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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
European Patent Convention (EPC 2000).
References
Ackerly, Brooke A. 2008. Universal human rights in a world of difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo sacer. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Beyleveld, Deryck, and Roger Brownsword. 2000. My body, my body parts, my property? Health Care Analysis 8 (2): 87–99.
Buchanan, Allan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler. 2000. From chance to choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickenson, Donna. 2007. Property in the body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duster, Troy. 2003. The genetic screening of ‘target’ populations. In Backdoor to eugenics, 39–59. New York: Routledge.
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
Francioni, Francesco. 2007. Biotechnologies and international human rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2011. Reframing rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the genetic age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Joas, Hans. 2013. The sacredness of the person. A new genealogy of human rights. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Laurie, Graeme. 2002. Genetic privacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.
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.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1995. Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs 24 (4): 249–291.
Rose, Nikolas. 2007. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
Scully, Jackie Leach, Laurel E. Baldwin-Ragaven, and Petya Fitzpatrick. 2010. Feminist bioethics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Waldron, Jeremy. 2006. The right to private property. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Weir, Robert F., and Robert S. Olick. 2004. The stored tissue issue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Legal Cases
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
Mennesson v. France (ECtHR application no. 65192/11, judgment 26.06.2014).
Labassee v. France (ECtHR application no. 65941/11), judgment 26.06.2014).
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 229 F.3d 831, 84 FEP Cases 129 (9th Cir. 2000).
Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2011 BCSC 656 (CanLII).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66249-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66247-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66249-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)