Infrastructuring European scientific integration: Heterogeneous meanings of the European biobanking infrastructure BBMRI–ERIC

Abstract

While transnational research infrastructure projects long preceded the formal integration process that created the European Union, their advancement is an increasingly central part of EU research policy and of European integration in general. This paper analyses the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure–European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI–ERIC) as a recent example of institutionalized scientific collaboration in Europe that has formally been established as part of EU science policy. BBMRI–ERIC, a network of European biobanks, is expected to contribute to both European science and European integration. Yet its achievements in these domains are interpreted differently by various actors involved. This paper draws on STS conceptualizations of infrastructures as relational, experimental, and promissory assemblages. These support the formulation of a working definition of research infrastructures that in turn helps to explore the heterogeneous meanings attributed to BBMRI–ERIC. The paper describes the creation of this distributed European research infrastructure, and divergent understandings of what it means for BBMRI–ERIC to be distributed, to be European and to be a research infrastructure. This analysis demonstrates how building a research infrastructure is also an effort to define what it means to be European—a process in which what is European about science and what science can do for Europe is continuously (re-)imagined, contested and negotiated.

The stuff of memories: Planning hindsight in animal cryobanks

“…Only decades later, after the emergence of new molecular and cellular technologies, did it become the basis for cloning and de-extinction programs at the San Diego Zoo. This later success validated Bernirschke's undertaking in the past and as such seems to affirm an understanding of biobanks as fueled by speculation about the future, rather than present value (Aarden, 2023;Bach & Kroløkke, 2020;Lemke 2023;Radin, 2013). Useful as it is for explaining the ongoing drive toward biobanking in the life sciences, this perspective offers more to the historian looking into the past than to the sociologist who has no access to the future other than the more or less fanciful speculations about what frozen samples might one day become.…”

New roles of research data infrastructure in research paradigm evolution

“…By sorting out the digital and RDIs that have been planned, built and operated since 2000 (Figure 1), RDIs have emerged as strategic topic of interest and priority for decision-makers and political bodies of developed and developing countries. This aims to enhance their scientific and technological competitiveness in the new paradigm, including responses to major challenges such as COVID-19 pandemic, and to align with the promise of social progress (Aarden, 2023;Song & Ran, 2022). In recent years, several countries reoriented their national RI frameworks to facilitate effective establishment and operation of RDIs.…”

“…In all editions of the ESFRI Roadmaps, coherent infrastructures, resources and services covered the main scientific and technological domains. Table 1 show the evolution of the category of RDIs and currently, RDI has been central part of the RI ecosystem and priorities, which enables researchers and other stakeholders from research, education, society and business, to use, reuse and exploit data for the benefit of science and society (Aarden, 2023;Candela et al, 2015).…”