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= szanger 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