This article examines some of the social and philosophical implications of stem cell technologies. Stem cell technologies promise to transform the way that healthy tissues for transplant are sourced and circulated; from a social economy in which citizens donate whole organs to others, to one in which embryos are a major source of therapeutic tissues. This article considers the transformations in concepts of health, bodily relationships and social indebtedness that such a shift might entail. Using the concept of biovalue, this article describes the ways embryos are biologically engineered to act as tissue sources, and considers the relationship between biovalue, health and capital value. It discusses the effects stem cell technologies may have on concepts of the healthy body, particularly on the temporality of ageing, and on understandings of the human more generally.
Braidotti, Rosi . (1994). Body-images and the pornography of representation. In K. Lennon and M. Whitford (Eds.), Knowing the difference: Feminist perspectives in epistemology, pp. 17–30). London & New York: Routledge.
2.
Bush, G.W. (2001). Looking for a firm footing on an ethical slippery slope. Sydney Morning Herald, 13 August, p. 10-10 (reprint of article appearing in the New York Times).
3.
Chief Medical Officer’s Expert Group (CMOEG) . (2000). Stem cell research: Medical progress with responsibility. Report from the Chief Medical Officer’s Expert Group reviewing the potential of developments in stem cell research and cell nuclear replacement to benefit human health. UK: Department of Health.
4.
Cook, M. (2001). Divide over cells that save at cost of a life. The Australian, 15 August, p. 13-13.
5.
Erin, Charles . (1994). Who owns Mo? In A. Dyson and J. Harris (Eds.), Ethics and biotechnology, pp. 157–178. London & New York: Routledge.
6.
Fox, R. and Swazey, J. (1992). Spare parts: Organ replacement in American society. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
Franklin, S. (2001a). Review essay: What we know and what we don’t about cloning and society. Draft published by the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University at:http://www.comp.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/soc020sf.html.
8.
Franklin, S. (2001b). Gene answer spawns a lot of questions. The Times Higher Education Supplement, 15 June, p. 19-19.
9.
Franklin, S. (2001c). Culturing biology: Cell lines for the second millennium. Health, 5(3), 335–354.
10.
Franklin, S. and Tutton, R. (2001). Revisiting concepts of gift in the new genetics: Report on a one day conference. London: The Wellcome Trust.
11.
Freed, C. , Green, P., Breeze, R., Tsai, W. et al. (2001). Transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurones for severe Parkinson’s disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 344(10), 710–719.
12.
Frow, J. (1997). Gift and commodity. In Time and commodity culture: Essays in cultural theory and postmodernity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13.
Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGAC) . (1998). Cloning issues in reproduction, science and medicine. London: HGAC.
14.
Kay, L. (2000). Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15.
Keller, E.F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.
16.
Legge, Adam . (2000). Hospital criticised for not obtaining proper consent. British Medical Journal, 320, 1291–1291.
17.
Mackenzie, A. (2002). Transductions: Bodies and machines at speed. London: Athlone Press.
18.
Marx, K. (1972). Capital, trans. Eden and Cedar Paul. London: Dent.
19.
Mauss, M. (1967). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New York: Norton.
20.
Meek, J. (2001). Stroke test goes ahead despite US warning. The Guardian, 16 April, p. 7–7.
21.
Mulkay, M. (1993). Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate. Social Studies of Science, 23, 721–742.
22.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) . (2000). Stem cells: A primer. nih.gov/news/stemcell.
23.
Novas, C. and Rose, N. (2000). Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society, 29(4), 485–513.
24.
Rabinow, P. (1996). Severing the ties: Fragmentation and dignity in late modernity. In P. RabinowEssays on the anthropology of reason, pp. 129–152. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Rabinow, P. (1999). French DNA. Trouble in purgatory. Chicago, IL & London: Chicago University Press.
26.
Rose, N. (2001). The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(6), 1–30.
27.
Rosengarten, M. (2001). A pig’s tale: Porcine viruses and species boundaries. In Alison Bashford and Claire Hooker (Eds.), Contagion: Historical and cultural studies, pp. 168–182. London & New York: Routledge.
28.
Serres, Michel . (1982). Hermes: Literature, science, philosophy. Edited by J.V. Harari and D.F. Bell. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
Sinden, J. (2000). Medical futures. In C. Campbell (Ed.), Front, pp. 17–26. London: Calvert’s Press.
30.
Snyder, E. and Vescovi, A. (2000). The possibilities/perplexities of stem cells. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 827–828.
31.
Stafford, M. (1999). Interview with Renée Fox. In J. Houis, P. Mieli and M. Stafford (Eds.), Being human: The technological extensions of the body, pp. 242–256. New York: Marsilio Press.
32.
Thomas, J. , Itskovitz-Eldor, J., Shapiro, S., Waknitz, M., Swiergiel, J., et al. (1998). Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science, 282, 1145–1147.
33.
Titmuss, Richard . (1997). The gift relationship: From blood to social policy. Edited by Ann Oakley and John Ashton. London: London School of Economics.
34.
Waldby, C. (1996). AIDS and the body politic: Biomedicine and sexual difference. London & New York: Routledge.
