Regulating ‘Respect’ for the Embryo: Social Mindscapes and Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research in Japan

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between the science community and the bioethical regulation of human embryonic stem cell research (hESR) in the laboratory and in daily life in Japan. It develops a perspective that takes into account the diversity of views among principle investigators (PIs) and scientists working in the laboratory. Deploying Eviatar Zerubavel’s notion of social mindscapes and the notion of mindsets, I elucidate the relationships between the personal and the professional, scientists and the public. Introducing the concept of mindset switching, I argue that scientists’ views of embryonic substances cannot be understood adequately in terms of the rhetoric of boundary making alone. The use of cognitive notions of social mindscape applied to situations in the life of scientists has far-reaching consequences for both the implementation of research regulation involving respect for the embryo and for the public discussion on the use of embryonic substances. The article is based on interviews with over thirty scientists working with embryos and stem cells during fieldwork visits in eleven science institutes in Japan.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appadurai

(1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In Appadurai

(Ed.), The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 1–3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bonnicksen

A.L.

(2002). Crafting a cloning policy: From Dolly to stem cells. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Callon

(1998). Introduction. In Callon

(Ed.), The laws of the markets (pp. 1–57). Oxford and Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Cyranoski

(2005). Japan’s embryo experts beg for faster ethical reviews. Nature, 438(7066), 263.

Cunningham-Burley

Kerr

(1999). Defining the ‘social’: Towards an understanding of scientific and medical discourses on the social aspects of the new human genetics. Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(5), 647–688.

Douglas

(1986). Purity and danger. An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Fleck

(1979), Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Original work in 1935.

Gieryn

(1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.

Gieryn

(1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Geertz

(1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In Geertz

Clifford

(Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.

11.

Harris

(2002). Asian pragmatism. EMBO Reports, 3(9), 816–817. Retrieved 17 April 2013, from http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/embor/journal/v3/n9/full/embor069.html

12.

Hishiyama

(2003). Seimei Ronri Handobukku [Handbook of bioethics]. Tokyo: Tsukiji-Shokan.

13.

Holland

Lebacqz

Zoloth

(2001). The human embryonic stem cell debate. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.

14.

Ida

(2002). Ethical questions of the human embryonic stem cells research. Rinsho Shinkeigaku [Clinical Neurology], November, 42(11), 1147–1148.

15.

Inaba

Macer

(2003). Attitudes to biotechnology in Japan in 2003. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, 13, 78–90. Retrieved from http://www.eubios.info/EJ133/ej133b.htm

16.

Kato

(2005). The ethical and political discussions on stem cell research in Japan. In Bender

Hauskeller

Manzei

(Eds), Grenzüberschreitungen(Crossing borders). Münster: Agenda Verlag.

17.

Kayukawa

(2003). Kuroun Ningen[Human cloning]. Tokyo: Koubunsha Shinsho.

18.

MacKenzie

(1990). Inventing accuracy. A historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

19.

MacKenzie

(1998). The certainty trough. In Williams

(Eds), Exploring expertise (pp. 325–29). Basingstoke: MacMillan.

20.

MBBNet (2013). World stem cell map. Retrieved 11 June 2013, from http://mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html

21.

Mori (2001). The role of scientists in public debate. Retrieved 11 June 2013, from http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=1694

22.

Pfeffer

Kent

(2007). Framing women, framing fetuses: How Britain regulates arrangements for the collection and use of aborted fetuses in stem cell research and therapies. Biosocieties, 2(4), 429–447.

23.

Schutz

(1973). Collected papers, Vol. 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhof.

24.

Sleeboom-Faulkner

(2008). Claiming the futures of human embryonic stem cell research in Japan: Minority voices and their amplifiers. Science as Culture, 17(1), 85–97.

25.

Sleeboom-Faulkner

Hwang

(2012). Governance of stem cell research: Public participation and decision-making in China, Japan, South-Korea, Taiwan and the UK. Social Studies of Science, 42(5), 684–708.

26.

Slingby

B.T.

Nagao

Akabayashi

(2004). Administrative legislation in Japan: Guidelines on scientific and ethical standards. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13(3), 245–253.

27.

Strathern

(1991). Partial connections. Savage, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

28.

Wainwright

S.P.

(2006). Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(6), 732–748.

29.

Waldby

Mitchell

(2006). Tissue economies: Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

30.

Zerubavel

(1999). Social mindscapes. An invitation to cognitive sociology. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press.