↓ Skip to main content

Who are the users of synthetic DNA? Using metaphors to activate microorganisms at the center of synthetic biology

Overview of attention for article published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, July 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 (#29 of 127)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Who are the users of synthetic DNA? Using metaphors to activate microorganisms at the center of synthetic biology
Published in
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40504-018-0080-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erika Amethyst Szymanski

Abstract

Synthetic biology, a multidisciplinary field involving designing and building with DNA, often designs and builds in microorganisms. The role of these microorganisms tends to be understood through metaphors making the microbial cell like a machine and emphasizing its passivity: cells are described as platforms, chassis, and computers. Here, I point to the efficacy of such metaphors in enacting the microorganism as a particular kind of (non-)participant in the research process, and I suggest the utility of employing metaphors that make microorganisms a different kind of thing-active participants, contributors, and even collaborators in scientific research. This suggestion is worth making, I argue, because enabling the activity of the microorganism generates opportunities for learning from microorganisms in ways that may help explain currently unexplained phenomena in synthetic biology and suggest new experimental directions. Moreover, "activating the microorganism" reorients relationships between human scientists and nonhuman experimental participants away from control over nonhuman creatures and toward respect for and listening to them, generating conditions of possibility for exploring what responsible research means when humans try to be responsible toward and even with creatures across species boundaries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 18%
Social Sciences 2 12%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 7 41%
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 18 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,569,609
of 25,507,011 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#29
of 127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,542
of 340,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,507,011 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 127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 340,388 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.