Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2019

01-06-2019 | Scientific Contribution

In risk we trust/Editing embryos and mirroring future risks and uncertainties

Author: Eva Šlesingerová

Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Tendencies and efforts have shifted from genome description, DNA mapping, and DNA sequencing to active and profound re-programming, repairing life on genetic and molecular levels in some parts of contemporary life science research. Mirroring and materializing this atmosphere, various life engineering technologies have been used and established in many areas of life sciences in the last decades. A contemporary progressive example of one such technology is DNA editing. Novel developments related to reproductive technologies, particularly embryo editing, prenatal human life engineering, and germline engineering need to be analyzed against the broader social and structural background. The crucial analytical scope for this paper is a specific field: the life-editing technologies used in reproductive medicine and performed experimentally on viable human embryos, particularly CRISPR/Cas9 technology. This text argues that germline editing technologies, as a representative part of contemporary biomedicine, are merging ideas of treatment and enhancement to avoid future risks. Using this specific life manipulation of embryos and gametes, the text analyzes these processes within the concept of power over life—biopower and the specific governing rationality that imagines, classifies, and governs contemporary societies. The text specifically focuses on the potential to create, define, and manage future risks and uncertainties related to prenatal life.
Footnotes
1
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat. See also Redman et al. (2016).
 
2
CRISPR/Cas9 technology has been used since the 1970s, when the first DNA-cutting enzymes were discovered.
 
3
“There are three major settings in which genome editing can be applied in biomedicine: (1) basic research that helps advance understanding of human disease and its treatment; (2) clinical applications to treat or prevent disease or disability in somatic cells (non-reproductive cells), and; (3) clinical applications to treat or prevent disease or disability in germline cells (reproductive cells)” http://​studyres.​com/​doc/​17254330/​human-genome-editing-%E2%80%93-science--ethics--and-governance).
 
6
See also Jinek et al. (2013).
 
9
See also Vogel and Stokstad (2015).
 
10
PGD is preimplantation genetic diagnosis, profiling embryos to identify genetic diseases and pathological mutations and involving their potential selection. The technology is used in assisted reproduction.
 
11
Often interpreted as abnormalities or defects.
 
12
The concept of bio-objects is based on the COST project: Bio-objects and their boundaries: governing matters at the intersection of society, politics, and science (http://​www.​cost.​eu/​COST_​Actions/​isch/​IS1001). Sociologists involved in this project suggest analyzing the processes of bio-objectification, i.e. how various manifestations of life are created and given life or multiple lives. Life itself is dealt with primarily by life sciences, even more now that life has become manageable on molecular and genetic levels. This often causes essentialization, which is why the team of scientists from the COST project wanted to address the processes of objectification—the materialization of life into objects: to avoid the reduction that sees life itself as only cells, genes, etc.
 
13
For example, aging is not an illness officially, but it is medicalized extensively (see Conrad’s texts about biomedicalization).
 
14
Foucault used the term bio-power “to designate what brought life and its mechanisms into the realm of explicit calculations and made knowledge-power an agent of transformation of human life. … For millennia, man remained what he was for Aristotle: a living animal with the additional capacity for a political existence; modern man is an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being in question … If the question of man was raised—insofar as he was a specific living being, and specifically related to other living beings” (Foucault 1978, p. 143).
 
16
See also Heavey (2015) or Schyfter et al. (2015).
 
17
This is also supported by the objectification of the vital systems as stressed by Calvert: “slightly more reflection is found in a Science article which at least recognises that there is a gap between the organism and the computer programme in saying that ‘Synthetic biologists eventually aim to make bacteria into tiny programmable computers’” (Ferber in Calvert 2010, p. 10).
 
18
“The introduction of agriculture, for instance, played a role not only in shaping our environment, but has fundamentally changed our genomes. The same could be said about technologies such as literacy and numeracy, which laid the foundations for technological innovations that have significantly changed us” (Buchanan 2008, 2011 in Cavaliere 2017).
 
Literature
go back to reference Adam, Barbara, Ulrich Beck, and Joost van Loon. 2000. The Risk Society and Beyond. Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: SAGE.CrossRef Adam, Barbara, Ulrich Beck, and Joost van Loon. 2000. The Risk Society and Beyond. Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: SAGE.CrossRef
go back to reference Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
go back to reference Ascott, Roy, and Edward A. Shanken. 2003. Telematic Embrace: Visionary Theories of Art, Technology, and Consciousness. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ascott, Roy, and Edward A. Shanken. 2003. Telematic Embrace: Visionary Theories of Art, Technology, and Consciousness. Berkeley: University of California Press.
go back to reference Atkinson, Paul, Peter Glasner, and Margaret Lock. 2013. Handbook of Genetics and Society, Mapping the New Genomic Era. London: Rouledge. Atkinson, Paul, Peter Glasner, and Margaret Lock. 2013. Handbook of Genetics and Society, Mapping the New Genomic Era. London: Rouledge.
go back to reference Beck, Ulrich. 1986/1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE. Beck, Ulrich. 1986/1992. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
go back to reference Bock von Wülfingen, Bettina. 2012. From re-pair and re-production to (re)generation: Bio-objects as indicators of cultural change. Croatian Medical Journal 53 (5): 502–504.CrossRef Bock von Wülfingen, Bettina. 2012. From re-pair and re-production to (re)generation: Bio-objects as indicators of cultural change. Croatian Medical Journal 53 (5): 502–504.CrossRef
go back to reference Braun, B. 2007. Biopolitics and the molecularization of life. Cultural Geographies 14 (1): 6–28.CrossRef Braun, B. 2007. Biopolitics and the molecularization of life. Cultural Geographies 14 (1): 6–28.CrossRef
go back to reference Brown, Nik, and Andrew Webster. 2004. New Medical Technologies and Society: Reordering life. Cambridge: Polity. Brown, Nik, and Andrew Webster. 2004. New Medical Technologies and Society: Reordering life. Cambridge: Polity.
go back to reference Burchell, Graham, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. 1991. Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Burchell, Graham, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. 1991. Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Calvert, Jane. 2013. Engineering biology and society: Reflections on synthetic biology. Science, Technology & Society 18 (3): 405–420.CrossRef Calvert, Jane. 2013. Engineering biology and society: Reflections on synthetic biology. Science, Technology & Society 18 (3): 405–420.CrossRef
go back to reference Calvert, Jane, and Joan H. Fujimura. 2011. Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (2): 155–163.CrossRef Calvert, Jane, and Joan H. Fujimura. 2011. Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (2): 155–163.CrossRef
go back to reference Canguilhem, Georges. 1988. Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press. Canguilhem, Georges. 1988. Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
go back to reference Canguilhem, Georges. 1991. The Normal and the Pathological, Trans. Carolyn R. Fawcett, Robert S. Cohen. New York: Zone Books. Canguilhem, Georges. 1991. The Normal and the Pathological, Trans. Carolyn R. Fawcett, Robert S. Cohen. New York: Zone Books.
go back to reference Canguilhem, Georges. 2008. The Knowledge of Life. New York: Fordham UP. Canguilhem, Georges. 2008. The Knowledge of Life. New York: Fordham UP.
go back to reference Collier, Stephen J., and Andrew Lakoff. 2008. On regimes of living. In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, eds. Collier, Stephen J., Andrew Lakoff, and Paul Rabinow. New York: Blackwell. Collier, Stephen J., and Andrew Lakoff. 2008. On regimes of living. In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, eds. Collier, Stephen J., Andrew Lakoff, and Paul Rabinow. New York: Blackwell.
go back to reference Dean, Mitchell. 1999. Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE. Dean, Mitchell. 1999. Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE.
go back to reference Dreyfus, Hubert L, and Rabinow, Paul. 1983. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Dreyfus, Hubert L, and Rabinow, Paul. 1983. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume I. Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume I. Introduction. New York: Pantheon Books.
go back to reference Foucault, Michel. 1982. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–795.CrossRef Foucault, Michel. 1982. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 8 (4): 777–795.CrossRef
go back to reference Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–78. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Foucault, Michel. 2007. Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France 197778. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
go back to reference Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Picador. Foucault, Michel. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Picador.
go back to reference Franklin, Sarah. 2013. Biological Relatives. IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRef Franklin, Sarah. 2013. Biological Relatives. IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Franklin, Sarah, and Susan McKinnon. 2001. Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham: Duke University Press. Franklin, Sarah, and Susan McKinnon. 2001. Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham: Duke University Press.
go back to reference Fujimura, Joan H. 2005. Postgenomic futures: Translations across the machine-nature border in systems biology. New Genetics and Society 24 (2): 195–225.CrossRef Fujimura, Joan H. 2005. Postgenomic futures: Translations across the machine-nature border in systems biology. New Genetics and Society 24 (2): 195–225.CrossRef
go back to reference Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
go back to reference Glad, John. 2006. Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century. Hermitage Publishers. Glad, John. 2006. Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century. Hermitage Publishers.
go back to reference Gottweis, Herbert. 2005. Comparing Biobanks: Towards a New Form of Biopolitics? Lecture for the International Comparison of IHTs Workshop, Rome. Gottweis, Herbert. 2005. Comparing Biobanks: Towards a New Form of Biopolitics? Lecture for the International Comparison of IHTs Workshop, Rome.
go back to reference Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women. NewYork: Routledge. Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women. NewYork: Routledge.
go back to reference Haraway, Donna. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Haraway, Donna. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
go back to reference Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing Evolution: the Ethical Case for Making People Better. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press. Harris, John. 2007. Enhancing Evolution: the Ethical Case for Making People Better. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press.
go back to reference Helmreich, Stefan. 2011. What was life? Answers from three limit biologies. Critical Inquiry 37 (4): 671–696.CrossRef Helmreich, Stefan. 2011. What was life? Answers from three limit biologies. Critical Inquiry 37 (4): 671–696.CrossRef
go back to reference Holmberg, Tora, Nete Schwennesen, and Andrew Webster. 2011. Bio-objects and the bio-objectification process. Croatian Medical Journal 52 (6): 740–742.CrossRef Holmberg, Tora, Nete Schwennesen, and Andrew Webster. 2011. Bio-objects and the bio-objectification process. Croatian Medical Journal 52 (6): 740–742.CrossRef
go back to reference Kac, Eduardo, ed. 2007. Signs of Life. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Kac, Eduardo, ed. 2007. Signs of Life. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
go back to reference Kerr, Anne, and Sarah Cunningham-Burley. 2000. On ambivalence and risk: Reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology 34 (2): 283–304.CrossRef Kerr, Anne, and Sarah Cunningham-Burley. 2000. On ambivalence and risk: Reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology 34 (2): 283–304.CrossRef
go back to reference Kirksey, Eben S., and Stefan Helmreich. 2010. The emergence of multispecies etnography. Cultural Anthropology 25 (4): 545–575.CrossRef Kirksey, Eben S., and Stefan Helmreich. 2010. The emergence of multispecies etnography. Cultural Anthropology 25 (4): 545–575.CrossRef
go back to reference Lemke, Thomas. 2005. From eugenics to the government of genetic risk. In Genetic Governance. Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, eds. Robin Bunton and Alan Petersen. London: Routledge. Lemke, Thomas. 2005. From eugenics to the government of genetic risk. In Genetic Governance. Health, Risk and Ethics in the Biotech Era, eds. Robin Bunton and Alan Petersen. London: Routledge.
go back to reference Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction (Biopolitics: Medicine, Technoscience, and Health in the 21st Century). New York: New York University Press. Lemke, Thomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction (Biopolitics: Medicine, Technoscience, and Health in the 21st Century). New York: New York University Press.
go back to reference Lemke, Thomas. 2013. Perspectives on Genetic Discrimination. New York: Routledge.CrossRef Lemke, Thomas. 2013. Perspectives on Genetic Discrimination. New York: Routledge.CrossRef
go back to reference Lupton, Deborah. 1999. Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Lupton, Deborah. 1999. Risk and Sociocultural Theory: New Directions and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Lupton, Deborah. 2013. Risk. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Lupton, Deborah. 2013. Risk. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
go back to reference Nilsson, Jakob, and Sven-Olov Wallenstein. 2013. Foucault, Biopolitics and Governmentality. Stockholm: Södertörn Philosophical Studies. Nilsson, Jakob, and Sven-Olov Wallenstein. 2013. Foucault, Biopolitics and Governmentality. Stockholm: Södertörn Philosophical Studies.
go back to reference Rabinow, Paul. 1996. Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In Anthropologies of Modernity: Foucault, Governmentality and Life Sciences, ed. J. X. Inda, 181–193. Oxford: Blackwell. Rabinow, Paul. 1996. Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In Anthropologies of Modernity: Foucault, Governmentality and Life Sciences, ed. J. X. Inda, 181–193. Oxford: Blackwell.
go back to reference Rabinow, Paul. 2003. Anthropos Today. Reflections on Modern Equipment. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rabinow, Paul. 2003. Anthropos Today. Reflections on Modern Equipment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
go back to reference Rabinow, Paul, and Gaymon Bennett. 2012. Synthetic biology, ethical ramifications. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 99–108. Rabinow, Paul, and Gaymon Bennett. 2012. Synthetic biology, ethical ramifications. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3 (1–4): 99–108.
go back to reference Rabinow, Paul, and Nikolas Rose. 2006. Biopower today. BioSocieties 1 (2): 195–217.CrossRef Rabinow, Paul, and Nikolas Rose. 2006. Biopower today. BioSocieties 1 (2): 195–217.CrossRef
go back to reference Rapp, Rayana. 2000. Testing the Fetus. The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge. Rapp, Rayana. 2000. Testing the Fetus. The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America. New York: Routledge.
go back to reference Rose, Nikolas. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Rose, Nikolas. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power and Subjectivity in the Twenty First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Schyfter, Camacho P., and Jane Calvert. 2015. Intentions, expectations and institutions: Engineering the future of synthetic biology in the US and the UK. Science as Culture 24 (4): 359–383.CrossRef Schyfter, Camacho P., and Jane Calvert. 2015. Intentions, expectations and institutions: Engineering the future of synthetic biology in the US and the UK. Science as Culture 24 (4): 359–383.CrossRef
go back to reference Sontag, Susan. 1977. Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux. Sontag, Susan. 1977. Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrar Straus and Giroux.
go back to reference Strathern, Marilyn. 1996. After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. Strathern, Marilyn. 1996. After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Trommelmans, Leen, Joseph Selling, and Kris Dierickx. 2009. Is tissue engineering a new paradigm in medicine? Consequences for the ethical evaluation of tissue engineering research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (4): 459–467.CrossRef Trommelmans, Leen, Joseph Selling, and Kris Dierickx. 2009. Is tissue engineering a new paradigm in medicine? Consequences for the ethical evaluation of tissue engineering research. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (4): 459–467.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
In risk we trust/Editing embryos and mirroring future risks and uncertainties
Author
Eva Šlesingerová
Publication date
01-06-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9851-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2/2019 Go to the issue