What Stories Do We Tell About the Critters Involved with CRISPR-Cas? Examining Scientists’ Reflections on Multispecies Relationships in Gene Editing Research

References

• Atwood, M. 2003. Oryx and Crake. New York: Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Barrangou, R., and J. Doudna. 2016. “Applications of CRISPR Technologies in Research and Beyond.” Nature 34 (9): 933–941.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beisel, U., A. Kelly, and N. Tousignant. 2013. “Knowing Insects: Hosts, Vectors and Companions of Science.” Science as Culture 22 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/09505431.2013.776367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birke, L. 2003. “Who - or What - are the Rats (and Mice) in the Laboratory.” Society and Animals 11 (3): 207–224. doi:10.1163/156853003322773023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birke, L., M. Bryld, and N. Lykke. 2004. “Animal Performances: An Exploration of Intersections Between Feminist Science Studies and Studies of Human/animal Relationships.” Feminist Theory 5 (2): 167–183. doi:10.1177/1464700104045406.
   Google Scholar
• Birke, L., and M. Michael. 1998. “The Heart of the Matter: Animal Bodies, Ethics, and Species Boundaries.” Society and Animals 6 (3): 245–261. doi:10.1163/156853098X00186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, N., and M. Michael. 2001. “Switching Between Science and Culture in Transpecies Transplantation.” Science, Technology & Human Values 26 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1177/016224390102600101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, A. 2003. “Site-Specific Selfish Genes as Tools for the Control and Genetic Engineering of Natural Populations.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 270 (1518): 921–928. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, A., M. Coulibaly, A. Crisanti, A. Diabate, and J. K. Kayondo. 2018. “Gene Drive to Reduce Malaria Transmission in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 5 (sup1): S66–S80. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1419410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candea, M. 2013. “Habituating Meerkats and Redescribing Animal Behavior Science.” Theory, Culture and Society 30 (7–8): 105–128. doi:10.1177/0263276413501204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, D. K., B. Ekser, J. Ramsoondar, C. Phelps, and D. Ayares. 2016. “The Role of Genetically Engineered Pigs in Xenotransplantation Research.” The Journal of Pathology 238 (2): 288–299. doi:10.1002/path.4635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dam, M., S. Juhl, P. Sangild, and M. Svendsen. 2017. “Feeding Premature Neonates: Kinship and Species in Translational Neonatology.” Social Science & Medicine 179: 129–136. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, G. 2012. “Caring for the Multiple and the Multitude: Assembling Animal Welfare and Enabling Ethical Critique.” Environment and Planning. D, Society & Space 30 (4): 623–638. doi:10.1068/d3211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, G. 2013. “Mobilizing Experimental Life: Spaces of Becoming with Mutant Mice.” Theory, Culture and Society 30 (7–8): 129–153. doi:10.1177/0263276413496285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delborne, J., J. Kuzma, F. Gould, E. Frow, C. Leitschuh, and J. Sudweeks. 2018. “Mapping Research and Governance Needs for Gene Drives.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 5 (1): S4–S12. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1419413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Despret, V. 2004. ”The Body We Care for: Figures of Anthropo-Zoo-Genesis.” Body and Society 10 (2–3): 111–134. doi:10.1177/1357034X04042938.
   Google Scholar
• Despret, V. 2013. “Responding Bodies and Partial Affinities in Human–animal Worlds.” Theory, Culture and Society 30 (7–8): 51–76. doi:10.1177/0263276413496852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devis, D. 2021. “Genetically Modified Mosquitoes for Better Health.” Cosmos Magazine, March 4. Accessed 15 March 2021. https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/biology/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-for-better-health/
   Google Scholar
• Doudna, J., and E. Charpentier. 2014. “The New Frontier of Genome Engineering with CRISPR-Cas9.” Science 346 (6213): 1–9. doi:10.1126/science.1258096.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friese, C. 2013. “Realizing Potential in Translational Medicine: The Uncanny Emergence of Care as Science.” Current Anthropology 54 (S7): S129–S138. doi:10.1086/670805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz, V., and E. Bier. 2015. “The Mutagenic Chain Reaction: A Method for Converting Heterozygous to Homozygous Mutations.” Science 348 (6233): 442. doi:10.1126/science.aaa5945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gantz, V., N. Jasinskiene, and O. Tatarenkova. 2015. ”Highly Efficient Cas9-Mediated Gene Drive for Population Modification of the Malaria Vector Mosquito Anopheles Stephensi.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (49): E6736–E6743. doi:10.1073/pnas.1521077112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhough, B., and E. Roe. 2018. “Exploring the Role of Animal Technologists in Implementing the 3rs: An Ethnographic Investigation of the UK University Sector.” Science, Technology & Human Values 43 (4): 694–722. doi:10.1177/0162243917718066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhough, B., and E. Roe. 2019. “Attuning to Laboratory Animals and Telling Stories: Learning Animal Geography Research Skills from Animal Technologists.” Environment and Planning. D, Society & Space 37 (2): 367–384. doi:10.1177/0263775818807720.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammond, A., R. Galizi, and K. Kyrou. 2015. ”A CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Drive System Targeting Female Reproduction in the Malaria Mosquito Vector Anopheles Gambiae.” Nature Biotechnology 34 (1): 78. doi:10.1038/nbt.3439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 1997. Modest_witness@second_millenium. Female Man_meets_oncomouse. New York: Routeledge.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holmberg, T. 2008. “A Feeling for the Animal: On Becoming an Experimentalist.” Society and Animals 16 (4): 316–335. doi:10.1163/156853008X357658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmberg, T. 2011. “Moral Love: Care Practices in Animal Experimentation.” Feminist Theory 12 (2): 147–163. doi:10.1177/1464700111404206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmberg, T., and M. Ideland. 2009. “Transgenic Silences: The Rhetoric of Comparisons and Transgenic Mice as ‘Ordinary Treasures.’.” Biosocieties 4 (2): 165–181. doi:10.1017/S1745855209990044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelz, R. 2020. “Genome Editing Animals and the Promise of Control in a (Post-) Anthropocentric World.” Body and Society 26 (1): 3–25. doi:10.1177/1357034X19882762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenney, M. 2019. “Fables of Response-Ability: Feminist Science Studies as Didactic Literature.” Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience 5 (1): 1–39. doi:10.28968/cftt.v5i1.29582.
   Google Scholar
• Kirksey, E., and S. Helmreich. 2010. “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography.” Cultural Anthropology 25 (4): 545–576. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latimer, J., and M. Miele. 2013. “Naturecultures? Science, Affect and the Non-Human.” Theory, Culture and Society 30 (7–8): 5–31. doi:10.1177/0263276413502088.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledford, H., and E. Callaway. 2020. “Pioneers of Revolutionary CRISPR Gene Editing Win Chemistry Nobel.” Nature 586 (7829): 346–347. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02765-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorimer, J. 2008. “Counting Corncrakes: The Affective Science of the UK Corncrake Census.” Social Studies of Science 38 (3): 377–405. doi:10.1177/0306312707084396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michael, M. 2001. “Technoscientific Bespoking: Animals, Publics and the New Genetics.” New Genetics and Society 20 (3): 205–224. doi:10.1080/14636770120092985.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nading, A. 2015. “The Lively Ethics of Global Health Gmos: The Case of the Oxitec Mosquito.” Biosocieties 10 (1): 24–47. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2014.16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niu, D., H. Wei, L. Lin, H. George, T. Wang, I. Lee, and H. Zhao. 2017. “Inactivation of Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus in Pigs Using CRISPR-Cas9.” Science 357 (6357): 1303–1307. doi:10.1126/science.aan4187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J. 1996. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2011. “Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things.” Social Studies of Science 41 (1): 85–106. doi:10.1177/0306312710380301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichart, B., M. Längin, J. Radan, M. Mokelke, I. Buttgereit, and J. Ying, and A. K. Fresch. 2020. “Pig-To-Non-Human Primate Heart Transplantation: The Final Step Toward Clinical Xenotransplantation?” The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 39 (8): 751–757. doi:10.1016/j.healun.2020.05.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, R. 2019. “Scientists Release Controversial Genetically Modified Mosquitoes in High-Security Lab.” NPR, February 20. Accessed 1 March 2019. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/02/20/693735499/scientists-release-controversial-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-in-high-securit?t=1616411225487
   Google Scholar
• Svendsen, M. 2017. “Pigs in Public Health.” Critical Public Health 27 (3): 384–390. doi:10.1080/09581596.2017.1282155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, T., E. Kirksey, and U. Münster. 2016. “Multispecies Studies: Cultivating Arts of Attentiveness.” Environmental Humanities 8 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1215/22011919-3527695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weintraub, K. 2019. “Meet the Pigs That Could Solve the Human Organ Transplant Crisis.” MIT Technology Review, November 1. Accessed 2 November 2019. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/11/01/132110/meet-the-pigs-that-could-solve-the-human-organ-transplant-crises/
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, E., E. Kemter, N. Klymiuk, and B. Reichart. 2019. “Genetically Modified Pigs as Donors of Cells, Tissues, and Organs for Xenotransplantation.” Animal Frontiers 9 (3): 13–20. doi:10.1093/af/vfz014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar