bios news issue 3

With the exciting news that theBIONET proposal, an Asia-Europecollaboration on the governance ofbiomedical research coordinated herefrom BIOS, has received anencouraging response from theEuropean 6th Framework Programme,the rapid emergence of Asia as abiotechnology hub has once againcome into focus at BIOS. The recentcontroversies surrounding stem cellresearch have reiterated the globalnature of biotechnology in today’sworld, once again troubling standardEurocentric assumptions aboutscience and innovation. China andthe so-called East Asian tigers havelong been the object of economicand sociological studies, but moreoften than not in their role asproducers of consumer goodsdestined for western markets. Inrecent decades, it seems that Asiancountries no longer ‘merely’ supplythe hardware for the world’sinformation and knowledgeeconomies, but also the basicresearch and scientific developmentthat powers them. There are a few ofus at BIOS working with bio-relatedissues in an Asian context (including

tissue-engineering, stem cells andherbal medicine) often from acomparative perspective and it seemsthere is good reason to keep an eyeon future developments in the Asian region.

In this issue of BIOS News, MichaelBarr gives us thoughtful insight intohis work on the history of bio-ethics,raising themes that are not onlyrelevant in the British setting he haschosen to focus on, but mostcertainly will be central to the Asia-Europe BIONET initiative as well (lookout for Kerstin Klein’s article onBIONET). Barr’s call for a morecreative bioethics in the pursuit ofthe good life will surely resonate asdifferent geo-cultural regions debatefuture routes for governingbiomedical research.

You will also find a number of pieceslooking back at events from anaction-packed Lent Term. MathewKabattof introduces an ongoingexperiment of roundtables which wasinitiated by the BIOS team in Januaryas a means of ‘ProducingCollectivity’. David Reubi reports on aworkshop on Tissue Economies held

in February while Btihaj Ajanaprovides us with a great review ofpresentations by BIOS researchers atthe annual LSE Sociology weekend atCumberland Lodge which this yearambitiously tackled the thematic ofhuman rights. Lamprini Kaftantzigives us a report from a standing-room-only Richard Dawkins panel on‘The Selfish Gene – Thirty Years On’.

Isabel Karpin sends us a postcardfollowing her two-month stay atBIOS working on her research intothe prohibition of human chimeras,hybrids and genetically modifiedembryos. And finally, AssiaTorrigianni-Malaspina and Neha Jaingive us field reports on life as BIOSMSc students.

Thanks again to all for your inputsand feedback. Its been a greatmaiden year for BIOS News and welook forward to seeing you after thesummer break!

Annette VB Jensen, LampriniKaftantzi, David Reubi, Ayo Wahlberg

Biotech goes Asia

BIOSIssue 3 • Summer 2006

BIOS News

Editorial 1

Bioethics As a Way of Life, by Michael Barr 2

Stem Cells, TissueEconomies and theNeo-Liberal, by David Reubi 3

Governing BiomedicalResearch in China and Europe, by Kerstin Klein 4

The BIOS Experiment,by Mathew Kabatoff 4

Dawkins@LSE, byLamprini Kaftantzi 5

Research updates 6

Postgrad and MSc pages 7-9

Postcards from BIOS visitors 10

Publications andconferencepresentations 11

Upcoming events 12

In this issue

Henry David Thoreau once lamentedthat ‘there are only professors ofphilosophy but no philosophers.’ Hiscomment was a criticism ofsystematic philosophy – theinstitutionalised version of the field,which is chiefly concerned with thejustification of concepts andpropositions. But there is anotherphilosophical tradition, which is muchmore than simply thinking aboutthinking. Known as the art of living,or philosophy as a way of life, thisbranch of the discipline eschews purethought. Its practitioners aim to livetheir lives according to a thoughtfullyexamined set of precepts and beliefs,which, crucially, are embodied inboth word and deed. This alternativetradition views philosophy as adeliberative life practice or, if you will,a form of self-help.

Bioethics, of course, is deeplyallied to institutional philosophy,for the sociological reasons thatRenee Fox has illustrated:namely, the need to achieveinfluence and policy consensusin a morally fragmentedsociety. My own work seeks tounderstand the historicalreasons why this is so in orderto envision an alternateconception of bioethics, morein line with the idea of an artof living. Heavily indebted tothe work of GeraldMcKenny, I seek to showthat there exists a deep butimplicit moral agreementbetween traditionalbioethics and medicine’seffort to overcome humansubjection to fate ornatural necessity.

The first step in myresearch programme,which I loosely refer to as

a genealogy of bioethics, is toco-organise a Witness Seminar withthe Wellcome Trust History ofMedicine division. A WellcomeWitness Seminar is a one-day oralhistory conference where peopleassociated with a particular set ofcircumstances or events are invitedto meet together to discuss anddebate the topic at hand. Theseminar I am involved with will beheld in May and will bring togethermany of the key actors who played apart in the birth of British bioethicsto give their own personal accountsof how and why bioethics developedin the UK.* Its focus is on thegrowth of medical ethics educationas it developed in Britain’s medicalschools from the early 1960sonwards. An oral history such as thisis the necessary first step in writing agenealogy; it will be supplementedand corrected by careful analysis ofexisting archival material andpublished papers.

The second step in my programme isthe ‘grey, meticulous, and patientlydocumentary work’ on the abovementioned source material. In fact,my project employs a methodologicalmarriage of Charles Taylor’shermeneutical approach and MichelFoucault’s genealogical insights. Iseek to understand the ‘conditionsof possibility’ that have enabledbioethics, in its present form, to takeroot. What are the objects, concepts,authorities and strategies that havemade the bioethical phenomenonpossible? That is, I am concerned toshow the historical sources of whycertain moral convictions areattractive or worthy to those whoadopt them, as Taylor did in hismagisterial study of selfhood. Inrelation to bioethics, I hypothesisethat the success of the field owesmuch to its embeddedness inmodern ethical theories which stressthe dual moral imperative to relievesuffering (a version of Benthamiteutilitarianism) and to expand therange of human choice andautonomy, concepts with roots fardeeper than just 20th centurythought. However, a hermeneuticalaccount such as this can only beginto explain bioethics’ popular appeal;it cannot challenge the bioethicalagenda. For this, my project requiresinsights from Foucault’smethodological toolkit. Thegenealogical task is to show howbioethics is limited by the range ofconcepts and norms of reasoningthat comprise its realm of discourse.

The hypothesis I wish to test (againindebted to McKenny) is that thelimits of bioethics can be betterunderstood by reference to the lossof tradition in contemporary society– specifically, I refer to the loss ofboth a religious tradition, as well asa tradition of medicine as an artform (or techne). Both of thesetraditions contained norms andprohibitions that limited the

‘…there exists a deep but implicit moral agreement betweentraditional bioethics and medicine’s effort to overcomehuman subjection to fate or natural necessity.’

…the result is thatwe are left without

resources tounderstand our

finitude, or toknow what ideas

we may appeal toin order to resist

the technologicalimperative.

2 BIOS News Issue 3 • Summer 2006

Bioethics as a way of lifeBy Michael Barr

The politics and economics ofhuman body parts in general and of human stem cells in particularoften triggers heated discussion. Last February, BIOS held a seminaron that topic with papers given byDr Catherine Waldby and Dr MelindaCooper. Both are part of the recentlyestablished Global Biopolitics ResearchGroup. Based at the University ofEast Anglia, in Norwich, this networklooks at the politics of stem cellresearch in a range of countries suchas India, Singapore, South Korea, the UK and the United States.

In her talk, Catherine outlined herand Robert Mitchell’s concept of‘tissue economies’, which is thefocus of their new book entitledTissue Economies: Blood, Organsand Cell Lines in Late Capitalism(Duke 2006). This concept is ananalytical device offering different

axes of inquiry for those researchingeconomies of human tissue used fortherapeutic purposes. Productivity isone of these axes. Human tissueshave to be created so as to betherapeutic which implies varioustechniques that have to beresearched. Another axis is thecreation of value. Within aneconomy, tissues have to be given aparticular value. This value can bemonetary (price). But it can also benon-monetary, such as Titmuss’value of good citizenship implicit inhis idea of the gift to fellow citizens.Another important aspect of a tissueeconomy is the ‘movability’ of thetissues. They have to be bothdurable (which implies techniquessuch as cryogenics and banks) andexchangeable (a limitation in thatrespect is immunological identitieswhich have to be suppressed orcontoured). Finally, an economy alsohas to deal with existing socialrelations and values. It cannot simplyignore people’s wishes to mourndead relatives and attach importanceto their remains. In order to survive,it has to accommodate them.

Melinda’s talk was also related to abook due to come out this yearunder the title The Politics ofRegeneration: Biotech in the Post-Fordist Era (University of WashingtonPress). Melinda argued that, takentogether, the biotech and neo-liberalrevolutions are currently destroyingthe old welfare state and remaking anew world. She outlined some ofthe discursive elements at work inthis double revolution, such as ‘crisis’

or ‘emergency’. Melinda also pointedout some other strategies used byneo-liberals in their pursuit of a newworld order such as the redefinitionof (human) waste as valuable andthe relocation of the accumulationprocess at the level of life itself. She completed her picture of thisdouble revolution by using theexample of South Africa. For her, thecountry’s struggle against internationalpharmaceutical companies inproducing and distributing cheapdrugs for patients with AIDS issymptomatic of this double revolutionshe is interested in.

Waldby’s concept of ‘tissueeconomies’ generated good interestamong the participants at theseminar – the idea of the banknotably was discussed – eventhough the lack of case studiessomehow hampered more in-depthdiscussions. The notion of ‘neo-liberal’ which underpinned Melinda’spresentation was also debated, with Nikolas Rose suggesting thatthinking in terms of ‘advancedliberal democracies’ would allow for a more complex picture of thesituation. Kerstin Klein and myselfwere curious to explore thesediffering views further and as aresult we will be devoting twosessions of the BIOS reading groupin the summer term to them.

BIOS News Issue 3 • Summer 2006

Stem Cells, Tissue Economies andthe Neo-LiberalBy David Reubi

Human tissues haveto be created so as

to be therapeuticwhich implies

various techniquesthat have to be

researched.

continual pursuit of health and themeans by which it was pursued;both also described how bodilyhealth was a component of avirtuous life rather than an end initself. And both have beenmarginalised by a secular bioethic,which, arguably, fails even on itsown terms – that is, in its inability toachieve consensus about the limitsof medical power.

All of this, highly schematic as it is,brings me full circle to the notion of

bioethics as a way of life. For if thereexists a cultural expectation thatmedicine should eliminate whateverpeople consider a burden, or toprovide whatever anyone mightrequire for their natural fulfilment,and if bioethics, as an ally ofsystematic philosophy, is complicit inthose expectations, then the result isthat we are left without resources tounderstand our finitude, or to knowwhat ideas we may appeal to inorder to resist the technological

imperative. Thus, there emerges thepossibility of an alternative, morecreative and personal bioethic – oneinspired by the notion of philosophyas a way life, one that subordinatesthe ‘reign of technology’ to thepursuit of a good life, and one thatrather stoically has no fear of thefact that, as Schopenhauer oncequipped, life is a temporary conditionwith a permanent solution.* Bookings for this event are essential,please contact Wendy Kutner at theWellcome Trust for more information.

Bioethics as a Way of Life (cont)

3

BIOS is conducting an experiment.To some this may sound a bit jarring.What, after all is a social science unitdedicated towards the analysis ofpractices within the life sciencesdoing spearheading their ownexperiment? Well, there is one goodreason. In January 2006 a call forpapers was distributed by theEuropean Association for the Studyof Science and Technology asking for submissions to their semi-annualscience studies conference fromboth individuals and groups. At BIOSsocial word got around that it maybe worthwhile for BIOS as researchcentre to submit a joint application.This idea was greeted by cheers andapplause. However the moodchanged once we were asked whatthis proposal was actually going tobe about and what set of concepts it would collectively represent.

C-o-l-l-e-c-t-i-v-e-l-y?. BIOS is afterall a collective. Our reference classes

are those novel practices and bodiesof knowledge within the sciencesthat can help us ask the question‘what is our time’. Carlos Novas andFilippa Corneliussen were the first tojump on these two notions. Carlossuggested that we present a paperon the working practices, methodsand orientations of BIOS, ie. that weconduct an experiment on BIOS as aresearch unit in order to interrogateand discover what BIOS is, or whatBIOS could be. As data to be minedfor the experiment Filippa remindedus that she had organised a series ofroundtables to take placethroughout the Lent and Summerterms where BIOS members wereinvited to present work in progress.She suggested that this could be thevenue where shared researchtrajectories, concepts and methodscould be identified and turned intothe raw material for a rigorousdiscussion on the is-ness of BIOS.

How far have we progressed? Theexperiment is now in its fourth weekwhere discussions about the nominalcharacter of BIOS have taken placefollowing each roundtablepresentation. It may be too early to speculate on results since theexperiment is far from over, andexperiments can in fact fail. Howeversome consistent themes have beengenerated. These includeinvestigations into the relationshipbetween knowledge, power andsubjectivity, the role of reflexivity in the social sciences and scienceproper, and the determination tosolve the riddle of giving primarilyanalytic and epistemological studiespolitical efficacy. More results aresure to follow.


Governing Biomedical Research in China and EuropeBy Kerstin Klein

The BIOS ExperimentBy Mathew Kabatoff

We are very pleased to announcethat the proposal for ‘BIONET: aChinese-European Co-operation forEthical Governance of BiomedicalResearch’ for three years of fundingunder the 6th Framework Programmehas received a very encouragingresponse from the Commission, andis likely to be funded subject to finalnegotiations and contract. Given thisfavourable news, we are now startingto make preparations for turningBIONET into a reality, with a start datefor the project likely to be in Octoberor November 2006.

Based at the BIOS Centre, thenetwork involves 22 partners in theEU and China and will bring togetherkey professionals, researchers,practitioners, and academics workingin this area in China and Europe. Thegoal of BIONET is to set up asustainable network within andbetween China and Europe that canmap the rationales for and practicesof ethical governance of advancedbiological and biomedical research inChina; to provide a platform for the

development of comparative researchon ethical governance in China andthe EU; to advance social scientificunderstanding of key bioethicalissues, challenges and approachesgenerated in contemporarybiomedical research through dialoguebetween researchers and practitionersin China and the EC; to undertaketraining of researchers andpractitioners in key issues; and finallyto inform policy and practice in theethics of biomedical research in Chinaand the EU with particular relevancefor scientific collaboration.

The initial scientific focus of thenetwork will be particularly on newreproductive technologies, stem cells,genomic research on diseasesusceptibility, pharmacogenomics andbio-banking. And the initial bioethicalfocus will be on informed consent,benefit sharing, intellectual property,data protection and ethical standardsfor the conduct, review andevaluation of biomedical research.Other issues will be addressed asBIONET develops.

Throughout the project workshopsand conferences within China willbring together researchers, ethicists,and policymakers to compile evidenceon contemporary policies andpractices in the ethical governance of advanced biomedical research, andto build capacity among participants.A Europe-China database on theethical governance of research will be created, and findings will bedisseminated through internationalconferences. Further milestones willbe: a European-Chinese Expert Groupon ethical governance ofcontemporary biomedical research;exchanges of personnel, students and research findings; and jointcollaborative research projects.Capacity building thoughcomparative analysis and dialogue is central to this project in order toresearch and evaluate the regulationof biomedical research in China andin Europe in the light of a clearerunderstanding of national, culturaland international issues affectingregulation and ethics.

BIOS News Issue 3 • Summer 2006 5

On Monday the 6th of March at10am the ticket request line of theLSE Conference and Events Officeopened to accept bookings by thepublic, LSE staff and alumni. Withinminutes, phone lines were failingand the on-line booking systemcrashed. The reason? An upcomingpublic lecture titled ‘The SelfishGene: Thirty Years On’.

The lecture was to be a celebrationof the thirty year anniversary of thepublication of Richard Dawkins’classic book, bringing togetherleading intellectuals from biologyand philosophy such as Daniel CDennett, Sir John Krebs, Matt Ridley,Ian McEwan and of course RichardDawkins himself on the 16th ofMarch. Organised in collaborationwith Oxford University Press, thelecture was part of the Darwin@LSEseries run by Helena Cronin, co-director of LSE’s Centre forPhilosophy of Natural and SocialScience, which aims to make excitingdevelopments in evolutionary theoryavailable to a wider audience.

Following a brief introduction fromchair Melvyn Bragg on the profoundinfluence of The Selfish Gene, theevening started with the firstspeaker Professor Daniel C. Dennettof Tufts University. In his talk titled‘The view from Dawkins Mountain’,

Dennett explained how reading The Selfish Gene helped him tounderstand evolutionary theory andhow re-reading it 30 years later hefound its ideas still came throughwith flying colours. He calledDawkins a Darwinian fundamentalistand explained how Dawkinspioneered clear articulation of whathas been called mentalisticbehaviour and the defence of it.

The second speaker wasdistinguished biologist Sir JohnKrebs, Fellow of the Royal Societyand currently Principal of JesusCollege at Oxford. Krebs isconsidered by many as one of thefounding fathers of behaviouralecology and together with Dawkinshas co-authored some classic papersin evolutionary thinking. In his talktitled ‘From Intellectual Plumbing toArms Races’, Krebs spoke ofDawkins as an ‘intellectual plumber’who has the ability to detect leaks inscientific thinking (be it aboutbiology or science in general) and fixthem. He then went on to talkabout how Dawkins’ writingreframed the whole of thinkingabout animal communication bymoving away from the notion ofefficient transfer of informationtowards the idea of manipulationbetween actors, reactors, andevolutionary interactions betweenthese roles.

Matt Ridley, science writer for theEconomist and Daily Telegraph spokeon the topic of ‘Selfish DNA and theJunk in the Genome’. Ridley beganwith what he called a ‘prophetic’remark found on Page 47 of the firstedition of The Selfish Gene:

‘Biologists are wracking their brainstrying to think what useful tasks thisapparently surplus DNA in thegenome is doing. But from the pointof view of the selfish genes there isno paradox. The true ‘purpose’ ofthe DNA is to survive, no more noless. The simplest way to explain it isto suppose that it is a parasite, or atbest a harmless but uselesspassenger hitching a ride in thesurvival machines created by otherDNA’. Ridley emphasised how SelfishDNA originated as an idea and howfurther research has proved Dawkinsright, concluding that the genomewould actually be inexplicablewithout the notion of the selfishgene. Ian McEwan, the fourthspeaker and Booker prize winnerspoke of Dawkins’ achievement ‘toextend an enjoyment of science tolayman’ and how The Selfish Genehas initiated a golden age of sciencewriting.

Finally, the star of the night, RichardDawkins was invited by MelvynBragg to provide an afterword to theevening. He began by calling himselfa ‘lover of explanation’ and areductionist. His desire to reducecomplex mysteries by means ofsimpler explanation has given himthese characterisations. Yet heemphasised that he would not ownup to reductionism if it meansreducing in the sense of demeaningand underestimating the beauty and complexity of what he is tryingto explain. He then talked abouthow the book’s title had given riseto misunderstanding and howalternative and possibly lesscontroversial titles might have been

Dawkins@LSEBy Lamprini Kaftantzi

‘The Immortal Gene’, ‘The AltruisticVehicle’ or ‘The Cooperative Gene’.Dawkins finally referred to a numberof ‘odd’ reactions to The SelfishGene including the desire expressedby more than one reader to…unread it. One reader blamed theSelfish Gene for bouts of depressionand another was convinced that lifewas futile and not worth living. Asan answer to such despair, Dawkinssaid ‘If something is true no amountof wishful thinking can undo it. Our

life is what we make of it and nonew facts can change that’.

I left the Old Building holding myown signed copy of The SelfishGene, determined to read it again assoon as possible. As a biology studentI remember how The Selfish Genewas a must-read on almost every first-year reading list. But now, ten yearslater I feel I have to re-read it.

Dawkins@LSE (cont)


Ayo WahlbergPhD CandidateModernisation and its side effects– an inquiry into the revival andrenaissance of herbal medicine inVietnam and Britain

Having pretty much completed myempirical work I’ve now entered thefinal intensive write-up phase of myPhD, which means writing some finalanalysis chapters and probably moreimportantly rewriting some of thefirst, lets call them less ripe chapters,I had put together earlier last year.And with my funding running out in the fall, the race is on.

After various detours, the thesisitself has turned into a comparisonof aspects of regulation, validationand use of the indigenous traditionalherbal medicine of Vietnam andBritain in recent decades. This choice of an Eastern and a Westernempirical context for comparison has proved both fascinating andinvaluable in allowing me to exploresome of the prevailing hypotheses in the sociology of TM (traditionalmedicine) and CAM (complementaryand alternative medicine). In a fieldsaturated with dichotomies, polemicand ‘incommensurability’, what Ihave tried to do from the outset isto analyse how herbal medicine hasbeen problematised as a hindranceto/potential resource for thepromotion of public health. As such,my analysis has come to focus onhow the concepts of quackery,efficacy and life have been deployedand recast over the past forty or soyears in both Vietnam and the UK in the field of herbal medicine.

Apart from work on the thesis, Ihave also attended and presented atquite a few conferences in the past

months. Working with the twoempirical contexts that I am, I havetried to divide my time betweenconferences which focus on medicalissues in industrialised countries onthe one hand and in East Asia onthe other. As a result in the pastmonths I’ve presented at the annualAlternative and ComplementaryHealth Research Network conferencein Nottingham (July 2005), the 11th International Conference onthe History of Science in East Asia in Munich (August 2005), the CARRRisk and Regulation research studentconference (September 2005), andmost recently, the 1st InternationalConference on the History ofMedicine in South-East Asia in SiemReap, Cambodia (January 2006).

On the publication front I recentlyhad the first fruits of my PhD laboursaccepted for publication in the April2006 issue of health:, a paperlooking at the past 50 years worthof efforts to revive traditionalmedicine in Vietnam by asking howa shift from a colonial bio-politicswhich sought to marginalise andeven eradicate traditional medicinein the name of public health to apostcolonial bio-politics which hasactively recruited traditional medicinein the name of public health has beenpossible in the Vietnamese context.

Megan ClinchPhD CandidateTreating ambiguity – anethnography of an NHS thyroid clinic

My research is focussed on thediagnosis, treatment andmanagement of thyroid conditionsand is located within a busy centralLondon NHS out patient’s clinic. I am

currently observing the clinic and amin the process of approaching patientsto take part in interviews about their experience, perception andunderstanding of their condition.

Most of this last year has been spenttrying to secure ethical approval togain access to the clinic, somethingwhich could merit a PhD thesis initself! However, now I am finallythere the last few months of formfilling and letter writing have beenwell worth it. With the support of a very generous consultant I feelprivileged to be granted the access I have to the clinic and am findingthe patient consultations quite anexperience and invaluable in terms of advancing my technicalunderstanding of the diseases andtheir management.

In addition to my work in the clinicand with the patients I am alsoslowly building up an understandingon both the immune and endocrinesystems, two key locations for themanifestation of thyroid disease. This understanding in combinationwith clinical observations is throwingup a number of concurrences anddisparities which I hope to graspmore when I start interviewingpatients about their perception of their condition.

The next few months will be takenup with my first round of interviewswith approximately fifteen patientsfrom the clinic. I also intend tocomplete my upgrade from MPhil to PhD at the end of May.

Research updates


In recent years, the question of(human) rights, their discourse andapplication, their violation andprotection, their potential andlimitation, has become one of themost interesting and challengingundertakings in academic research.LSE Sociology’s Cumberland Lodgeweekend (27-29 January 2006) wasa great opportunity to bringtogether the wide range of issuespertaining to this question of rights.From notions of life to notions ofdeath and passing through thatwhich is in between, BIOS’scontribution to the debate offereduseful insights into the multiple anddiscursive ways in which thequestion of rights continues tomanifest itself.

In ‘Governing the Circulation of the Body: The Poor, the Gift and the Ethical Market’, David Reubiaddressed modes of governing thecirculation of human body partswithin, what he provocatively calls,the Ethical Market. As points ofcomparison, he started by looking at a specific form of governmentalitythat was emblematic of thenineteenth century and in which the ‘anatomical body’ was thetarget. This form of governmentalityused secrecy (stealing corpses incemeteries) as well as the categoryof the poor (the 1832 Anatomy Actallowed the removal of corpses ofthose who had died in poorhouses,as their bodies were considered arepayment to the society that hadsupported them) in order to develop

knowledge; the knowledge of thebody – or body as knowledge. Thesecond mode of governing thecirculation of the body Reubi lookedat was that which targeted the‘therapeutic body’ using the idea ofthe ‘gift’ as a way of instilling inpeople a sense of altruism andinclusion and therefore encouragingthem to donate. Drawing upon twocase studies, Reubi moved on todiscuss the notion of the ethicalmarket in which ideas relating toboth human rights discourse andmarket theory are interspersed. Thefirst case study concerned theprivate banking of tissue containingstem cells; an example thatepitomised the emerging trends ofgoverning what Reubi calls the‘cellular body’ and illustrated howsuch trends became permeated bydiscourses of bioethics (informedconsent and responsibility) as well asdiscourses of the market (free choiceand autonomous individuality). Thesecond case study addressed thepractice of male neonatalcircumcision through which Reubisought to elucidate how bioethics isthe ‘arbiter of the limits of themarket’, that is to say, the limits ofinformed consent and free choice,for children are not yet free nor canthey consent.

The paper ‘Helping Hand: Agency,Body and Practice’ by Megan Clinchturned the discussion toward themuch-contested notion of ‘agency’with particular reference to theDepartment of Health’s current

initiative, ‘Patient Choice’. Startingoff from the ways in which agency isconceptualised, debated and usedwithin the realm of social sciences,Clinch succinctly related this conceptof agency to the problem ofessentialism and therefore to theproblem of the biological body.Inasmuch as the proliferatingtechnologies of life (be they IVF,heart and liver transplants,technologies of disease identificationand prevention, genetic screening,etc.) are redefining andreconfiguring the ways in which thebody is understood andconceptualised, Clinch argued thatthe notion of the biological body as a fixed conception is no longertenable. Part and parcel of themyriad biomedical practices and theincreasing malleability of the bodyitself within such practices, are infact ‘issues of responsibility aroundcare of the self’. In the PatientChoice initiative, the question ofagency seems to be shaped aroundthe rights question of ‘informedchoice’ as well as around the waysin which (potential) patients areexpected to be ‘responsible citizens’,able to secure their own well-being.In this respect, Clinch suggested that‘a more useful way of talking aboutagency in relation to disease isthrough the body’ and within a‘continuum of control. In this way,agency can be rescued fromabstraction and the different ways of (re)doing both body and agencywithin the realm of health care canbe attended to.

In another vein, Matthew Kabatoffapproached the question of rightsfrom the vantage point ofsurveillance and control, specificallyin relation to border security andmanagement. Drawing upon IanHacking’s argument that thenineteenth century can be describedas having produced an ‘avalanche’of printed numbers for the purposeof improving and controlling society,Kabatoff asserted that the twentyfirst century may well be describedas producing an ‘avalanche’ of

Cumberland Lodge

Postgrad pages

Rights at Cumberland LodgeBy Btihaj Ajana

BIOS’s contributionto the debateoffered useful

insights into themultiple and

discursive ways inwhich the questionof rights continuesto manifest itself.


digital information for the very samepurpose. Central to the process ofcontrol through digital information isthe logic of risk assessment andanalysis, and the need to acquirepersonal digital information toperform such tasks. This process,according to Kabatoff, raises seriousquestions vis-à-vis issues of privacyand use of personal data. Toelucidate his argument, Kabatoffprovided examples of how biometricand networked databasetechnologies are being incorporatedwithin the new logic of bordercontrol in which individuals are ‘nolonger subject to the scrutiny of theborder guard, but rather the scrutinyof the database’. Using Perri’sconcepts of ‘life chances’ and‘memory’, Kabatoff went on todiscuss the logic of e-borderswhereby the border is exported tocountries that have high numbers ofasylum claims as well as the notionof memory in terms of the creationof an audit-trail whereby personaldata are accumulated in order toprovide a history of behaviour.Therefore, the question of rights,according to Kabatoff, can beunderstood as both ‘a place to exertnew rights for privacy protections’and ‘a site for negotiation on theuses of data between those whoneed it for their own internal andexternal management, and thosewho provide it’.

The paper of Annette Jensenprovided a different dimension tothe question of rights, offering apertinent account of how the multi-faceted discourses of rights haveinfiltrated the realm of death anddying. The right to die, as it were,has now become a way of assertingone’s agency, claiming one’s visibilityand gaining a voice. Jensenidentified three features that are

subsumed within the dying right.First, it is the idea that there is avalue in dying and courageouslyaccepting one’s finitude. Second, the notion of dying with dignity is an important element that featuresin both the philosophy of palliativecare as well as that of euthanasia.Third, it is the notion that dying hasbecome a complicated matter, whichrequires one to gain literacy abouthow to die, a literacy that relies on assistance. The latter feature, in particular, is what marks theconundrum at the heart of humanrights as well as political discourseson death, for it raises criticalquestions with regard to the degreeof assistance, medical professions’willingness to provide it, and who isentitled to it. To illustrate her point,Jensen drew the example from thecase of Diane Pretty who sufferedfrom Motor Neurone Disease anddied in a hospice near her home,slipping into coma after severedifficulties caused by her disease.The right to die is hence emblematicof how the concept of human rightswhich was initially constructedaround the need to protect life isnow signalling to something otherthan itself if not even its ownopposite; the right to take one’s life,or as Jensen puts it ‘The notion ofrights turned back upon itself’!

From all the above accounts, whatseems to be at issue is the polysemicnature of rights whereby no ‘single’understanding of life or death couldpossibly attest to the inherentcomplexity of its legacy. And perhapsit is for this complexity that humanrights still matter!

I applied to thisMSc because I

wanted to learn in-depth about the

relationshipbetween science

and people, and Ihave definitely got much more

than that!

When I attended the MSc inductionback in September, I was quitepuzzled – everybody seemed muchmore focused than me, already sureof what they wanted to specialise in,whereas I was still undecided andevaluating the possibilities. I realisedthat in BIOS the research topics aremany, and most of those I aminterested in have been the subjectof a class, such as the regulation ofstem cell research or enhancementtechniques. I applied to this MScbecause I wanted to learn in-depthabout the relationship betweenscience and people, and I havedefinitely got much more than that!

I love the atmosphere and theapproach that leaves us a lot ofspace for independent research andthe fact that we are constantly asked

for our opinions in our work –although I did not submit any paper,it was exciting to be asked! I’vespent the first months trying to findout how LSE works, and to get toknow my course mates – the post-seminar drinks have definitelyhelped. Somehow, Michaelmas termwas all about settling in, and I regretthe fact that I probably missed outon a lot of things : the eventsprogramme had already long startedbefore I even realised that it existed.Having learned from my mistakes, Ihave sailed through the Lent termjumping from a seminar to a lectureto a conference to a field trip toclass drinks – everything outside ofclass was in fact as valuable anexperience as the classes. Comingfrom a different education system,

as the Italian one is, I have struggledon things which we are expected tobe used to, like the right structure ofan essay and the amount of readingto be done before a class, and I haveenjoyed very much the seminars,where we could give our opinion,and confront ourselves with studentsfrom so many different countriesand cultural backgrounds. It hasdefinitely been a year worth spendinghere, (I am saying this before theexams..), and I am afraid I am goingto miss the atmosphere as well asthe academic challenge.

A bio-panel event was held onWednesday March 15, in room D402in the Clement House, a joint effortof BIOS and the LSE Business Society.The turnout was outstanding whichallowed for an intense yet informaldiscussion amongst the speakers andthe students. There were four panelspeakers: Tony Jones, Director ofLondon Biotechnology Network;Ryan Dipede, Consultant for LEK;Jonathan Kwok, Equity ResearchAnalyst for Panmure Gordon & Co.and his colleague Claudia Wiatr, alsoan Equity Research Analyst. Thetopics discussed were in the areas offinance, economics, venture capital,ethics and careers in thebiotechnology sector. Some specifictopics that seemed to play adominating role in the discussionswere big pharma, venture capitalistsand their activities at present, drugdelivery systems and careers inbiotech and business.

The panellists discussed big pharmaand its current importance as anarea where the most investment istaking place in relation tobiotechnology. A student followedup asking why this has been thecase which led to a discussion abouthow what concerns scientist andbusiness people can be different attimes. In the industry, investmentsare made on big profit products –promising products that may alreadyhave a demand and market set upfor it – where big pharmaceuticalcompanies form licensingagreements with small start-ups andsmall companies to acquire theirtechnology. Each panellistcommented on the industry andfuture expectations. The panellistsdid an exceptional job of gettingeveryone’s attention. Theirbackgrounds allowed them to relateto students with various academicbackgrounds, like science and

business. The students had greatquestions to ask, with a wide scopeof interest. Students from Kings andUCL also attended this event whichreceived positive feedback fromstudents and professors whoattended. The subject matter of thepanel and discussion that took placemay even be included in a course forgraduate students next year. Theevent was a great success and welook forward to more in the future.


MSc pages

Two terms laterBy Assia Torrigianni-Malaspina

Venture capitalists, ethics and biotechBy Neha Jain


Postcards from BIOS visitors

The Law of BIOSIsabel Karpin, University of Sydney, Faculty of Law

Since arriving at BIOS at thebeginning of February I feel like my feet have barely touched theground. There is simply so muchgoing on that if I tried to do it all –well I would never get any researchdone. But, one of the best thingsabout being at BIOS is that you onlyhave to sit in the open plan room toencounter ideas and intellects thatchallenge and excite. It’s simply alovely work environment. Once youhave taken in the view of theLondon Eye out one window andthe new Norman Foster building outthe other, you find yourself settlinginto the quiet studious atmosphereand getting tremendous amounts ofwork done. After I realized that noone could possibly do everythingthat there is to do at BIOS I quicklydiscovered that if you can’t make itto one of the conferences, seminars,reading groups, or roundtablespeople are happy to meet up andtalk about their work and ideas over

coffee or lunch. This has been oneof the richest sources of intellectualengagement for me. The emailexchange of ideas and referencesthat usually follows such coffees hasbeen equally enriching. I now havesuch a long list of books, articles,reports and cases to follow up that Ithink my research agenda is set forthe next forty years.

While here at BIOS my grand planhas been to undertake a comparativeanalysis of the role of regulation ofreproductive genetic technologies inAustralia and the UK, in determiningthe limits of natural reproduction,kinship and human identity. I am stillworking on this and probably will befor some time after my visit at BIOSis over. However, I have limited myfocus during my visit to just thoselaws that deal with the narrowerrange of potential beings that lawprohibits; chimeras, hybrids,genetically manipulated embryosand so on. In interrogating the way

the Australian law has responded to these potentially transgressivehumans I have found that much ofthe concern is with policing so-calledunacceptable reproductive practices– the union of two same sexgametes, for instance, is aparticularly interesting prohibition.This part of my research builds onearlier work examining the status of already existing anomalous anddisabled bodies and how lawmanages or mismanages theirtransgressive embodiment. So youcan see that BIOS has been theobvious place to do this research.My children too have enjoyed theirstay – Ondine at the LSE nurserywith Tanya’s son Corey and my tenyear-old Zach at a school around thecorner learning about VictorianEngland. As our time here comes toan end I am lamenting that I cannotstay longer. I will simply have tocome back.

Vital Politics IIHealth, Medicine and Bioeconomics into the 21st century

7-9 September 2006

The London School of Economics and Political Science

In early September, the BIOS Centre will host an international conference which aims to provide a comparative and global perspective on present forms of practice in the life sciences. Innovative contributions from keynote speakers and presenterswill explore the character and genealogy of contemporary transformations in health, illness, vitality, and pathology.

The conference will especially focus on recent developments in:

• SOCIAL SCIENCE OF REGENERATIVE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES

• NEUROSCIENCE AND SOCIETY

• BIOECONOMICS AND BIOCAPITAL

For more information and practical details visit:www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIOS/vital_politicsII.htm

11BIOS News Issue 3 • Summer 2006

Publications and conference presentationsby BIOS staff, associates and students

Publications

Bauer MW, Petkova K, PBoyadjieva, G Gornev (2006)‘Long-term trends in therepresentations of science across theiron curtain: Britain and Bulgaria,1946-95’ in Social Studies ofScience, 36(1): 97-129

Corneliussen, F (2006)‘Regulating Biorisks: Developing aCoherent Policy Logic’ in Biosecurityand Bioterrorism, in press

Corneliussen, F (2006)‘Codes of Ethics: Adequateregulation, a stop-gap measure, orpart of a package’ in EMBO reportsspecial issue on science and security,in press

Corneliussen, F (2006)‘Precautionary Principles’, EuropeanPharmaceutical Executive, May/JuneIssue, p44

Hamilton, Chris (2006)‘Intellectual property rights and livingorganisms’ in International Journal ofSurgery, in press

Wahlberg, Ayo (2006)‘Bio-politics and the promotion oftraditional herbal medicine inVietnam’ in health: anInterdisciplinary Journal for theSocial Study of Health, Illness andMedicine, Vol. 10(2): 123-47

Presentations

Bauer, Martin (2006)‘The Public’s relation to scienceacross Europe – observations withand on Eurobarometer’ presented atESRC meeting at British Academy,London, 14 March 2006

Bauer, Martin (2006) ‘The importance of critical attitudesto science’ presented at Meeting ofCNR & British Council, Rome, 27February 2006

Corneliussen, Filippa (2005)‘Technology Transfer throughAccreditation?’, invited speaker atBioWeapons Prevention Project paneldiscussion at Biological WeaponsConvention Meeting of StatesParties, Geneva, Switzerland, 8December 2005

Corneliussen, Filippa (2006)‘Governance Tools to PreventBiomedical Misuse: How Far HaveWe Come?’, invited speaker at theGenomics Forum workstream on‘Genomics and Bioweapons:Emerging Governance Issues’,Edinburgh, 2 February 2006

Hamilton, Chris (2006)‘On biopiracy’ presented at the ESRCGenomics Forum Workshop onGenomics and Intellectual Property,Edinburgh, 1-3 March 2006

Macartney, John (2006)‘Ethical Spirituality: An Exploration ofa concept’, presented at NYLONConference, NYC, New York, 18March 2006

McGoey, Linsey (2006) ‘Pills, Power and People: On thenature of knowledge in democraticmedicine’ presented at the 4thAnnual NYLON Post-graduateconference New York University, 18-20 March 2006

McGoey, Linsey (2006) ‘SSRIs and the Consequences ofUncertainty: The fabrication ofchoice and (in)equality in evidence-based medicine’ presented atMephistos 2006, University ofChicago, 7-9 April 2006

Reubi, David (2006) ‘Governing the Circulation of theBody: The Poor, the Gift and theEthical Market’ presented atQuestions of Rights: Individual Rights,Collective Rights, and Social Justice,LSE Cumberland Lodge SociologyWeekend School, January 2006

Vrecko, Scott (2006) ‘Pathologies of Desire: The Re-making of Addiction within theContemporary Brain Sciences’,presented at Postgraduate LifeSciences and Society Group, London,March 2006

Vrecko, Scott (2006) ‘Knowing and Caring for theNeurological Self: Addiction, Desireand the New Brain Sciences’presented at Centre for the Historyof Science, Technology andMedicine, University of Manchester,March 2006

Vrecko, Scott (2006) ‘Penal Psychopharmacology andPostsocial Control’ presented atForensic Futures: Interrogating thePosthuman Subject, Birkbeck Schoolof Law, 16-18 March 2006

Wahlberg, Ayo (2006) ‘A revolutionary movement to bringtraditional medicine back to thegrassroots level’’ presented at 1stInternational Conference on theHistory of Medicine in South-EastAsia, Institute of Khmer Studies,Siem Reap, Cambodia, 9-11 January 2006

Wahlberg, Ayo (2006) ‘Technologies of coping – ‘cold’subsistence and the neo-vitalisationof life’ presented at Forensic Futures:Interrogating the PosthumanSubject, Birkbeck School of Law, 16-18 March 2006

Upcoming BIOS events

12 BIOS News Issue 3 ● Summer 2006

BIOS • The London School of Economics and PoliticalScience • Houghton StreetLondon WC2A 2AE

Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 6998 Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 6565www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIOS/

During term time, the BIOS research seminar series and BIOS reading group sessionsare held regularly on Thursdays and Wednesdays respectively. The Thursday seminarseries feature invited speakers to discuss their research on various social and ethicalaspects of the life sciences and biomedicine, while the reading group facilitatesdiscussion around a series of topics that are of interest to persons associated withBIOS or who have an interest in the life sciences throughout the LSE and beyond.

Unless otherwise stated events take place 5-7pm in Graham Wallas Room (Old Building,5th floor), London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street.

Dates for your calendar May – September 2006

Thursday, 11 MayDr Ilpo Helen, ‘Depressionparadigms. Historical ontology ofmood disorders’

8-9 June‘Searching for Gold Standards: TheConstruction and Governance ofRCTs & EBM in Psychiatry’, 2-daysymposium, Institute of Psychiatry &BIOS, A316 (Old Building, 3rd floor)

Thursday, 15 JuneSheila Jasanoff. See advert below.

7-9 September‘Vital Politics II: Health, Medicineand Bioeconomics into the 21stCentury’See advert on page 10.

BIOS Reading GroupThe reading group will continue to meet 1-3pm every thirdWednesday. Check the BIOS website for an updated SummerTerm programme and reading list.

BIOS RoundtableBIOS roundtable will continue in the Summer Term aiming atexploring shared interests in the BIOS community, and toaddress problems, issues, and concerns encountered. Theroundtable runs every other Tuesday 12 – 1.30pm on thefollowing dates: 25 April, 9 May, 23 May, 6 June, 20 June.

BIOS Annual Lecture 2006

Experiments Without Borders: biology in the labs of lifeSpeaker: Professor Sheila Jasanoff

As life sciences leave the laboratory, and as their influence extends through all aspects of society, soscientific experiments, too, have begun to impinge upon forms of life that encompass much morethan the activities of science itself. One response to this has been for governments to try to engagepeople earlier and more actively in the work of science.Reviewing some of these efforts, this lecturereflects on their implications for the democratic governance of the biosciences and biotechnologies.

Sheila Jasanoff is Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard University’sJohn F Kennedy School of Government. She has served on the Board of Directors of the AmericanAssociation for the Advancement of Science and as president of the Society for Social Studies of Science.

This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Entry is on a first come, first served basis.

Date: Thursday 15 June 2006Time: 6pm

Venue: Old Theatre, Old BuildingChair: Professor Nikolas Rose

bios news issue 3

Documents