Minerva 54 (4):471-490 (2016)
AbstractBioinformatics – the so-called shotgun marriage between biology and computer science – is an interdiscipline. Despite interdisciplinarity being seen as a virtue, for having the capacity to solve complex problems and foster innovation, it has the potential to place projects and people in anomalous categories. For example, valorised ‘outputs’ in academia are often defined and rewarded by discipline. Bioinformatics, as an interdisciplinary bricolage, incorporates experts from various disciplinary cultures with their own distinct ways of working. Perceived problems of interdisciplinarity include difficulties of making explicit knowledge that is practical, theoretical, or cognitive. But successful interdisciplinary research also depends on an understanding of disciplinary cultures and value systems, often only tacitly understood by members of the communities in question. In bioinformatics, the ‘parent’ disciplines have different value systems; for example, what is considered worthwhile research by computer scientists can be thought of as trivial by biologists, and vice versa. This paper concentrates on the problems of reward and recognition described by scientists working in academic bioinformatics in the United Kingdom. We highlight problems that are a consequence of its cross-cultural make-up, recognising that the mismatches in knowledge in this borderland take place not just at the level of the practical, theoretical, or epistemological, but also at the cultural level too. The trend in big, interdisciplinary science is towards multiple authors on a single paper; in bioinformatics this has created hybrid or fractional scientists who find they are being positioned not just in-between established disciplines but also in-between as middle authors or, worse still, left off papers altogether.
Similar books and articles
The Fusion of Biology, Computer Science, and Engineering: Towards Efficient and Successful Synthetic Biology.Gregory Linshiz, Alex Goldberg, Tania Konry & Nathan J. Hillson - 2012 - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 55 (4):503-520.
The bioinformatics of genetic origins: how identities become embedded in the tools and practices of bioinformatics.Jan van Baren-Nawrocka - 2013 - Life Sciences, Society and Policy 9 (1):1-18.
Recent Developments in Computing and Philosophy.Anthony F. Beavers - 2011 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 42 (2):385-397.
From a heap of facts to predictive biological theory: the future of life sciences viewed through the prism of a bioinformatics textbook introduction to bioinformatics 3rd edition. (2008). By Arthur M. Lesk. Oxford University Press. 482 pp. ISBN 978‐0‐19‐920804‐3. [REVIEW]Frank Eisenhaber - 2008 - Bioessays 30 (10):1034-1035.
Are computer scientists the sutlers of modern biology?: Bioinformatics is indispensible for progress in molecular life sciences but does not get credit for its contributions.Peter Schuster - 2014 - Complexity 19 (4):10-14.
LinkSuite™: Software Tools for Formally Robust Ontology-Based Data and Information Integration.Werner Ceusters, Barry Smith & James Matthew Fielding - 2004 - In Proceedings of DILS 2004 (Data Integration in the Life Sciences), (Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics, 2994). Springer. pp. 1-16.
Second International Workshop on Bioinformatics Research and Applications (IWBRA06)-Extracting Protein-Protein Interactions from the Literature Using the Hidden Vector State Model.Deyu Zhou, Yulan He & Chee Keong Kwoh - 2006 - In O. Stock & M. Schaerf (eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag. pp. 718-725.
Basic Formal Ontology for bioinformatics.Barry Smith, Anand Kumar & Thomas Bittner - 2005 - IFOMIS Reports.
21st-century humanities: Art, complexity, and interdisciplinarity.Paul Youngman - 2012 - Human Affairs 22 (2):111-121.
Special Session on Bioinformatics-Protein Stability Engineering in Staphylococcal Nuclease Using an AI-Neural Network Hybrid System and a Genetic Algorithm.Christopher M. Frenz - 2006 - In O. Stock & M. Schaerf (eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag. pp. 4031--935.
Privacy, the individual and genetic information: A buddhist perspective.Soraj Hongladarom - 2009 - Bioethics 23 (7):403-412.
How and Why to Teach Interdisciplinary Research Practice.Rick Szostak - 2007 - Journal of Research Practice 3 (2):Article M17.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Strategically Unclear? Organising Interdisciplinarity in an Excellence Programme of Interdisciplinary Research in Denmark.Katrine Lindvig & Line Hillersdal - 2019 - Minerva 57 (1):23-46.
The Value of Vagueness in the Politics of Authorship.Bart Penders - 2017 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14 (1):13-15.
Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration and Scholarly Independence in Multidisciplinary Learning Environments at Doctoral Level and Beyond.Eva M. Brodin & Helen Avery - 2020 - Minerva 58 (3):409-433.
The locus of legitimate interpretation in Big Data sciences: Lessons for computational social science from -omic biology and high-energy physics.Neil Stephens, Luis Reyes-Galindo, Jamie Lewis & Andrew Bartlett - 2018 - Big Data and Society 5 (1).
References found in this work
Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge.Karin Knorr-Cetina - 1999 - Harvard University Press.
The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences.Richard Whitley - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the "Postsocialist" Condition.Nancy Fraser - 1996 - Routledge.
Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities.Julie Thompson Klein - 1996 - University Press of Virginia.
Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.Professor Mary Douglas - 2002 - Routledge.