The politics of cloning: Mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 145-168

  Parry, Sarah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLONING; DISABILITY; EMBRYO (ANATOMY); HUMAN; INFERTILITY; LAW; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STEM CELL; STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY ACT 1990 (GREAT BRITAIN); LEGAL APPROACH; PARLIAMENT;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; ATTITUDE; BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE; CLONING, ORGANISM; EMBRYO; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, MEDICAL; LOBBYING; POLICY MAKING; STEM CELLS;

EID: 0041331699     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636770307135     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Anon. (1998) Time to Act on Cloning. Financial Times, 11 January: 〈http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/articles.html?print = true&id = 980111002691#〉 [29105101].
2. Anon. (2000) UK developing anti-science culture. BBC News Online, 17 November: 〈 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1028000/1028911.stm〉 [20/11/00].
3. British Medical Association (1999) BMA backs limited therapeutic cloning with strict safeguards, Thursday 24 June: 〈 http://web.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/a4a6effeb2d17168802568590051feb8/ 49332ddf33b6da7b802568f500543109?OpenDocument〉 [15/05/01].
4. Clark, A. (2000) Blair talks up biotechs. The Guardian, 18 November 〈http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Archive/0,4273,4092801,00. html〉 [20/11/00].
5. Crowe, C. (1990) Whose mind over whose matter? Women, in vitro fertilisation and the development of scientific knowledge. In McNeil, M. et al. (eds) The New Reproductive Technologies (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
6. Cussins, C. (1996) Ontological choreography: agency through objectification in infertility clinics. Social Studies of Science, 26, pp. 575-610.
7. Department of Health (2000) Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility (London: DoH) 〈http://www.doh.gov.uk/cegc〉.
8. Ettorre, E. (2000) Reproductive genetics, gender and the body: "Please doctor, may I have a normal baby?", Sociology, 34, pp. 403-20.
9. Franklin, S. (1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception (London: Routledge).
10. Franklin, S. (1999) Making representations: the parliamentary debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In Edwards, J. et al. (eds) Technologies of Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception, 2nd edn (London: Routledge).
11. Franklin, S., Lury, C. & Stacey, J. (eds) (2000) Global Nature, Global Culture (London: Sage).
12. Franklin, S. (2001) Sheepwatching. Anthropology Today, 17 (3).
13. Franklin, S., Rutherford, A. & Braunde, P. (2001) Project outline. In Definitions of Genetic Knowledge and Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis: An Ethnographic Study. ESRC funded project: Innovative Health Technologies Initiative 〈http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/IHT/Mainpage.htm〉.
14. Gieryn, T.F. (1995) Boundaries of science. In Jasanoff, S. et al. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: Sage).
15. Gilbert, N.G. & Mulkay, M. (1984) Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
16. Goslinga-Roy, G.M. (2000) Body boundaries, fiction of the female self: an ethnographic perspective on power, feminism, and the reproductive technologies, Feminist Studies, 26 (1).
17. Hansard, House of Commons debates (17 November 2000) 〈 http://www.parliament.the-stationary-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/cm001117/ debindx-x.htm〉.
18. Hansard, House of Commons debates (19 December 2000) 〈 htrp://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo001219/ debtext/01219-07.htm#01219-07_head0〉.
19. Hansard, House of Lords debates (3 September 1998) 〈 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/ lds98/text/80903w16.htm〉.
20. Hansard, House of Lords debates (22 January 2001) 〈 http://www.parliament.the-stationary-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdrn/ lds01/text/10122w01.htm〉.
21. Henderson, M. (2000) Britain's biotech talent may flee "hostile" climate, The Times, 15 November 〈 http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,2-35902,00.html〉 [17/04/01].
22. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Code of Practice (2001) 5th edn, April 〈http://www.hfea.gov.uk/code2001/cop2001/pdf〉.
23. Human Genetics Advisory Commission and Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (1998) Cloning Issues in Reproduction, Science and Medicine 〈http://www.dti.gov.uk/hgac/papers/paperc1.htm〉.
24. Irwin, A. (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences, Public Understanding of Science, 10, pp. 1-18.
25. Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. (1996) Introduction. In Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
26. Keller, E.F. (1995) Refiguring Life: Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biology (New York: Columbia University Press).
27. Kirejczyk, M. (1993) Shifting the burden onto women: the gender character of in vitro fertilisation, Science as Culture, 3, Pt. 4 (17), pp. 507-21.
28. Kirejczyk, M. (1995) Gender and the social entrenchment of IVF in the Netherlands. Paper for the International Workshop on the Mutual Shaping of Gender and Technology, Enschede, 6-8 October.
29. Kirejczyk, M. (1999) Parliamentary cultures and human embryos: the Dutch and British debates compared, Social Studies of Science, 29 (6), pp. 889-912.
30. Meek, J. (2001) The brain gain, The Guardian, 14 August.
31. Mulkay, M. (1993) Rhetorics of Hope and Fear in the Great Embryo Debate. Social Studies of Science, 23 (4), pp. 721-42.
32. Mulkay, M. (1994) The triumph of the pre-embryo: interpretations of the human embryo in parliamentary debate over embryo research, Social Studies of Science, 24, pp. 611-39.
33. Mulkay, M. (1997) The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
34. Nettleton, S. (1995) The Sociology of Health and Illness (Cambridge: Polity Press).
35. Paterson, K. & Hughes, W. (2000) Disabled bodies. In Hancock, P. et al. (eds) The Body, Culture and Society: An Introduction (Buckingham: Open University Press).
36. Pfeffer, N. (1987) Artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization and the stigma of infertility. In Stanworth, M. (ed.) Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine (Cambridge: Polity Press).
37. Sexton, S. (1999) If cloning is the answer, what was the question?: Power and decision-making in the geneticisation of health. In The Corner House, Briefing 16: http://cornerhouse.icaap.org/briefings/16.html [06/04/01]
38. Spallone, P. (1986) The Warnock Report: the politics of reproductive technology, Women's Studies International Forum, 9 (5), pp. 543-50.
39. Spallone, P. (1989) Beyond Conception: The New Politics of Reproduction (London: Macmillan Education).
40. Turner, B.S. (1995) Aging and identity: some reflections on the somatization of the self. In Featherstone, M. & Wernick, A. (eds) Images of Aging: Cultural Representations of Later Life (London: Routledge).
41. Turner, B.S. (1996) The Body and Society, 2nd edn (London: Sage).
42. Van Dyck, J. (1995) Manufacturing Babies and Public Consent: Debating the New Reproductive Technologies (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
43. Warnock, M. (1985) A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilization and Embryology (Oxford: Blackwell).
44. Wellcome Trust (1998) Public Perspectives on Human Cloning: A Social Research Study (London: The Wellcome Trust).