Exploring the pioneering work in biosocial science that connects biological research with social sciences to address complex human challenges.
Imagine a research landscape where the precise data of biological science intertwines with the complex tapestry of human social relationships. This is not a futuristic vision but the vibrant interdisciplinary realm of biosocial science, a field dedicated to understanding the bidirectional interactions between our biological makeup and our social worlds. At the heart of this pioneering scientific integration sits The Parkes Foundation, an independent grant-making charity that has been quietly fueling biosocial research for decades 3 .
Founded in 1987 through the amalgamation of the Galton Foundation and the ET and R Parkes Fund, the Foundation continues the legacy of its founder, Sir Alan S. Parkes (1900-1990), a renowned reproductive physiologist who held the Mary Marshall Chair at the University of Cambridge 3 .
What makes biosocial science so compelling is its rejection of simplistic biological or social determinism. Instead, it explores how social relationships and contexts influence our biological functioning, and how our biological features in turn shape social structures and interactions. This complex dance between different levels of organization offers profound insights into some of humanity's most pressing issues, from public health challenges to environmental conservation.
The Parkes Foundation defines biosocial science in a broad sense, focusing on the reciprocal relationships between biological characteristics and social contexts.
The Foundation provides targeted support for postgraduate students conducting fieldwork in five well-defined research areas, deliberately prioritizing projects that integrate both biological and social dimensions over those that are solely sociocultural or biomedical in nature 2 .
| Research Area | Scope of Interest | Examples of Topics |
|---|---|---|
| Reproduction & Fertility | Physiological & behavioral dimensions of human reproduction | Fertility, infertility, reproductive behavior across sexes |
| Demography | Structure & change of human populations over time | Fertility rates, mortality patterns, migration studies |
| Human Health | Physical, mental & social dimensions of health | Public health, nutrition-growth-disease interactions |
| Conservation | Social-ecological systems & sustainability pathways | Human environmental impacts, biodiversity, conservation policies |
| Human Genetics | Genetic influences within social contexts | Population genetics, genomics, genetic counseling |
The Foundation's research priorities reflect a commitment to practical fieldwork with real-world implications. For instance, in conservation science, the Foundation supports projects that document changing social-ecological systems and explore pathways to sustainability 2 .
Similarly, in human health, the organization prioritizes projects with public health components or those that consider health within a broader biosocial context 2 .
What distinguishes biosocial research is its insistence on methodological integration. A typical Parkes-funded project might combine biological sampling with social surveys, ethnographic observation with genetic analysis, or ecological monitoring with economic assessment.
To illustrate the nature and impact of biosocial research, we examine a groundbreaking study on prolonged grief disorder (PGD) in older adults—exemplifying the type of work the Parkes Foundation supports by connecting biological stress, psychological response, and social context.
PGD was recently included as a new disorder in both the DSM-5 and ICD-11 classifications, characterized by a persistent grief response lasting at least six months and accompanied by intense emotional pain and functional impairments 9 . With the prevalence of PGD among bereaved older adults ranging from 6% to 48.7% across studies, and older adults particularly vulnerable due to age-related vulnerabilities such as shrinking social networks and comorbid chronic illnesses, this represents a significant biosocial health challenge 9 .
A randomized controlled trial conducted between October 2020 and September 2022, aimed to test the efficacy of a web-based intervention called "trauer@ktiv" for reducing prolonged grief symptoms in adults aged 60 years and older 9 .
The research team recruited 177 older adults with prolonged grief symptoms and randomly assigned them to one of two groups: intervention group receiving the web-based program and an active control group receiving information materials 9 .
| Variable | Overall Sample (N=170) | Intervention Group (n=81) | Control Group (n=89) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average Age (years) | 67.3 (SD 6.4) | - | - |
| Age Range | 60-95 years | - | - |
| Female Participants | 75.9% (129/170) | - | - |
| Retention Rate | 96% (170/177) | 47.6% (81/170) | 52.4% (89/170) |
| Module Completion (Intervention Group) | - | 61% completed ≥5 modules | - |
The study yielded nuanced results that underscore the complexity of treating prolonged grief in older adults:
The intention-to-treat analysis revealed that while both groups showed a reduction in prolonged grief symptoms over the 4-month study period, there was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups on the primary outcome measure (Prolonged Grief-13 scale, average marginal effect of 0.56, 95% CI -2.30 to 3.44, P=.70) 9 .
Similarly, no significant treatment effects emerged for any of the secondary outcomes, including depression and self-efficacy measures. Despite these efficacy findings, the intervention demonstrated high user satisfaction and usability, with more than half of the intervention group (61%) completing 5 or more of the 8 modules 9 .
This intriguing combination of results suggests that while the standalone digital intervention did not outperform basic information provision in reducing grief symptoms, its high usability and completion rates indicate strong acceptance among older users—a notable finding given the common assumption that older adults are less receptive to digital health technologies.
The researchers concluded that while "trauer@ktiv" is not suitable as a stand-alone treatment for prolonged grief, it may hold potential as part of a stepped and collaborative care approach, possibly serving as an initial low-threshold intervention that could be supplemented with professional support when needed 9 .
Biosocial research demands a diverse methodological toolkit capable of capturing both biological and social variables and their interactions.
| Resource Category | Specific Examples | Application in Biosocial Research |
|---|---|---|
| Standardized Assessment Tools | Prolonged Grief-13 scale, Depression inventories, Self-efficacy measures | Quantifying psychological and social variables reliably across studies |
| Digital Intervention Platforms | Web-based self-management programs, Mobile health applications | Delivering accessible, low-stigma interventions to hard-to-reach populations |
| Biological Data Collection | Biological samples, Genetic analysis tools, Physiological monitoring | Capturing biological dimensions of biosocial interactions |
| Social Research Methods | Surveys, Interviews, Ethnographic approaches, Demographic analysis | Documenting social contexts, cultural practices, institutional structures |
| Data Integration Frameworks | Mixed-methods research designs, Statistical modeling techniques | Analyzing bidirectional relationships between biological and social factors |
The Prolonged Grief-13 scale used in the AgE-health study exemplifies the importance of validated assessment tools in biosocial research. This instrument enables researchers to operationalize a complex psychological construct consistently, allowing for comparison across studies and populations 9 .
Similarly, digital platforms like the "trauer@ktiv" intervention represent the growing role of eHealth technologies in extending the reach of biosocial interventions, particularly valuable for older adults who may face mobility limitations or fear stigmatization 9 .
Biosocial researchers often employ mixed-methods approaches that combine quantitative biological or psychological data with qualitative insights into social contexts and lived experiences. This methodological pluralism allows for a more complete understanding of phenomena that exist at the intersection of biological and social domains.
Biosocial research thrives on methodological diversity, combining the precision of biological measurement with the contextual richness of social science approaches.
The Parkes Foundation's decades-long support for biosocial science represents a sustained commitment to transcending disciplinary boundaries in pursuit of a more integrated understanding of human life. By providing crucial funding to postgraduate students—the next generation of researchers—the Foundation ensures that this interdisciplinary approach continues to evolve and address emerging challenges 1 2 .
The Foundation's focus on fieldwork and primary data collection underscores its commitment to research grounded in real-world contexts rather than abstract theorizing 2 . This emphasis on empirical investigation, combined with its interdisciplinary orientation, positions the Foundation as a unique and valuable contributor to the scientific landscape.
As we face increasingly complex global challenges—from pandemics to climate change to health inequalities—biosocial approaches become ever more essential. These problems refuse to respect academic boundaries, demanding instead integrated perspectives that can bridge biological mechanisms with social systems.
By nurturing a community of scholars committed to biosocial integration and supporting innovative fieldwork, the Parkes Foundation honors its namesake's vision while contributing to a more nuanced and complete understanding of human life in its full biological and social complexity.