Gender Beneath the Skull: Agency, Trauma and Persisting Stereotypes in Neuroepigenetics.

Elsher Lawson-Boyd,Maurizio Meloni

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2021.667896

Abstract

Epigenetics stands in a complex relationship to issues of sex and gender. As a scientific field, it has been heavily criticized for disproportionately targeting the maternal body and reproducing deterministic views of biological sex (Kenney and Müller, 2017; Lappé, 2018; Richardson et al., 2014). And yet, it also represents the culmination of a long tradition of engaging with developmental biology as a feminist cause, because of the dispersal of the supposed ‘master code’ of DNA among wider cellular, organismic and ecological contexts (Keller, 1988). In this paper, we explore a number of tensions at the intersection of sex, gender and trauma that are playing out in the emerging area of neuroepigenetics - a relatively new subfield of epigenetics specifically interested in environment-brain relations through epigenetic modifications in neurons. Using qualitative interviews with leading scientists, we explore how trauma is conceptualized in neuroepigenetics, paying attention to its gendered dimensions. We address a number of concerns raised by feminist STS researchers in regard to epigenetics, and illustrate why we believe close engagement with neuroepigenetic claims, and neuroepigenetic researchers themselves, is a crucial step for social scientists interested in questions of embodiment and trauma. We argue this for three reasons: (1) Neuroepigenetic studies are recognizing the agential capacities of biological materials such as genes, neurotransmitters and methyl groups, and how they influence memory formation; (2) Neuroepigenetic conceptions of trauma are yet to be robustly coupled with social and anthropological theories of violence (Eliot, 2021; Nelson, 2021; Walby, 2013); (3) In spite of the gendered assumptions we find in neuroepigenetics, there are fruitful spaces – through collaboration – to be conceptualizing gender beyond culture-biology and nature-nurture binaries (Lock and Nguyen, 2010). To borrow Gravlee’s (2009: 51) phrase, we find reason for social scientists to consider how gender is not only constructed, but how it may “become biology” via epigenetic and other biological pathways. Ultimately, we argue that a robust epigenetic methodology is one which values the integrity of expertise outside its own field, and can have an open, not empty mind to cross-disciplinary dialogue.

Highlights

BIOLOGY BEYOND THE GENOMEIn the wake of the Human Genome Project, molecular biology has undergone some fascinating changes
We argue this for three reasons: (1) Neuroepigenetic studies are recognizing the agential capacities of biological materials such as genes, neurotransmitters and methyl groups, and how they influence memory formation; (2) Neuroepigenetic conceptions of trauma are yet to be robustly coupled with social and anthropological theories of violence (Eliot, 2021; Nelson, 2021; Walby, 2013); (3) In spite of the gendered assumptions we find in neuroepigenetics, there are fruitful spaces – through collaboration – to be conceptualizing gender beyond culture-biology and nature-nurture binaries (Lock and Nguyen, 2010)
We explore a number of tensions at the intersection of sex, gender and trauma that are playing out in the emerging area of neuroepigenetics - a relatively new subfield of epigenetics interested in environment-brain relations through epigenetic modifications in neurons, which may subsequently affect their function, lifespan and capacity to retain memories

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In the wake of the Human Genome Project, molecular biology has undergone some fascinating changes. Interviewees pointed out that the evidence supporting neuroepigenetic claims remains thin, and in turn “there is not enough knowledge to know exactly what epigenetic alterations can be repaired,” these statements suggest a kind of speculative future for interventions and treatments whereby micro-matter like epigenetic markers may be targeted; having an epistemological handle on the biophysical and biophysically mediated trace of trauma in the brain raises the possibility of its reversibility, removal and “correction.” In other words, the epigenome, as dynamic and flexible unlike the genome, evokes hope that detrimental consequences of trauma may “not be there forever.”. One role of interdisciplinary discussion is to unpack and unpick assumptions about gender in epigenetics, and to build generative methodologies that can engage with a plethora of agents

CONCLUSION

ETHICS STATEMENT