BioSocieties

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 24–47 | Cite as

The lively ethics of global health GMOs: The case of the Oxitec mosquito

  • Alex M Nading
Original Article

Abstract

Social scientists have recently brought renewed attention to the relationship between epidemics and environmental change. Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases (for example, dengue, malaria, avian influenza) are exacerbated by disturbances to the environment, yet historically most solutions to these problems tend to involve further disturbances to environments, notably the mass destruction of non-human life (for example, pigs, sheep, cattle and insects). This article analyzes ethical debates that arose in 2010, when the British biotechnology firm Oxitec Ltd. announced a field test of a technology that would change this story: a genetically modified (GM) version of the Aedes aegypti mosquito that transmits dengue. Designed to control mosquito populations through interbreeding, Oxitec’s mosquitoes are an example of what I call ‘global health Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)’. As both environmental interventions, like GM crops, and biomedical technologies, like pharmaceuticals, such organisms challenge not only the moral position of social scientists vis–à–vis vector-borne or zoonotic disease but also the relationship of environmental ethics to bioethics. Addressing these challenges alongside the abiding question of for-profit biotechnology’s role in global health, I suggest that global health GMOs might be assessed through a ‘lively ethics’ that emerges not in discrete regulatory spaces (‘body’, ‘nation-state’, ‘global environment’) but in more fluid ‘moral spaces’.

Keywords

bioethics GMOs dengue global health animal studies biocapital 

References

  1. Alphey, L. and Beech, C. (2012) Appropriate regulation of GM insects. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 6 (1): e1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alphey, L. et al (2010) Sterile insect methods for control of vector borne diseases: An analysis. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 10 (3): 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amit, V. (2001) A clash of vulnerabilities: Citizenship, labor, and expatriacy in the Cayman islands. American Ethnologist 28 (3): 574–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beisel, U. (2010) Jumping hurdles with mosquitoes. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28 (1): 46–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beisel, U. and Boëte, C. (2013) The flying public health tool: Genetically modified mosquitoes and malaria control. Science as Culture 22 (1): 38–60 doi:10.1080/09505431.2013.776364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benatar, S., Daar, A. and Singer, P. (2003) Global health ethics: The rationale for mutual caring. International Affairs 79 (1): 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berning, N. (2012) Genetically modified mosquitoes’ survival rate concealed. Friends of the Earth News release 12 January, http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2012-01-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-survival-rate, accessed 3 June 2013.
  8. Biehler, D. (2009) Permeable homes: A historical political ecology of insects and pesticides in US public housing. Geoforum 40 (6): 1014–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bingham, N. (2006) Bees, butterflies, and bacteria: Biotechnology and the politics of nonhuman friendship. Environment and Planning A 38 (3): 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boëte, C. (2011) Scientists and public involvement: A consultation on the relation between malaria, vector control, and transgenic mosquitoes. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 105 (12): 704–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brosius, P. (1999) Green dots, pink hearts: Displacing politics from the Malaysian rainforest. American Anthropologist 101 (1): 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buhs, J. (2002) The fire ant wars: Nature and science in the pesticide controversies of the late twentieth century. Isis 93 (3): 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caduff, C. (2011) Anthropology’s ethics: Moral positionalism, cultural relativism, and critical analysis. Anthropological Theory 11 (4): 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carter, E. (2012) Enemy in the Blood: Malaria, Environment, and Development in Argentina. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013) Global Dengue, http://www.cdc.gov/dengue/epidemiology/index.html#global, accessed 3 June 2013.
  16. Cheng, M. (2010) GM mosquitoes fight dengue fever in Cayman islands, but experiment could wreak havoc on environment, Critics Say. Huffington Post, 11 November 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11/gm-mosquitoes-fight-dengu_n_782068.html, accessed 3 June 2013.
  17. Consumers Association of Penang and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (CAP/SAM) (2010) Memorandum on Malaysia’s GM Aedes aegypti mosquito planned release: Ethical, legal, and human rights concerns. 20 December. Third World Network Online, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/health.info/2010/health20101201.htm, accessed 3 June 2013.Google Scholar
  18. Das, V. (1999) Public good, ethics, and everyday life: Beyond the boundaries of bioethics. Daedalus 128 (4): 99–133.Google Scholar
  19. Davies, G. (2012) What is a humanized mouse? Remaking the species and spaces of translational medicine. Body and Society 18 (3–4): 126–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. El Zahabi-Bekdash, L. and Lavery, J. (2010) Achieving precaution through effective community engagement in research with genetically modified mosquitoes. Asia Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology 18 (2): 247–250.Google Scholar
  21. Enserink, M. (2011) GM mosquito release in Malaysia surprises opponents and scientists – again. Science Insider Blog. 27 January, http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/01/gm-mosquito-release-in-malaysia.html, accessed 3 June 2013.
  22. Farmer, P. and Campos, N.G. (2004) New malaise: Bioethics and Human Rights in the global era. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 32 (2): 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feldman, I. and Ticktin, M. (eds.) (2010) In the Name of Humanity: The Government of Threat and Care. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fidler, D. (2003) SARS: Political pathology of the first post-Westphalian pathogen. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 31 (4): 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fortun, K. (2001) Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fortun, K. (2011) Afterword: Working ‘faultlines’. In: G. Ottinger and B. Cohen (eds.) Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fortun, K. and Fortun, M. (2005) Scientific imaginaries and ethical plateaus in contemporary U.S. toxicology. American Anthropologist 107 (1): 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fox, M. and McLean, L. (2008) Animals in moral space. In: J. Castricano (ed.) Animal Subjects: An Ethical Reader in a Postmodern World. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, pp. 145–146.Google Scholar
  29. Francis, L., Battin, M., Jacobson, J., Smith, C. and Botkin, J. (2005) How infectious diseases got left out – and what this omission might have meant for bioethics. Bioethics 19 (4): 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franklin, S. (2007) Dolly Mixtures: The Remaking of Genealogy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Freccerro, C. (2011) Carnivorous virility; or, becoming-dog. Social Text 29 (1106): 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fujimura, J. (1996) Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gubler, D. (2002) Epidemic dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever as a public health, social and economic problem in the 21st century. Trends Microbiology 10 (2): 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haraway, D. (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium_Female_Man_Meets_Oncomouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Haraway, D. (2008) When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Harris, A. et al (2011) Field performance of engineered male mosquitoes. Nature Biotechnology 29 (11): 1034–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harrison, J. (2011) Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hedgecoe, A.M. (2004) Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of bioethics. Bioethics 18 (2): 120–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heintze, C., Garrido, M.V. and Kroeger, A. (2007) What do community-based dengue control programmes achieve? A systematic review of published evaluations. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 101 (4): 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heller, C. and Escobar, A. (2003) From pure genes to GMOs: Transnationalized gene landscapes in the biodiversity and transgenic food networks. In: A. Goodman, D. Health and M.S. Lindee (eds.) Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science Beyond the Two Culture Divide. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
  41. Helmreich, S. (2005) Biosecurity: A response to Collier, Lakoff, & Rabinow. Anthropology Today 21 (2): 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Helmreich, S. (2008) Species of biocapital. Science as Culture 17 (4): 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Helmreich, S. (2009) Alien Ocean: Anthropological Voyages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Herring, R. (2008) Opposition to transgenic technologies: Ideology, interests, and collective action frames. Nature Reviews Genetics 9 (6): 458–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hinchliffe, S. and Bingham, N. (2008) People, animals, and biosecurity in and through cities. In: R. Keil and S. Ali (eds.) Networked Disease: Emerging Infections in the Global City. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hinchliffe, S., Allen, J., Lavau, S., Bingham, N. and Carter, S. (2012) Biosecurity and the topologies of infected life: From borderlines to borderlands. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00538.x, accessed 11 January 2013.
  47. Jasanoff, S. (2005) Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kay, B.H. et al (2002) Control of Aedes vectors of dengue in three provinces of Vietnam by use of mesocyclops (copepoda) and community-based methods validated by entomologic, clinical, and serological surveillance. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 66 (1): 40–48.Google Scholar
  49. Kay, J. (2012) At the fore in the fight against dengue in Florida, gene-altered mosquitoes are being looked at as a new line of defense. Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette, 18 December.Google Scholar
  50. Keck, F. (2008) From mad cow disease to bird flu: Transformations of food safety in France. In: A. Lakoff and S. Collier (eds.) Biosecurity Interventions: Global Health and Security in Question. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 195–226.Google Scholar
  51. Kelly, A. (2012) The experimental hut: Hosting vectors. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. (n.s.) 18 (S1): S145–S160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. King, N. (2004) Security, disease, commerce: Ideologies of post-colonial global health. Social Studies of Science 35 (5–6): 763–789.Google Scholar
  53. Kinkela, D. (2011) DDT and the American Century: Global Health, Environmental Politics, and the Pesticide that Changed the World. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kirksey, E. and Helmreich, S. (2010) The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology 25 (4): 545–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kleinman, A. (1973) Medicine’s symbolic reality: On a central problem in the philosophy of medicine. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 16 (1–4): 206–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kleinman, A. (1999) Moral Experience and Ethical Reflection: Can Ethnography Reconcile Them? A Quandary for “The New Bioethics.” Daedalus 128 (4): 69–97.Google Scholar
  57. Kloppenburg, J. (1996) First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  58. Knols, B., Bossin, H., Mukabana, W. and Robinson, A. (2007) Transgenic mosquitoes and the fight against malaria: Managing technology push in a turbulent GMO world. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 77 (6 supplement): 232–242.Google Scholar
  59. Kohler, R. (2002) Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Langston, N. (2010) Toxic Bodies: Hormone Disruptors and the Legacy of DES. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lavery, J., Harrington, L. and Scott, T. (2008) Ethical, social, and cultural considerations for site selection for research with genetically modified mosquitoes. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 79 (3): 312–318.Google Scholar
  62. Law, J. and Mol, A. (2008) Globalization in practice: On the politics of boiling pigswill. Geoforum 39 (1): 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lehane, M. and Aksoy, S. (2012) Control using genetically modified insects poses problems for regulators. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 6 (1): e1495, doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001495.Google Scholar
  64. Levi-Strauss, C. (1969) The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  65. Lezaun, J. (2006) Creating a new object of government: Making genetically modified organisms traceable. Social Studies of Science 36 (4): 499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lezaun, J. (2011) Bees, beekeepers, and bureaucrats: Parastitism and the politics of transgenic life. Environment and Planning D 29: 738–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Livingston, J. and Puar, J. (2011) Interspecies. Social Text 29 (1): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lock, M. and Nguyen, V.K. (2010) An Anthropology of Biomedicine. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  69. Lolas, F. (2008) Bioethics and animal research: A personal perspective and a note on the contribution of Fritz Jahr. Journal of Biological Research 41 (1): 119–123.Google Scholar
  70. Lowe, C. (2010) Viral clouds: Becoming H5N1 in Indonesia. Cultural Anthropology 25 (4): 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lynas, M. (2013) Lecture to Oxford farming conference, 3 January 2013. Public lecture. Transcript online, http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/, accessed 3 June 2013.
  72. Macer, D. (2005) Ethical, legal and social issues of genetically modifying insect vectors for public health. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 35 (7): 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mansfield, B. (2008) Health as a nature-society question. Environment and Planning A 40 (5): 1015–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Marshall, J.M. (2010) The Cartagena Protocol and genetically modified mosquitoes. Nature Biotechnology 28 (9): 896–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Marshall, J.M., Touré, M.B., Traore, M.M. and Taylor, C.E. (2010) Towards a quantitative assessment of public attitudes to transgenic mosquitoes: Questions based on a qualitative survey in Mali. Asia Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology 18 (2): 251–273.Google Scholar
  76. Marx, K. (1976) Capital, Vol. 1. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  77. Mauss, M. (1967) The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  78. McGraw, E. and O’Neill, S. (2013) Beyond insecticides: New thinking on an ancient problem. Nature Reviews Microbiology 11 (3): 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mitchell, T. (2002) Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-politics, Modernity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  80. Mitman, G., Murphy, M. and Sellers, C. (2004) Introduction: A cloud over history. Osiris 19: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mol, A. (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. MRCU (Mosquito Research and Control Unit) (2011) MRCU: A new technique to fight dengue. YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXjU7-AdsmQ, accessed 29 September 2013.
  83. Myhr, A.I. and Traavik, T. (2002) The precautionary principle: Scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1): 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nadasdy, P. (2007) The gift in the animal: The ontology of hunting and human-animal relations. American Ethnologist 34 (1): 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Nading, A. (2012) “Dengue mosquitoes are single mothers”: Biopolitics meets ecological aesthetics in Nicaraguan community health work. Cultural Anthropology 27 (4): 572–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nguyen, V.K. (2010) The Republic of Therapy: Triage and Sovereignty in West Africa’s Time of AIDS. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ogden, L. (2011) Swamplife: People, Gators, and Mangroves Entangled in the Everglades. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. O’Hara, T. (2012) Genetically altered mosquito release on hold. Florida Keys News-Key West Citizen. Online, http://keysnews.com/node/38534, accessed 3 June 2013.
  89. Oxitec, Ltd. (2012) Press release – Oxitec statement in response to NGO allegations, 12 January, http://www.oxitec.com/press-release-oxitec-statement-in-response-to-ngo-allegations/, accessed 3 June 2013.
  90. Perez, D., Lefevre, P., Sanchez, L. and Van der Stuyft, P. (2007) Comment on “what do community-based dengue control programmes achieve? A systematic review of published evaluations”. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 101 (6): 630–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Petryna, A. (2005) Ethical variability: Drug development and globalizing clinical trials. American Ethnologist 32 (2): 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Petryna, A. (2009) When Experiments Travel: Clinical Trials and the Global Search for Human Subjects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Petryna, A., Lakoff, A. and Kleinman, A. (eds.) (2006) Global Pharmaceuticals: Ethics, Markets, Practices. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Pollack, A. (2011) Concerns are raised about genetically engineered mosquitoes. New York Times, 31 October, p. B1, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/science/concerns-raised-about-genetically-engineered-mosquitoes.html?pagewanted=all, accessed 3 June 2013.
  95. Porter, N. (2012) Risky zoographies: The limits of place in avian influenza management. Environmental Humanities 1 (1): 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rabinow, P. (2007) Marking Time: On the Anthropology of the Contemporary. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Rabinow, P. and Bennett, G. (2009) Synthetic biology: Ethical ramifications. The Journal of Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1): 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rabinow, P. and Bennett, G. (2012) Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rabinow, P. and Rose, N. (2006) Biopower today. Biosocieties 1 (2): 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rapp, R. (2000) Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  101. Reeves, R.G., Denton, J., Santucci, F., Bryk, J. and Reed, F. (2012) Scientific standards and the regulation of genetically modified insects. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 6 (1): e1502. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Reis de Castro, L. and Hendrickx, K. (2013) Winged promises: Exploring the discourse on transgenic mosquitoes in Brazil. Technology in Society 35 (2): 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Robbins, P. (2004) Comparing invasive networks: Cultural and political biographies of invasive species. The Geographical Review 94 (2): 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Roberts, D. and Tren, R. (2010) The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History. Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Book Publishing.Google Scholar
  105. Roberts, E. (2012) God’s Laboratory: Assisted Reproduction in the Andes. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  106. Rubin, G. (1975) The traffic in women: Notes on the political economy of sex. In: R. Reiter (ed.) Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. 157–210.Google Scholar
  107. Scoones, I. (2000) New ecology and the social sciences: What prospects for a fruitful engagement? Annual Review of Anthropology 28: 479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Scoones, I. (2008) Mobilizing against GM crops in India, South Africa, and Brazil. Journal of Agrarian Change 8 (2–3): 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) (2000) Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Text and Annexes. Montreal, Québec: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
  110. Selgelid, M. (2005) Ethics and infectious disease. Bioethics 19 (3): 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Shaw, I., Robbins, P. and Jones, J.P. (2010) A bug’s life and the spatial ontologies of mosquito management. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100 (2): 373–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Specter, M. (2012) The mosquito solution: Can genetic modification eliminate a deadly tropical disease? The New Yorker, 9 July, pp. 38–46.Google Scholar
  113. Stone, G.D. (2002) Both sides now: Fallacies in the genetic modification wars, implications for developing countries, and anthropological perspectives. Current Anthropology 43 (4): 611–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Stone, G.D. (2007) Agricultural deskilling and the spread of genetically modified cotton in Warangal. Current Anthropology 48 (1): 67–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Stone, G.D. (2010) The anthropology of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Subbaraman, N. (2011) Science snipes at Oxitec transgenic-mosquito trial. Nature Biotechnology 29 (1): 9–11.Google Scholar
  117. Sunder Rajan, K. (2005) Subjects of speculation: Emergent life sciences and market logics in the US and India. American Anthropologist 107 (1): 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Sunder Rajan, K. (2006) Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sunder Rajan, K. (2007) Experimental values: Indian clinical trials and surplus health. New Left Review 45: 67–88.Google Scholar
  120. Sunder Rajan, K. (ed.) (2012) Introduction: The capitalization of life and the liveliness of capital. In: Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Twine, R. (2005) Constructing critical bioethics by deconstructing culture/nature dualism. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 8 (3): 285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Von Bredow, R. (2012) Genetically modified pests: The controversial release of suicide mosquitoes. Der Speigel 5, 30 January, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/genetically-modified-pests-the-controversial-release-of-suicide-mosquitoes-a-812283.html, accessed 3 June 2013.
  123. Wallace, H. (2013) Genetically Modified Mosquitoes: Ongoing Concerns. Penang, Malaysia: TWN Biotechnology and Biosafety Series.Google Scholar
  124. Watts, M. (1983) Silent Violence: Food, Famine, and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  125. Wolfe, C. (1998) Critical Environments: Postmodern Theory and the Pragmatics of the Outside. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  126. Yong, E. (2011) GM mosquitoes bite: The critical problem with new experiments in using genetically engineered insects to fight malaria and dengue. Slate, 24 November, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/11/why_we_aren_t_ready_to_use_genetically_engineered_mosquitoes_to_fight_malaria_and_dengue_.single.html, accessed 20 April 2014.
  127. Zylinska, J. (2009) Bioethics in the Age of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The London School of Economics and Political Science 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alex M Nading
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyFranklin & Marshall CollegeLancasterUSA

Personalised recommendations