↓ Skip to main content

Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition

Overview of attention for article published in BioSocieties, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Left to their own devices: Post-ELSI, ethical equipment and the International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Competition
Published in
BioSocieties, June 2013
DOI 10.1057/biosoc.2013.13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew S Balmer, Kate J Bulpin

Abstract

In this article, we evaluate a novel method for post-ELSI (ethical, legal and social implications) collaboration, drawing on 'human practices' (HP) to develop a form of reflexive ethical equipment that we termed 'sociotechnical circuits'. We draw on a case study of working collaboratively in the International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition (iGEM) and relate this to the parts-based agenda of synthetic biology. We use qualitative methods to explore the experience of undergraduate students in the Competition, focussing on the 2010 University of Sheffield team. We examine how teams work collaboratively across disciplines to produce novel microorganisms. The Competition involves a HP component and we examine the way in which this has been narrowly defined within the ELSI framework. We argue that this is a much impoverished style of HP when compared with its original articulation as the development of 'ethical equipment'. Inspired by this more theoretically rich HP framework, we explore the relations established between team members and how these were shaped by the norms, materials and practices of the Competition. We highlight the importance of care in the context of post-ELSI collaborations and report on the implications of our case study for such efforts and for the relation of the social sciences to the life sciences more generally.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 5%
United States 2 3%
Unknown 57 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 20 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Philosophy 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 24 March 2015.
All research outputs
#2,732,132
of 24,996,701 outputs
Outputs from BioSocieties
#135
of 418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,722
of 202,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioSocieties
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,996,701 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 418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 202,153 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.