Search

SOCIOTECHNICAL REGIME OF GENOME TECHNOLOGIES: INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS ON BIOTECHNOSCIENCE // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics. 2021. Issue 3 (29). P. 83-96

The starting point of the theoretical analysis of the article is the concept of a sociotechnical regime, which reveals the relationship between inertial and innovative trends, as well as the mutual influence of intrascientific and sociocultural factors on the development of technoscience. The author focuses on the transformative potential of genetic technologies, which are often described as promising, disruptive, platform, breakthrough, etc. In the center of the author’s research interest are the CRISPR-Cas9 human genome editing technology and preimplantation genetic diagnostics. They have been shaped by the regulations, laboratory practices, academic institutions, markets, infrastructure, etc. of the current sociotechnical regime. In turn, they began to influence the regime gradually. Innovations in genetics affect social ideas about health and disease, about human nature, about the ratio of the hereditary and the social, about ways to prevent and treat many diseases, promising to solve many problems in health care and, in a radical version, to “enhance” human nature. The assessment of innovations by society is largely determined by the socially constructed meanings of genetics – metaphors, myths, images, narratives, which allow comprehending the unknown through familiar discourses and symbols, and embedding it in ideas about the prospects for biotechnology development. The social significance of many technologies and the attention of society to this issue emphasize the need to take into account the social and humanitarian dimensions of modern innovations, avoiding narrowly technological and one-sided approaches. At the same time, communication between science and society should be open and constructive in how the technology is developed and what risks may arise as a result of its use. This communication should take into account the experience of previous polemics and social representations of biotechnoscience, as shown in the article using the example of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing technologies and PGD. Bioethics can play a significant role in communication processes, for it is focused on transdisciplinary ways of coordinating different positions that ensure the efficiency and validity of social acceptance of innovations – the admissibility of some technologies and social concerns about others.

Keywords: metaphor, narrative, discourse, biotechnoscience, sociotechnical regime, genome editing, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, bioethics

The “brain-as-computer” metaphor: Representing neuroscience in social practices // ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics. 2026. Issue 1 (47). P. 159-170

The computational metaphor, which compares the brain to a computer, is used in both scientific and public discourse to link abstract phenomena of neuroscience with familiar concepts and experiences. It demonstrates how metaphorical comparisons and analogies shape the language and cognitive frameworks for describing complex brain functions. However, there exists another metaphor – the computer is a brain – which also helps to reduce complex ideas to more comprehensible ones. Both metaphors influence thought processes by uniting rational and creative elements. Metaphorically simplifying the complexity of the brain for non-specialists, describing it as a computer opens up possibilities for the practical actions of neurohackers – enthusiasts of self-monitoring and self-improvement. Scientific literature identifies several types of neurohacking, among which, in the context under consideration, practices aimed at cognitive, emotional, or behavioral enhancement of healthy individuals and at uncovering the fundamental mechanisms of brain function are of interest. One of the key drivers of neurohacking is the pursuit of a competitive advantage in the modern information world, where brain-computer interfaces are used to transcend biological limitations. These interfaces, in a sense, correlate with expanding the functional capabilities of a computing device through external drives or memory modules. The metaphorical comparison allows for examining brain research and attempts to enhance it from a new perspective, one related to the practical applications of analogies and not limited by the disciplinary framework of biomedical sciences. While providing a useful tool for conceptualizing the processes of thinking and memory, the computational metaphor carries inherent theoretical biases and risks of oversimplification. This underscores the need for a critical examination of concepts that are often used by non-specialists to describe neuroscience. Figurative metaphors are a vital tool for scientific communication, bridging the gap between science and society. They are actively used in the media, on digital platforms, and in public outreach programs to adapt complex concepts for a broad audience and to enhance overall scientific literacy. As science and technology advance, our understanding of the brain and computers will improve. This will not only allow for a re-evaluation of this metaphor but will also lead to the emergence of new analogies or models. These new frameworks will aid in better understanding human consciousness and thought, potentially elevating discussions about the relationship between technological development, human enhancement practices, and the human mind and consciousness to a new level.

Keywords: metaphor, neuroscience, neurohackers, social practices, communication between science and society