Please provide a critical summary of the attached article and also provide any p

Question

Please provide a critical summary of the attached article and also provide any particular arguments, theories, methods.

Article: The fluidity of biosocial identity and the effects of place, space, and time

By: Daniel Wiesea, Jeronimo Rodriguez Escobara, Yohsiang Hsua, Rob J. Kulathinalb, and Allison Hayes-Conroya.

1. Introduction

Identity, and its relationship to individual uniqueness, has been among the most debated concepts in both the social and life sciences (Hall and du Gay, 1996; Clarke, 2010; Durante, 2013). Identity is a field-specific concept with its meaning shifting drastically not only between the social and life sciences, but also within disciplines due to differing epistemologies, methodologies, and scopes of research. In common parlance, identity can evoke a sense of distinctiveness, co- herence, and singularity: What makes me, me, and you, you? Such questions may be answered via shared notions of social difference (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, religion), through a rich description of char- acteristics and habits, or through appeals to one's biological uniqueness (e.g., their fingerprint or DNA profile).

Yet, the rise of new biotechnologies may fundamentally change the way we perceive identity. Social theorist Nikolas Rose argues:

We live, according to some, in the century of biology where we now understand ourselves in radically new ways, as the insights of genomics and neuroscience have opened up the workings of our bodies and our minds to new kinds of knowledge and intervention (Rose, 2012: p. 1).

It is clear that recent advances of tools, resources, and knowledge in the life sciences have made bioinformation distinctly more accessible to

laypersons via public databases, the internet, mobile apps, and personal biotech companies (Postan, 2017). In this paper, we provide a con- ceptual framework for understanding identity in the context of this century of biological enlightenment (Rose, 2012; Venter and Cohen, 2004). While we draw key insights from the social sciences, our focus is on the question of biological or, as we would like to more broadly frame it, biosocial identity, i.e., who are we in material terms?

The question, “who are we in material terms?” is not meant to ne- gate but rather to reconstruct the so-called immaterial dimensions of identity. For instance, the social and psychological (Roazzi et al., 2013) become material aspects of the body as it experiences life and develops over time (Krieger and Davey-Smith, 2004; Meloni et al., 2016). Also, in congruence with social and psychological understandings of identity, biological identity is much more dynamic than any static genome can represent. Our model presents this dynamism in a way that is directly applicable to the social and biological sciences, with significant re- levance to the medical sciences and to both scientific and lay under- standings of health and disease. After defining the components of bio- logical, or biosocial, identity below, we present a relational model and describe its potential relevance to theory and methods in individualized medicine and clinical decision making (Horwitz et al., 2017a,b).

The definition of identity highlights large philosophical differences between disciplines. Durante (2013) summarizes the conceptual chal- lenges surrounding personal identity by describing two antagonistic theoretical approaches: physical and psychological. Despite diverse thinkers, both ancient and modern, who have readily understood the body as impacted by context (e.g., see Krieger and Davey-Smith, 2004; Warin et al., 2015), physical or biological identity (understood as that which offers uniqueness) has often been seen as immutable. In fact, the physical body, while simultaneously understood as adaptable to con- text, has long been afforded a sense of biological permanence that has strongly informed everyday understandings of identity/difference in physical terms (Nelkin and Lindee, 2004; Turney and Balmer, 2000; see also Gillett, 2011). In contrast, psychological identity has routinely been recognized as less stable and built upon the “intertwined relations of an individual's psychological states” (Durante, 2013). Specifically, the idiosyncrasies that make a person unique (personal identity), have been seen as a process of formation that begins in childhood and spans a lifetime.

Moran (2014) instructs that the notion of identity as a process of (psychological) formation, has a very specific history; prior to Erik Erickson's recasting of the word, “identity” was generally used in sci- ence, philosophy, and other kinds of scholarship, in a very narrow sense to refer to the sameness of an entity over time (Erikson, 1956). Moran argues:

Until the 1950s, or even the 1960s and 1970s, there was no dis- cussion of sexual identity, ethnic identity, political identity, national identity, corporate identity, brand identity, identity crisis, or ‘losing’ or ‘finding’ one's identity – indeed, no discussion at all of ‘identity’ in any of the ways that are so familiar to us today, and which, in our ordinary and political discussions, we would now find it hard to do without (Moran, 2014: 10).

Moran (2014) goes on to explain that the contemporary concept of identity was integrated quickly and furiously into social science and theory, beginning in the 50s and 60s, and then often attributed to earlier writers who had not actually used the word in that way (see also Brubaker and Cooper, 2000). Identity came to be used to describe a more general sense of self, rather than a strict sense of sameness over time, and in so doing, identity emerged as an active “classificatory device” through which debates about group belonging and the “es- sence” of types of people were waged (Moran, 2014, 6).

Yet, identity as a social concept continued to evolve in the latter half of the 20th century. Without reviewing Moran's careful discussion of the debate, it seems fair to argue that the indictment of “essentialism” (e.g. wrongly attributing an essence to a group or individual) became a common, if not feared, critical impulse in identity scholarship; this critique could easily be avoided, however, by recasting both group and personal identity as malleable, dynamic, contingent, and/or multiple (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000; Brubaker, 2015). The work of prominent sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman (2000, 2004), popularized the notion that identity is fluid, relating the fluidity of personal identity to a modern era of rapid change and the ready disposal of things, people, and ideas. This newer notion of identity as fluid, or changeable, stuck. While there may still be debate over the analytical significance of a conceptualization of identity that no longer refers primarily to self-sameness or persistence over time, there has been a general acceptance of the fluidity of identity in the social sciences (Brubaker and Cooper, 2000).

Importantly, acceptance of the fluidity of social identity did not negate the validity and significance of social identity writ large; social identities and particularly categories across social difference – race, class, gender, sexuality, ability – are widely referenced. Instead, what the fluidity of social identity has solidified is the (prior) recognition that social identities are context-bound and dynamically contingent to other relationships in socio-space (c.f. Massey, 1997). The performance of

gender or racial identity, for example, may differ between home and work or between divergent peer groups (e.g., Pratt, 1998; McDowell, 1999). Accordingly, the individual clearly remains a unique social actor, but their uniqueness and significance for social theory and sci- ence does not come from a static social status alone. Rather, social significance and uniqueness emerge from the individuals' relational web of social-spatial interaction, and their performance of identity/ difference therein.

Meanwhile, in the life sciences, identity is still largely based on an immutable, static model of individual uniqueness. Many static under- standings of biological identity specifically conform to a broader Western framework for science and biomedicine that arguably decon- textualized the human body from its relationships with the broader environment for the sake of providing universal understanding of bio- logical mechanisms (c.f. Good & Delveccio, 1993). The supposed static nature of biological identity is historically rooted in well-developed and engrained frameworks (Thurtle, 1996) across several branches of the biological sciences (Clarke, 2010). Static biological mechanisms of identification, including the analysis of dental records and fingerprints (Ohira et al., 2009) and, more recently, retinal scans, voice recognition, and gait analyses have been used and applied in the medical, anthro- pological, and forensic sciences. Of course, genetics now dominate much of the discourse in defining personal identity (Thurtle, 1996). Since the re-discovery of Mendel's laws in the early 1900's, to the dis- covery of DNA structure in the 1950's, to the recent development of technologies to readily sequence anyone's entire genome, genetics has provided a clear path to identifying individuals regardless of time and space (Pradeu, 2012). This static genetic identity, based on the cen- turies-old genetics framework of mapping genotypes to phenotypes, treats DNA as a hard-wired personal signature that defines an in- dividual throughout his/her lifetime. Indeed, DNA identity has become a powerful and universal tool for identity confirmation since its un- iqueness can be stated with exceptionally high levels of confidence.

Other disciplines in biology also utilize a static framework of per- sonal identity. As an organ that profoundly shapes personal identity (Feinberg and Keenan, 2005), the brain has recently received a lot of attention with respect to neuro-identity. A study by Bao and Swaab (2011) on sexual behavior and orientation concluded that gender identity and sexual orientation are permanently programmed in the fetal brain due to testosterone level and, thus, not related to social environment. In a very different example, the constancy of biological identity, and the critical role that the brain plays in shaping it, is also evidenced in cases of phantom limb perception: a phenomenon that is experienced by many people after limb amputation where the limb still appears to be present or even hurts (Ramachandran and Hirstein, 1998). Such cases demonstrate that the brain develops a very detailed and stable picture of the corporeal self.

However, not all branches of biology are dominated by a static conception of an individual. Environmental heterogeneity can drive phenotypic plasticity, particularly across developmental stages (Kuzawa, 2005). Many aspects of the human body, such as the immune system, are known to change during the course of an individual's life- time and, therefore, do not fit into static notions of biological identity. In Pradeu's work (2012) on defining biological identity within an im- munological framework, proteins involved in immune response de- monstrate “an extremely high degree of phenotypic diversity, [and therefore that] ... immune phenotypic characteristics are one of the best ways to distinguish between two individuals” (Pradeu, 2012: 7). This uniqueness holds true despite the fact that the immune system is in constant flux, changing with the antigens it directly encounters throughout life. More recent work by Grignolio et al. (2014) found that continuous changes within the immune system lead us toward a per- ception of body-based identity as “liquid,” corroborating Pradeu’s (2012) findings that biological identity cannot be defined by any one of the disciplinary branches of biology alone. In short, the static concep- tion of human biological identity has been definitively challenged

across different biological frameworks. In the next section, we will describe how this challenge is consistent with emerging biological sub- disciplines that demand new epistemological frameworks and novel models for a re-thinking of identity. The shift to more fluid and en- vironmentally permeable notions of biological identity has major im- plications for biology, for the fields of health and medicine, for public policy, and for broader cultural practices and processes of meaning making. Specifically, it encourages an approach to the body and bodily wellbeing that is attentive to context, aware of experienced inequities, and cognizant of the material significance of meanings (e.g. Brison, 2002; Barad, 2007).

Rapid advancements in genetic and genomics research during the past century led biology to become a dominant discursive force, with increasing public use and adoption of biological concepts, approaches, and technologies (Rose, 2012; Janitz and Janitz, 2011). Now, almost two decades into the 21st century, genomic medicine has become a central tenant of personalized medicine, and personalized genetic testing (risk assessment) has quickly spread to the general public, re- inforcing the idea that one's heritage (ancestral genomics) and disease risk (medical genomics) represents a fixed state (Ginsburg and Willard, 2009). However, Meloni (2016) describes a nascent postgenomic era, which offers many new opportunities “to go beyond the genome as we have known it” (p. 193). Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) le- veraged with powerful new population-based statistical tools and ana- lyses (e.g., PCA) provide unprecedented power to study the co-effects of genetics and the environment. Newer post-genomic biological innova- tions and technologies have also taken hold with personalized metage- nomics and epigenetics as two common examples (Marco, 2011; Neilson, 2017; Zimmer, 2016). Personalized metagenomics and epigenetics are particularly relevant to our thesis of an emerging concept of biological identity for the 21st century – one that represents fluidity and re- lationality rather than stasis. Below we describe several examples of metagenomics and epigenetics help to help articulate a new model of biological identity for the 21st century.

The human body is inhabited by tens of trillions of microbes that create complex body-specific ecosystems able to adapt to changes in the physiology of the host (Lloyd-Price et al., 2016). Moreover, the mi- crobial ecosystem of the body (i.e., metagenome) is known to be very diverse (Lloyd-Price et al., 2016) and highly relevant to bodily health and wellbeing. Several microbial landscapes have been associated with certain diseases (Badger et al., 2011) including allergies (Trompette et al., 2014), cancer (Garrett, 2015), and neurodevelopmental disorders (Hsiao et al., 2013). The field of metagenomics as “a means of capturing and analyzing the genomes of the entire microbial community present within a given habitat” (Meiring et al., 2011: 1), such as the human body, provides renewed insight into the dynamic influence of place (geography) and time (history) on the composition of the internal and external human microbiome (Petersen and Garges, 2011).

More specific examples from metagenomic studies present the mi- crobiome as an important yet cryptic component of biological identity. For example, a metagenomics twin study by Turnbaugh et al. (2010) offers particularly compelling evidence that monozygotic twin pairs with identical DNA appear to be “unique life forms” (e.g., different from each other) with respect to microbial profile, which shifts over space and time. The researchers found that only 17% of bacterial species in fecal samples were shared between co-twins and strongly differed from those of the mother. Furthermore, recent advances in metagenomics research not only show how significant the contribution of metage- nomics is in identifying the uniqueness of the body, but also that changes in gut microbial communities can have profound influence on the health conditions of individual bodies in ways that may impact

individualized treatment (Gordon et al., 2012; Round and Mazmanian, 2009; Balter, 2012). Therefore, somewhat ironically, an individual's disease profile, while biologically unique, seems to depend in part on the vast and dynamic interactions of billions of other organisms. These organisms form relationships with the individual body in a way that is idiosyncratic, yet ever-changing, over time.

Importantly, this renewed vision of biological identity offered by metagenomics is not separate from, but rather intricately connected to social identity and personal biographical experience, i.e., the so called immaterial aspects of human life. Through metagenomics research, we now know that the human microbiome changes constantly with the development of the fetus during pregnancy, birth, and infancy, and is highly influenced by lifestyle, dietary habits, and cultural traditions, as well as socioeconomic status, social differences, and inequity in living conditions (Nuriel-Ohayon et al., 2016, Quercia et al., 2014; Belstrøm et al., 2014; Kau et al., 2011; Rook et al., 2014). An infinitely wide variety of biographical factors affect the human microbiome. The mi- crobiome and its dynamic interplay with the host's internal and external environment provides a powerful demonstration of the fluidity of bio- social identity. Yet, as we describe more fully below with respect to epigenetics, the scientific association of metagenomic qualities and categories of biographical experience – specifically socioeconomic status, social difference, and inequity – is not without concern. While the understanding of such associations is important, there is also an inherent risk that certain bodies may be labeled more or less faulty, or even tainted, with respect to their metagenome. Indeed, while the malleable microbiome is perhaps less durable than the epigenetic shifts discussed below, the microbiome has begun to be classified according to associated positive and negative qualities (e.g. weight, behavior), which may similarly warrant caution, particularly when applied in a reductionist manner (c.f. Mansfield, 2012; Meloni, 2016, 2017).

Epigenetics presents a second emerging framework that offers per- haps the most compelling evidence of a shift away from the stability of DNA-centric biological identity. Epigenetics is the study of “heritable changes in gene expression that are independent of changes in the DNA sequence” (Gordon et al., 2014: 2589). A critical aspect of epigenetics is that changes in gene expression can be modified by a wide variety of environmental cues, including nutrition, various chemical and UV ex- posures, infectious agents, emotional challenges and stress, and phy- sical activity at different stages of life (Feil and Fraga, 2012; Jimenez- Chillaron et al., 2014). Turner et al. (2015) argue that epigenetics “promises to improve our understanding of the mechanisms underlying our continued adaption to our environment throughout life” (p.845). After being introduced from a theoretical standpoint by Waddington in the first half on the 20th century (Lock, 2015; Van Speybroeck, 2002), it has recently re-emerged as a data-rich empirical science via advances in molecular technology (Van Speybroeck, 2002). Although the genome's genetic information remains essentially unchanged throughout an in- dividual's lifetime, the expression levels of genes are constantly chan- ging with the activation and deactivation of genes affecting physiolo- gical processes throughout the body (Towle, 1997). Therefore, epigenetics can be seen as the science of shifting biological identity, particularly shifting cellular landscapes (Issa, 2011), and thus fitting the framework that cells never remain the same and are constantly re- newing. Changes in cells are changes that occur with progressive age, and changes in lifestyle are significant influencing factors that con- tribute to the metamorphosis of the body, and of biological identity. Moreover, as human biological identity is modified through gene ex- pression changes precipitated by the environment via epigenetic me- chanisms, an individual's response to disease is affected as well (Issa, 2011).

This newfound plasticity has multiple social and political implica- tions. The idea that gene expression may be responsive to a wide array of environmental signals, including social and cultural dynamics, demands renewed attention to the multi-scalar socioeconomic in- equities that may impact bodily health (Meloni, 2016). Accordingly, a growing body of social scholarship has examined the new opportunities afforded by epigenetics with an optimistic yet critical eye (Lock, 2013, 2015). On one hand, scholars remain hopeful of future directions of research where issues once considered to be the domain of social sci- ence alone – e.g. socioeconomic stress, parenting, cultural patterns of consumption – are now understood as biological (c.f. Landecker, 2016). On the other hand, social scholars also worry about the possibility of a return to old racialized anxieties about bodily “damage” that may be passed from generation to generation (Meloni, 2016; Landecker and Panofsky, 2013; Roberts, 2016). As intimated in the discussion of the microbiome above, there is a real worry that in both science and lay communications, epigenetics could also be used to reaffirm patterns of social exclusion and/or perceived inferiority (Meloni, 2016). Such cautions are certainly no reason to exclude epigenetics – nor the bio- logical fluidity it presents – from social scholarship (and vice versa), but rather an opportunity (or imperative) to pay closer attention to how knowledge about the body is produced and used, and to provide stra- tegies for change, when necessary. The next section represents biolo- gical fluidity in a new model of biological, or biosocial identity.

As previously discussed, several emerging biological frameworks are incongruent with the notion that biological identity is static and immutable. For example, the complex and dynamic human immune system repertoire represents a well-established example of how the biology of the body changes through time, yet remains relationally un- ique (Pradeu, 2012). Recent advances in metagenomics and epigenetics provide a new take on biological identity – one that is more fluid than biology has traditionally expressed, but one that nonetheless maintains individual biological uniqueness (singularity) through its relational interplay with the surrounding world. This shift to a new, dynamic, relationally unique biological identity is represented in Fig. 1.

In the static identity model (Fig. 1A), the uniqueness of an in- dividual's genome is the primary attribute of an individual's biological identity, which is assumed to remain unchanged over time and space. In the fluid model (Fig. 1B), the relational uniqueness of the body as it relates to its environment (e.g., the immune system, epigenetics, me- tagenome), serves as the basis of an individual's biological identity, which is dynamic over time, and can be influenced by social, economic

and political dynamics and events (Meloni, 2016).
A prediction of phenotypic state (e.g., disease risk) is incorporated

into each of the models. In the static identity model, phenotype is re- presented as a simplistic yes/no binary associated with genomic state, while in the fluid model of identity, it is attributed to a heterogeneity of factors related to the relationship between the genome, its body, and its social/physical environment. This shift in approach to phenotypic prediction, and to disease risk more specifically, is consistent with emerging trends in biomedicine: the individual's constantly shifting metagenome and/or continual shifts across the human epigenetic landscape have a profound potential to shape our bodies and disease risk, as well as disease prevention and treatment (c.f. Sapienza and Issa, 2016). Research examining shifting aspects of the body in relationship to its environment, especially metagenomics and epigenetics, pre- cipitate new opportunities to clarify the dynamism of the substrate of biomedicine (the human body) in order to make the life sciences and medicine ever more personalized and sensitive to human life's in- evitable heterogeneity across place, space, and time.

In short, the model of fluid bio-social identity (Fig. 1B) insists that an individual's biology is always dynamically biographical, with im- portant implications for health and medicine. Medicine, epidemiology, and the life sciences have had varying ways of working to uncover how an individual's complex biography may impact his/her biology, speci- fically in order to understand phenotype/disease, risk, and treatment outcomes. The negative effects of stressful conditions such as violence, poverty and discrimination on human health have long been discernible by epidemiologists as well as social scientists studying health and/or wellbeing (Krieger and Davey-Smith, 2004). This knowledge, however, was generated through body-external observations, and “[stood] in contrast to ultrareductionists [views]” (p. 94) and “was [a] shake-up of “normal science” (Lock, 2015; 151). Now, new “biological evidence” for the effects of stressful conditions has been provided through re- search findings in environmental and social epigenetics (Champagne, 2010), as well as metagenomics, which are beginning to be used as biomarkers in the medical sciences, and could not only significantly influence individual treatment but also widely affect public health policy (Lock, 2015). As described above in relation to epigenetics, this shift in the biological evidence-base demands new kinds of ethical considerations (see Roberts, 2016).

Meanwhile, recent work on medicine-based evidence (in contrast to evidence-based medicine) and personalized medicine indicate that such a shift is both necessary and imminent in the coming decades (Horwitz

and Singer, 2017; McEwen and Getz, 2013). Additionally, the model of fluid biosocial identity resonates with much of what is being termed the “new bio-social science,” a domain that spans social, health and life sciences (Roberts, 2016). The social sciences in particular have begun to ask questions about the human body – including especially epigenetics – that would once have been deemed the purview of medicine or bio- medicine alone (c.f. Mansfield, 2012; Lappe and Landecker, 2015; Meloni, 2016, 2017). Accordingly, our depiction of identity as biosocial and our insistence on a fluid, relational understanding of identity – which is necessarily contextualized in place and time – builds from and contributes to the diverse and innovative work being accomplished in this domain, across social science, life sciences and medicine (Rose, 2012; Meloni et al., 2016).

To be clear, the shift that this paper's model represents is novel only in its recognition of relationality as the defining feature of individual biological identity, perhaps better expressed as biosocial identity. By depicting this shift in identity in which the body's unique signature is no longer a fixed entity exclusive to it, but a matchless web of dense dy- namic interactions, the model (Fig. 1B) offers a basis for describing the ontological merging of “bio” and “social” in the human body. We see this depiction as foundational for the continued growth of “new bio- social science” as it shifts attention away from understanding seemingly universal biological processes to understanding individual rationality and outcomes. This shift does not negate wider social difference and structural inequities (which may be experienced as fixed rather than fluid), but understands that, at least for the purposes of health and medicine, the individual body's unique web of dense, dynamic inter- actions likely matters to health outcomes.

Accordingly, biological fluidity was presented above through the inherently relational mechanisms of metagenomics, epigenetics, and immunology specifically, but should relate to an even wider array of biological processes through which the body is seen to relate to its social and physical environment. An instructive example of the model's utility comes from research on Multiple Sclerosis (MS) over the past two decades, which has provided a clear indication that biographical factors such as spatial mobility, age, and environment can contribute to the risk of developing this autoimmune disease. It has been well-accepted that populations who live further away from equator, in areas such as Scandinavia, have much higher chance to develop MS than populations that live closer to the tropics. Yet if a person from the high-risk area moves to the lower-risk area before age 15, the risk seems to drop. In cases of relocation from the high-risk to low-risk areas at a later age, the risk remains the same (Rolak, 2017). While researchers hypothesize that UV exposure and/or Vitamin D levels may be a factor, further re- search has also suggested that variations in the apparent biogeo- graphical patterns of the disease may be related to behavioral and cultural factors, which are still unknown at this time (Simpson et al., 2011).

Most researchers struggle to incorporate multiple cultural and be- havioral shifts as factors in research on disease because the relationship between biology and biography seems too complex to study in precise and conclusive ways. However, several innovative researchers are at- tempting to assemble various aspects of this biographical heterogeneity into systematic methods for clinical medicine. For example, Wivel et al. (2017) suggests that clinical decision-making regarding the treatment of lupus (Systemic Lupus Erythematosis) could be greatly improved by methodological attention to the relational interplay between biography and biology. Their paper argues that a novel approach to produce clinically relevant multi-dimensional histories, describing patient tra- jectories during two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will provide the clinician with better predictions of how each unique individual might respond to treatment. Other scholars concur that methods and research oriented towards grasping such relational uniqueness of the human body will be essential for medicine in the 21st century (Chan and Ginsburg, 2011).

The dominant view of biological identity during the past century has been an essentialist one linked to the immutability of genomic DNA. This stasis has been especially appealing to geneticists, medical science, and the study of the etiology of disease. However, due to novel ad- vances and datasets in the genome sciences, science is now coming to recognize this stasis in biological identity as deceptive. Progress in epigenetics and metagenomics specifically has enabled a new dynamic view of the human body that encompasses place, space, and time. Within this work, researchers have discovered that each individual remains biologically unique, but that uniqueness derives not from static DNA but rather from constantly changing relational heterogeneity of the body as it experiences its environment. Thus, the core of biological identity has shifted from the human body itself to the relationality of that body as it is uniquely situated within the world.

Humans have long known that our biology (phenotype) changes with age and place. Yet, now in the 21st century, these changes can be precisely measured due to recent advances in technology. The central argument of this paper has not simply been that human bodies change over time, but rather that bodies are made unique through their sin- gular, ever-changing relationships with the world. On one level, this is a philosophical and social argument that impinges upon how human in- dividuals identify ‘our bodies and ourselves’ in the 21st century (Durante, 2013). On another level, however, this argument represents a critical turning point for the life and medical sciences, which is related and codified through the contrasting model of static vs. dynamic bio- social identity. The model implies that medical sciences must do more than, for example, simply classifying new environmental risk factors for disease or mapping out singular behavioral factors one by one, as if to check off requisite boxes such as smoking, drinking, or physical ac- tivity. Instead, researchers must seek to understand how the individual is made unique through a shifting rhizomatic web of interrelated fac- tors, each of which produces biological, or more accurately, biosocial identity. Like Wivel et al. (2017), working with such a model needs to start from the singular body up, examining what unique combinations of factors, and patterns therein, may be relevant to a specific disease or condition, as well as to overall health and well-being.

Personalized medicine is likely to become even more personalized in the 21st century, not only with the advent of personalized metage- nomics and epigenetics as well as a profusion of bio-monitoring gad- gets, but also with the growing scientific certainty that one's biography distinctly impacts individual biology (Horwitz et al., 2017a,b). This paper's bi-part model insists, on a meta-theoretical level, that medicine could do even better by consciously shifting its approach to personal identity from a 20th century static model based on an immutable ge- netic code, to a 21st century dynamic model based on relational and experiential uniqueness.

Explanation / Answer

The article discusses the different races of the mankind with respect to the social identitity which is prevalent in the studies of biological database sequences and data mining . The sequencing of the DNA, proteins and RNA analyzes the genes in the genomes and their genotypic and phenotypic expressions. The study involves the identification of the single nucleotide polymorphisms, DNA finger printing, restriction fragment length polymorphism and mutation studies. It helps in the classification of the races and their biological social identity. The study of the psychological and the social factors analyzes the identity of the persons and their role in society. Berenbaum,blakemore and Beltz have discussed the significance of humans in their genes and sequences and not in their opinions and jobs in the society. The advancement of medical technology has led to the finding of the cure for deadly and disastrous diseases like cancer, multuple sclerosis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. The study of the phylogenetic history, clade and dendograms helps in the analysis of the evolutionary background and race of the mankind.

Constructivist grounded theory-- The statistical survey was conducted in a college where questions were asked among students regarding the importance of the race, gender, equality and caste in the society and its biological significance. Open and axial coding techniques were used to identify the races like africans, asian-americans, hispanics, white ,latin american people involved in undertstanding the importance of the biological databases and tools in studying the origin and inheritance of the diseases and their treatment. Coding and random trial experiments were done to analyze the views of the students on the biological identity and its importance in the proliferation of the race of mankind maintaining or diversifying the evolutionary background. The biosocial model of identity testing was established to study sexual orientation in male and female students in the society. The points considered in the discussion include past awareness and experiances among males and females with gender bias, friendship, habits, their thinking in terms of sexual maturity and intelligence. The authority and guidance available to the students was discussed in the campaign. The development of the biosocial identity was discussed in terms of the available facilities and environment present during the upbringing of the students by their parents. The racial discrimination, group behavior and politics was discussed and the impact on these factors on the sexual orientation of the students in the colleges and universities. The study included the analysis of the hobbies ,sports participation ,extra cultural participation in various events. The impact of television and its impact on the thinking of the students was discussed . The study of the biological topics like chromosomes, genes and their inheritance with the significance of race and social identity was analyzed. The conversion of the religion from one to another to except friendship and relations in terms of real life significance was analyzed and tested. The sampling included the analysis of mean, mode, median, standard deviation, errors, variance, correlation and regression, mathematical expectation, coefficients, skewness ,kurtosis and probability . The testing used softwares like ANOVA, chi-square analysis, F-test, SAS packages for finding the tests of significance and hypothesis testing with mathematical relevance.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.