ArticleSynthetic biology (Oxford, England)2023
An economy of details: standards and data reusability.
Article in Synthetic biology (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reusability has been a key issue since the origins of the parts-based approach to synthetic biology. Starting with the BioBrick™ standard part, multiple efforts have aimed to make biology more exchangeable. The reusability of parts and other deoxyribonucleic acid-based data has proven over time to be challenging, however. Drawing on a series of qualitative interviews and an international workshop, this article explores the challenges of reusability in real laboratory practice. It shows particular ways that standards are experienced as presenting shortcomings for capturing the kinds of contextual information crucial for scientists to be able to reuse biological parts and data. I argue that researchers in specific laboratories develop a sense of how much circumstantial detail they need to share for others to be able to make sense of their data and possibly reuse it. When choosing particular reporting formats, recharacterizing data to gain closer knowledge or requesting additional information, researchers enact an 'economy of details'. The farther apart two laboratories are in disciplinary, epistemological, technical and geographical terms, the more detailed information needs to be captured for data to be reusable across contexts. In synthetic biology, disciplinary distance between computing science and engineering researchers and experimentalist biologists is reflected in diverging views on standards: what kind of information should be included to enable reusability, what kind of information can be captured by standards at all and how they may serve to produce and circulate knowledge. I argue that such interdisciplinary tensions lie at the core of difficulties in setting standards in synthetic biology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.