Advertisement

„Rote“ Biowissenschaften, Biotechnologie und Biomedizin

  • Barbara PrainsackEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Die kritische Analyse von Institutionen, Praktiken, und Technologien in den Biowissenschaften, der Biotechnologie und der Biomedizin (BBB) hat das Feld der STS entscheidend geprägt. Insbesondere die schnell wachsenden Investitionen in die biomedizinische Forschung im 20. Jahrhundert haben die humane Biomedizin nicht nur zu einer forschungs- und technologieintensiven Domäne werden lassen, sondern auch ihre gesellschaftliche, politische und kulturelle Relevanz erhöht.

Literatur

  1. Birch, Kean, und David Dyfield. 2013. Theorizing the bioeconomy: Biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or… what? Science, Technology & Human Values 38 (3): 299–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borup, Mads, Nik Brown, Kornelia Konrad, und Harro van Lente. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18 (3): 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buyx, Alena, und Barbara Prainsack. im Druck. Bioethics in the post-genomic era. International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. 2, überarb Aufl. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  4. Cambrosio, Alberto. 2009. Introduction: New forms of knowledge production. In Handbook of genetics and society: Mapping the new genomic era, Hrsg. P. Atkinson, P. Glasner, und M. Lock, 465–468. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, Adele E., Laura Mamo, Jennifer R. Fosket, Jennifer R. Fishman, und Janet Shim. 2010. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health and illness in the U.S. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  6. Featherstone, Katie, Paul Atkinson, Aditya Bharadwaj, und Angus Clarke. 2006. Risky relations: Family, kinship and the new genetics. New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  7. Feenberg, Andrew. 1999. Questioning technology. Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
  8. Franklin, Sarah. 2006. Bio-economies: Biowealth from the inside out. Development 49 (4): 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Golan, Tal. 2004. The emergence of the silent witness: The legal and medical reception of X-rays in the USA. Social Studies of Science 34 (4): 469–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gottweis, Herbert. 1998. Governing molecules: The discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Heath, Deborah, Rayna Rapp, und Karen-Sue Taussig. 2004. Genetic citizenship. In A companion to the anthropology of politics, Hrsg. D. Nugent und J. Vincent, 152–167. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Helmreich, Stefan. 2008. Species of biocapital. Science as Culture 17 (4): 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Science at the bar. Cambridge: Berkeley Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. The idiom of co-production. In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order, Hrsg. S. Jasanoff, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Lemke, Thomas. 1997. Eine Kritik der politischen Vernunft – Foucaults Analyse der modernen Gouvernementalität. Hamburg: Argument.Google Scholar
  16. Lemke, Thomas. 2007. Gouvernementalität und Biopolitik. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  17. Lemke, Thomas, und Peter Wehlig. 2009. Bürgerrechte durch Biologie? Kritische Anmerkungen zur Konjunktur des Begriffes ‚biologische Bürgerschaft‘. In Bios und Zoë. Die menschliche Natur im Zeitalter ihrer technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, Hrsg. M. Weiss, 72–207. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  18. Lippman, Abby. 1991. Prenatal genetic testing and screening: Constructing needs reinforcing inequities. American Journal of Law and Medicine 17:15–50.Google Scholar
  19. Lock, M. 2002. Twice dead: Organ transplantations and the reinvention of death. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lynch, Michael, Simon A. Cole, Ruth McNally, und Kathleen Jordan. 2008. The contentious history of DNA fingerprints. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelkin, Dorothy, und Susan M. Lindee. 1995. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  22. Novas, Carlos, und Nikolas Rose. 2000. Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society 29 (4): 485–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pálsson, Gísli. 2007. How deep is the skin? The geneticization of race and medicine. BioSocieties 2:257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Petryna, Adriana. 2002. Life exposed: Biological citizenship after Chernobyl. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pickering, Andrew. 1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Prainsack, Barbara. 2006. Negotiating life: The regulation of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning in Israel. Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prainsack, Barbara. 2011. Overcoming embryonic exceptionalism? Lessons from analysing human stem cell regulation in Israel. New Genetics & Society 30 (3): 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prainsack, Barbara, und Yael Hashiloni-Dolev. 2009. Religion and nationhood. In Handbook of genetics and society: Mapping the new genomic era, Hrsg. P. Atkinson, P. Glasner, und M. Lock, 404–421. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Prainsack, Barbara, und Ayo Wahlberg. 2013. Situated bio-regulation—ethnographic sensibility at the interface of STS, policy studies, and the social studies of medicine. BioSocieties 8: 336–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rabinow, Paul. 2004. Artifizialität und Aufklärung. Von der Soziobiologie zur Biosozialität. In Anthropologie der Vernunft. Studien zu Wissenschaft und Lebensführung, Hrsg. P. Rabinow, 129–152. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. (Deutsche Übersetzung eines 1992 erstmals erschienenen Kapitels: Rabinow, Paul. 1992. Artificiality and enlightenment: from sociobiology to biosociality. In Zone 6: Incorporations, Hrsg. J. Crary und S. Kwinter, 234–253. New York: Zone).Google Scholar
  31. Rose, Nikolas. 2007. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rose, Nikolas, und Carlos Novas. 2004. Biological citizenship. In Global assemblages. Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems, Hrsg. A. Ong und S. J. Collier, 439–463. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Sunder Rajan, Kaushik. 2006. Biocapital: The construction of postgenomic life. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thacker, E. 2005. The global genome: Biotechnology, politics, and culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Timmermans, Stefan, und Marc Berg. 2003. The practice of medical technology. Sociology of Health and Illness 25:97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Lente, Harro. 2012. Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 24 (8): 769–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vermeulen, Niki, Sakari Tamminen, und Andrew Webster, Hrsg. 2012. Bio-objects: Life in the twentyfirst century. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  38. Waldby, Catherine, und Melinda Cooper. 2010. From reproductive work to regenerative labour: The female body and the stem cell industries. Feminist Theory 11 (1): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Waldby, Catherine, und Robert Mitchell. 2006. Tissue economies: Blood, organs and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zwart, Hub. im Druck. The human genome project: History and assessment. International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences. 2., überarb. Aufl. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Science, Health & MedicineKing’s College LondonLondonGroßbritannien

Personalised recommendations