ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society, University of Exeter, Byrne House, St Germans Road, EX4 4PJ Exeter, UK.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2010;32(1):105-25.
This paper reflects on the analytic challenges emerging from the study of bioinformatic tools recently created to store and disseminate biological data, such as databases, repositories, and bio-ontologies. I focus my discussion on the Gene Ontology, a term that defines three entities at once: a classification system facilitating the distribution and use of genomic data as evidence towards new insights; an expert community specialised in the curation of those data; and a scientific institution promoting the use of this tool among experimental biologists. These three dimensions of the Gene Ontology can be clearly distinguished analytically, but are tightly intertwined in practice. I suggest that this is true of all bioinformatic tools: they need to be understood simultaneously as epistemic, social, and institutional entities, since they shape the knowledge extracted from data and at the same time regulate the organisation, development, and communication of research. This viewpoint has one important implication for the methodologies used to study these tools; that is, the need to integrate historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches. I illustrate this claim through examples of misunderstandings that may result from a narrowly disciplinary study of the Gene Ontology, as I experienced them in my own research.
本文反思了最近为存储和传播生物数据(如数据库、存储库和生物本体)而创建的生物信息学工具所带来的分析挑战。我将讨论的重点放在基因本体论上,这个术语同时定义了三个实体:一个分类系统,有助于将基因组数据作为新见解的证据进行分配和使用;一个专门从事这些数据策展的专家社区;以及一个科学机构,促进实验生物学家使用该工具。基因本体论的这三个维度在分析上可以清楚地区分,但在实践中却紧密交织在一起。我认为所有的生物信息学工具都是如此:它们需要同时被理解为认识、社会和制度实体,因为它们塑造了从数据中提取的知识,同时也规范了研究的组织、发展和交流。这一观点对于研究这些工具所使用的方法学有一个重要的启示;也就是说,需要将历史、哲学和社会学的方法结合起来。我通过我自己的研究中遇到的一些误解的例子来说明这一观点,这些误解可能是由于对基因本体论的狭隘学科研究而产生的。