↓ Skip to main content

The Semiosis of “Side Effects” in Genetic Interventions

Overview of attention for article published in Biosemiotics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
The Semiosis of “Side Effects” in Genetic Interventions
Published in
Biosemiotics, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12304-016-9274-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramsey Affifi

Abstract

Genetic interventions, which include transgenic engineering, gene editing, and other forms of genome modification aimed at altering the information "in" the genetic code, are rapidly increasing in power and scale. Biosemiotics offers unique tools for understanding the nature, risks, scope, and prospects of such technologies, though few in the community have turned their attention specifically in this direction. Bruni (2003, 2008) is an important exception. In this paper, I examine how we frame the concept of "side effects" that result from genetic interventions and how the concept stands up to current perspectives of the role of organism activity in development. I propose that once the role of living systems in constructing and modifying the informational value of their various developmental resources is taken into account, the concept of a "side effect" will need to be significantly revised. Far from merely a disturbance brought about in a senseless albeit complex system, a biosemiotic view would take "side effects" as at least sometimes the organism's active re-organization in order to accommodate or make use of novelty. This insight is nascent in the work of developmental plasticity and niche construction theory (West-Eberhard 2003; Odling-Smee et al. 2003), but it is brought into sharper focus by the explicitly interpretive perspective offered by biosemiotics. Understanding the "side effects" of genetic interventions depends in part on being able to articulate when and where unexpected consequences are a result of semiotic activity at various levels within the system. While a semiotic interpretation of "side effects" puts into question the naive attitude that would see all unintended side effects as indications of disturbance in system functionality, it certainly does not imply that such side effects are of no concern for the viability of the organisms in the system. As we shall see, the fact that such interventions do not respect the translation of information that occurs in multi-level biological systems ensures that disruption is still likely. But it does unprivilege the human agent as the sole generator of meaning and information in the products of biotechnology, with important consequences on how we understand our relationship with other species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Lecturer 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Philosophy 2 8%
Environmental Science 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Other 7 27%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#13,419,215
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Biosemiotics
#92
of 215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,515
of 319,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biosemiotics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 215 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 319,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them