ABSTRACT
The title of this chapter is somewhat cryptic, possibly even obscure. What do we mean, exactly, by ‘platforms’? In what sense can a formation be said to be ‘hybrid’? And how do these notions apply to genomics?We will begin the chapter by surveying how biologists and clinical practitioners have used the term ‘platform’ and how this term has been adopted and re-specified by social scientists. As will become clear, platforms can be characterised in terms of the hybrid formations that underlie them and that they generate. The two subsequent sections of this chapter will therefore focus on two categories of platformrelated hybrids: socio-economic and bio-clinical hybrids. The final section will briefly discuss the need for an analytical framework articulating both types of hybrids. A caveat: we have not tried to be comprehensive and ecumenical; rather than summarise everything that has ever been said about platforms and hybrids, our review of the literature is highly selective and focuses on topics and approaches we find relevant and interesting. While social scientists are still likely to wonder about the meaning of ‘platforms’, this
term is now commonly used and understood by natural scientists and clinicians. A search for its occurrence in the title of articles listed in PubMed shows that while it was found on average in 23 titles/year during the 1990s, this average rose to 151 during the period 2000-6. A text-mining analysis of the content of the post-2000 titles (not detailed here) teaches us that while the term is sometimes associated with a more literal referent (as in the case of physical and occupational therapy or orthopaedic surgery), it most frequently appears within clusters of terms related to genome or proteome analysis and, in particular, to techniques such as microarrays (gene chips) and protein mass spectrometry. In this ‘common sense’ meaning, platforms thus refer to sets of related technologies mobilised by research domains that are increasingly dependent upon the use of sophisticated instruments that often combine computer equipment and biological reagents. The term is also used as a synonym of, or in relation to, ‘core facilities’, namely collections of equipment shared by researchers from one or more institutions. An example of this kind of usage can be found in a Wikipedia entry describing the ‘Molecular biology core facilities’ of a US cancer research institute:
The Molecular Biology Core Facilities (MBCF) was created to allow investigators at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) access to cutting edge molecular biology tools which would be tested and developed in a shared setting … The MBCF at DFCI was first started in 1984 to supply small oligonucleotides to researchers … Because of the growing demand for oligonucleotide primers to initiate DNA replication and for probes, a plan was put into place to develop a core facility to produce reagents for molecular biologists as well as instrumentation for the analysis of DNA and protein samples. This plan stated that a charge-back method would be put in place to fairly spread the resources as a shared facility. A Peptide Synthesizer … was brought online in 1988 … A Protein Sequen-
cer … was installed in 1989 quickly followed by several DNA Sequencers which were the first to use fluorescent dye terminator chemistry. Mass Spectrometers were acquired to provide analysis of synthesized peptides but soon grew into a stand-alone service in high demand. BIAcore instrumentation added for ligand kinetics in 1996 … In 2007 a large expansion of high throughput proteomics using mass spectrometry has been funded by private donation.1
