Advertisement

BioSocieties

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 494–512 | Cite as

Repositioning biological citizenship: State, population, and individual risk in the Framingham Heart Study

Original Article

Abstract

The social implications of recent developments in the life sciences have widely been theorized in terms of ‘biological citizenship’; a notion that suggests that claims on collective resources are increasingly brought forward by groups of individuals organized around shared molecular biological characteristics, outside of traditional institutional formations centered on the state. In this paper, I propose to amend this notion by situating biological citizenship in its specific context of emergence. I suggest that the notion of molecular biological citizenship from below, with its focus on individual responsibility for disease risks, was in part facilitated by the development of ideas of individual responsibility for phenotypic ‘risk factors’ in the government-funded Framingham Heart Study in the United States. I reconstruct how the federal government retreated from direct operational responsibility for the Study, defined and maintained the boundaries of the population and contributed particular risk-based notions of life over more than six decades of cardiovascular disease research. I suggest that government, population, and life as defined in the Study are indispensable for contemporary notions of biological citizenship and that analysts need to attend to these situated origins in order to productively understand biological citizenship in relation to wider transformations of citizenship at present.

Keywords

Framingham Heart Study biological citizenship cardiovascular disease biomedicalization risk factor biopolitics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all interview respondents for their time and insight, as well as the Spring 2014 Harvard/MIT “STS and the life sciences” reading group, Alessandro Blasimme, Max Fochler, and Ingrid Metzler for their helpful observations about earlier drafts of the paper. Three anonymous journal reviewers have added insightful comments that greatly helped in clarifying the argument. Remaining shortcomings are entirely my responsibility. Research for this paper was supported by a European Commission Marie Curie Fellowship, Grant Number PIOF-GA-2010-272996.

References

  1. Aronowitz, R. (1998) Making Sense of Illness: Science, Society and Disease. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bella, L. (2010) In sickness and in health: public and private responsibility for health care from Bismarck to Obama. In: Harris, R. Wathen, N. and S. Wyatt. (eds.) Configuring health consumers. Health work and the imperative of personal responsibility, Basingstoke:Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 13-29.Google Scholar
  3. Biehl, J. (2004) The Activist State. Global Pharmaceuticals, AIDS, and Citizenship in Brazil. Social Text 22 (380):105–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandt, A. (2007) The Cigarette Century. The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America. New York:Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, A. Shim, J. Mamo, L. Fosket, J. and Fishman, J. (2003) Biomedicalization: Technoscientific Transformations of Health, Illness, and U.S. Biomedicine. American Sociological Review 68(8):161–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, M. (2008) Life as Surplus. Biotechnology and Capitalism in the Neoliberal Era. Seattle:University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cooter, R. (2008) Biocitizenship. The Lancet 372 (15):1752.Google Scholar
  8. Dawber, T.R. (1980) The Framingham Study. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawber, T.R. Meadors, G. and Moore, F. (1951) Epidemiological Approaches to Heart Disease: The Framingham Study. American Journal of Public Health 41:279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dwyer, J. and Feinleib, M. (1992) Introduction to Statistical Methods for Longitudinal Observation. In: J. Dwyer, M. Feinleib, P. Lippert and H. Hoffmeister (eds) Statistical Models for Longitudinal Studies of Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 3-48.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, F. (1992) Contribution of Epidemiology to Understanding Coronary Heart Disease. In: M. Marmot and P. Elliott (eds) Coronary Heart Disease Epidemiology. From Aetiology to Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 20–32.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, S. (2007) Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Faulks, K. (2000) Citizenship. London:Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (2007) Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the College de France 19771978. New York:Picador.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (2013) Right of Death and Power over Life. In: T. Campbell and A. Sitze (eds.) Biopolitics: A Reader. Durham:Duke University Press. pp. 41-60.Google Scholar
  16. Gehlbach, S. (2005) Searching America’s Heart: The Framingham Study. In: American Plagues: Lessons from our Battles with Disease. New York:McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Giroux, E. (2013) The Framingham Study and the Constitution of a Restrictive Concept of Risk Factor. Social History of Medicine 26 (1):94–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gordon, T. (1968) Section 2. Follow Up to the Eighth Examination. In: The Framingham Study. An Epidemiological Investigation of Cardiovascular Disease. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, T. and Kannel, W.B. (1968) Section 1. Introduction and General Background. In: The Framingham Study. An Epidemiological Investigation of Cardiovascular Disease. Bethesda, MD: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  20. Govindaraju, D. Cupples, L. Kannel, W. O’Donnell, D. Atwood, L. D’Agostino, R. Fox, C. Larson, M. Levy, D. Murabito, J. Vasan, R. Splansky, G. Wolf, P. and Benjamin, E. (2008) Chapter 2 Genetics of the Framingham Heart Study Population. Advances in Genetics, 62:33–65.Google Scholar
  21. Guston, D. (2000) Between Politics and Science. Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heater, D. (2004) A Brief History of Citizenship. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heath, D. Rapp, R. and Taussig, K. (2008) Genetic Citizenship. In: D. Nugent and J. Vincent (eds.) A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 152–167.Google Scholar
  24. Jaquish, C. (2007) The Framingham Heart Study, on its way to becoming the gold standard for Cardiovascular Genetic Epidemiology? BMC Medical Genetics 8 (1):63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge. The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London:Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2011) Reframing Rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age. Cambridge:The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kannel, W.B. (1987) New Perspectives on Cardiovascular Risk Factors. American Heart Journal 114 (1):213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kannel, W.B. Dawber, T.R. Kagan, A. Revotskie, N. and Stokes, J. (1961) Factors of Risk in the Development of Coronary Heart Disease - Six Year Follow-up Experience. Annals of Internal Medicine 55 (1):33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kannel, W.B. Feinleib, M. McNamara, P. Garison, R. and Castelli, W. (1979) An Investigation of Coronary Heart Disease in Families. The Framingham Offspring Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 110 (3):281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kannel, W.B. and Wilson, P. (2007) Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease and the Framingham Study Equation. In: A. Gotto and P. Toth (eds.) Comprehensive Management of High Risk Cardiovascular Patients. New York:Informa Healhcare. pp. 1-18.Google Scholar
  31. Kivisto, P. and Faist, T. (2007) Citizenship: Discourse, Theory and Transnational Prospects. Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Kjaer, A. (2004) Governance. Chichester:Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Leonelli, S. (2013) Global data for local science: Assessing the scale of data infrastructures in biological and biomedical researchers. BioSocieties 8 (4):449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levy, D. and Brink, S. (2005) A Change of Heart. How the Framingham Heart Study Helped Unravel the Mysteries of Cardiovascular Disease. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  35. Levy, D. Splansky, G. Strand, N. Atwood, L. Benjamin, E. Blease, S. Cupples, L. D’Agostino, R. Fox, C. Kelly-Hayes, M.Koski, G. Larson, M. Mutalik, K. Oberacker, E. O’Donnell, C. Sutherland, P. Valentino, M. Vasan, R. Wolf, P. and Murabito, J. (2010) Consent for genetic research in the Framingham Heart Study. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 152A(5):1250–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacDougall, H. (2007) Reinventing public health: A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians and its international impact. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61:955–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Magnette, P. (2005). Citizenship: the History of an Idea. Colchester:ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  38. Miller, P. and Rose, N. (2008) Governing the Present. Administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge:Polity Press.Google Scholar
  39. Myers, R. and O’Donnell, C.J. (1999) Genetics. In:D. Levy (ed.) 50 Years of Discovery. Medical Milestones from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham Heart Study. Bethesda: Center for Biomedical Communication, Inc. pp. 549–550.Google Scholar
  40. Novas, C. and Rose, N. (2000) Genetic Risk and the Birth of the ‘Somatic Individual. Economy and Society 29:485–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ong, A. (2006) Mutations in Citizenship. Theory, Culture & Society 23 (2–3):499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oppenheimer, G. (2005) Becoming the Framingham Study 1947–1950. American Journal of Public Health 95 (4):602–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oppenheimer, G. (2010) Framingham Heart Study: The First 20 Years. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 53(1):55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Patel, S. (2012) Methods and Management: NIH Administrators, Federal Oversight, and the Framingham Heart Study. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 86(1):94–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petersen, A. and Lupton, D. (1996) The New Public Health. Health and Self in the Age of Risk. London:Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Petryna, A. (2004) Biological Citizenship: The Science and Politics of Chernobyl-Exposed Populations. Osiris 19:250–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pfister, T. (2012) The Activation of Citizenship in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plows, A. and Boddington, P. (2006) Troubles with biocitizenship? Genomics, Society and Policy 2 (3):115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pollock, A. (2012) Medicating Race. Heart Disease and Durable Preoccupations with Difference. Durham:Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rabinow, P. (1999) Artificiality and Enlightenment. From Sociobiology to Biosociality. In: M. Biagioli (ed.) The Science Studies Reader. New York: Routledge. pp. 407–416.Google Scholar
  51. Rabinow, P. and Rose, N. (2006) Biopower today. Biosocieties 1:195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raman, S. and Tutton, R. (2010) Life, Science, and Biopower. Science, Technology & Human Values 35 (5):711–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roberts, W.C. (2000) Facts and Ideas From Anywhere. Armonk, NY.: Futura Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  54. Rose, N. (2001) The Politics of Life Itself. Theory, Culture & Society 18 (6):1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rose, N. and Novas, C. (2005) Biological Citizenship. In: A. Ong and S. Collier (eds.) Global Assemblages. Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. pp. 439–463.Google Scholar
  56. Rothstein, W. (2003) Public Health and the Risk Factor. A History of an Uneven Medical Revolution. Rochester, NY:University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shim, J. (2014) Heart-Sick. The Politics of Risk, Inequality, and Heart Disease. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Shostak, S. (2013) Exposed Science. Genes, the Environment and the Politics of Population Health. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  59. Splansky, G.L. Corey, D. Yang, Q. Atwood, L.D. Cupples, L.A. Benjamin, E.J. D’Agostino, R.B. Fox, C.S. Larson, M.G. Murabito, J.M. O’Donnell, C.J. Vasan, R.S. Wolf, P.A. and Levy, D. (2007) The Third Generation Cohort of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham Heart Study: Design, Recruitment, and Initial Examination. American Journal of Epidemiology 165 (11):1328–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sunder Rajan, K. (2011) Two tales of genomics. In: S. Jasanoff (ed.) Reframing Rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age. Cambridge: The MIT Press. pp. 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Truswell, A. (2010) Cholesterol and Beyond. The Research on Diet and Coronary Heart Disease, 19002000. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Wilson, P. and Greenberg, H. (2010) Interview of William Kannel, MD. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 53(1):4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yusuf, S. and Anand, S. (2010) Deciphering the Causes of Cardiovascular and Other Complex Diseases in Populations: Achievements, Challenges, Opportunities, and Approaches. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 53(1):62–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology StudiesUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations