market approval, and over 1800 clinical trials have been initiated. In this article I present a brief history of HGT, showing how the ethical and practical viability of the field was achieved by key scientific and regulatory actors. These parties carefully articulated gene therapy’s scope, limiting it to therapeutic interventions on somatic cells, and cultivated alliances and divisions that bolstered the field’s legitimacy. At times these measures faltered, and then practitioners and sometimes patients would invoke an ethical imperative, posing gene therapy as the best solution to life and death problems. I suggest that we consider how boundary-work stretches out from science to enlist diverse publics, social formations and the natural world in the pursuit of legitimacy.
AB - Human gene therapy (HGT) aims to cure disease by inserting or editing the DNA of patients with genetic conditions. Since foundational genetic techniques came into use in the 1970s, the field has developed to the point that now three therapies have market approval, and over 1800 clinical trials have been initiated. In this article I present a brief history of HGT, showing how the ethical and practical viability of the field was achieved by key scientific and regulatory actors. These parties carefully articulated gene therapy’s scope, limiting it to therapeutic interventions on somatic cells, and cultivated alliances and divisions that bolstered the field’s legitimacy. At times these measures faltered, and then practitioners and sometimes patients would invoke an ethical imperative, posing gene therapy as the best solution to life and death problems. I suggest that we consider how boundary-work stretches out from science to enlist diverse publics, social formations and the natural world in the pursuit of legitimacy.
U2 - 10.1057/biosoc.2016.9
DO - 10.1057/biosoc.2016.9
M3 - Journal article
VL - 12
SP - 257
EP - 281
JO - BioSocieties
JF - BioSocieties
SN - 1745-8552
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 160671728