Knowing Mycellf™: Personalized Medicine and the Economization of Prospective Knowledge about Bodily Fate

Chapter
Part of the Knowledge and Space book series (KNAS, volume 5)

Abstract

The author explores the emergence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing as a means of economizing information or knowledge about “bodily fate.” She begins by examining the parallels and incommensurabilities between the kinds of bodily information that have been produced historically and those now generated by the application of advanced genome sequencing technologies. She then explores how contemporary understandings of disease are coproduced by individuals identified as potential constituents of disease communities by these forms of testing. The chapter concludes with a review of the implications that this involvement in the coproduction of understanding of disease has for the global regulation of DTC genetic testing.

Keywords

Genetic Test Online Community Genetic Knowledge Legal Liability Regulatory Oversight 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arkadianos, I., Valdes, A. M., Marinos, E., Florou, A., Gill, R. D., & Grimaldi, K. A. (2007). Improved weight management using genetic information to personalize a calorie controlled diet. Nutrition Journal, 6, 29. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-6-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collet, D. (2010). Big sciences, open networks, and global collecting in early museums. In P. Meusburger, H. Jöns, & E. Wunder (Vol. Eds.), Geographies of science (pp. 121–137). Knowledge and space: Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, K. (2010). The $1,000 Genome: The revolution in DNA sequencing and the new era of personalized medicine. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Genome scans get personal with online consumer services. (2008). Annals of Neurology 63(2), A15–A17.Google Scholar
  5. Grabher, G., Ibert, O., & Flohr, S. (2008). The neglected king: The customer in the new knowledge ecology of innovation. Economic Geography, 84, 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hudson, K., Javitt, G., Burke, W., & Byers, P. (2007). ASHG statement on direct-to-consumer genetic testing in the United States. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 81, 635–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hunter, D., Khoury, M., & Drazen, J. (2008). Letting the genome out of the bottle—Will we get our wish? The New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 105–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaye, J. (2008). The regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic tests. Human Molecular Genetics, 17, R180–R183. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddn253
  9. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lee, S. S., & Crawley, L. (2009). Research 2.0: Social networking and Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) genomics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 9(6–7), 35–44. doi: 10.1080/15265160902874452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manson, N., & Oneill, O. (2007). Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCarthy, M., & Hirschhorn, J. (2008). Genome-wide association studies: Potential next steps on a genetic journey. Human Molecular Genetics, 17(R2), R156–R165. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddn298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nash, C. (2004). Genetic kinship. Cultural Studies, 18, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nowotny, H. (2007, June). How concepts behave: The potential of the life sciences and their impact on society. Annual Lecture, Centre for Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society (BIOS), London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  15. Parry, B. (2004a). From the corporeal to the informational: Exploring the scope of benefit sharing agreements and their applicability to sequence databases. In R. Ashcroft & F. Theile (Eds.), Bioethics in a small word (pp. 73–91). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Parry, B. (2004b). Trading the genome: Investigating the commodification of bio-information. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Parry, B. (2007, September). Interrogating posthumanism: Historical and contemporary adventures in the enhancement, legibility, and knowability of human bodies. Paper presented at the conference entitled “Between the human and the post-human technology and humanity,” Science Technology Culture Research Group, University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Parry, B. C., & Gere, C. M. (2006). Contested bodies: Property models and the commodification of human biological artefacts. Science as Culture, 15, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rabinow, P. (1999). Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In C. Samson (Ed.), Health studies: A critical and cross-cultural reader (pp. 50–60). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Rose, N. (2006). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine, School of Social Science and Public PolicyKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations