Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 239–256 | Cite as

Democratic Mis-haps: The Problem of Democratization in a Time of Biopolitics

  • Jenny Reardon
Article

Abstract

Following the stringent critiques of organizers of the Human Genome Diversity Project for excluding people from the initiative's early planning, subsequent administrators of high-profile efforts to study human genetic variation, such as the International HapMap Project, have made great efforts to stress the importance of including the people who are to be the objects of study in research design and regulation. Such efforts to ‘democratize’ genomics would appear to represent a positive development. However, in practice they have satisfied few as they fail to recognize the most basic lesson of the Human Genome Diversity Project debates: genomics raises questions not just about the inclusion of people, but about their very constitution. Positing concrete, stable subjects in society, current efforts to ‘democratize’ genomics fail to recognize that entangled in the fundamental questions about nature posed by this emergent form of technoscience are fundamental questions about the order and constitution of societies. The creation of sustainable and desirable forms of governance require us to come to terms with challenges posed to liberal democratic practices and values, such as inclusion, in an age defined partially by this mutual dis/ordering of nature and society.

Keywords

biopolitics co-constitution genomics democratization publics race 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF #0613026) and the GEN-AU (Genomeresearch in Austria) Program of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (www.gen-au.at). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or GEN-AU. I would also like to thank Rebecca Herzig for ongoing discussions that are vital to the development of the line of thought animating this article. Barbara Prainsack, Ursula Naue and Jeantine Lunshof provided comments that helped to clarify the thinking in this article. Shannon Williams provided invaluable research assistance. Finally, I would like to thank the organizers of the ESRC's Genomics Forum for a chance to present an early version of this article.

References

  1. Arditti R., Brennan P., & Cavrak S. (1980). Science and liberation. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cavalli-Sforza L.L., Wilson A.C., Cantor C.R., Cook-Deegan R.M., & King M.C. (1991). Call for a worldwide survey of human genetic diversity: A vanishing opportunity for the human genome project. Genomics, 11 (summer), 490–491.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke A., Fishman J., Fosket J., Mamo L., & Shim J. (2003). Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness and U.S. biomedicine. American Sociological Review, 68 (April), 161–194.Google Scholar
  4. Coriell Institute for Medical Research (2004). Policy for responsible collection, storage, and research use of samples from identified populations for the NIGMS Human Genetic Cell Repository. URL (accessed March 2007): ccr.coriell.org/nigms/comm/submit/collpolicy.html
  5. Dewey J. (1927). The public and its problems. Chicago: The Swallow Press. (Original work published in 1927.)Google Scholar
  6. Dewey J. (1960). The construction of the good. In M. Konvitz & G. Kennedy (Eds), The American pragmatists, 201–225. New York: Median Books.Google Scholar
  7. Dobzhansky T. (1962). Comment. Current Anthropology, 3, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duster T. (1990). Backdoor to eugenics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Eglash R., Croissant J., Chiro G., & Fouche R. (2004). Appropriating technology: Vernacular science and social power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  10. Epstein S. (forthcoming). Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Foster M.W. (2006). Ethical issues in developing a haplotype map with socially defined populations. URL (accessed March 2007): www.genome.gov/10001683
  12. Foucault M. (1997a). Technologies of the self. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Ethics, subjectivity and truth, 223–252. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault M. (1997b). Polemics, politics and problematizations. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Ethics, subjectivity and truth, 111–119. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  14. Genes without Borders (2006). Genes without Borders? Towards Global Genomic Governance URL (accessed March 2007): www.univie.ac.at/transformation/GwB/intro.htm
  15. Greely H.T. (North American Regional Committee, Human Genome Diversity Project) (1997). Proposed model ethical protocol for collecting DNA samples. Houston Law Review, 33, 1431–1473.Google Scholar
  16. Hacking I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Haraway D. (1991). Simian, cyborgs, and women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Herzig R. (2006). Review of Appropriating technology: Vernacular science and social power. Isis, 97, 181–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism (n.d.) Indigenous peoples opposition to the HGDP. URL (consulted September 2006): www.ipcb.org/resolutions/htmls/summary_indig_opp.html
  20. IHMC (International HapMap Consortium) (2003). The International HapMap Project. Nature, 426, 789–795.Google Scholar
  21. IHMC (International HapMap Consortium) (2004). Integrating ethics and science in the International HapMap Project. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5, 467–475.Google Scholar
  22. IHMC (International HapMap Consortium) (2005) A haplotype map of the human genome. Nature, 437, 1299–1320.Google Scholar
  23. IHMC (International HapMap Project) (n.d. a) About the HapMap. URL (accessed April 2007): hapmap.org/thehapmap.html.enGoogle Scholar
  24. IHMC (International HapMap Project) (n.d. b). Which populations are being sampled. URL (accessed September 2006): www.hapmap.org/hapmappopulations.html.en
  25. IHMC (International HapMap Project) (n.d. c). Guidelines for referring to the HapMap populations in publications and presentations. URL (accessed September 2006): www.hapmap.org/citinghapmap.html.en
  26. IHMC (International HapMap Project) (n.d. d). Community advisory groups. URL (accessed March 2007): www.hapmap.org/cag.html.en
  27. Kitcher P. (2001). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Landecker H.L. (1999). Between beneficence and chattel: The human biological in law and science. Science in Context, 12, 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Latour B. (2005). Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Livingstone F. (1962). On the non-existence of human races. Current Anthropology, 3, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minow M. (1990). Making all the difference: Inclusion, exclusion, and American law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Nationalgeographic.com (n.d.). The Genographic Project. URL (accessed March 2007): www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
  33. Reardon J. (2004). Decoding race and human difference in a genomic age. Differences: A journal of feminist cultural studies, 15, 38–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reardon J. (2005). Race to the finish: Identity and governance in an age of genomics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rose N., & Novas C. (2005). Biological citizenship. In A. Ong & S. Collier (Eds), Global assemblages: Technologies, politics and ethics as anthropological problems, 439–463. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenberg N.A., Pritchard J.K., Weber J.L., Cann H.M., Kidd K.K., Zhivotovsky L.A. et al. (2002). Genetic structure of human populations. Science, 298, 2381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sclove R.E. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  38. Treichler P.A. (1987). AIDS, homophobia and biomedical discourse: An epidemic of signification. Cultural Studies, 1, 263–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wynne B. (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Engagement, 9, 211–220.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© London School of Economics and Political Science 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny Reardon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of California Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations