Abstract
This paper explores the limitations of epistemic scientism for understanding the role the concept of race plays in assisted reproductive technology (ART) practices. Two major limitations centre around the desire to use scientific knowledge to bring about social improvement. In the first case, undue focus is placed on debunking the scientific reality of racial categories and characteristics. The alternative to this approach is to focus instead on the way the race idea functions in ART practices. Doing so reveals how the race idea (1) helps to define the reproductive “problems” different groups of women are experiencing and to dictate when and how they should be “helped”; (2) helps to resolve tensions about who should be considered the real parents of children produced by reproductive technologies; and (3) is used to limit ART use where that use threatens to denaturalize the very sociopolitical landscape the race idea has created. In the second case, scientific knowledge regarding reproduction is thought to call for technological control over that reproduction. This leads to an overemphasis on personal responsibility and a depoliticization of racialized social inequalities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Both involve the creation of an embryo through in vitro fertilization and the subsequent implantation of that embryo into a womb. But whereas in gestational surrogacy the woman who provides the genetic material is the intended mother, in IVF with ovum donation the intended mother is the woman who gestates the fetus.
This copy was removed from the website the following week, and the clinic released a statement saying that the policy, in place since the 1980s, had been discontinued a year earlier (Higgins, Sturino, and Mitton 2014).
References
Appiah, K.A., and A. Gutmann. 1996. Color conscious: The political morality of race. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Banerjee, A. 2010. Reorienting the ethics of transnational surrogacy as a feminist pragmatist. The Pluralist 5(3): 107–127.
Banerjee, A. 2014. Race and a transnational reproductive caste system: Indian transnational surrogacy. Hypatia 29(1): 113–128.
Barrett, J. 2014. No “rainbow families”: Ethnic donor stipulation at fertility centre “floors” local woman. Calgary Herald, July 25. http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/rainbow+families+Ethnic+donor+stipulation+fertility+centre+floors+local+woman/10063343/story.html. Accessed October 22, 2014.
Beack, J. 1994. There are far worse things a parent can be than old. Chicago Tribune, January 2. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-01-02/news/9401020021_1_infertility-treatments-caesarean-section-baby. Accessed October 15, 2015.
Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2008. Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bernasconi, R. 2010. Nature, culture, and race. In Södertörn lectures. Stockholm: Södertörn University.
Bever, L. 2014. White woman sues sperm bank after she mistakenly gets black donor’s sperm. The Washington Post, October 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/02/white-woman-sues-sperm-bank-after-she-mistakenly-gets-black-donors-sperm/. Accessed November 16, 2014.
Corea, G. 1985. The mother machine: Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper & Row.
Fox, D. 2009. Racial classification in assisted reproduction. The Yale Law Journal 118(8): 1844–1898.
Haack, S. 2012. Six signs of scientism. Logos and Episteme 3(1): 75–95.
Hartouni, V. 1997. Cultural conceptions: On reproductive technologies and the remaking of life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Heidegger, M. 1993. The question concerning technology. In Basic writings: From Being and Time (1927) to The Task of Thinking (1964), edited by D.F. Krell, 307–341. San Francisco: Harper.
Higgins, S., I. Sturino, and P. Mitton. 2014. Can fertility clinics refuse to create “rainbow families”? CBC News, August 1. http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2014/07/29/can-a-fertility-clinic-refuse-to-create-rainbow-families/. Accessed October 22, 2014.
Hoffman, P. 1994. The science of race. Discover 15(11): 4.
Ikemoto, L.C. 1995. The in/fertile, the too fertile, and the dysfertile. Hastings Law Journal 47(4): 1007–1061.
Klausen, S.M. 2004. Race, maternity, and the politics of birth control in South Africa, 1910−39. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Markens, S. 2012. The global reproductive health market: U.S. media framings and public discourses about transnational surrogacy. Social Science & Medicine 74(11): 1745–1753.
McCann, C.R. 1994. Birth control politics in the United States, 1916−1945. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pande, A. 2011. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: Gifts for global sisters? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 23(5): 618–625.
Quiroga, S.S. 2007. Blood is thicker than water: Policing donor insemination and the reproduction of whiteness. Hypatia 22(2): 143–161.
Ragoné, Helena. 2000. Of likeness and difference: How race is being transfigured in gestational surrogacy. In Ideologies and technologies of motherhood: Race, class, sexuality, nationalism, edited by H. Ragoné and F. Winddance Twine, 56–75. New York: Routledge.
Raymond, J.G. 1994. Women as wombs: Reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom. New York: HarperCollins.
Roberts, D.E. 1999. Killing the black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage Books.
Roberts, D.E. 2005. Privitization and punishment the new age of reprogenetics. Emory Law Journal 54(3): 1343–1360.
Roberts, D.E. 2011. Fatal invention: How science, politics, and big business re-create race in the twenty-first century. New York: New Press.
Rose, N. 1996. Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism, and rationalities of government, edited by A. Barry, T. Osborne, and N. Rose, 37–64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sandel, M.J. 2009. The case against perfection: What’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. In Human Enhancement, edited by N. Bostrom and J. Savulescu, 71–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sarojini, N., V. Marwah, and A. Shenoi. 2011. Globalisation of birth markets: A case study of assisted reproductive technologies in India. Globalization and Health 7(27): 1–9.
Shanley, M.L., and A. Asch. 2009. Involuntary childlessness, reproductive technology, and social justice: The medical mask on social illness. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34(4): 851–874.
Silver, L.M. 2000. Reprogenetics: Third millennium speculation. EMBO Reports 1(5): 375–378.
Stubblefield, A. 2005. Ethics along the color line. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Thompson, C. 2005. Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Voegelin, E. 1940. The growth of the race idea. The Review of Politics 2(3): 283–317.
Voegelin, E. 1997. Race and state. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Vora, K. 2009. Indian transnational surrogacy and the commodification of vital energy. Subjectivity 28(1): 266–278.
Weiss, K.M., and S.M. Fullerton. 2005. Racing around, getting nowhere. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 14(5): 165–169.
Williams, P.J. 1991. The alchemy of race and rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Russell, C. The Race Idea in Reproductive Technologies: Beyond Epistemic Scientism and Technological Mastery. Bioethical Inquiry 12, 601–612 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9663-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9663-3