In risk we trust/Editing embryos and mirroring future risks and uncertainties
Tendencies and efforts have shifted from genome description, DNA mapping, and DNA sequencing to active and profound re-programming, repairing life on genetic and molecular levels in some parts of contemporary life science research. Mirroring and materializing this atmosphere, various life engineering technologies have been used and established in many areas of life sciences in the last decades. A contemporary progressive example of one such technology is DNA editing. Novel developments related to reproductive technologies, particularly embryo editing, prenatal human life engineering, and germline engineering need to be analyzed against the broader social and structural background. The crucial analytical scope for this paper is a specific field: the life-editing technologies used in reproductive medicine and performed experimentally on viable human embryos, particularly CRISPR/Cas9 technology. This text argues that germline editing technologies, as a representative part of contemporary biomedicine, are merging ideas of treatment and enhancement to avoid future risks. Using this specific life manipulation of embryos and gametes, the text analyzes these processes within the concept of power over life—biopower and the specific governing rationality that imagines, classifies, and governs contemporary societies. The text specifically focuses on the potential to create, define, and manage future risks and uncertainties related to prenatal life.
KeywordsEditing life Editing embryos Life-engineering Biopower Risk Uncertainty
I thank the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their comments, crucial suggestions and encouragement.
This paper is supported by funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 750088 (Artificial Life/Anthropological and Sociological Analysis of Life Engineering).
- Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ascott, Roy, and Edward A. Shanken. 2003. Telematic Embrace: Visionary Theories of Art, Technology, and Consciousness. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Atkinson, Paul, Peter Glasner, and Margaret Lock. 2013. Handbook of Genetics and Society, Mapping the New Genomic Era. London: Rouledge.Google Scholar
- Beck, Ulrich. 1986/1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Brown, Nik, and Andrew Webster. 2004. New Medical Technologies and Society: Reordering life. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
- Canguilhem, Georges. 1988. Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Canguilhem, Georges. 1991. The Normal and the Pathological, Trans. Carolyn R. Fawcett, Robert S. Cohen. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
- Canguilhem, Georges. 2008. The Knowledge of Life. New York: Fordham UP.Google Scholar
- Collier, Stephen J., and Andrew Lakoff. 2008. On regimes of living. In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, eds. Collier, Stephen J., Andrew Lakoff, and Paul Rabinow. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Collins, Francis S. 2015. Statement on the NIH funding of research using gene-editing technologies in human embryos. National Institute of Health (NIH). http://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nihdirector/statements/statement-nih-funding-research-using-gene-editing-technologies-human-embryos. Accessed 15 December 2017.
- Dean, Mitchell. 1999. Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
- Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume I. Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
- Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–78. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
- Franklin, Sarah, and Susan McKinnon. 2001. Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
- Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Glad, John. 2006. Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century. Hermitage Publishers.Google Scholar
- Gottweis, Herbert. 2005. Comparing Biobanks: Towards a New Form of Biopolitics? Lecture for the International Comparison of IHTs Workshop, Rome.Google Scholar
- Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women. NewYork: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Haraway, Donna. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing Evolution: the Ethical Case for Making People Better. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kac, Eduardo, ed. 2007. Signs of Life. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Lemke, Thomas. 2005. From eugenics to the government of genetic risk. In Genetic Governance. Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, eds. Robin Bunton and Alan Petersen. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction (Biopolitics: Medicine, Technoscience, and Health in the 21st Century). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
- Lupton, Deborah. 2013. Risk. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nilsson, Jakob, and Sven-Olov Wallenstein. 2013. Foucault, Biopolitics and Governmentality. Stockholm: Södertörn Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
- Rabinow, Paul. 1996. Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In Anthropologies of Modernity: Foucault, Governmentality and Life Sciences, ed. J. X. Inda, 181–193. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Rabinow, Paul. 2003. Anthropos Today. Reflections on Modern Equipment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Rabinow, Paul, and Gaymon Bennett. 2012. Synthetic biology, ethical ramifications. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 99–108.Google Scholar
- Rapp, Rayana. 2000. Testing the Fetus. The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Rettner, Rachael. 2016. Controversial Human Embryo Editing: 5 Things to Know. Life Science, September 23. http://www.livescience.com/56243-human-embryo-editing.html. Accessed 15 December 2016.
- Saey, Tina H. 2016. New era of human embryo gene editing begins. Science News, Magazine of the Society & Public, September 23. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-era-human-embryo-gene-editing-begins. Accessed 2 February 2017.
- Šmídová, Iva, Eva Šlesingerová a Lenka Slepičková. 2015. Games of Life. Czech Reproductive Biomedicine. Sociological Perspectives. Brno: Munipress. https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-7734-2015.
- Sontag, Susan. 1977. Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
- Strathern, Marilyn. 1996. After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar