Regulating reprogenetics: Strategic sacralisation and semantic massage

Health Care Analysis

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 305-319

  Mackenzie, Robin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Feminism; Infertility; Reprogenetic technology; Sacred

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BIOMEDICINE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; EMBRYO RESEARCH; ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH; FEMINISM; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; REPROGENETIC TECHNOLOGY; SEMANTICS; UNITED KINGDOM;

ANTHROPOLOGY, CULTURAL; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FEMINISM; HUMANS; INFERTILITY; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; SEMANTICS;

EID: 35748929076     PISSN: 10653058     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10728-007-0058-4     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Bloomfield, B., & Vurdubakis, T. (1995). Disrupted boundaries: New reproductive technologies and the language of anxiety and expectation. Social Studies of Science, 25, 533-551.
2. Brazier Report (1998) Surrogacy: Review for Health Ministers of Current Arrangements for Payment and Regulation (Cm 4068). London: HMSO.
3. Brownsword, R. (2004). Regulating human genetics: New legal dilemmas. Medical Law Review, 12, 14-39.
4. Brownsword, R. (2004). Reproductive opportunities and regulatory challenges. Modern Law Review, 67, 304-321.
5. Corea, G. (1985). The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. London: Women's Press.
6. Cowan, J. (2006). Culture and rights after culture and rights. American Anthropologist, 108, 9-24.
7. Dawson, A. (2004). 'The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Evidence based policy formation in a contested context. Health Care Analysis, 12, 1-6.
8. Delaney, C. (1986). The meaning of paternity and the virgin birth debate. Man 21, 494-204.
9. Demerath, N. (2000). The varieties of sacred experience: Finding the sacred in a secular grove. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 1-11.
10. Dickens, B. (2000). The continuing conflict between sanctity of life and quality of life: From abortion to medically assisted death. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 913, 88-104.
11. Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols. New York: Vintage.
12. Duden, B. (1993). Disembodying women: Perspectives on pregnancy and the unborn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Ettore, E. (2002). A critical look at the new genetics: Conceptualising the links between reproduction, gender and bodies. Critical Public Health, 12, 237-250.
14. Franklin, S. (1988). Lifestory: The gene as fetish object on TV. Science As Culture, 3, 92-100.
15. Franklin, S. (1993). Making representations: The parliamentary debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In J. Edwards et al. (Eds.), Technologies of procreation: Kinship in the age of assisted conception (pp. 127-165). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
16. Franklin, S. 1993b. Life itself. Paper presented at the Centre for Cultural Values, Lancaster University, 9 June.
17. Franklin, S. (1995). Postmodern procreation: A cultural account of assisted reproduction. In F. Ginsburg & R. Rapp (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction (pp. 323-345). Berkeley: University of California Press.
18. Franklin, S (1995). Romancing the helix: Nature and scientific discovery. In J. Stacy & L. Pearce (Eds.), Romance revisited (pp. 63-77). London: Lawrence & Wishart.
19. Franklin, S. (1997). Embodied progress: A cultural account of assisted conception. London: Routledge.
20. Franklin, S. (2000). Life itself: Global nature and the genetic imaginary. In S. Franklin et al. (Eds.), Global nature, global culture (pp. 188-227). London: Sage.
21. Franklin, S. et al. (Eds.) (2000). Global nature, global culture. London: Sage.
22. Franklin, S. (2003). Re-thinking nature-culture. Anthropological Theory, 3, 65-85.
23. Franklin, S. (2006). Embryonic economies: The double reproductive value of stem cells. BioSocieties, 1, 71-90.
24. Ginsburg, F. (1989). Contested lives: The abortion debate in an American community. Boston: Beacon Press.
25. Ginsburg F., & Rapp R. (Eds.) (1995). Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26. Goodall, J., & Robinson, K. (2000). Orphans of nature. Australian Feminist Studies, 15, 177-190.
27. Halliday, S. (2004). A comparative approach to the regulation of human embryonic stem cell research in Europe. Medical Law Review, 12, 40-69.
28. Haraway, D. (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse[TM]: Feminism and Technoscience. London: Routledge.
29. Holm, S. (2004) Like a frog in boiling water: The public, the HFEA and sex selection. Health Care Analysis, 12, 27-39.
30. House of Commons. Committee on Science and Technology. (2005). Human reproductive technologies and the law. London: House of Commons.
31. House of Commons. Committee on Science and Technology. (2005). Human reproductive technologies and the law. London: House of Commons. Government Response. http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/ PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/PublicationsPAmpGBrowsableDocument/fs/en? CONTENT_ID=4119524&MULTIPAGE_ID=5399755&chk=mdT3y6.
32. Jackson, E. (2001). Regulating reproduction: Law, technology and autonomy. Oxford: Hart.
33. Konrad, M. (2003) From secrets of life to the life of secrets: Tracing genetic knowledge as genealogical ethics in biomedical Britain. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.), 9, 339-358.
34. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
35. Lenaghan, J. (2001). Participation and governance in the UK Department of Health. PLA Notes, 40, 64-65.
36. Mackenzie, R. (1999). From sanctity to screening: Genetic disabilities, risk and rhetorical strategies in wrongful birth and wrongful conception cases. Feminist Legal Studies, 7, 175-191.
37. Mackenzie, R. (1999). Paradigms of the author/creator and intellectual property rights: The acquisition, ownership and control of genetic information. In A. Thompson & R. Chadwick (Eds.), The acquisition, ownership and control of genetic information. London: Plenum.
38. Mackenzie, R. (2005). Reprogenetics and pharmacogenetics: In whose best interests?. Medicine and Law, 24, 343-354.
39. Mackenzie, R. (2006). Beyond genetic and gestational dualities: Surrogacy agreements, legal parenthood and choice in family formation. In K. Horsey & H. Biggs (Eds.), Reproducing regulation (pp. 233 265). London: Glasshouse.
40. Milbank, J. (1990). Theology and social theory: Beyond secular reason. Oxford: Blackwell.
41. Mirenowicz, J. (2001). The Danish consensus conference model in Switzerland and France: On the importance of framing. PLA notes, 40, 57-60.
42. Miyazaki, H. (2004). The method of hope: Anthropology, philosophy and Fijian knowledge. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
43. Miyazaki, H. (2006). Economy of dreams: Hope in global capitalism and its critiques. Cultural Anthropology, 21, 147-172.
44. Morgan, D. (2004). Ethics, economics and the exotic: The early career of the HFEA. Health Care Analysis, 12, 7-26.
45. Mulkay, M. (1993). Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate. Social Studies of Science, 23, 721-742.
46. Mulkay, M. (1994). Science and family in the great embryo debate. Sociology, 28, 699-715.
47. 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, 611-639.
48. Mulkay, M. (1994). Women in the parliamentary debate over embryo research. Science, Technology and Human Values, 19, 5-22.
49. Mulkay, M. (1995) Galileo and the embryos: Religion and science in parliamentary debate over research on human embryos. Social Studies of Science, 25, 499-532.
50. Mulkay, M. (1995). Parliamentary ambivalence in relation to embryo research. Social Studies of Science, 25, 149-163.
51. Mulkay, M. (1997). The embryo research debate: Science and the politics of reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Nash, C. (2004). Genetic kinship. Cultural Studies, 18, 1-33.
53. Nelkin, D., & Lindee, S. (1995). The DNA mystique: The gene as cultural icon. New York: Freeman.
54. Oaks, L. (2002). Reproductive frontiers: Ethnographic explorations of the meanings of reproductive technologies. Reviews in Anthropology, 31, 323-338.
55. O'Donnell, K. (2000). Legal conceptions: Regulating gametes and gamete donation. Health Care Analysis, 8, 137-155.
56. Parry, S. (2003). The politics of cloning: Mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates. New Genetics and Society, 22, 177-200.
57. Parry, S. (2005). (Re)Constructing embryos in stem cell research: Exploring the meaning of embryos for fertility patients. Paper presented at Talking Biotechnology Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, November/December.
58. Pimbert, M. (2001). Reclaiming our right to power: Some conditions for deliberative democracy. PLA Notes, 40, 81-85.
59. Pottage, A. (1998). The inscription of life in law: Genes, patents and bio-politics. In R. Brownsword et al. (Eds.), Human genetics and the law: Regulating a revolution. (pp. 148-173). Oxford: Hart.
60. Progress in Reproduction (2004) Frozen assets: Egg and sperm donation after the removal of anonymity. Proceedings of a Conference, London, November 2004. London: Progress in Reproduction.
61. Resnik, D. (2002). The commercialisation of human stem cells: Ethical and policy issues. Health Care Analysis, 10, 127-154.
62. Richardson, R. (1996). Fearful symmetry: Corpses for anatomy, organs for transplantation. In S. Youngner et al. (Eds.), Organ transplantation: Meanings and realities (pp. 66 100). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
63. Robertson, J. (1994). Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
64. Robbins, J. (2006). Anthropology and theology: An awkward relationship? Anthropological Quarterly, 79, 285-294.
65. Rose, H. (1994). Love, power and knowledge: Towards a feminist transformation of the sciences. London: Polity Press.
66. Rose, N. (2001). The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture and Society, 18, 1-30.
67. Salter, B. (2004). Cultural biopolitics, bioethics and the moral economy. Norwich: University of East Anglia.
68. Sharp, L. (2000). The commodification of the body and its parts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 287-328.
69. Singer, P. (1996). Rethinking life and death: The collapse of our traditional ethics. London: St Martin's Press.
70. Smith, H. (2005). Regulating science and technology: The case of the UK biotechnology industry. Law & Policy, 27, 189-212.
71. Spallone, P. (1996). The salutary tale of the pre-embryo. In N. Lykke & R. Braidotti (Eds.), Between monsters, goddesses and cyborgs: Feminist confrontations with science, medicine and cyberspace (pp. 207-226). London: Zed Books.
72. Stirling, A. (2001). Inclusive deliberation and scientific expertise: Precaution, diversity and transparency in the governance of risk. PLA Notes, 40, 66-72.
73. Strathern, M. (1992). After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74. Strathern, M. (1992). Reproducing the future: Anthropology, kinship and the new reproductive technologies. London: Routledge.
75. Strathern, M. (2006). A community of critics? Thoughts on new knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (new series), 12, 191-209.
76. Sykes, K. (2005). Arguing with anthropology: An introduction to critical theories of the gift. London: Routledge.
77. Taylor, J. (2005). Surfacing the body interior. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 741-756.
78. Titmuss, R. (1973). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. London: Penguin.
79. Tutton R., & Corrigan O. (Eds.) (2004). Genetic databases: Some socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge.
80. Van Dijck, J. (1998). Imagenation: Popular images of genetics. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
81. Waldby, C. (2002) Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health, 6, 305-323.
82. Wallace, H. (2001). The issue of framing and consensus conferences. PLA Notes, 40, 61-65.
83. Warnock, M (1984). Report of the inquiry into human fertilisation and embryology. Cm 9314. London: Department of Health and Social Security.
84. Warren-Jones, A. (2004). Patenting DNA: A lot of controversy over a little intangibility. Medical Law Review, 12, 97-124.
85. Wiener, M. (2004). Making worlds through religion, science and magic. Anthropological Newsletter, 45, 10-11.
86. Williams, C. (2003). Envisaging the embryo in stem cell research: Rhetorical strategies and media reporting of the ethical debates. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25, 793-814.
87. Williams, M. (2005). Death rites: Assisted suicide and existential rites. International Journal of Law in Context, 1, 183-198.
88. Yanagisako, S., & Delaney, C. (1995). Naturalising power. In S. Yanagisako & C. Delaney (Eds.), Naturalising power: Feminist cultural analysis (pp. 1-24). London: Routledge.
89. Zechmeister, I. (2001). Foetal images: The power of visual technology in antenatal care and the implications for women's reproductive freedom. Health Care Analysis, 9, 387-400.