Eurograd message

                Dear colleagues,
Below is the call for papers of the French Journal of Sociology (Revue
fran=C3=A7aise de sociologie) for a special issue on "cancer and genomics".
Contributions
are possible in French or in English. *Deadline: 31 January 2022 (short
proposal).*
Do not hesitate to circulate around you and contact the coordinators in
case of questions.
Best,
Sylvain Besle

Version fran=C3=A7aise en-dessous

*CALL FOR PAPERS*



Special issue

*Cancer and Genomics*



Scientific coordinators:

Sylvain Besle (Centre L=C3=A9on B=C3=A9rard, Universit=C3=A9 Claude Bernard=
 Lyon 1)

Pascal Ragouet (Centre =C3=89mile Durkheim, Universit=C3=A9 de Bordeaux)



With nearly 450,000 new cases and 150,000 deaths annually, cancer continues
to be a major social scourge in France, and the main focus of a large
national medical and scientific community. The history of the battle
against cancer is punctuated with innovations that have shaped the way
treatment is organized (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy), notably with
the creation of specialized cancer centers (in France, the Centre de Lutte
Contre le Cancer). In the last twenty years, genomics has renewed the
search for treatments. Genomic sequencing technologies, used to identify
and map cellular DNA, constitute a prevention, diagnosis, and treatment
tool all in one and are now considered a potentially major instrument in
future treatment of the disease. Genomics technologies and the treatments
that accompany them have therefore come with weighty promises from health
professionals, public authorities, and patient representatives. Similarly
to other international initiatives (e.g., Genomics England), France has
designed a program for developing genomic medicine: Plan France M=C3=A9deci=
ne
G=C3=A9nomique 2025. Cancer is prominent in the plan, the objective being t=
o
provide national access to sequencing.



In light of these observations, this special issue will explore the
empirical and theoretical issues involved in developing and using genomic
medicine in the field of oncology. The term =E2=80=9Cgenomic medicine=E2=80=
=9D does not
designate a clearly delimited technology but rather a wide range of
continuously evolving tools: different types of sequencing, bioinformatic
analysis methods, genetic engineering, and others. This swarm of techniques
and applications implies varied and in some cases unprecedented relations
between science, industry, public authorities, and medicine, relations that
need to be documented with detailed empirical studies. From a theoretical
perspective, genomics raises crucial epistemological questions about how
the processes by which cancer first develops (oncogenesis) are understood
and about the social and ethics issues associated with those processes;
specifically, procreation management, environmental and life habit impacts,
medicalization before and after cancer onset, and family issues such as
hereditary risk. But the development of genomic techniques also raises the
question of relations between sociology of health and sociology of science
because the large-scale deployment of sequencing scheduled by the Plan
France M=C3=A9decine G=C3=A9nomique 2025=E2=80=94officially presented as a =
clinical plan=E2=80=94will
impact the way the judicial, ethical, organizational and professional
boundaries between biomedical research and clinical practices are
configured. For this reason, it seems important to us to be particularly
attentive to the tensions in scale that appear when research activities and
treatment activities get pulled closer together. Treatment activities are,
by definition, *located*: in the body of the patient, in the doctor-patient
relationship, in a hospital context, and in national public health
policies. Research, by contrast =E2=80=94and particularly biomedical resear=
ch=E2=80=94is
increasingly conducted at the *international* scale: English-language
publications, international competition for research grants, the systematic
implementation of research experiments in countries outside France, the
importance of international actors (pharmaceutical corporations, scientific
societies). In this context, it seems to us essential to study the
conditions in which genomic medicine is developing from a perspective that
encompasses both clinical and research issues.



Though the following four lines of investigation are not restrictive, they
seems to us to deserve particular attention:



*1)   **Paradigm shifts and changes in research approaches in oncology. *Th=
e
aim is to explore the changes in theory and technique that have occurred in
fundamental or clinical research in oncology. There are many explanations
for the onset of cancer. The genomic approach appears prevalent today, but
there are other lines of attack, including metabolism, tumor
microenvironment, and approaches that focus on the new frame of the
exposome. Particular attention should be paid to the role of instruments
(DNA sequencers and editing tools) in these transformation processes.
Science-society reconfigurations may also be investigated, notably the ways
in which patients and their families appropriate genomics information and
knowledge.



*2)   **Relations between the sciences, health, and industry. *Genomics has
profoundly transformed the organization of medicinal drug production, *whic=
h
previously* centered on large international pharmaceutical corporations
specialized in chemistry, and of instrument design (sequencing,
microfluidics, and imaging techniques). This has resulted in a myriad of
enterprises (biotechnologies, artificial intelligence), some of which
emerged directly out of the academic world. But new forms of collaboration
are being developed as well, e.g., *university*-sponsored genomic clinical
trials designed to test targeted pharmaceutical industry drugs. Meanwhile,
patient and patient family advocacy groups may play the roles of
intermediary and negotiator between these different spheres, as shown in
the field of pediatric oncology (e.g.,* clinical trial funding/fundraising
for clinical trials,* and the organizing of =E2=80=9Chybrid forums=E2=80=9D=
 that bring
together actors from heterogeneous groups).



*3)   **The role of data. *The importance of data of various types(social,
quality-of-life, health, omics) in research and treatment can no longer be
doubted. And yet data collection, storage, and analysis, as well as the
legal framework for all this information, raise many questions. This is a
particularly important issue in genomics, where the amount of data produced
can be massive (several gigabytes per patient). Although major programs for
harmonizing national practices do exist (France=E2=80=99s Health Data Hub, =
for
example,) policy timespans are not always aligned with daily treatment and
research practices, meaning those practices have to adapt to locally
available resources. This in turn gives rise to diverse techniques that are
themselves worthy of study. Patient re-appropriation of data also raises
numerous questions, not only because genomic data closely identify
individuals but also for medical reasons that may exceed the individual
framework; for example, family genetic risk detection. Another point is the
strategic value these data have for other actors in either the private or
public sector (insurance companies; public hospitals); this raises a large
number of issues that need to be documented.



*4)   **Access to innovations and socially rooted health inequalities. *The
role of clinical research in treatment no longer seems limited to a kind of
=E2=80=9Cpalliative care that still has some therapeutic power=E2=80=9D (Ba=
*s*zanger 2002).
Including patients in clinical trials, as is done for rare types of cancer,
could become the norm. But this in turn impacts health inequalities due to
the limited number of trial slots and trial locations. In this area,
genomics could potentially amplify access issues, not only because it
greatly increases the number of therapeutic strategies (over 1,600
molecules are currently being tested in oncology) but also because it is a
means of subdividing existing types of cancer (for example, the distinction
between =E2=80=9Ctriple-negative=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CBRCA gene mutation=
=E2=80=9D breast cancer). The
issues of identifying and selecting patients are thus central to the
implementation of genomic medicine. And while political and institutional
will exists at the French and even European Union levels to circulate
patients in order to provide wider access to innovative treatments,
organizing such a project is difficult. Contributors to this special issue
may also wish to focus on new healthcare experiences that biomedical
innovations give rise to, and the treatment or biographical disruptions
those innovations may cause.



*5)   *Proposals for a critical review of a few recent and important books
pertaining directly to the special issue topic are also welcome.







Contribution proposals must be between 500 and 1,500 words and written in
either French or English. They must specify or include the following: 1)
the specific research topic and review of the relevant literature; 2)
material and methods; 3) expected results; 4) a short bibliography (no more
than 5 references). Proposals that do not comply with this format will be
automatically rejected.



*Proposals should be sent by January 31, 2022 to Christelle Germain,
assistant editor of the Revue fran=C3=A7aise de sociologie
(christelle.germain@cnrs.fr **) and the two
scientific coordinators of this special issue, Sylvain Besle
(sylvain.besle@lyon.unicancer.fr **) and
Pascal Ragouet (pascal.ragouet@u-bordeaux.fr =
**).
*



*Contribution proposals will be examined jointly by the scientific
coordinators. Acceptance letters will be sent out by March 30, 2022, at the
latest.  *

*Authors of accepted proposals must submit their full texts by June 30,
2022, at the latest. Articles may not exceed 75,000 characters (including
spaces, references, and tables). Each article will be evaluated anonymously
by the editorial committee of the Revue. *





*Appel =C3=A0 contributions*

*Num=C3=A9ro sp=C3=A9cial Revue Fran=C3=A7aise de Sociologie*





*Cancer et g=C3=A9nomique*





*Coordination scientifique* :

Sylvain Besle (Universit=C3=A9 Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Centre L=C3=A9on B=C3=
=A9rard),

Pascal Ragouet (Universit=C3=A9 de Bordeaux, Centre =C3=89mile Durkheim)





Avec pr=C3=A8s de 450 000 nouveaux cas et 150 000 d=C3=A9c=C3=A8s par an en=
 France le
cancer reste un fl=C3=A9au social d=E2=80=99ampleur animant une importante =
communaut=C3=A9
m=C3=A9dicale et scientifique. L=E2=80=99histoire de la lutte contre le can=
cer est
rythm=C3=A9e par les innovations (chirurgie, radioth=C3=A9rapie, chimioth=
=C3=A9rapie) qui
ont fa=C3=A7onn=C3=A9 l=E2=80=99organisation des soins, notamment avec la c=
r=C3=A9ation de centres
sp=C3=A9cialis=C3=A9s dans la lutte contre le cancer (Centre de lutte contr=
e le
cancer). Depuis une vingtaine d=E2=80=99ann=C3=A9es la recherche de nouveau=
x traitements
conna=C3=AEt un renouveau autour de la g=C3=A9nomique. A la fois outil de p=
r=C3=A9vention,
de diagnostic et de traitement, les technologies de s=C3=A9quen=C3=A7age pe=
rmettant
d=E2=80=99identifier et cartographier l=E2=80=99ADN des cellules sont consi=
d=C3=A9r=C3=A9es comme un
instrument potentiellement majeur dans la prise en charge future de cette
maladie. Ces technologies et les traitements qui les accompagnent sont donc
associ=C3=A9s =C3=A0 d=E2=80=99importantes promesses port=C3=A9es =C3=A0 la=
 fois par les professionnels
de sant=C3=A9, les pouvoirs publics et les repr=C3=A9sentants de patients. =
Dans la
lign=C3=A9e d=E2=80=99initiatives internationales (notamment le programme *=
Genomics
England*), la France s=E2=80=99est dot=C3=A9e d=E2=80=99un programme de d=
=C3=A9veloppement de la
m=C3=A9decine g=C3=A9nomique (Plan France m=C3=A9decine g=C3=A9nomique 2025=
), dans lequel le
cancer occupe une place pr=C3=A9pond=C3=A9rante et dont l=E2=80=99objectif =
est de permettre
l=E2=80=99acc=C3=A8s au s=C3=A9quen=C3=A7age =C3=A0 l=E2=80=99=C3=A9chelle =
nationale.



Partant de ce constat, cet appel =C3=A0 communication vise =C3=A0 explorer =
les enjeux
empiriques et th=C3=A9oriques du d=C3=A9veloppement de la m=C3=A9decine g=
=C3=A9nomique dans le
domaine de la canc=C3=A9rologie. En effet, loin de renvoyer =C3=A0 une tech=
nologie
clairement d=C3=A9limit=C3=A9e, la m=C3=A9decine g=C3=A9nomique s=E2=80=99a=
ppuie sur une large gamme
d=E2=80=99outils en constante =C3=A9volution : type de s=C3=A9quen=C3=A7age=
, modalit=C3=A9s d=E2=80=99analyse
bio-informatique, ing=C3=A9nierie g=C3=A9n=C3=A9tique, etc. Ce foisonnement=
 implique ainsi
des configurations vari=C3=A9es et parfois in=C3=A9dites de relations entre=
 science,
industrie, pouvoirs publics et m=C3=A9decine qu=E2=80=99il convient de docu=
menter via
des =C3=A9tudes empiriques pr=C3=A9cises. D=E2=80=99un point de vue th=C3=
=A9orique, la g=C3=A9nomique
pose des questions =C3=A9pist=C3=A9mologiques de premi=C3=A8re importance a=
utour de la
compr=C3=A9hension m=C3=AAme des processus de canc=C3=A9risation (canc=C3=
=A9rog=C3=A9n=C3=A8se) et donc
des enjeux sociaux et =C3=A9thiques qui leurs sont associ=C3=A9s : gestion =
de la
procr=C3=A9ation, impact de l=E2=80=99environnement et des habitudes de vie=
,
m=C3=A9dicalisation en amont et en aval de la maladie ou encore de la famil=
le
(risques h=C3=A9r=C3=A9ditaires). Mais le d=C3=A9veloppement de ces techniq=
ues de
g=C3=A9nomique pose =C3=A9galement la question des relations entre la socio=
logie de
la sant=C3=A9 et la sociologie des sciences. En effet, le d=C3=A9ploiement =
du
s=C3=A9quen=C3=A7age =C3=A0 large =C3=A9chelle via le Plan France m=C3=A9de=
cine g=C3=A9nomique 2025,
officiellement pr=C3=A9sent=C3=A9 comme un plan de soin, interroge la confi=
guration
des fronti=C3=A8res juridiques, =C3=A9thiques, organisationnelles, professi=
onnelles
entre les pratiques de recherche et de soin. A ce titre, les tensions
d=E2=80=99=C3=A9chelle qui apparaissent dans le rapprochement des activit=
=C3=A9s de recherche
et de soin nous semblent devoir faire l=E2=80=99objet d=E2=80=99une attenti=
on particuli=C3=A8re.
D=E2=80=99un c=C3=B4t=C3=A9 l=E2=80=99activit=C3=A9 de soin est par d=C3=A9=
finition situ=C3=A9e : dans le corps du
patient, dans la relation m=C3=A9decin-patient, dans un contexte hospitalie=
r ou
encore dans des politiques de sant=C3=A9 publique nationales. De l=E2=80=99=
autre, la
recherche, en particulier dans le domaine biom=C3=A9dical, s=E2=80=99intern=
ationalise :
publications anglophones, comp=C3=A9tition internationale pour l=E2=80=99ob=
tention de
fonds de recherche, syst=C3=A9matisation d=E2=80=99exp=C3=A9riences de rech=
erche =C3=A0
l=E2=80=99=C3=A9tranger, importance d=E2=80=99acteurs internationaux (group=
es pharmaceutiques,
soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9s savantes). Dans ce contexte, un regard crois=C3=A9 entre=
 les enjeux de
soin et de recherche nous semble essentiel pour =C3=A9tudier les conditions=
 de
d=C3=A9veloppement de la m=C3=A9decine g=C3=A9nomique.



Sans =C3=AAtre limitants, quatre axes de questionnement nous semblent m=C3=
=A9riter
une attention particuli=C3=A8re :



 (1) *Changements de paradigme et recherche en canc=C3=A9rologie*. Il s=E2=
=80=99agira
d=E2=80=99explorer les transformations th=C3=A9oriques et techniques qui tr=
aversent le
domaine de la canc=C3=A9rologie, que ce soit en recherche fondamentale ou
clinique. Les explications de l=E2=80=99apparition des cancers sont nombreu=
ses.
Aujourd=E2=80=99hui, l=E2=80=99approche g=C3=A9nomique semble pr=C3=A9valen=
te, mais il existe
d=E2=80=99autres angles d=E2=80=99attaque ; ainsi des =C3=A9tudes portent p=
lut=C3=B4t sur le
m=C3=A9tabolisme, sur le microenvironnement tumoral et d=E2=80=99autres enc=
ore
s=E2=80=99inscrivent dans le cadre nouveau de l=E2=80=99exposome. Une atten=
tion
particuli=C3=A8re sera donn=C3=A9e au r=C3=B4le des instruments (s=C3=A9que=
nceurs, outils
d=E2=80=99=C3=A9dition de l=E2=80=99ADN) dans ces processus de transformati=
on. Les
reconfigurations entre sciences et soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9s sont =C3=A9galement e=
ssentielles =C3=A0
consid=C3=A9rer, et notamment les formes de r=C3=A9appropriation des connai=
ssances
g=C3=A9nomiques par les patients et leurs proches.

(2) *Rapport entre sciences, sant=C3=A9 et industrie*. L=E2=80=99organisati=
on de la
production des m=C3=A9dicaments =E2=80=93 autour de grands groupes pharmace=
utiques
internationaux sp=C3=A9cialis=C3=A9s dans la chimie =E2=80=93 et de la mise=
 au point
d=E2=80=99instruments (techniques de s=C3=A9quen=C3=A7age, micro-fluidique,=
 imagerie) a
profond=C3=A9ment =C3=A9volu=C3=A9 avec la g=C3=A9nomique, notamment avec l=
e d=C3=A9veloppement
d=E2=80=99une myriade d=E2=80=99entreprises (biotechnologies, intelligence =
artificielle)
parfois directement issues du monde acad=C3=A9mique. Mais ce sont =C3=A9gal=
ement de
nouvelles formes de collaborations qui s=E2=80=99=C3=A9tablissent comme par=
 exemple dans
la conduite des essais cliniques de g=C3=A9nomique associant industriels,
h=C3=B4pitaux et institutions publiques. Des associations de patients ou de
familles peuvent =C3=A9galement jouer un r=C3=B4le d=E2=80=99interm=C3=A9di=
aire et de n=C3=A9gociateur
entre ces diff=C3=A9rentes sph=C3=A8res, comme le montre l=E2=80=99exemple =
de la canc=C3=A9rologie
p=C3=A9diatrique (financement d=E2=80=99essais cliniques, organisation de =
=C2=AB forum
hybrides =C2=BB regroupant des acteurs issus de groupes h=C3=A9t=C3=A9rog=
=C3=A8nes).



(3) *R=C3=B4le des donn=C3=A9es*. L=E2=80=99importance des donn=C3=A9es (so=
ciales, de qualit=C3=A9 de
vie, de sant=C3=A9, omiques) pour la recherche et le soin ne fait aujourd=
=E2=80=99hui
plus aucun doute. Pour autant, leur recueil, stockage, analyse mais aussi
le cadre juridique qui les entoure soul=C3=A8vent de nombreuses questions. =
Ceci
est particuli=C3=A8rement important en g=C3=A9nomique o=C3=B9 les quantit=
=C3=A9s de donn=C3=A9es
produites peuvent =C3=AAtre extr=C3=AAmement importantes (plusieurs gigaoct=
et de
donn=C3=A9es par patients). Si de grands programmes nationaux visant =C3=A0
harmoniser les pratiques existent (par exemple le *Health data hub* en
France), la temporalit=C3=A9 de ces politiques publiques n=E2=80=99est pas =
toujours en
accord avec les pratiques quotidiennes de soin et de recherche. Ces
derni=C3=A8res doivent alors s=E2=80=99adapter en fonction des moyens dispo=
nibles
localement, entrainant une vari=C3=A9t=C3=A9 de pratiques qui m=C3=A9ritent=
 d=E2=80=99=C3=AAtre
=C3=A9tudi=C3=A9es. La r=C3=A9appropriation de ces donn=C3=A9es par les pat=
ients pose =C3=A9galement
de nombreuses questions en raison du caract=C3=A8re identifiant des donn=C3=
=A9es
g=C3=A9nomiques, mais aussi pour des raisons m=C3=A9dicales qui peuvent d=
=C3=A9passer le
strict cadre individuel comme, par exemple, l=E2=80=99identification de ris=
ques
g=C3=A9n=C3=A9tiques familiaux. L=E2=80=99int=C3=A9r=C3=AAt strat=C3=A9giqu=
e de ces donn=C3=A9es pour d=E2=80=99autres
acteurs, priv=C3=A9s (assurances) ou public (h=C3=B4pitaux), soul=C3=A8ve =
=C3=A9galement de
nombreux enjeux qu=E2=80=99il s=E2=80=99agit de documenter.



(4) *Acc=C3=A8s aux innovations et in=C3=A9galit=C3=A9s sociales de sant=C3=
=A9*. Le r=C3=B4le de la
recherche clinique dans le soin ne semble plus se limiter =C3=A0 une forme =
de
=C2=AB palliatif encore th=C3=A9rapeutique =C2=BB (Baszanger, 2000), l=E2=
=80=99inclusion dans des
essais peut ainsi  devenir la norme, comme dans le cas des cancers rares.
Mais cette situation n=E2=80=99est pas sans cons=C3=A9quences sur la produc=
tion des
in=C3=A9galit=C3=A9s sociales de sant=C3=A9, notamment en raison de la disp=
onibilit=C3=A9
limit=C3=A9e des essais en termes de nombre de places et de lieux o=C3=B9 i=
ls sont
r=C3=A9alis=C3=A9s. Ici la g=C3=A9nomique joue un r=C3=B4le d=E2=80=99ampli=
ficateur potentiel des
enjeux d=E2=80=99acc=C3=A8s en d=C3=A9multipliant le nombre de strat=C3=A9g=
ies th=C3=A9rapeutiques
(actuellement il y a plus de 1600 mol=C3=A9cules test=C3=A9es en canc=C3=A9=
rologie) mais
=C3=A9galement en subdivisant le nombre de cancers diff=C3=A9rents (on dist=
ingue par
exemple les cancers du sein =C2=AB triple n=C3=A9gatif =C2=BB ou des =C2=AB=
 BRCA mut=C3=A9 =C2=BB). Les
enjeux d=E2=80=99identification et de s=C3=A9lection des patients deviennen=
t donc
centraux dans la mise en place de la m=C3=A9decine g=C3=A9nomique. S=E2=80=
=99il existe des
volont=C3=A9s politiques et institutionnelles de faire circuler les patient=
s =C3=A0
l=E2=80=99=C3=A9chelle nationale voire europ=C3=A9enne pour donner acc=C3=
=A8s =C3=A0 ces traitements
innovants, cela n=E2=80=99est pas sans difficult=C3=A9s en termes d=E2=80=
=99organisation. On
s=E2=80=99int=C3=A9ressera =C3=A9galement aux nouvelles formes d=E2=80=99ex=
p=C3=A9riences de soin
associ=C3=A9es aux innovations biom=C3=A9dicales et aux ruptures th=C3=A9ra=
peutiques et
biographiques qu=E2=80=99elles peuvent entra=C3=AEner.



(5) les contributions prenant la forme d'une *note critique* consacr=C3=A9e=
 =C3=A0
quelques ouvrages r=C3=A9cents et importants =C3=A9troitement li=C3=A9s =C3=
=A0 la th=C3=A9matique
g=C3=A9n=C3=A9rale du num=C3=A9ro sp=C3=A9cial.



Les propositions de contribution (min. 500 mots-max. 1 500 mots), en
fran=C3=A7ais ou en anglais, devront d=C3=A9crire de mani=C3=A8re synth=C3=
=A9tique les quatre
=C3=A9l=C3=A9ments suivants : 1) Sujet abord=C3=A9 et =C3=A9tat de la litt=
=C3=A9rature pertinente
pour le sujet trait=C3=A9 ; 2) Mat=C3=A9riau et m=C3=A9thodes ; 3) R=C3=A9s=
ultats attendus ; 4)
Courte bibliographie (max. 5 r=C3=A9f=C3=A9rences). Toute proposition qui n=
e respecte
pas ce format sera automatiquement rejet=C3=A9e.

Les propositions doivent =C3=AAtre adress=C3=A9es avant le 31 Janvier 2022 =
au
secr=C3=A9tariat de r=C3=A9daction (christelle.germain@cnrs.fr) ainsi qu=E2=
=80=99aux deux
coordinateurs :

l    Sylvain Besle (sylvain.besle@lyon.unicancer.fr),

l    Pascal Ragouet (pascal.ragouet@u-bordeaux.fr).



Elles feront l=E2=80=99objet d=E2=80=99un examen conjoint par les signatair=
es de cet appel.
La notification d=E2=80=99acceptation sera rendue aux auteurs au plus tard =
le 15
mars 2022. Les auteurs dont la proposition a =C3=A9t=C3=A9 retenue devront =
remettre
leur texte, dont la longueur ne d=C3=A9passera pas 75 000 signes (espaces,
figures et tableaux compris), au plus tard le 30 juin 2022. Chaque article
sera =C3=A9valu=C3=A9, de mani=C3=A8re anonyme, par le comit=C3=A9 de lectu=
re de la Revue.

*References*



Aud=C3=A9tat, Marc, ed. 2015. *Sciences et technologies =C3=A9mergentes: po=
urquoi
tant de promesses?* Paris: Hermann.

Baszanger, Isabelle. 2002. =E2=80=9CLa fin de la vie: de nouvelles frontier=
s entre
curative et palliatif.=E2=80=9D In *Quelle m=C3=A9decine voulons-nous? *edi=
ted by
Isabelle Baszanger, Martine Bungener, Anne Paillet (Paris: La Dispute), pp.
211-33.

Beaudevin, Claire, Ashveen Peerbaye, Catherine Bourgain. 2019. =E2=80=9C=E2=
=80=98It Has to
Become True Genetics=E2=80=99: Tumor Genetics and the Division of Diagnosti=
c Labour
in the Clinic.=E2=80=9D *Sociology of Health & Illness* 41 (4): 643-57.

Capp, Jean-Pascal. 2012. *Nouveau regard sur le cancer: Pour une r=C3=A9vol=
ution
des traitements*. Paris: Belin.

Chin-Yee, Benjamin, Ross Upshur. 2019. =E2=80=9CThree Problems with Big Dat=
a and
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.=E2=80=9D *Perspectives in Biology and =
Medicine*
62: 237-56.

Christofferson, Travis. 2017. *Tripping over the Truth: How the Metabolic
Theory of Cancer is *Overturning *One of Medicine=E2=80=99s Most Entrenched
Paradigms*. London: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Derbez, Benjamin. 2018. =E2=80=9CEntre essai clinique et soins palliatifs: =
travail
de d=C3=A9marcation et d=E2=80=99appariement en oncologie.=E2=80=9D *Sociol=
ogie du travail *60
(2)/April-June: *http://journals.openedition.org/sdt/2026
* ; *DOI :
https://doi.org/10.4000/sdt.2026 .*

Goodman, Kenneth W. 2015. *Ethics, Medicine, and Information Technology:
Intelligent Machines and the Transformation of Health Care*. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Guchet, Xavier. 2016. *La m=C3=A9decine personnalis=C3=A9e. Un essai philos=
ophique*.
Paris: Les Belles lettres.

Keating, Peter, Alberto Cambrosio. 2012. *Cancer on Trial: Oncology as a
New Style of Practice*: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kerr, Ann, Choon Key Chekar, Emily Ross, Julia Swallow, Sarah
Cunningham-Burley. 2021. *Personalised Cancer Medicine: Future Crafting in
the Genomic Era*. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Kerr, Ann, Emily Ross, Gwen Jacques, Sarah Cunningham-Burley. 2018. =E2=80=
=9CThe
Sociology of Cancer: A Decade of Research.=E2=80=9D *Sociology of Health & =
Illness*
40 (3): 552-76.

Kitchin, Rob. 2014. =E2=80=9CBig Data, New Epistemologies and Paradigm Shif=
ts.=E2=80=9D *Big
Data & Society* 1: 1-12.

Nelson, Nicole, Peter Keating, Alberto Cambrosio. 2013. =E2=80=9COn Being
=E2=80=98actionable=E2=80=99: Clinical Sequencing and the Emerging Contours=
 of a Regime of
Genomic Medicine in Oncology.=E2=80=9D *New Genetics and Society* 32 (4): 4=
05-28.

Pinell, Patrice. 2009. =E2=80=9CLa gen=C3=A8se du champ m=C3=A9dical: le ca=
s de la France
(1795-1870).=E2=80=9D *Revue fran=C3=A7aise de *sociologie 50 (2): 315-49.

Pinell, Patrice. 1992. *Naissance d=E2=80=99un fl=C3=A9au. Histoire de la l=
utte contre
le cancer en France (1890-1940)*. Paris: M=C3=A9taili=C3=A9.

Shapiro, Charles L. 2018. =E2=80=9CCancer Survivorship.=E2=80=9D *The New E=
ngland Journal
of Medicine* 379: 2438-50.

Tempini, Niccol=C3=B2, Sabina Leonelli. 2021. =E2=80=9CActionable Data for =
Precision
Oncology: Framing Trustworthy Evidence for Exploratory Research and
Clinical Diagnostics.=E2=80=9D *Social Science & Medicine* 272:*
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113760
 *