Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:30:12.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Environmental Sociology and the Genomic Revolution

from Part V - Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2020

By
Valerie Berseth  and
Ralph Matthews
Edited by
Katharine Legun ,
Julie C. Keller ,
Michael Carolan  and
Michael M. Bell
Katharine Legun
Affiliation:
Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands
Julie C. Keller
Affiliation:
University of Rhode Island
Michael Carolan
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Michael M. Bell
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access

Summary

The post-genomic era has given rise to a range of advanced genetic technologies that are being applied to a wide range of social-environmental problems, prompting debates about new and evolving risks to humans and the environment. A growing body of research has engaged with the implications of genomics for human cultures, institutions, and bodies, while overlooking the natural environment. We begin to address this ‘ecological gap’ by integrating recent work in conservation biology, epigenetics, and science and technology studies with core theoretical approaches in environmental sociology. We outline an environmental sociology of genomics through three emergent issues: the social and ecological risks of germline editing, diagnosing and intervening in environmental degradation, and the environmental justice dimensions of genetic science. Genomics offers powerful tools for understanding the material influences of human societies on the genetic makeup and diversity of species and prescribe courses of action for conservation and management Simultaneously, applying genomic technologies to the natural world reflects values, priorities, and desires that are socially constructed. Further research is needed to investigate how existing institutional structures and decision-making processes can adapt to address the intergenerational effects and uncertainties associated with the post-genomic era.

Keywords

Genomicsrisksnaturematerialismsocial constructionconservationenvironmental justice
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 342 - 359
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alegría-Torres, J. A., Baccarelli, A., and Bollati, V. (2011). Epigenetics and Lifestyle. Epigenomics, 3(3), 267–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Araki, H., Berejikian, B. A., Ford, M.J., and Blouin, M. S. (2008). Fitness of Hatchery-Reared Salmonids in the Wild. Evolutionary Applications, 1(2), 342–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Araki, H., Cooper, B., and Blouin, M. S. (2007). Genetic Effects of Captive Breeding Cause A Rapid, Cumulative Fitness Decline in the Wild. Science, 318(5847), 100–3.Google Scholar
Arora, L. and Narula, A. (2017). Gene Editing and Crop Improvement Using CRISPR-Cas9 System. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8(1932), 1–22.Google Scholar
Barange, M., Field, J. G., Harris, R. P., et al. (2010). Marine Ecosystems and Global Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Beck, U., Giddens, A., and Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Beus, C.E. and Dunlap, R. E. (1994). Agricultural Paradigms and the Practice of Agriculture. Rural Sociology, 59(4), 620–35.Google Scholar
Biermann, C. and Mansfield, B. (2014). Biodiversity, Purity, and Death: Conservation Biology as Biopolitics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(2), 257–73.Google Scholar
Blumenstein, R. (2016). Bill Gates: GMOs Will End Starvation in Africa. Wall Street Journal. www.wsj.com/video/bill-gates-gmos-will-end-starvation-in-africa/3085A8D1-BB58-4CAA-9394-E567033434A4.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bollati, V. and Baccarelli, A. (2010). Environmental Epigenetics. Heredity, 105(1), 105–12.Google Scholar
Brulle, R.J. (2000). Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Buttel, F. H. (2010). Social Institutions and Environmental Change. In Redclift, M. and Woodgate, G., eds, The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 33–47.Google Scholar
Buttel, F. H., and Taylor, P.J. (1992). Environmental Sociology and Global Environmental Change: A Critical Assessment. Society & Natural Resources, 5(3), 211–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, A. L., Parent, B., Shen, M., and Plunkett, C. (2015). No Time to Waste: The Ethical Challenges Created by CRISPR. EMBO Reports, 16(11), 1421–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Carolan, M. S. (2005). Society, Biology and Ecology: Bringing Nature Back into Sociology’s Disciplinary Narrative Through Critical Realism. Organization & Environment, 18(4), 393–421.Google Scholar
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Mariner, New York.Google Scholar
Catton, W. R. and Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13(February), 41–9.Google Scholar
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., and Dirzo, R. (2017). Biological Annihilation Via the Ongoing Sixth Mass Extinction Signaled by Vertebrate Population Losses and Declines. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), E6089–E6096.Google Scholar
Charbonneau, J.J. and Caudill, J. (2010). Conserving America’s Fisheries: An Assessment of Economic Contributions from Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation. Arlington, VA: US Fish and Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
Christie, M. R., Marine, M. L., French, R. A., Waples, R. S., and Blouin, M. S. (2012). Effective Size of a Wild Salmonid Population Is Greatly Reduced by Hatchery Supplementation. Heredity, 109(4), 254–60.Google Scholar
Clausen, R., and Clark, B. (2005). The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology: An Analysis of the Ocean Crisis Within Capitalist Production. Organization and Environment, 18(4), 422–44.Google Scholar
Corrigan, O. (2009). Genetics and Social Theory. In Turner, B. S., ed., The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 343–59.Google Scholar
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., and Stern, P. C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–12.Google Scholar
Du Bois, W. (1897). The Conservation of Races. Washington, DC: American Negro Academy.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R. E. and Catton, W. R. (1979). Environmental Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 5(1), 243–73.Google Scholar
ENCODE. (2018). ENCODE: Encyclopedia of DNA Elements. Stanford University. www.encodeproject.org/Google Scholar
Esvelt, K.M. and Gemmell, N.J. (2017). Conservation Demands Safe Gene Drive. PLOS Biology, 15(11), e2003850.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2016). The State of World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Rome.Google Scholar
Fortun, M. (2005). For an Ethics of Promising, Or: A Few Kind Words About James Watson. New Genetics and Society, 24(2), 157–73.Google Scholar
Foster, J.B. (1999). Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366–405.Google Scholar
Frankham, R. (2008). Genetic Adaptation to Captivity in Species Conservation Programs. Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 325–33.Google Scholar
Gerstein, M. B., Kundaje, A., Hariharan, M. et al. (2012). Architecture of the Human Regulatory Network Derived from ENCODE Data. Nature, 489 (7414), 91–100.Google Scholar
Gould, K. A., Pellow, D. N., and Schnaiberg, A. (2008). The Treadmill of Production. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guo, G. (2008). Society and Genetics [Special Issue]. Sociological Methods & Research, 37(2), 159–63.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P., and Stotz, K. (2013). Genetics and Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Potapenko, J., et al. (2015). Spatial and Temporal Changes in Cumulative Human Impacts on The World’s Ocean. Nature Communications, 6(1), 7615.Google Scholar
Hammond, A., Galizi, R., Kyrou, K., et al. (2016). A CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Drive System Targeting Female Reproduction in The Malaria Mosquito Vector Anopheles Gambiae. Nature Biotechnology, 34(1), 78–83.Google Scholar
Hannigan, J. A. (1995). Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Hazin, F., Marschoff, E., Ferreira, B.P., Rice, J., and Rosenberg, A. (2016). Capture Fisheries. In Inniss, L., Simcock, A., Ajawin, A. et al., eds First Global Integrated Marine Assessment. United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and The Law of the Sea, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Hoover, E., Cook, K., Plain, R., et al. (2012). Indigenous Peoples of North America: Environmental Exposures and Reproductive Justice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(12), 1645–9.Google Scholar
Jefferson, O.A., Köllhofer, D., Ehrich, T.H., and Jefferson, R.A. (2015). The Ownership Question of Plant Gene and Genome Intellectual Properties. Nature Biotechnology, 33(11), 1138–43.Google Scholar
Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., et al. (2012). A Programmable Dual-RNA-Guided DNA Endonuclease in Adaptive Bacterial Immunity. Science, 337(6096), 816–21.Google Scholar
Kabasenche, W.P. and Skinner, M.K. (2014). DDT, Epigenetic Harm, and Transgenerational Environmental Justice. Environmental Health, 13(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Keller, E.F. (2015). The Postgenomic Genome. In Richardson, S. S. and Stevens, H., eds, Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology after the Genome. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 9–31.Google Scholar
Kent, M. (2013). The Importance of Being Uros: Indigenous Identity Politics in the Genomic Age. Social Studies of Science, 43(4), 534–56.Google Scholar
Landecker, H. and Panofsky, A. (2013). From Social Structure to Gene Regulation, and Back: A Critical Introduction to Environmental Epigenetics for Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 39(1), 333–57.Google Scholar
Le Luyer, J., Laporte, M., Beacham, T.D., et al. (2017). Parallel Epigenetic Modifications Induced by Hatchery Rearing in a Pacific Salmon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(49), 12964–9.Google Scholar
Liu, H. and Guo, G. (2016). Opportunities and Challenges of Big Data for the Social Sciences: The Case of Genomic Data. Social Science Research, 59(2016), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lourenço, J., Pereira, R., Gonçalves, F., and Mendo, S. (2013). Metal Bioaccumulation, Genotoxicity and Gene Expression in the European Wood Mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) Inhabiting an Abandoned Uranium Mining Area. Science of The Total Environment, 443, 673–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovelace, R. (2009). Notes from Prison: Protecting Algonquin Lands from Uranium Mining. In Speaking for Ourselves: Environmental Justice in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. ix–xix.Google Scholar
Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1998). Contested Natures. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mahfouz, M.M. (2017) Genome Editing: The Efficient Tool CRISPR-Cpf1. Nature Plants, 3(17028), 1–2.Google Scholar
Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research (MWLR). (2018). Predator-Free New Zealand, www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fungi/animals/pfnz.Google Scholar
Manikkam, M., Haque, M. M., Guerrero-Bosagna, C., Nilsson, E. E., and Skinner, M. K. (2014). Pesticide Methoxychlor Promotes the Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Adult-Onset Disease through the Female Germline. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e102091.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Vol. 1). Vintage, New York.Google Scholar
Meloni, M. (2015). Epigenetics for The Social Sciences: Justice, Embodiment, and Inheritance in the Postgenomic Age. New Genetics and Society, 34(2), 125–51.Google Scholar
Meloni, M. and Testa, G. (2014). Scrutinizing the Epigenetics Revolution. BioSocieties, 9(4), 431–56.Google Scholar
Meloni, M., Williams, S., and Martin, P. (2016). The Biosocial: Sociological Themes and Issues. The Sociological Review Monographs, 64(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
Mohai, P., Pellow, D., and Roberts, J.T. (2009). Environmental Justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 405–30.Google Scholar
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The Politics of Tek: Power and the ‘Integration’ of Knowledge. Arctic Anthropology, 36(1/2), 1–18.Google Scholar
Nelson, V.R. and Nadeau, J.H. (2010). Transgenerational Genetic Effects. Epigenomics, 2(6), 797–806.Google Scholar
O’Malley, M.A., Bostanci, A., and Calvert, J. (2005). Whole-Genome Patenting. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6(6), 502–6.Google Scholar
Parry, S. and Dupré, J. (2010). Nature after the Genome [Special Issue]. Sociological Review, 58(1).Google Scholar
Pellizzoni, L. (2016). Catching up with Things? Environmental Sociology and the Material Turn in Social Theory. Environmental Sociology, 2(4), 312–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellow, D. N. and Brehm, H. N. (2013). An Environmental Sociology for the Twenty-First Century. Annual Review of Sociology, 39(1), 229–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennisi, E. (2012). ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA. Science, 337(6099), 1159–61.Google Scholar
Pickersgill, M. (2016). Epistemic Modesty, Ostentatiousness and the Uncertainties of Epigenetics: On the Knowledge Machinery of (Social) Science. The Sociological Review Monographs, 64(1), 186–202.Google Scholar
Pontin, J. (2015). Editing Human DNA. MIT Technology Review. www.technologyreview.com/s/536696/editing-human-dna/Google Scholar
Reardon, S. (2016). Welcome to the CRISPR Zoo. Nature, 531(7593), 160–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rheinberger, H.-J., Müller-Wille, S., and Bostanci, A. (2017). The Gene: From Genetics to Postgenomics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. S. and Stevens, H. (2015). Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology after the Genome. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rixecker, S. S. and Tipene-Matua, B. (2003). Maori Kaupapa and the Inseparability of Social and Environmental Justice: An Analysis of Bioprospecting and Peoples’ Resistance to Bio(cultural) Assimilation. In Agyeman, J., Bullard, R. D., and Evans, B., eds, Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, pp. 252–68.Google Scholar
Roberts, M., Haami, B., Benton, R. A., et al. (2004). Whakapapa as a Maori Mental Construct: Some Implications for the Debate over Genetic Modification of Organisms. The Contemporary Pacific, 16(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Roy, E. A. (2017). No More Rats: New Zealand to Exterminate All Introduced Predators. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/25/no-more-rats-new-zealand-to-exterminate-all-introduced-predatorsGoogle Scholar
Royal Society Te Apārangi (RSTA). (2017). The Use of Gene Editing in Pest Control. Wellington. www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fungi/animals/pfnzGoogle Scholar
Schnaiberg, A., Pellow, D. N., and Weinberg, A. (2002). The Treadmill of Production and the Environmental State. In Mol, P. and Buttel, F., eds, The Environmental State Under Pressure. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar
Schübeler, D. (2015). Function and Information Content of DNA Methylation. Nature, 517(7534), 321–6.Google Scholar
Simpson, L.R. (2004). Anticolonial Strategies for the Recovery and Maintenance of Indigenous Knowledge. The American Indian Quarterly, 28(3), 373–84.Google Scholar
Skinner, M.K., Manikkam, M., Tracey, R., et al. (2013). Ancestral Dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) Exposure Promotes Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Obesity. BMC Medicine, 11(1), 228.Google Scholar
Skowronski, E. and Ian Lipkin, W. (2011). Molecular Microbial Surveillance and Discovery in Bioforensics. In Budowle, B. Schutzer, S. E. Breeze, R. G. Kleim, P. S. and Morse, S. A., eds, Microbial Forensics. Burlington, VT: Academic Press, pp. 173–85.Google Scholar
Smith, L. T. (2013). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd edition. London: Zed Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Spaargaren, G. and Mol, A.P. (1992). Sociology, Environment, And Modernity: Ecological Modernization as a Theory of Social Change. Society & Natural Resources, 5(4), 323–44.Google Scholar
Stevens, H., and Richardson, S. S. (2015). Beyond the Genome. In Richardson, S. S. and Stevens, H., eds., Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology after the Genome. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
TallBear, K. (2013a). Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
TallBear, K. (2013b). Genomic Articulations of Indigeneity. Social Studies of Science, 43(4), 509–33.Google Scholar
United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice (UCCCRJ). (1991). Principles of Environmental Justice. In The Proceedings of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, Washington, DC: United Church of Christ.Google Scholar
van Koppen, C. K. (2017). Incorporating Nature in Environmental Sociology: A Critique of Bhaskar and Latour, and a Proposal. Environmental Sociology, 3(3), 173–85.Google Scholar
Wade, N. (2015). Scientists Seek Moratorium on Edits to Human Genome That Could Be Inherited. The New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/science/crispr-cas9-human-genome-editing-moratorium.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wallace, B. (1992). The Search for the Gene. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Woodgate, G. and Redclift, M. (1998). From a ‘Sociology of Nature’ to Environmental Sociology: Beyond Social Construction. Environmental Values, 7(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
Wolffe, A. P. and Guschin, D. (2000). Review: Chromatin Structural Features and Targets that Regulate Transcription. Journal of Structural Biology, 129(2–3), 102–22.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (2005). Reflexing Complexity: Post-Genomic Knowledge and Reductionist Returns in Public Science. Theory, Culture and Society, 22(5), 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yearley, S. (2005). Cultures of Environmentalism: Empirical Studies in Environmental Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Yearley, S. (2010). Science and The Environment in the Twenty-First Century. In Redclift, M. R., and Woodgate, G., eds. The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. 2nd edition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 212–23.Google Scholar
Yong, E. (2017). New Zealand’s War on Rats Could Change the World. The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/new-zealand-predator-free-2050-rats-gene-drive-ruh-roh/546011/Google Scholar
Young, N. and Matthews, R. (2010). The Aquaculture Controversy in Canada: Activism, Policy, and Contested Science. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×