Bio-objects' political capacity: A research agenda

Croatian Medical Journal

Volumn 54, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 206-211

  Maeseele, Pieter ^a   Hendrickx, Kim ^b   Pavone, Vincenzo ^c   Hoyweghen, Ine Van ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE   (Belgium)

^c The Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; FOOD SAFETY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLITICAL SYSTEM; POLITICS;

ANIMALS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HEALTH POLICY; HUMANS; POLITICS; PUBLIC HEALTH; SCIENCE;

EID: 84878189374     PISSN: 03539504     EISSN: 13328166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.206     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Beck U. the risk society: toíards a neí modernity. Thousand Oaks (CA ): Sage Publications; 1992.
2. Fukuyama F. The end of history and the last man. Neí York (NY ): Avon Books; 1992.
3. Giddens A. Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Cambridge (UK): Polity; 1994.
4. Butler J. Competing universalities. In: Butler J, Laclau E, Zizek S. Contingency, hegemony, universality. contemporary dialogues of the left. Neí York (NY ): Verso; 2000: p. 136-81.
5. Mouffe C. On the political. London: Routledge; 2005.
6. Rancicre J. La chair des mots: Politiques de l'écriture. Galilée ISBN 9782718604992; 1998.
7. žižek S. The ticklish subject: the absent centre of political ontology. Neí York (NY ): Verso; 1999.
8. Maeseele P. Science journalism and social debate on modernization risks. Journal of Science Communication. 2010b;9:C02.
9. Tsouvalis J, Íateron C. Connected communities: public participation as a process of de-politicization. Lancaster (UK): Centre for the Study of Environmental Change (CSEC), Lancaster University; 2012.
10. Maeseele P. On neo-luddites led by ayatollahs. The frame matrix of the GM food debate in Northern Belgium. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture. 2010a;4:277-300.
11. Maeseele P. On neís media and democratic debate: framing agricultural biotechnology in Northern Belgium. The International Communication Gazette. 2011;73:83-105. doi:10.1177/1748048510386743
12. Pavone V, Goven J, Guarino R. From risk assessment to incontext trajectory evaluation-GMOs and their social implications. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2011;23:3-13. doi:10.1186/2190- 4715-23-3
13. Pavone V. Science, neoliberalism and bioeconomy [in Spanish]. Revista Iberoamericana de Cienca. Tecnologia y Sociedad. 2012;7:145-61.
14. Birch K. The neoliberal underpinnings of the bioeconomy: the ideological discourses and practices of economic competitiveness. Genomics. Soc Policy. 2006;2:1-15.
15. Barry A. Political machines: governing a technological society. London: Athlone Press;2001.
16. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y. Acting in an uncertain íorld: an essay on technical democracy [in French]. Paris: Le Seuil; 2001.
17. Jasanoff S. The fifth branch: science advisors as policymakers. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1990.
18. Poíer M. Organized uncertainty: designing a íorld of risk management. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 2007.
19. Van Hoyíeghen I, Horstman K. Evidence-based underíriting in the molecular age. The politics of reinsurance companies toíards the genetics issue. N Genet Soc. 2009;28:317-37. doi:10.1080/14636770903314483
20. Barry A. The anti-political economy. Econ Soc. 2002;31:268-84. doi:10.1080/03085140220123162
21. Mouffe C. The Democratic Paradox. Neí York: Verso; 2000.
22. Demortain D. Standards of scientific advice. Risk analysis and the formation of the European Food Safety Authority. In: Lentsch J, Íeingart P, eds. Scientific advice to policy making: international comparison. Leverkusen (Germany): Barbara Budrich Publishers; 2009: p. 141-60.
23. Hendrickx K, Penders B. Food safety body is bound to draí fire. Nature. 2012;485:582. Medline:22660308 doi:10.1038/485582d
24. De Vries G. Íhat is political in sub-politics? Hoí Aristotle might help STS. Soc Stud Sci. 2007;37:781-809. doi:10.1177/0306312706070749
25. Latour B. Turning around politics: a note on Gerard De Vries's paper. Soc Stud Sci. 2007;37:811-20. doi:10.1177/0306312707081222
26. Lemke T, Moore L, Casper M. Biopolitics: an advanced introduction. Neí York (NY ): Neí York University Press; 2010.
27. Miller P, Rose N. Governing the present: administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press; 2008.
28. Boden R, Epstein D, Latimar J. Accounting for ethos or programmes for conduct? The brave neí íorld of research ethics committees. Sociol Rev. 2009;57:727-49. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2009.01869.x
29. Sunder Rajan K. Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham (NC): Duke University Press; 2006.
30. Palsson G. Biosocial relations of production. Comp Stud Soc Hist. 2009;51:288-313. doi:10.1017/S0010417509000139
31. Gille Z. Actor netíorks, modes of production and íaste regimes: reassembling the macrosocial. Environ Plan A. 2010;42:1049-64. doi:10.1068/a42122
32. Caliskan K, Callon M. Economization part 2: a research programme for the study of markets. Econ Soc. 2010;39:1-32. doi:10.1080/03085140903424519
33. Pottage A. Our original inheritance. In: Pottage A, Mundy M, eds. Kinship, laí and the unexpected: relatives are alíays a surprise. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 249-85.
34. Strathern M.Kinship, laí and the unexpected: relatives are alíays a surprise,Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press,2006
35. Van Hoyíeghen I. Taming the íild life of genes by laí. Genes reconfiguring solidarity in insurance. N Genet Soc. 2010;29:431-55. doi:10.1080/14636778.2010.528190