Spliced: boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-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 journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Addison, CP 2017, 'Spliced: boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy', BioSocieties, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2016.9

APA

Addison, C. P. (2017). Spliced: boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy. BioSocieties, 12(2), 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2016.9

Vancouver

Addison CP. Spliced: boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy. BioSocieties. 2017;12(2):257–281. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2016.9

Author

Addison, Courtney Page. / Spliced : boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy. In: BioSocieties. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 2. pp. 257–281.

Bibtex

@article{6eb1ff9309ac4998838329490d42a2a4,
title = "Spliced: boundary-work and the establishment of human gene therapy",
abstract = "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{\textquoteright}s scope, limiting it to therapeutic interventions on somatic cells, and cultivated alliances and divisions that bolstered the field{\textquoteright}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.",
author = "Addison, {Courtney Page}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1057/biosoc.2016.9",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "257–281",
journal = "BioSocieties",
issn = "1745-8552",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan",
number = "2",

}

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