Regulating Hybrids: 'Making a Mess' and 'Cleaning Up' in Tissue Engineering and Transpecies Transplantation

Social Theory and Health

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-24

  Brown, Nik ^a   Faulkner, Alex ^b   Kent, Julie ^c   Michael, Mike ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

hybridity; regulation; tissue engineering; xenotransplantation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747158430     PISSN: 14778211     EISSN: 1477822X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.sth.8700062     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Ansell Pearson K (1999). Germinal Life. Routledge: London.
2. Barad K (1998). Getting real: technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 10: 88-128.
3. Barry A (2001). Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society. The Athlone Press: London.
4. Bijker WE (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelite and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press: Cambridge, M.A.
5. Bloor D (1978). Polyhedra and the abominations, leviticus. British Journal for the History of Science 11: 245-272.
6. Brown N, Michael M (2004). Risky Creatures: institutional species boundary change in biotechnology regulation. Health, Risk and Society 6: 207-222.
7. Brown N, Webster A (2004). New Medical Technologies and Society-Reordering Life. Polity Press: Cambridge.
8. Bud R (1995). In the engine of industry: regulators of biotechnology, 1970-86. In: Bauer M (ed). Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. pp 293-310.
9. Callon M, Law J, Rip A (eds) (1986). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. MacMillan: London.
10. Carter S (1995). Boundaries of danger and uncertainty: an analysis of the technological culture of risk assessment. In: Gabe J (ed). Health, Medicine and Risk: The Need for a Sociological Approach. Blackwell: Oxford. pp 133-150.
11. CPMP. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (2001). Points to consider on the manufacture and quality control of human somatic cell therapy medicinal products. CPMP/BWP/41450/98.
12. Deleuze G, Guattari F (1988). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Athlone Press: London.
13. Department of Health (2001). A code of practice for Tissue Banks providing tissues of human origin for therapeutic purposes. UK Department of Health.
14. DG Enterprise (2004). Proposal for a harmonised regulatory framework on human tissue engineered products. DG Enterprise, European Commission: Brussels.
15. Douglas M (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.
16. Europabio, Eucomed, & Emerging Biopharmaceutical Enterprises (2004). Joint industry comments on Proposal for a harmonised regulatory framework on human Tissue engineered products. DG Enterprise consultation paper, 13 August 2004. http://www.europa-bio.be/positions/hTEPs0804.pdf. Accessed 12 April.
17. EU Commission (2003). Directive 2003/63/EC of 25 June 2003 amending Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Official Journal L 159, 27/06/2003 P. 0046-0094.
18. EU Commission DG Enterprise (2002). Need for a legislative framework for human tissue engineered products http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/medical-devices/consult-tissue-engineer.htm. Accessed July 2002.
19. EU Commission DG Enterprise (2003). Results of the consultation on the need for a community legal framework on 'Human Tissue Engineered Products' http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/medical-devices/consultation-results.pdf. Accessed March 2003.
20. EU Commission DG Enterprise (2004a). Proposal for a harmonised regulatory framework on human tissue engineered products. DG Enterprise Consultation Paper, 6 April 2004. Presented at Stakeholders' Conference, 16 April 2004, Brussels.
21. EU Commission DG Enterprise (2004b). Proposal for a harmonised regulatory framework on human tissue engineered products. Summary of contributions, April 2004.
22. EU Commission DG Sanco (2003). Amended proposal for a European and Council Directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, storage, and distribution of human tissues and cells. COM (2003) 340 final, May 2003. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2003/com2003-0340en01.pdf.
23. Faulkner A, Geesink I, Kent J, FitzPatrick D (2003). Human tissue engineered products-drugs or devices? British Medical Journal 326: 1159-1160.
24. Faulkner A, Kent J, Geesink I, FitzPatrick D (2004). Purity and the dangers of innovative therapies: re-ordering regulation and governance in the shaping of tissue-engineered medical technology. Paper presented to EASST/4S Conference 'Public Proofs', É cole des Mines, Paris.
25. Food and Drug Administration (2001). PHS guideline on infectious disease issues in xenotransplantation, January 19, http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/xenophs0101.htm.
26. Fox RC, Swazey JP (1978). The Courage to Fail: A Social View of Organ Transplants and Dialysis. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
27. Fox RC, Swazey JP (1992). Leaving the field. Hastings Centre Report Sept/Oct, 9-15.
28. Franklin S (2001). Culturing Biology: cells lines for the new millennium. Health 5: 335-354.
29. Franklin S, Lock M (eds) (2003). Remaking Life and Death-Towards an Anthropology of the Biosciences. SAR Press: Santa Fe.
30. Gabe J (1995). Medicine, Health and Risk: The need for a sociological approach. In: Gabe J (ed). Health, Medicine and Risk: Sociological Approaches. Blackwell: Oxford. pp 1-18.
31. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. Sage: London.
32. Haraway D (1991a). Simians, Cyborgs and Nature. Free Association Books: London.
33. Haraway D (1991b). The actors are cyborg, nature is coyote, and the geography is elsewhere: postscript to 'cyborgs at large'. In: Penley C and Ross A (eds). Technoculture. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.
34. Haraway D (1997). Modest-Witness@Second-Millenium.FemaleMan Meets-OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. Routledge: London.
35. Hedgecoe A, Martin P (2003). The drugs don't work: expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science 33: 327-364.
36. Hogle LF (2002). Claims and disclaimers: whose expertise counts? Medical Anthropology 21: 275-306.
37. Hood C, Rothstein H, Baldwin R (2001). The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
38. Hughes TP (1983). Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
39. Kent J, Faulkner A, Geesink I, FitzPatrick D (2005). Towards governance of human tissue engineered technologies in Europe: framing the case for a new regulatory regime. Technology Forecasting and Social Change, in press.
40. Knorr-Cetina K (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, M.A.
41. Kong Y Then (2003). The need to regulate human tissue engineered products: ophthalmology perspective. British Medical Journal http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7400/1159#32999,5 June 2003. Accessed 18 June 2004.
42. Latour B (1987). Science in Action. Open University Press: Milton Keynes.
43. Latour B (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, M.A.
44. Latour B (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry 30: 225-248.
45. Law J (1994). Organising Modernity. Blackwell: Oxford.
46. Martin P (2001). Genetic governance: The risks, oversight and regulation of genetic databases in the UK. New Genetics and Society 20: 157-183.
47. MDA Medical Device Agency (2002). A code of practice for the production of Human-derived therapeutic products. UK Department of Health: London.
48. Mody C (2001). A little dirt never hurt anyone: knowledge-making and contamination in materials science. Social Studies of Science 31: 7-36.
49. Myerson G (2000). Donna Haraway and GM Foods. Cambridge Icon Books: Cambridge.
50. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Routledge: London.
51. Prins B (1995). The ethics of hybrid subjects: feminist constructivism according to Donna Haraway. Science, Technology and Human Values 20: 352-367.
52. Rabinow P (1992). Artificiality and enlightenment: from socio-biology to biosociality. In: Crary J, Kwinter S (eds). Zone 6: Incorporations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. pp 91-112.
53. Rheinberger H-J (2000). Beyond nature and culture: modes of reasoning in the age of molecular biology and medicine. In: Lock M, Young A, Cambrosio A (eds). Living and Working with New Medical Technologies. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
54. SCMPMD (2001a). Scientific Committee on Medicinal Products and Medical Devices. Opinion on the State of the Art Concerning Tissue Engineering http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scmp/out37-en.pdf.Accessed 18 March 2003.
55. SCMPMD (2001b). Opinion on the state of the art concerning xenotransplantation. SANCO/SCMPMD/2001/0002, http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph-risk/committees/scmp/documents/out38-en.pdf.Accessed 12 April.
56. Sharp LA (2002). Bodies, boundaries, and territorial disputes: investigating the murky realm of scientific authority. Medical Anthropology 21: 369-379.
57. United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (2003). Fifth annual report. UK Department of Health: London.
58. Waldby C (2002). Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health 6: 305-323.
59. Weiss G (1999). Body Images: Embodiment as Intercorporeality. Routledge: London.