Abstract
This paper provides a critical account of recent controversial UK policy (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; HFEA) moves, and public responses, in relation to the sourcing and use of human eggs for biomedical research; specifically egg ‘donation’, for cell nuclear transfer (CNT). The paper will focus primarily on growing feminist criticism, in terms of (health) risks and other issues, such as concerns over the remit of public engagement and the policy process; the possible commodification of women’s bodies and issues of globalised political economy; broader socio-cultural concerns such as the stigma of infertility; and ethical problems with the concepts of ‘informed consent’ and ‘informed choice’.
As part of a broader research project, ‘embedded’ qualitative ethnography has traced and engaged with developing networks of opposition as they have emerged in ‘real time’. Some feminists have formed ‘strange bedfellow’ alliances with prolife groups (Hands Off Our Ovaries!); others have seen this as counter-productive and aimed to catalyse ‘organic networks’ of opposition through information dissemination and networking. The egg donation issue is just one of several linked arenas where it appears that its on women’s bodies that some of the most significant moves in relation to genetic and reproductive bioscience will be having most of an impact. It is also important to emphasise the existence of complexity and ambivalence, and to avoid polarised ‘pro and anti’ positions – to voice concerns about these issues is not to be ‘anti-science’ or ‘anti-cures’ or indeed even necessarily anti-(embryonic) stem cell research per se, but to be alert to potential issues and impacts. Identified risks and purported benefits need far more unpacking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bender, W., Hauskeller, C., & Manzei, A. (Eds.) (2005). Crossing borders: Cultural, religious and political differences concerning stem cell research. Münster: Agenda Verlag.
Bey, H. (1991). T.A.Z.: The temporary autonomous zone, ontological anarchy, poetic terrorism. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.
Bharadwaj, A. (2005). Cultures of embryonic stem cell research in India. In W. Bender, C. Hauskeller, & A. Manzei (Eds.), Crossing borders: Cultural, religious and political differences concerning stem cell research. Münster: Agenda Verlag.
Birch, K. (2006). The neoliberal underpinnings of the bioeconomy: The ideological discourses and practices of economic competitiveness. Genomics, Society and Policy, 2, 3. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.gspjournal.com
Brown, N., & Michael, M. (2003). A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retro-spects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Development, 15(1), 3–18.
Carroll, M. K., & Ratner, R. S. (1996). Master framing and cross-movement networking in contemporary social movements. Sociological Quarterly, 37, 601–625.
Cesagen feminist seminar participant statement (2006). Should scientific researchers be allowed to ask women to provide their eggs for disease research? A statement of concerns in response to the current HFEA public consultation: Donating eggs for research: safeguarding donors (p. 6). Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.cesagen.lancs.ac.uk/events/eventsdocs/HFEA_sourcing_eggs.pdf
Diani, M. (1992). Analysing social movement networks. In M. Diani & R. Eyerman (Eds.), Studying collective action. London: Sage.
Dickenson, D. (2002). Commodification of human tissue: Implications for feminist and development ethics. Developing World Bioethics, 2(1), 62.
Dickenson, D. (2007). Property in the body: Feminist perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy & beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eriksson, L. (2004a). Maverick: Made in UK. Construction of dissent in Britain and Sweden. Submitted to Social Studies of Science.
Eriksson, L. (2004b). When scientists fight. Science & Public Affairs, June, 25. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.the-ba.net/NR/rdonlyres/1F300683–61D2–45F7–9F10–04506B7FDDA6/0/SPAJune04.pdf
Evans, R., Welsh, I., & Plows, A. (2007). Towards an Anatomy of public engagement with medical genetics: Strange bedfellows and usual suspects. In P. Atkinson, P. Glasner., & H. Greenslade (Eds.), New genetics, new identities. London: Routledge.
Franklin, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Born and made: An ethnography of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 6.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. London: Heinemann.
Haran, J., Kitzinger, J., McNeil, M., & O’Riordan, K. (2008). Human cloning in the media: From science fiction to science practice. London: Routledge.
Haraway, D. (1991). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.
Harcourt, W. (2007). Heading Blithely down the garden path? Some entry points into current debates on women and biotechnologies. Overview Paper in conference booklet produced for the Women in Biotechnology conference, Rome 2007. Retrieved from www.wonbit.net
Harris, J. (2005). Scientific research is a moral duty. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 242–248.
HFEA (Human Fertilisation Eggs Authority) (2006). Donating eggs for research: safeguarding donors. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/SID-F57D79BA850329D/hfea/hs.xsl/1417.html
Human Genetic Commission (2004). Choosing the future: Genetics and reproductive decision-making. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from: http://www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/news_item.asp?Newsid = 40
Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003). Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead- Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 64–90.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nahman, M. (2006). Materializing Israeliness: Difference and mixture in transnational ova donation. Science as Culture, 15(3), 199–213.
Nahman, M. (2008). Nodes of desire: Romanian egg sellers, ‘Dignity’, and Feminist alliances in transnational ova exchanges. European Journal of Womens’ Studies, 15, 65–82.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Forms of intrusion: Comparing resistance to information technology and biotechnology in the USA. In M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, Information Technology and Biotechnology (pp. 379–390). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parry, S. (2006). (Re) constructing embryos in stem cell research: Exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2349–2359.
Parry, S. (2008). (Re) Constructing embryos in stem cell research: Exploring the meaning of embryos for people involved in fertility treatments. Social Science & Medicine (in press).
Pearson, H. (2006). Health effects of egg donation may take decades to emerge. Nature, 442, 607–608.
Plows, A. (2006). PGD, PND and the challenge of “Informed Choice” for feminism. PropEur Newsletter, 2, 4–5. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from: http://www.propeur.bham.ac.uk/NewsletterVol2.pdf
Plows, A. (2007). Regulating egg donation for research: Putting the cart before the horse? Retrieved February 27, 2007, from http://www.bionews.org.uk/commentary.lasso?storyid = 3315
Plows, A. (2008). Convergence: Nanobiotech and the politics of technology. In F. Jotterand (Ed.), Nanotechnology: Framing the field (in press).
Plows, A., & Boddington, B. (2006). Troubles with biocitizenship? Genetics, Society and Policy, 2, 3. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.hss.ed.ac.uk/genomics/vol2no3/documents/APGSPVol2No32006.pdf
Raman, S., & Tutton, R. (2008) Life, science and biopower. Submitted to Social Studies of Science (in press).
Rapp, R. (1999). Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.
Rose, N., & Novas, C. (2004). Biological citizenship. In A. Ong & S. Collier (Eds.), Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as Anthropological problems (pp. 439–463). Oxford: Blackwell.
Roseneil, S. (1993). Greenham revisited: Researching myself and my sisters. In D. Hobbs & T. May (Eds.), Interpreting the field: Accounts of ethnography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Routledge, P. (2003). Convergence space: Process geographies of grassroots globalization networks. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28(3), 333–349.
Schneider, I. (2007). Indirect commodification of ova donation for assisted reproduction and for human cloning research - proposals for supranational regulation. In M. Steinmann, P. Sykora, & U. Wiesing (Eds.), Altruism reconsidered: Exploring new approaches to property in human tissue (in press).
Schneider, I., & Schumann, C. (2002). Stem cells, therapeutic cloning, embryo research: Women as raw material suppliers for science and industry. In ReproKult (Women’s Forum for Reproductive Medicine), Reproductive Medicine and Genetic Engineering: Women between Self-determination and Societal Standardisation: Proceedings of the Conference held in Berlin from 15 to 17 November 2001P (pp. 70–76). Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.reprokult.de/e_forum_3.pdf
Select Committee on Stem Cell Research (2002). Stem cell research. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldstem/83/8302.htm
Sexton, S. (2001). If cloning is the answer, what was the question? Power and decision-making in the geneticization of health. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(4), 407–433.
Sexton, S. (2005). Transforming “Waste” into “Resource” from women’s eggs to economics for women. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/pdf/document/eggs.pdf
Spallone, P. (1992). Generation games: Genetic Engineering and the future for our lives. London: Women’s Press.
Stanley, L. (1991). Feminist auto/biography and feminist epistemology? In J. Aaron & S. Walby (Eds.), Out of the margins: Womens studies in the nineties. London: Palmer.
Stringer, E. T. (1999) Action research: A handbook for practitioners. London: Sage.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in movement: Social movements, collective action, and politics (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Throsby, K. (2004). When IVF fails: Feminism, infertility and the negotiation of normality (1–403-93554–8). Houndsmills: Palgrave.
Waldby, C. (2002). Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine, 6(3), 305–323.
Welsh, I., Plows, A., & Evans, E. (2007). Human rights and genomics: Science, genomics and social movements at the 2004 London Social Forum. New Genetics and Society, 26, 2.
Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment & modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 27–83). London: Sage.
Wynne, B. (2006). Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics, 9, 211–220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Plows, A. (2008). Egg Donation in the UK: Tracing Emergent Networks of Feminist Engagement in Relation to HFEA Policy Shifts in 2006. In: Molfino, F., Zucco, F. (eds) Women in Biotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8611-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8611-3_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8610-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8611-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)