Search results

The increasing demand for human egg cells has led to reproductive tourism and a transnational egg trade. The activity flourishes due to poverty and criminality, as well as medical needs (infertility) and cultural needs (the dream of parenthood). Other factors are fundamental concepts, such as the view of the body as an object of utility and value. This article aims to go behind the normative discussions that usually surround different forms of assisted reproductive technology (ART), fertility tourism, and the egg trade. It further calls for an understanding of how the local, culturally embedded use of reproductive technology is put into practice. The material, collected from Sweden, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East, consists of observations, in-depth interviews, reports from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and authorities in these countries, and global media reporting. I also draw on my previous research on reproductive technology and ongoing organ-trafficking fieldwork.

Résumé Le développement biomédical signifie une meilleure qualité de vie pour de nombreux patients. Pourtant, les possibilités médicales posent un certain nombre de problèmes éthiques et culturels, et « corriger » le corps humain soulève beaucoup de questions existentielles. Par ailleurs, l'allongement de la vie impose des choix difficiles en matière de politique de recherche, de santé et de service médical public – traitements coûteux et sophistiqués d'une part, hiérarchisation des urgences dans les interventions médicales, d'autre part.

The aim of this paper is to explore the complexity of the concept of the victim within the context of organ trading. By examining the intricate phenomenon of organ trade, we show how prevailing notions of victimhood form the basis of concrete social practices. The empirical basis for this exploration comprises in-depth interviews conducted during fieldwork in South Africa and Kosovo. We also draw on research undertaken at various expert meetings. What our research in these locations attests to is that one-dimensional and generalised conceptualisations of victimhood are rife, and that these tend to be founded on a pre-theorised opposition between agency and victimhood. For persons who become practically and intimately involved in dealing with cases of organ trade – such as investigators and prosecutors – such conceptualisations do not hold. What is required is an understanding of victimhood that takes into account its complexity. In this paper, we explore attempts to grasp and reduce this complexity, and argue against generalised concepts of victimhood and for concepts that are sensitive to contextual and relational variations.

In the early 1990s xenotransplantation (XTP) was a promising biotechnology, with many countries prepared to take this research to clinical trials. It was also a technology associated with so many problems and risks that the researchers sought financial support to continue their XTP research. This was, in many ways, an international concern, as the researchers tried to collaborate to overcome those problems and risks. But despite this international effort, the situation became a national policy process in many countries where researchers, politicians and stakeholders tried to find a solution and take the next step in XTP research. In this case study, we take a closer look at Sweden and how the national policy process took shape in the 1990s. As we will see in this case study, Swedish XTP researchers and politicians were involved in various international networks, but when it came to initiating a more formal policy process, the discussion became more or less national. Swedish law needed to change so that the country's XTP researchers could continue with their research and take it to clinical trials. The policy process was closely linked to the idea that Sweden as a nation could gain an advantage, both for the researchers and for the state. The new biotechnology could benefit the citizens and provide future funding for the welfare society. To achieve this, Swedish researchers needed to be the first to clinically introduce this technology. So this case study is about how a nation tries to gain advantages in an international research arena. It is also a case study of what role the citizens have in the policy process. Biotechnology that is problematic and risky, for various reasons, needs the approval of the general public, because they will be the end users. In this case study, we take a closer look at how researchers and politicians interacted with the citizens in the policy process.

Referring to the focus of the biosciences on molecular ""particles"" of the human biology-such as stem cells, genes, and neurons-this account examines the relationships between culture, society, and bioscientific research. Showing that the atomized body is indeed socially and culturally embedded, in plural and complex ways, it argues that biomedicine and biotechnology do not only intersect with the human body, but also reshape our perceptions of selfhood and life. From a multidisciplinary perspective, this volume explores the biosciences and the atomized body in their social, cultural, and phi

Current developments in genetics and genomics entail a number of changes and challenges for society as new knowledge and technology become common in the clinical setting and in society at large. The relationship between genetics and ethics has been much discussed during the last decade, while the relationship between genetics and the political arena—with terms such as rights, distribution, expertise, participation and democracy—has been less considered. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the connection between genetics and democracy. In order to do this, we delineate a notion of democracy that incorporates process as well as substance values. On the basis of this notion of democracy and on claims of democratisation in the science and technology literature, we argue for the importance of considering genetic issues in a democratic manner. Having established this connection between genetics and democracy, we discuss this relation in three different contexts where the relationship between genetics and democracy becomes truly salient: the role of expertise, science and public participation, and individual responsibility and distributive justice. As developments within genetics and genomics advance with great speed, the importance and use of genetic knowledge within society can be expected to grow. However, this expanding societal importance of genetics might ultimately involve, interact with, or even confront important aspects within democratic rule and democratic decision-making. Moreover, we argue that the societal importance of genetic development makes it crucial to consider not only decision-making processes, but also the policy outcomes of these processes. This argument supports our process and substance notion of democracy, which implies that public participation, as a process value, must be complemented with a focus on the effects of policy decisions on democratic values such as distributive justice.

Current developments in genetics and genomics entail a number of changes and challenges for society as new knowledge and technology become common in the clinical setting and in society at large. The relationship between genetics and ethics has been much discussed during the last decade, while the relationship between genetics and the political arena-with terms such as rights, distribution, expertise, participation and democracy-has been less considered. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the connection between genetics and democracy. In order to do this, we delineate a notion of democracy that incorporates process as well as substance values. On the basis of this notion of democracy and on claims of democratisation in the science and technology literature, we argue for the importance of considering genetic issues in a democratic manner. Having established this connection between genetics and democracy, we discuss this relation in three different contexts where the relationship between genetics and democracy becomes truly salient: the role of expertise, science and public participation, and individual responsibility and distributive justice. As developments within genetics and genomics advance with great speed, the importance and use of genetic knowledge within society can be expected to grow. However, this expanding societal importance of genetics might ultimately involve, interact with, or even confront important aspects within democratic rule and democratic decision-making. Moreover, we argue that the societal importance of genetic development makes it crucial to consider not only decision-making processes, but also the policy outcomes of these processes. This argument supports our process and substance notion of democracy, which implies that public participation, as a process value, must be complemented with a focus on the effects of policy decisions on democratic values such as distributive justice.