Bio-objects and Their Boundaries
Where Life Sciences Meet Society and Politics
When Biology Doesn't Stay in the Lab
Imagine a world where viruses evolve into political arguments, where genes become cultural symbols, and where climate data transforms into policy battlegrounds.
This is the realm of "bio-objects"—biological entities whose significance extends far beyond the laboratory to reshape society, politics, and our very understanding of life itself. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a powerful recent example: what began as a biological virus rapidly became a political flashpoint, an economic disruptor, and a cultural dividing line 1 .
COVID-19
From biological entity to political and cultural phenomenon
Abortion Policies
Medical procedures becoming political declarations
Conservation
Ecological management intersecting with Indigenous rights
Similar boundary-crossing transformations occur with abortion policies, where medical procedures become political declarations, and with conservation efforts, where ecological management intersects with Indigenous rights 5 6 . This article explores how these bio-objects challenge the traditional boundaries between science and society, and why their governance demands new approaches to navigating our complex biological future.
What Are Bio-Objects and Why Do Their Boundaries Matter?
The Fluid Nature of Biological Entities
At their core, bio-objects are biological entities that acquire multiple meanings as they travel across different social domains. They begin as scientific facts—a virus, a gene, an ecosystem—but gradually accumulate political, ethical, and cultural significance.
Think of how a stem cell represents both medical promise and ethical concerns, or how forest ecosystems symbolize both natural resources and cultural heritage. What makes bio-objects particularly fascinating is their boundary-crossing nature; they refuse to stay confined within laboratory walls or scientific journals 1 .
The concept of "boundary objects" helps explain how bio-objects function across different social worlds. Boundary objects are entities that are flexible enough to adapt to different viewpoints while maintaining enough consistent identity to facilitate cooperation between groups 5 .
For example, when scientists and policymakers collaborate on conservation, they might use "human well-being indicators" as a boundary object that allows these different communities to work together despite their distinct priorities and perspectives 5 .
The Governance Challenge
This boundary-crossing creates significant governance challenges. As biological information becomes increasingly central to political decisions, the relationship between science and politics grows more complex. Science provides essential data and analysis demonstrating the veracity of conditions and trends, while politics must balance this evidence with public values, resource constraints, and diverse stakeholder interests 1 6 .
Governance Alert
The delicate balance comes when political views override scientific evidence, as seen when abortion restrictions ignore medical expertise, potentially endangering lives 6 . Effective governance of bio-objects requires maintaining what the Royal Society describes as a "dependable 'trivalent vaccine'" combining science, society, and policy to prevent and prepare for emerging threats 1 .
Inside the Lab: How Scientists Study Bio-Boundaries
A Neuroscience Experiment on Natural Beauty
To understand how scientists actually study the intersection of biological responses and aesthetic experience, let's examine a sophisticated neuroimaging study that investigated how our brains process the aesthetic appeal of natural landscapes 4 . This research provides a perfect example of measuring how a subjective experience—finding a landscape beautiful—correlates with biological activity in specific brain regions.
In this 2021 study published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, researchers designed an experiment to identify how visual perception transforms into aesthetic appreciation in the brain. Twenty-four participants watched a series of engaging video clips of natural landscapes while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning.
The videos were specially curated to be artistically compelling depictions of natural environments, each 30 seconds long. During the viewing, participants provided continuous ratings of their enjoyment, and after each video they gave an overall aesthetic judgment 4 .
fMRI technology allows researchers to observe brain activity in real time
Methodology: Mapping the Brain's Aesthetic Response
Stimulus Presentation
Participants viewed landscape videos while in the fMRI scanner, designed to engage both scene-selective and motion-sensitive visual processing regions due to their dynamic, immersive quality.
Neural Localization
Researchers independently identified specific visual processing regions in each participant's brain using functional localizers. These included:
- Parahippocampal Place Area (PPA): Specialized in processing scenes and spatial layouts
- hMT+: Critical for processing visual motion
- Other scene-selective regions (OPA and RSC)
Continuous Response Measurement
Using a specialized interface, participants provided real-time enjoyment ratings while watching the videos, followed by overall aesthetic appeal judgments after each clip.
Data Analysis
Scientists examined whether brain activity in visual processing regions correlated with reported aesthetic appeal, testing if our neural response to basic visual features directly relates to aesthetic experience 4 .
Data Presentation
Experimental Stimulus Categories and Examples
| Stimulus Type | Description | Example Content | Key Brain Regions Engaged |
|---|---|---|---|
| Landscape Videos | 30-second dynamic natural scenes | Mountain vistas, forest waterfalls, desert panoramas | PPA, hMT+, OPA, RSC |
| Scene Localizers | Static images of places vs. objects | Indoor spaces, buildings, isolated objects | PPA, OPA |
| Motion Localizers | Moving vs. stationary visual patterns | Kinetic dot patterns, moving gratings | hMT+ |
Key Neural Correlates of Aesthetic Appeal for Natural Landscapes
| Brain Region | Function | Modulated by Aesthetic Appeal? | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parahippocampal Place Area (PPA) | Scene recognition and spatial layout | No | Basic scene processing distinct from aesthetic valuation |
| hMT+ | Visual motion processing | No | Motion detection separate from aesthetic experience |
| Collateral Sulcus | Adjacent to scene-processing regions | Yes | Potential site for "elemental affect" computation |
| Middle Occipital Sulcus | Lateral visual processing | Yes | Involved in transformation to aesthetic representation |
| Subcortical Reward Structures | Pleasure and reward | Yes | Biological basis for enjoyment of beautiful nature |
Essential Research Materials for Neuroaesthesia Studies
| Research Tool | Function | Application in Bio-boundary Research |
|---|---|---|
| Functional MRI (fMRI) | Measures brain activity through blood flow changes | Mapping neural correlates of aesthetic and ethical responses to bio-objects |
| Eye-tracking Equipment | Monitors gaze patterns and pupil dilation | Quantifying visual attention to different biological stimuli |
| Psychological Rating Scales | Captures subjective experiences | Measuring aesthetic appeal, emotional responses, moral intuitions |
| Category-selective Localizers | Identifies specialized brain regions | Isolating specific visual processing areas (PPA, hMT+) |
| Statistical Analysis Software | Analyzes complex neural and behavioral data | Determining significant correlations between brain activity and experiences |
Results and Interpretation: Beauty Beyond Basic Vision
The findings revealed fascinating insights about where aesthetic appreciation emerges in our neural architecture. Contrary to what researchers initially hypothesized, the well-defined category-selective visual regions (PPA for scenes and hMT+ for motion) were not significantly modulated by how aesthetically appealing participants found the landscapes 4 .
Neural Transformation
Instead, aesthetic appeal correlated with activity in adjacent but distinct regions—specifically ventral areas within the collateral sulcus and lateral areas in the middle occipital sulcus and posterior middle temporal gyrus. This suggests that aesthetic appeal isn't merely a direct output of our basic visual processing systems, but rather involves a local transformation from feature-based representation to what researchers term "elemental affect" 4 .
Governing Bio-Objects: When Science and Politics Collide
Navigating the Science-Policy Interface
The interaction between scientific knowledge and political decision-making creates what scholars call a "complex ménage à trois" between science, society, and policy 1 . This relationship is inherently tension-filled yet essential. Science provides the evidence base for policy decisions, while politics provides the democratic legitimacy and resource allocation necessary for scientific progress to benefit society.
Success Story
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both the promises and perils of this relationship—from successful vaccine development collaborations to premature lifting of restrictions against scientific advice 6 .
Boundary Objects
Human well-being indicators have served as successful "boundary objects" in conservation policy in Washington's Puget Sound, facilitating collaboration between different stakeholders 5 .
Effective governance of bio-objects requires recognizing that they exist at the intersection of multiple domains. For instance, human well-being indicators have served as successful "boundary objects" in conservation policy in Washington's Puget Sound, facilitating collaboration between natural scientists, social scientists, policymakers, and local communities 5 .
This approach has led to five significant outcomes: enhanced social-ecological narratives, institutionalization of social scientific expertise, integrated restoration planning, dedicated funding for social science, and the provision of environmental justice data 5 .
Tensions and Power Imbalances
However, this intersection is often marked by significant power imbalances and political pressures. Examples include Australian ministerial vetoes of peer-reviewed research grants and the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States despite medical evidence 6 . Such actions demonstrate how political considerations can override scientific evidence, potentially leading to policies that fail to serve public interests.
Power Imbalance Examples
- Australian ministerial vetoes of peer-reviewed research grants
- Overturning of Roe v. Wade despite medical evidence
- Political interference in climate science reporting
The challenge is further complicated when different knowledge systems interact, such as when Indigenous knowledge interfaces with Western scientific approaches. New Zealand's establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, represents an innovative approach to integrating different knowledge systems and addressing historical inequities in health outcomes 6 .
This example shows how governance of bio-objects—in this case, health and wellbeing—can benefit from incorporating diverse perspectives and addressing power imbalances directly.
Conclusion: Navigating Our Bio-Object Future
The study of bio-objects and their boundaries reveals a fundamental insight: biological entities increasingly resist containment within traditional disciplinary or social boundaries.
From viruses that become political symbols to genes that raise ethical questions, bio-objects demand new forms of collaboration and governance. The neuroscience experiment exploring landscape aesthetics demonstrates that even our brain processes aesthetic appeal through specialized systems that transform basic visual information into valued experience 4 . Similarly, conservation efforts that integrate human well-being indicators show how boundary objects can facilitate collaboration across different domains of knowledge and practice 5 .
Future Governance Needs
As we face increasingly complex biological challenges—from climate change to genetic engineering—the governance of bio-objects will require what the Royal Society describes as a "trivalent vaccine" combining science, society, and policy 1 .
Collaborative Approach
This approach recognizes that neither scientific nor political authority alone can adequately address these challenges. Instead, we need mechanisms for productive collaboration that respect the distinct contributions of each domain while facilitating their interaction.
The Path Forward
The future of bio-object governance lies in developing what one analysis calls "boundary work"—the institutionalization of processes that allow different forms of expertise to inform decisions that affect us all 5 . In this sense, understanding bio-objects and their boundaries isn't just an academic exercise; it's essential groundwork for navigating our increasingly biological future.