Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
necessary for life (the so-called “minimum genome project”). See Glass et al.,
“Essential Genes.”
48. Edward Yoxen's notion of “life as a productive force” (Yoxen, “Life
as a Productive Force”), Marilyn Strathern's view of “nature, enterprised-up”
(Strathern,
After Nature
), Catherine Waldby's “biovalue” (Waldby,
Visible
Human Project
), Sunder Rajan's “biocapital” (Rajan,
Biocapital
), and Nicolas
Rose's “bioeconomics” (Rose,
Politics of Life Itself
) all seek to capture the
essence of what is going on between biology, biotechnology, medicine, politics,
and the economy. For more on the relationship between biocapital and the
production of sequence, see Stevens, “On the Means of Bio-production.”
Chapter Four
1. The science studies literature has emphasized the importance of physical
and geographic spaces: see Collins, “TEA Set”; Shapin, “Pump and Circum-
stance.” Very little attention has been given to virtual spaces and proximities,
however. Recently Collins has asked whether “electronic communication
makes any difference to the nature of expertise.” (He concludes that it does
not: see Collins, “Does Electronic Communication Make Any Difference.”)
2. Vokoun, “Operations Capability Improvement,” 28-30.
3. Chang, “Control and Optimization,” 12-14.
4. Person, “Operational Streamlining,” 24.
5. Person, “Operational Streamlining,” 28-29.
6. See www.phrap.com. See also Ewing et al., “Base Calling.”
7. Rosenberg, “Managing a Data Analysis Production Line,” 16-17.
8. In fact, any sequence that is worked on during a given day is submit-
ted or resubmitted to GenBank at the end of that day; only fi nished sequences
acquire “fi nished” status in the database, however.
9. This point is made in detail in Barnes and Dupré,
Genomes
, 103-109.
10. For a more detailed account of this transition, see Stevens, “Coding
Sequences.”
11. Dowell et al., “Distributed Annotation System.”
12. Smith, “Ontology,” 155.
13. Smith, “Ontology,” 160.
14. Smith, “Ontology,” 162.
15. Lewis, “Gene Ontology,” 104.
16. Lewis, “Gene Ontology,” 104.
17. Lewis, “Gene Ontology,” 104; interview with Michael Ashburner, De-
cember 10, 2008, Cambridge, UK.
18. Ashburner, “On the Representation of 'Gene Function.'” Ashburner
suggested linking GO to Stanford's “Ontolingua” project (http://ksl-web
.stanford.edu/knowledge-sharing/ontolingua/) and Schulze-Kremer's ontology
for molecular biology (Schulze-Kremer, “Ontologies for Molecular Biology”).
19. Interview with Michael Ashburner, December 10, 2008, Cam-
bridge, UK.
20. Technically, GO is structured as a set of “directed acyclic graphs”—like
