↓ Skip to main content

How to do things with metaphors: engineering life as hodgepodge

Overview of attention for article published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 128)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How to do things with metaphors: engineering life as hodgepodge
Published in
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40504-018-0084-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Kearnes, Declan Kuch, Angus Johnston

Abstract

This paper presents a collaboration between social scientists and a chemist exploring the promises for new therapy development at the intersection between synthetic biology and nanotechnology. Drawing from ethnographic studies of laboratories and a recorded discussion between the three authors, we interrogate the metaphors that underpin what Mackenzie (Futures 48:5-12 2013) has identified as a recursive relationship in the iconography of the life sciences and its infrastructure. Focusing specifically on the use of gene editing techniques in synthetic biology and bio-nanotechnology, we focus our analysis on the key metaphors of 'evolutionary life as hodge-podge' within which 'cutting' of DNA and the 'sticking' and 'binding' of engineered particles to proteins can be performed by researchers in laboratory settings. Taken together, we argue that these metaphors are consequential for understanding metaphors of life-as-machine and the prevalence of notions of 'engineering life'. Exploring the ways in which notions of cutting, targeting and life as an evolutionary hodgepodge prefigure a more contingent notion of engineering and synthesis we close by considering the interpretive implications for ethnomethodological approaches to contemporary life science research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 1 14%
Arts and Humanities 1 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 14%
Linguistics 1 14%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,565,416
of 25,641,627 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#27
of 128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,089
of 351,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,641,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.