Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T03:52:50.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biopower, Styles of Reasoning, and What's Still Missing from the Stem Cell Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Shelley Tremain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Until now, philosophical debate about human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research has largely been limited to its ethical dimensions and implications. Although the importance and urgency of these ethical debates should not be underestimated, the almost undivided attention that mainstream and feminist philosophers have paid to the ethical dimensions of hESC research suggests that the only philosophically interesting questions and concerns about it are by and large ethical in nature. My argument goes some distance to challenge the assumption that ethical considerations alone must be foregrounded in philosophical discussions about hESC research by introducing a critical stance on the epistemological and ontological assumptions that underlie and condition it. A central aim of the paper is to show how Foucault's insights into knowledge-power, taken in combination with Hacking's claims about styles of reasoning, can make these assumptions evident, as well as cast light on their potentially deleterious implications for disabled people. Arguing in this way also enables me to draw out constitutive effects of research on stem cells, that is, to indicate how the discursive practices surrounding research on stem cells, as well as the technology itself, contribute to the constitution of impairment.

Type
FEMINIST BIOTECHNOLOGIES CLUSTER
Information
Hypatia , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , Summer 2010 , pp. 577 - 609
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abberley, Paul. 1996. Work, utopia and impairment. In Disability and society: Emerging issues and insights, ed. Barton, Len. Harlow, U.K.: Longman, pp. 61–79.Google Scholar
Amundson, Ron. 2000. Against normal function. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31C:33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, Ron. 2005. Disability, ideology, and quality of life: A bias in biomedical ethics. In Quality of life and human difference, ed. Wasserman, David, Wachbroit, Robert, and Bickenbach, Jerome. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–24.Google Scholar
Annas, George, Caplan, Arthur, and Elias, Sherman. 1996. The politics of human‐embryo research—avoiding ethical gridlock. New England Journal of Medicine 334:1329–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballantyne, Angela, and De Lacey, Sheryl. 2008. Wanted—egg donors for research: A research ethics approach to donor recruitment and compensation. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (2): 145–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baylis, Françoise, and McLeod, Carolyn. 2007. The stem cell debate continues: The buying and selling of eggs for research. Journal of Medical Ethics 33:726–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boorse, Christopher. 1977. Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science 44:542–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, Dan. 2009. Voluntary active euthanasia. In Biomedical ethics: A Canadian focus, ed. Fisher, Johnna. Don Mills: Oxford University Press, pp. 164–76 (Reprinted from The Hastings Center Report 22, 2 (2002)).Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen, Brock, Dan W., Daniels, Norman, and Wikler, Daniel I. 2000. From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘sex’. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cassidy, Lisa. 2006. That many of us should not parent. Hypatia: A journal of feminist philosophy 21 (4): 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Mike, Cohen, Mike, and Sistla, Seetla. n.d. What is a “normal” phenotype? In Bioethics for developmental biologists, ed. Gilbert, Scott F. and Zackin, Emily. Available athttp://www.devbio.com/keyword.php?kw=bioethics(accessed August 2004).Google Scholar
Crow, Liz. 1996. Including all of our lives: Renewing the social model of disability. In Encounters with strangers: Feminism and disability, ed. Morris, Jenny. London, U.K.: Women's Press, pp. 206–22.Google Scholar
Davidson, Arnold I. 2001. The emergence of sexuality: Historical epistemology and the formation of concepts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dickenson, Donna. 2002. Commodification of human tissue: Implications for feminist and development ethics. Developing World Ethics 2 (1): 55–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickenson, Donna. 2007. Property in the body: Feminist perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickenson, Donna, and Idiakez, Itziar Alkorta. 2008. Ova donation for stem cell research: An international perspective. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (2): 125–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duden, Barbara. 1991. The woman beneath the skin: A doctor's patients in eighteenth‐century Germany, Trans. Thomas Dunlap. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ewald, François. 1991. Norms, discipline, and the law. In Law and the order of culture, ed. Post, Robert. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 138–61.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1978. The history of sexuality, Vol. 1: An introduction, Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1994. Dits et écrits, 1954–1988, Vol. 4. Paris: Editions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1997. The birth of biopolitics. In Michel Foucault: Ethics, subjectivity, and truth, ed. Rabinow, Paul. New York: The New Press, pp. 73–80.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2003. Lecture of March 17, 1976. “Society must be defended”: Lectures at Collège de France, 1975–1976, ed. Bertani, Mauro and Fontana, Alessandro, Trans. David Macey. New York: Picador, pp. 239–64.Google Scholar
French, Sally. 1993. Disability, impairment, or something in between? In Disabling barriers, enabling environments, 1st ed., ed. Swain, J., Finkelstein, V., French, S., and Oliver, M.London: Sage, pp. 17–25.Google Scholar
Goggin, Gerard, and Newell, Christopher. 2004. Uniting the nation? Disability, stem cells, and the Australian media. Disability & Society 19 (1): 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabel, Laura, and Gruen, Lori. 2007. Introduction: Ethics and stem cell research. Metaphilosophy 38 (2–3): 137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruen, Lori. 2007. Oocytes for sale? Metaphilosophy 38 (2–3): 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1990. The taming of chance. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1992. ‘Style’ for historians and philosophers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 2002. Historical ontology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Harlan. 1985. Toward a politics of disability: Definitions, disciplines, and policies. Social Science Journal 22 (4): 87–105.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of a partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge, pp. 183–202.Google Scholar
Joung, Phillan. 2006. Breaking the silence: The aftermath of the egg and cloning scandal in South Korea. Paper presented at the Connecting Civil Society‐Implementing Basic Values Workshop, Berlin, March 17–19.Google Scholar
Lock, Margaret. 2002. Twice dead: Organ transplants and the reinvention of death. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Meilander, Gilbert. 2001. The point of a ban, or, how to think about stem cell research. Hastings Center Report 31:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Jenny. 1996. Introduction to encounters with strangers: Feminism and disability. London: Women's Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, Michael. 1990. The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, Michael. 1996. Understanding disability: From theory to practice. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudshoorn, Nellie. 1994. Beyond the natural body: An archaeology of sex hormones. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paik, Young‐Gyung. 2006. Beyond bioethics: The globalized reality of ova trafficking and the possibility of feminist intervention. Paper presented at the International Forum on the Human Rights of Women and Biotechnology, Seoul, September 21.Google Scholar
Purdy, Laura. 1995. Loving future people. In Reproduction, ethics, and the law, ed. Callahan, Joan C.Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 300–30.Google Scholar
Purdy, Laura. 2009. Genetics and reproductive risk: Can having children be immoral? In Biomedical ethics: A Canadian focus, ed. Fisher, Johnna. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, pp. 341–47 (Reprinted from Reproducing Persons: Issues in feminist bioethics, ed. Laura M. Purdy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Rabinow, Paul, and Rose, Nikolas. 2003. Introduction: Foucault today. In The essential Foucault: Selections from the essential works of Foucault 1954–1984. New York: The New Press, pp. i–xxxv.Google Scholar
Rawlinson, Mary. 2008. Introduction. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roche, Patricia, and Grodin, Michael. 2000. The ethical challenge of stem cell research. Women's Health Issues 10 (3): 136–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scully, Jackie Leach. 2008. Disability bioethics: Moral bodies, moral difference. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Sherwin, Susan. 1992. No longer patient: Feminist ethics and health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Sherwin, Susan. 2008. Whither bioethics? How feminism can help reorient bioethics. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (1): 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shildrick, Margrit. 2009. Dangerous discourses of disability, subjectivity, and sexuality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Carol. 2007. Sociologies of disability and illness. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Carol. 1999. Female forms: Experiencing and understanding disability. Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Tremain, Shelley. 2001. On the government of disability. Social Theory and Practice 27 (4): 617–36 (Reprinted in Human diversity and equality, Vol. 2 of Moral issues in global perspective, 2nd ed., ed. Christine M. Koggel. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2006. Reprinted in revised form as on the government of disability: Foucault, power, and the subject of impairment. In The disability studies reader, 2nd ed., ed. Lennard J. Davis. New York and London: Routledge, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremain, Shelley. 2002. On the subject of impairment. In Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory, ed. Corker, Mairian and Shakespeare, Tom. London: Continuum, pp. 26–50.Google Scholar
Tremain, Shelley. 2005. Foucault, governmentality, and critical disability theory: An introduction. In Foucault and the government of disability, ed. Tremain, Shelley. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Tremain, Shelley. 2006a. Reproductive freedom, self‐regulation, and the government of impairment in utero. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 21 (1): 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremain, Shelley. 2006b. Stemming the tide of normalization: An expanded feminist analysis of the ethics and social impact of embryonic stem cell research. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1 and 2): 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremain, Shelley. 2008. The biopolitics of bioethics and disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5 (2 and 3): 101–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Kooy, D., and Weiss, S. 2000. Why stem cells? Science 287:1439–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widdows, Heather. 2009. Border disputes across bodies: Exploitation in trafficking for prostitution and egg sale for stem cell research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2 (1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar