Wayward Relations: Novel Searches of the Donor-Conceived for Genetic Kinship

Medical Anthropology: Cross Cultural Studies in Health and Illness

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 45-57

  Klotz, Maren ^a  

^a HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Family searches; genetic genealogy; genetic testing; kinship; privacy

Indexed keywords

ANONYMIZATION; DONOR; FAMILY; GERMANY; GREAT BRITAIN; HETEROLOGOUS ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; HUMAN; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY; PRIVACY; SPERMATOZOON; UNITED STATES;

ANTHROPOLOGY, MEDICAL; DATA ANONYMIZATION; FAMILY; GERMANY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL, HETEROLOGOUS; MALE; PRIVACY; SPERMATOZOA; TISSUE DONORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84954399470     PISSN: 01459740     EISSN: 15455882     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01459740.2015.1012615     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. M.Angrist, 2013 Genetic privacy needs a more nuanced approach. Nature 494(7435):7.
2. L.Blake,, P.Casey, J.Readings, V.Jadva, and S.Golombok 2010 Daddy ran out of tadpoles: How parents tell their children that they are donor conceived, and what their 7-year-olds understand. Human Reproduction 25(10):2527–2534.
3. D.A.Bolnick,, D.Fullwiley, T.Duster, R.S.Cooper, J.H.Fujimura, J.Kahn, J.S.Kaufman, J.Marks, A.Morning, and A.Nelson. 2007 The science and business of genetic ancestry testing. Science 318(5849):399.
4. J.Carsten, 2000 ‘Knowing where you’ve come from’: Ruptures and continuities of time and kinship in narratives of adoption reunions. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 6(4):687–703.
5. ———. 2003 After Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. ———. 2007 Constitutive knowledge. Tracing trajectories of information in new contexts of relatedness. Anthropological Quarterly 80(2):403–426.
7. R.Cook, 2002 Villain, hero or masked stranger: Ambivalence in transactions with human gametes. In B.LoreBody and L.S.D.SclaterLaws. S. D., A.Bainham, and M.Richards, eds. Pp. 211–228. Oxford, UK: Hart.
8. K.Daniels, and E.Haimes, eds. 1998 Donor Insemination. International Social Science Perspectives. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. J.Edwards, 2000 Born and Bred: Idioms of Kinship and New Reproductive Technologies in England. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10. ———. 2006 Reflecting on the ‘Euro’ in ‘Euro-American kinship’: Lithuania and the United Kingdom. Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipendensis XIII:129–139.
11. ———. 2009 The ancestor in the machine. http://www.cresc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp%2071.pdf.
12. K.Finkler,, C.Skrzynia, and J.P.Evans 2003 The new genetics and its consequences for family, kinship, medicine and medical genetics. Social Science & Medicine 57(3):403–412.
13. K.Finkler, 2001 The kin in the gene. The medicalization of family and kinship in American society. Current Anthropology 42(2):235–263.
14. ———. 2005 Family, kinship, memory and temporality in the age of the new genetics. Social Science & Medicine 61(5):1059–1071.
15. S.Franklin, 2001 Biologization revisited. Kinship theory in the context of the new biologies. In Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. S.Franklin and S.McKinnon, eds. Pp. 302–328. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
16. ———. 2013 Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
17. S.Franklin, and S.McKinnon, eds. 2001 Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
18. T.Freeman,, V.Jadva, W.Kramer, and S.Golombok 2009 Gamete donation: Parents’ experiences of searching for their child’s donor siblings and donor. Human Reproduction 24(3):505–516.
19. L.Frith, 2001 Gamete donation and anonymity. The ethical and legal debate. Human Reproduction 16(5):818–824.
20. S.Gibbon, 2002 Re-Examining geneticization: Family trees in breast cancer genetics. Science as Culture 11(4):429–457.
21. S.Golombok,, A.Brewaeys, M.T.Giavazzi, D.Guerra, F.Mac Callum, and J.Rust 2002 The European study of assited reproduction families: The transition into adolescence. Human Reproduction 17:830–840.
22. M.Gymrek,, A.L.McGuire, D.Golan, E.Halperin, and Y.Erlich 2013 Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339(6117):321–324.
23. E.Haimes, 1990 Recreating the family. Policy considerations relating to the ‘new’ reproductive technologies. In The New Reproductive Technologies. M.McNeil, I.Varcoe, and S.Yearley, eds. Pp. 154–172. London: Macmillan.
24. ———. 1998 The making of ‘the DI child’: Changing representations of people conceived through donor insemination. In Donor Insemination: International Social Science Perspectives. K.Daniels and E.Haimes, eds. Pp. 53–76. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. ———. 2000 ‘Everyone has a daddy, don’t they?’ Lesbians’ use of donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness 22(2):477–499.
26. C.Hauskeller, 2006 Human Genomics as Identity Politics. Cornell University Center for Ethics & Public Life Young Scholar Award Papers. https://48822435ff65f9423681428795927e1499ecbbf7.googledrive.com/host/0B1arYAWdEZhkbnJjcEt2NlY4RTg/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Identity%20Politics%20revised%20acknowl%20%282%29.pdf.
27. R.Hertz, and J.Mattes 2011 Donor-shared siblings or genetic strangers: New families, clans, and the internet. Journal of Family Issues 32(9):1129–1155.
28. K.Hoeyer, 2012 Size matters: The ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding large-scale genetic biobank initiatives. Norsk Epidemiologi 21(2):211–220.
29. N.Homer,, S.Szelinger, M.Redman, D.Duggan, W.Tembe, J.Muehling, J.V.Pearson, D.A.Stephan, S.F.Nelson, and D.W.Craig 2008 Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genetics 4(8):e1000167.
30. V.Jadva,, T.Freeman, W.Kramer, and S.Golombok 2010 Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 20(4):523–532.
31. L.Kay, 2000 Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
32. A.Kleinman, 1995 Writing at the Margin: Discourse between Anthropology and Medicine. Berkeley: University of California Press.
33. M.Klotz, 2007 Doing kinship in British parliament: Selfish parents—disruptive children? Berliner Blätter 42:80–91.
34. ———. 2012 Making connections: Reflecting on trains, kinship, and information technology. In Reproductive Technologies as Global Form. Ethnographies of Knowledge, Practices, and Transnational Encounters. M.Knecht, M.Klotz, and S.Beck, eds. Pp. 111–138. Frankfurt: Campus.
35. ———. 2013 Genetic knowledge and family identity: Managing gamete donation in Britain and Germany. Sociology 47(5):994–1011.
36. ———. 2014 (K)information. Gamete Donation and Kinship Knowledge in Germany and Britain. Frankfurt: Campus.
37. M.Konrad, 2005 Narrating the New Predictive Genetics: Ethics, Ethnography, and Science. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
38. A.Lippman, 1991 Prenatal genetic testing and screening: Constructing needs and reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law and Medicine 17(1&2):15–50.
39. ———. 1992 Led (astray) by genetic maps: the cartography of the human genome and health care. Social Science & Medicine 35(12):1469–1476.
40. ———. 1993 Prenatal genetic testing and geneticization: Mother matters for all. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 8(1):175–188.
41. L.Mamo, 2005 Biomedicalizing kinship. Sperm banks and the creation of affinity-ties. Science as Culture 14(3):237–264.
42. A.Motluk, 2005 Anonymous sperm donor traced on internet. The New Scientist 2524:6.
43. J.H.Muller, 1994 Anthropology, bioethics, and medicine: A provocative trilogy. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 8(4):448–467.
44. NatureNews 2008 DNA databases shut after identies compromised. Nature 455:13.
45. D.Nelkin, and M.S.Lindee 1995 The DNA Mystique. New York: Freeman.
46. H.Ragoné, 2004 Surrogate motherhood and American kinship. In Kinship and Family: An Anthropological Reader. R.Parkin and L.Stone, eds. Pp. 342–361. Malden, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
47. C.Reinecke, J.Feuchter, R.Finsterhölzl, A.Fischer-Tahir, F.Hoffmann, S.Holzwarth, M.Klotz, M.Knecht, V.Oelsner, N.Polat, R.Tamme, and J.Wagner. 2010 Wissen und soziale Ordnung. Eine Kritik der Wissensgesellschaft. Working Papers des Sonderforschungsbereiches 640. http://edoc.huberlin.de/series/sfb-640-papers/2010-1/
48. H.Riley, 2013 Exploring the ethical implications of the late discovery of adoptive and donor-insemination offspring status. Adoption & Fostering 37(2):171–187.
49. C.Smart, 2011 Families, secrets and memories. Sociology 45(4):539–553.
50. N.Stehr, 1994 Knowledge Societies. London: Sage.
51. M.Strathern, 1992 After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. ———. 1999 Refusing information. In Property, Substance, and Effect: Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things. Pp. 64–88. London: Athlone Press.
53. ———. 2005 Kinship, Law and the Unexpected: Relatives are Always a Surprise. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
54. C.Thompson, 2005 Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. I.Turkmendag, 2012 The donor-conceived child’s ‘right to personal identity’: The public debate on donor anonymity in the United Kingdom. Journal of Law and Society 39(1):58–75.