Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enacting Authenticity: Changing Ontologies of Biological Entities

Authenticity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of the Anthropology of Technology

  • 2589 Accesses

Abstract

Recent technologies propose to address the social problems of health, environmental sustainability, and food security by using biological analogues—functional duplicates derived from human and animal tissue. These are not mere substitutes or assistive technologies; rather, they are highly engineered fabrications that self-assemble into tissue as they would in a human or animal body. Human organoids and cultured meat are examples. Significantly, their acceptance and value rely on being understood as ‘the real thing’—only without the ethical problems associated with the uses and treatments of the natural original. They are enacted or disputed as authentic through material and discursive means within existing and emerging assemblages of knowledge practices, governance regimes, economic and political interests, and presumed user expectations. This chapter examines how analogues are made to matter as authentic, and how they disturb social orders and generate new ones in the process. Viewing technologies through the lens of authenticity avoids binaries of natural/technological and benefits/harms and shifts attention from the properties and novelty of technological objects to the processes and logics through which new life forms are created.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I cover authentication practices for cells elsewhere (Hogle 2019, 2021).

  2. 2.

    This led some journalists to describe the organoids in terms suggesting human emotions: ‘stressed out’, ‘confused’, and ‘disorganized’ (Economist 2019; Weiler 2020).

  3. 3.

    Hinterberger (2018) and Svendsen et al. (this volume) discuss similar complexities with humanised animal models (chimeras), showing how the human is enacted through material practices in the lab.

  4. 4.

    Estimates are usually given in metric tonnes (1 mT = 1000 kg or 2205 lbs), based on carcass weight, not final product weight. Estimates vary, depending on whether fish or exotic meats are included. The OECD estimates global per capita consumption at 33.8 kg; however, meat consumption varies considerably based on country wealth (2020). Notably, previous estimates forecasted an increase in consumption; however, consumption has decreased by about 2.8% due to production disruptions connected with the pandemic and animal disease outbreaks (FAO 2020, p. 45). Consequently, recent forecasts estimate increased demand for meat alternatives.

  5. 5.

    For details, see Arshad et al. (2017). Embryonic stem cells may also be used.

  6. 6.

    There are fascinating cultural considerations in terms of flavour preferences and religious requirements (Kenigsberg and Zivotofsky 2020; Yaffe-Bellany 2020).

  7. 7.

    This raises interesting questions about heritage breeds and terroir, much debated in cuisine discourse. Berkshire pork is more acidic (due to diet and genetics), Wagyu beef is fattier and buttery, and Iberico pork raised on acorns has a prized flavour. I address this elsewhere as a further amplification of what is at stake with notions of the authentic; see also Weiss (2016).

  8. 8.

    The history of efforts to improve foodstuffs through preservatives, flavourings, additives, and genetics is relevant, as is the history of foods faked and adulterated to make them appear like the original, but too extensive to be covered here. See for example Berenstein (2018) and Blum (2018).

  9. 9.

    Survey results are found at https://www.gfi.org/the-naming-of-clean-meat. See also Stephens et al. (2019), and for consumer perceptions, Bryant and Barnett (2018), Marcu et al. (2015) and Verbeke et al. (2015).

  10. 10.

    The agreement is found at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/0d2d644a-9a65-43c6-944f-ea598aacdec1/Formal-Agreement-FSIS-FDA.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. See also the National Academy of Sciences (2017).

  11. 11.

    Ogle (2013) chronicled how meat consumption links multiple histories of homesteading, the railroad and transportation industries, supply chain infrastructures, urbanism, and industrialism since the nineteenth century.

References

  • Arshad, M., Javed, M., Sohaib, M., Saeed, F., Imran, A., & Amjad, Z. (2017). Tissue engineering approaches to develop culture meat from cells: a mini review. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 3(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1320814.

  • Barry, A. (2001). Political machines: Governing a technological society. London: Athlone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battelle Technology Partnership Practice (2015). Biopharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials: impact on state economies. Technical Report. http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/biopharmaceutical-industry-sponsored-clinical-trials-impact-on-state-economies.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2019.

  • Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and simulations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, W. (1968). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (pp 217-252). New York: Schocken Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berenstein, N. (2018). Flavor added: The science of flavor and the industrialization of taste in America. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besky, S. (2014). The Darjeeling distinction: Labor and justice on fair-trade tea transplantations in India. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beverland, M. B. (2005). Crafting brand authenticity: the case of luxury wines. Journal of Management Studies, 12(5), 1003-1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaduri A., Andrews M. G., Mancia L. W., Jung D., Shin D., Allen D., Jung D., Schmunk G., Haeussler M., Salma J., Pollen A. A., Nowakowski T. J., & Kriegstein A. R. (2020). Cell stress in cortical organoids impairs molecular subtype specification. Nature, 578(7793),142-148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum, D. (2018). The poisoner’s handbook. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boers, S. N., van Delden, J. M., Clevers, H., & Bredenoord, A. (2016). Organoid biobanking: Identifying the ethics. EMBO Reports, 17(7), 938-941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G., & Star, S.L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and Its consequences. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredenoord, A., Clevers, H., & Knoblich, J. (2017). Human tissues in a dish: The research and ethical implications of organoid technology. Science, 355(6322), eaaf9414. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9414.

  • Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Science, 143, 8-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. (2011). Standards: Recipes for reality. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cakir, B., Xiang, Y., Tanaka, Y., Kural, M. et al. (2019). Engineering of human brain organoids with a functional vascular-like system. Nature Methods, 16, 1169–1175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0586-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, I., Wolf, J., Blue, R., Moreno, J., Ming, G-L., & Song, H. (2019). Transplantation of human brain organoids: Revisiting the science and ethics of brain chimeras. Cell Stem Cell, 25(4), 462-472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, D., Ashok, A., & Naing, M. (2020). Commercialization of organoids. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 26(3), 245-249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: 20th century ethnography, literature and art. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daston L., & Vidal F. (Eds.) (2004). On the moral authority of nature. Chicago: University Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, I., Helgesson, C-F., & Lee, F. (2015). Value practices in the life sciences & medicine. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Economist (2019, 29 August). What is a brain? Cerebral organoids are becoming more brainlike. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/08/29/cerebral-organoids-are-becoming-more-brainlike. Accessed 5 September 2019.

  • Epstein, S. (2007). Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.L

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, A. (1999). After nature: Steps toward an anti-essentialist political ecology. Current Anthropology, 40(1), 1-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Livestock Voice (2021). Opinion: The European livestock sector’s views on the recent push for synthetic meat. https://meatthefacts.eu/home/activity/latest-news/opinion-the-european-livestock-sectors-views-on-the-recent-push-for-synthetic-meat/. Accessed 14 July 2021.

  • Fillitz, T., & Saris, J. (2012). Debating authenticity: Concepts of modernity in anthropological perspective. Oxford: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2017). Land use and agricultural practices 1961–2017. Fao.org/economic/ess/environment/data/land-use/vu. Accessed 8 February 2020.

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2020). Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets. Rome. doi:10.4060/ca9509en. Accessed 9 December 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (2007). Dolly Mixtures: the remaking of genealogy. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (2013). Biological relatives: IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Frost & Sullivan (2020). Hybridization of clinical trial designs reviving global CRO market post-pandemic; 2019–2024. Santa Clara, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galusky, W. (2014). Technology as responsibility: failure, food animals, and lab-grown meat. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 27, 931-948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, J., & Pine, B.J. (2007). Authenticity: What consumers really want. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasseni, C., & Paxson, H. (2014). Introducing a special issue on the reinvention of food: connections and mediations. Gastronomica, 14(4), 1-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, H. (2021). Human brain surrogates research: The onrushing ethical dilemma. The American Journal of Bioethics, 21(1), 34-45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1845853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y., Duan, X., Yang, L. et al. (2020). Identification of SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors using lung and colonic organoids. Nature, 589, 270–275. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2901-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs and Women. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, R. (Ed.) (2015). Oxford Handbook of Food, Politics and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handler, R. (1986). Authenticity. Anthropology Today, 2(1), 2–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinterberger, A. (2018). Marked ‘h’ for human: Chimeric life and the politics of the human. BioSocieties, 13(2), 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.) (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogle, L. F. (2009). Pragmatic objectivity and the standardization of engineered tissues. Social Studies of Science, 39(5), 717–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogle, L. F. (2010). Characterizing embryonic stem cells: Biological and social markers of identity. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 24(4), 433–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogle, L.F. (2019). Authentication: A prologue. Paper presented to the Society for the Social Study of Science, (New Orleans, 9 September).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogle, L.F. (2021). Authenticating persons and things: Sociotechnical systems of trust in an era of artifice. Unpublished ms.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, P. D., & Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian meat: Could technology save animals and satisfy meateaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21(6), 579–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E.F. (2008). Nature and the natural. BioSocieties, 3, 117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, J., Faulkner, A., Ingrid Geesink, I., & Fitzpatrick, D. (2006). Culturing cells, reproducing and regulating the self. Body & Society, 12(2), 1–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X06064296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenigsberg J. A., & Zivotofsky A. Z. (2020). A Jewish religious perspective on cellular agriculture. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 128. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2019.00128.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, E., & Lyall, C. (2018). What’s in a name: are cultured red blood cells ‘natural’? Sociology of Health & Illness, 40(4), 687-701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J., & Watson, J. (Eds.) (2016). The handbook of food and anthropology. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenberg, J. (1988). First the seed: the political-economy of plant biotechnology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koo, B., Choi, B., Park, H., & Yoon, K-J. (2019). Past, present, and future of brain organoid Technology. Molecules and Cells, 42(9), 617–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koplin, J., & Savulescu, J. (2019). Moral limits of brain organoid research. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 47, 760-767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, M. A., & Knoblich, J. A. (2014). Organogenesis in a dish: modeling development and disease using organoid technologies. Science, 345(6194), eaam1247125. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247125.

  • Landecker, H. (2007). Culturing life: How cells became technologies. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lavazza A., & Massimini M. (2018). Cerebral organoids: ethical issues and consciousness assessment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(9), 606-610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, S. (1995). Subjected to science. Baltimore, MD.: Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindholm C. (2002). Authenticity, anthropology and the sacred. Anthropology Quarterly, 75, 331-338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löwy, I. (2000). The experimental body. In R. Cooter & J. Pickstone (Eds.), Companion to medicine in the 21st century (pp. 435-449). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luetchford, P. (2016). Ethical consumption: the moralities and politics of food. In J. Klein & J. L. Watson (Eds.), The handbook of food and anthropology (pp 387-405). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J., & Pierrehumbert, R. (2019). Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle. Frontiers in sustainable food systems. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.0005.

  • Manjoo, F. (2012, 26 July). Fake meat so good it will freak you out. Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2012/07/bedyond-meat-so-real-it-will-freak-you-out.html. Accessed 7 July 2019.

  • Marcu, A., Gaspar, R., Rutsaert, P., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., Verbeke, W., & Barnett, J. (2015). Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science, 24(5), 547–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, N. J. (2010). Defining stem cells? Scientists and their classification of nature. The Sociological Review, 58(S1), S32-50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarity, R. (2020). Code season. MIT Technology Review. 52-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster. (n.d.) “Authentic.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authentic. Accessed 29 October 2019.

  • Miller, J. (2012). In vitro meat: Power, authenticity and vegetarianism. Journal of Critical Animal Studies, 10(4), 41-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, S. (1985). Sweetness and power: the place of sugar in modern history. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (2017). Preparing for future products of biotechnology. Washington, DC.: The National Academies Press. http://doi.org/10.17226/24605

    Google Scholar 

  • National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (2019). NCBA responds to Politico article on politics of meat. https://www.ncba.org/ourviews2.aspx?NewsID=6923.

  • Organization for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD) (2020). Meat consumption. doi:10.1787/fa290fd0-en. Accessed 12 December 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogle, M. (2013). In meat we trust: An unexpected history of carnivore America. Boston, MA.: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, S., & Dupre, J. (2010). Introducing nature after the genome. Sociological Review, 58(S1), 3-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paxson, H. (2010). Locating value in artisan cheese: reverse engineering terroir for new-world landscapes. American Anthropologist, 112(3), 444-457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paxson, H. (2012). The life of cheese: Crafting food and value in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. (2011). The politics of bioethics. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (2007). Organized uncertainty: Designing a world of risk management. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow, P. (1999). Artificiality and enlightenment: from sociobiology to biosociality. In J. Crary & S. Kwinter (Eds.), Zone 6 Incorporations (pp. 181-193). New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger, H-J. (2010). An epistemology of the concrete: Twentieth-century histories of life. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman D. J. (1990) Human experimentation and the origins of bioethics in the United States. In G. Weisz (Ed.), Social science perspectives on medical ethics: culture, illness, and healing (pp. 185-200). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saha, K., & Hurlbut, B. (2011). Disease modelling using pluripotent stem cells: making sense of disease from bench to bedside. Swiss Medical Weekly, 141:w13144. doi:10.4414/smw.2011.13144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salahudeen, A. A., Choi, S. S., Rustagi, A. et al. (2020). Progenitor identification and SARS-CoV-2 infection in human distal lung organoids. Nature, 588, 670–675. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3014-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, A. (2019). Framing the future of food: the contested promises of alternative proteins. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 2, 47-72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619827009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., & Hartmann, C. (2018). Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Science, 139, 213-219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soper, K. (2010). Unnatural times? The social imaginary and the future of Nature. The Sociological Review, 57(2), 222-235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squier, S. (2004). Liminal Lives: Imagining the human at the frontiers of biomedicine. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, N. (2013). Growing meat in laboratories: the promise, ontology and ethical boundary-work of using muscle cells to make food. Configurations, 21(2), 159-181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, N., & Ruivenkamp, M. (2016). Promise and ontological ambiguity in the in vitro meat imagescape: from laboratory myotubes to the cultured burger. Science As Culture, 25, 327-355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, N., Sexton, A., & Driessen, C. (2019). Making sense of making meat: Key moments in the first 20 years of tissue engineering muscle to make food. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00045.

  • Strathern, M. (1992). Reproducing the future: Anthropology, kinship and the new reproductive technologies. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunder Rajan, K. (2006). Biocapital. The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tai, S. (2020). Legalizing the meaning of meat. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 51, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3456241. Accessed 8 July 2021.

  • Trubek, A. (2008). The taste of place: A cultural journey Into terroir. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo, C. A., Gao, R., Negres, P. D., Gu, J., Buchanan, J. et al. (2019). Complex oscillatory waves emerging from cortical organoids model early human brain network development. Cell Stem Cell, 25, 558-569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, M., & Humphrey, M. (2018). Authenticity: The cultural history of a political concept. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., & Barnett, J. (2015). ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science, 102, 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, N., Haddow, G., Seymour, T., Faulkner-Jones A., & Shu, W. (2017). 3D bioprint me: a socioethical view of bioprinting human organs and tissues. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43, 618-624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vives, J., & Batlle-Morera, L. (2020). The challenge of developing human 3D organoids into medicines. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 11(1), 72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-020-1586-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg, A., & Bauer, S. (2016). Contested categories: life sciences in society. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C., & Mitchell, R. (2006). Tissue economies: blood, organs and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. (2012). Bio-objects. In N. Vermeulen, S. Tamminen, & A. Webster, (Eds.) Bio-objects: Life in the twenty-first Century (pp. 1-12). Surrey, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler, N. (2020). Not ‘brains in a dish’: Cerebral organoids flunk comparison to developing nervous system. University of California San Francisco News. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416526/not-brains-dish-cerebral-organoids-flunk-comparison-developing-nervous-system Accessed 14 July 2021.

  • Weiss, B. (2016). Real pigs: shifting values in the field of local pork. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • West, H. (2016). Artisanal Foods and cultural economy: Perspectives on craft, heritage, authenticity and reconnection. In J. Klein & J. L. Watson (Eds.), The Handbook of Food and Anthropology (pp. 406-433). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yaffe-Bellany, D. (2020, 7 January). Impossible dumplings and beyond buns: Will China buy fake meat? New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/fake-pork-china. Accessed 7 January 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Dorthe Brogård Kristenson, Klaus Hoeyer, Mette Svendsen, and Ayo Wahlberg for helpful exchanges and anonymous reviewers for their comments. I am indebted to Phillip Schneider for research assistance and for creative insights.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Linda F. Hogle

Authors
  1. Linda F. Hogle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda F. Hogle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Anthropology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Maja Hojer Bruun

  2. Department of Anthropology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Ayo Wahlberg

  3. Department of Business IT, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Rachel Douglas-Jones

  4. Department of Educational Anthropology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

    Cathrine Hasse

  5. Center for Medical Science & Technology Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Klaus Hoeyer

  6. Department of Business and Management, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Dorthe Brogård Kristensen

  7. Department of Business IT, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Brit Ross Winthereik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hogle, L.F. (2022). Enacting Authenticity: Changing Ontologies of Biological Entities. In: Bruun, M.H., et al. The Palgrave Handbook of the Anthropology of Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7084-8_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7084-8_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-7083-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-7084-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation