The author traces the ways in which various patients and collective associations of patients come to regard themselves as the users of future stem cell technologies. The author uses Althusser’s notion of interpellation (1971/2006), whereby an identity is the result of the situated encounter of a subject and an authority, to analyze the ways in which patient associations’ current involvement with basic research is related to the enactment of science as a series of technology development projects. The author argues that this ‘‘project-ness’’ forms a certain privileged logic that interpellates patients and their associations in specific ways. Through the listings of illnesses circulated in the mass media, which are hoped to be treatable or curable with stem cell therapies, patients come to recognize themselves as the projected users of stem cell technologies. The author fleshes out the process of this userfication and the various responses made by patients and their associations when hailed by the entrepreneurial projects of stem cell research.
Althusser, Louis.1971/2006. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes toward an investigation). In The anthropology of the state, ed. A. Sharma and A. Gupta, 86-111. Malden: Blackwell.
2.
Barbot, Janine.2006. How to build an ‘‘active’’ patient? The work of AIDS associations in France. Social Science and Medicine62:538-51.
3.
Bouchard, Ron A. and Trudo Lemmens.2008. Privatizing biomedical research - a ‘third way’ . Nature Biotechnology26:31-36.
4.
Brown, Nik.2003. Hope against hype-Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies16:3-21.
5.
Brown, Nik and Mike Michael.2003. A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management15:3-18.
6.
Brown, Phil, Stephen Zavestoski, Sabina McCormick, Brian Mayer, Rachel Morello-Frosch and Rebecca G. Altman.2004. Embodied health movements: New approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health & Illness26:50-80.
7.
Butler, Judith.1997. The psychic life of power: Theories in subjection. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
8.
Callon, Michel.1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? ed. John Law, 196-233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
9.
Callon, Michel.2003. The increasing involvement of concerned groups in R&D policies: What lessons for public powers? In Science and innovation-Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, ed. A. Guena, A. J. Salter and W. E. Steinmueller, 30-68. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
10.
Callon, Michel.2005. Disabled persons of all countries, unite! In Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. B. Latour and P. Weibel, 308-13. Cambridge : MIT Press.
11.
Callon, Michel and Vololona Rabeharisoa.2008. The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life-Lessons from the french association of neuromuscular disease patients. Science, Technology, & Human Values33:230-61.
12.
Epstein, Steven.1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge . Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
Good, Mary-Jo D.2001. The biotechnical embrace. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry25:395-410.
14.
Haraway, Donna.1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan(_Meets_ OncoMouse™ . New York: Routledge.
15.
Hogg, Christine.1999. Patients, power & politics: From patients to citizens . London: SAGE.
16.
Horst, Maja.2003. Controversy and collectivity: Articulations of social and natural order in mass-mediated representations of biotechnology. PhD Thesis, Doctoral School on Knowledge and Management, Copenhagen Business School.
17.
Horst, Maja.2007. Public expectations of gene therapy. Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science, Technology & Human Values32:150-71.
18.
Huniche, Lotte.2007. Med livet i hænderne. Kroniske hjertepatienters perspektiver på eksperimentel stamcellebehandling. In Håbets teknologi. Samfundsvidenskabelige perspektiver på stamcelleforskning i Danmark, ed. L. Koch and K. Høyer, 225-50. København : Munksgaard.
19.
Landzelius, Kyra.2006. Introduction: Patient organization movements and new metamorphoses in patienthood. Social Science & Medicine62:529-537.
20.
Latour, Bruno.1987. Science in action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21.
Latour, Bruno.1988. The Pasteurization of france. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
22.
Law, John.1986. On the methods of long-distance control: Vessels, navigation and the portuguese route to India. In Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? ed. John Law.London: Routledge.
23.
Law, John.2000. On the subject of the object: Narrative, technology, and interpellation. Configurations8:1-29.
24.
Law, John.2002. Aircraft stories. Decentering the object in technoscience . Durham and London: Duke University Press.
25.
Law, John and Vicky Singleton.2000. Performing technology’s stories. On social constructivism, performance, and performativity. Technology and Culture41:765-75.
26.
Lévinas, Emmanuel.1979. Totality and infinity: an essay on exteriority. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
27.
Lindvall, Olle and Anders Björklund.2004. Cell therapy in Parkinson’s disease . NeuroRx1:382-93.
28.
Mirowski, Philip and Robert Van Horn.2005. The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social Studies of Science35:503-48.
29.
Mol, Annemarie.2008. The logic of care. Health and the problem of patient choice . London: Routledge.
30.
Moreira, Tiago and Paolo Palladino.2005. Between truth and hope: on Parkinson’s disease, neurotransplantation and the production of the ‘self. ’ History of the Human Sciences18:55-82.
31.
Novas, Carlos.2006. The political economy of hope: Patients’ organizations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties1:289-305.
32.
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons.2001. Re-thinking science knowledge and the public in the age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33.
Oudshoorn, Nelly and Trevor Pinch, eds. 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
34.
Rabeharisoa, Vololona.2003. The struggle against neuromuscular disease in France and the emergence of the ‘partnership model’ of patient organisation . Social Science and Medicine57:2127-36.
35.
Rabeharisoa, Vololona and Michel Callon.2002. The involvement of patients’ associations in research . International Social Science Journal171:57-65.
36.
Rabeharisoa, Vololona and Michel Callon.2004. Patients and scientists in French muscular dystrophy research . In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order, ed. S. Jasanoff, 142-60. London : SAGE.
37.
Rasmussen, V.2001. Gå Johnny. http://ryk.dk/artikel/20/282 (accessed August 15, 2008).
38.
Stockdale, Alan.1999. Waiting for the cure: Mapping the social relations of human gene therapy research. Sociology of Health & Illness21:579-96.
39.
Strauss, Amselm.1988. The articulation of project work: An organizational process . The Sociological Quarterly29:163-78.
40.
The Danish Government.2003. Nye veje mellem forskning og erhverv-fra tanke til faktura-Regeringens handlingsplan . Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling.
41.
Thomson, James A., Joseph Itskovitz-Eldor, Sander S. Shapiro, Michelle A. Waknitz, Jennifer J. Swiergiel, Vivienne S. Marshall, and Jeffrey M. Jones .1998. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science282:1145-47.
42.
Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments . (accessed August 9, 2010).
43.
Wood, Brian.2000. Patient power? The politics of patients’ associations in britain and america. Buckingham: Open University Press.
44.
Zizek, Slavoj.1989. The sublime object of ideology. London and New York: Verso Press.
