Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der aDNA-Forschung

6Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

aDNA studies are a cooperative field of research with a broad range of applications including evolutionary biology, genetics, anthropology and archaeology. Scientists are using ancient molecules as source material for historical questions. Colleagues from the humanities are observing this with both interest and concern because aDNA research is affecting academic identities and both concepts of history and historiography. aDNA research developed in a way that can be described as a Hype Cycle (Chackie Fenn). Technological triggers such as Sanger Sequencing and the Polymerase Chain Reaction kicked off a multitude of experiments with ancient DNA during the 1980s and 1990s. Geneticists, microbiologists, anthropologists and many more euphorically joined a “molecule hunt”. aDNA was promoted as a time machine. Media attention was enormous. As experiments and implementations began to fail and contamination was discovered to be a tremendous problem, media interest waned and many labs lost their interest. Some turned their disillusionment into systematic research into methodology and painstakingly established lab routines. The authenticity problem was first addressed by control oriented measures but later approached from a more cognitive theoretical perspective as the pitfalls and limits of aDNA became clearer. By the end of the 2000s the field reached its current plateau of productivity. Cross-disciplinary debates, conflicts and collaborations are increasing critical reflection among all participants. Historians should consider joining the field in a kind of critical friendship to both make the most of its possibilities and give an input from a constructivist perspective.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bösl, E. (2017). Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der aDNA-Forschung. NTM International Journal of History and Ethics of Natural Sciences, Technology and Medicine, 25(1), 99–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-017-0168-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free