Skip to main content

The “Me Molecule”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bioethics and Biopolitics

Part of the book series: Advancing Global Bioethics ((AGBIO,volume 8))

  • 609 Accesses

Abstract

The cells, cell lines, embryos, and gametes that are harvested, isolated, purified, fertilized, frozen, stored, and defrosted, tested, diagnosed, examined and even “edited” in laboratories. As a consequence of this multiple form of intervention human cells and molecules have recently become the subject of vibrant political and ethical debates and targets of legal policymaking. In this scientific and political discourse a new phenomenon has emerged, which was coined as ‘molecularization’ by Nikolas Rose in his book, The Politics of Life Itself. For Rose, molecularization is one of the most important characteristics of contemporary biopolitics. When Foucault elaborated his ideas about biopolitics and subjectivity, he still focused on the body as a whole, and the biopolitical control over it, and not on the parts or fragments of the body (Lemke T. Biopolitics: an advanced introduction, New York University Press, New York, 2011). Today, however, not only scientists, but also regulators view humans more and more on the molecular level by developing special scientific terminology and legal norms in the fields of genetic research and testing, stem cell research, and even assisted reproduction. This phenomenon has appeared in several domains of biotechnology, which I will discuss by highlighting the consequences of this new scientific gaze. In this chapter, therefore, I would like to discuss the practical implications of molecularization, and explore how the new biopolitical thinking determines legal structures and public discussion in the light of the current advances in biotechnology. My goal is to incite a legal dogmatic dispute and to encourage a brainstorming that incorporates an element of criticism in the process of placing biological concepts in a new context. I will examine the relevance of molecularization in selected fields, such as genetic research, biotechnological inventions, sperm donation, mitochondrial donation and surrogacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    European Patent Convention (EPC 2000).

References

  • Ackerly, Brooke A. 2008. Universal human rights in a world of difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo sacer. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyleveld, Deryck, and Roger Brownsword. 2000. My body, my body parts, my property? Health Care Analysis 8 (2): 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Allan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler. 2000. From chance to choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dickenson, Donna. 2007. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duster, Troy. 2003. The genetic screening of ‘target’ populations. In Backdoor to eugenics, 39–59. New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • European Patent Convention. 2000. Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention) of 5 October 1973 as revised by the Act revising Article 63 EPC of 17 December 1991 and the Act revising the EPC of 29 November 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Francioni, Francesco. 2007. Biotechnologies and international human rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2011. Reframing rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joas, Hans. 2013. The sacredness of the person. A new genealogy of human rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurie, Graeme. 2002. Genetic privacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1689, 1947. The Second treatise on civil government. In John Locke: On politics and education, ed. Howard R. Penniman. New York: D. van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 1995. Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs 24 (4): 249–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, Nikolas. 2007. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sándor, Judit. 2012. Bioethics and basic rights: Persons, humans, and the boundaries of life. In The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law, ed. Michel Rosenfeld and András Sajó, 1142–1165. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, Jackie Leach, Laurel E. Baldwin-Ragaven, and Petya Fitzpatrick. 2010. Feminist bioethics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, Jeremy. 2006. The right to private property. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir, Robert F., and Robert S. Olick. 2004. The stored tissue issue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, Franz-Josef, Steven M. Zerman, Jens Hammer, Klara Goldbach, and Bernd Allekotte. 2015. Protecting and enforcing life science inventions in Europe under EPC and EU law from antibodies to zebrafish. 2nd, rev and updated edition. C.H. Beck/Hart: München/Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Legal Cases

  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mennesson v. France (ECtHR application no. 65192/11, judgment 26.06.2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Labassee v. France (ECtHR application no. 65941/11), judgment 26.06.2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 229 F.3d 831, 84 FEP Cases 129 (9th Cir. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2011 BCSC 656 (CanLII).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judit Sándor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sándor, J. (2017). The “Me Molecule”. In: Kakuk, P. (eds) Bioethics and Biopolitics. Advancing Global Bioethics, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66249-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics