Borderlands of Life
IVF Embryos and the Law in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5337281 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sheila Jasanoff (0000-0002-0488-8698, Harvard University, corresponding author), Ingrid Metzler (0000-0003-0695-1352, University of Vienna) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 1001-1037 |
| Publication date | 2020-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science Technology & Human Values (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-2439 • E-ISSN: 1552-8251 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0162243917753990 |
| OpenAlex | W2786842228 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 20 |
| References cited | 31 |
Human embryos produced in labs since the 1970s have generated layers of uncertainty for law and policy: ontological, moral, and administrative. Ontologically, these lab-made entities fall into a gray zone between life and not-yet-life. Should in vitro embryos be treated as inanimate matter, like abandoned postsurgical tissue, or as private property? Morally, should they exist largely outside of state control in the zone of free reproductive choice or should they be regarded as autonomous human lives and thus entitled to constitutional protection like full-fledged citizens? Administratively, if they deserve protection, what institutional and policy mechanisms are best suited to carrying out the necessary oversight? Using a method termed comparative problematization, this article traces divergent answers to these questions produced in three countries-the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany-across the last twenty-five years. Comparison reveals distinct bioconstitutional foundations that give rise to systematically different understandings of each state's responsibilities toward human life and hence its particular treatment of claims on behalf of embryonic lives
Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Problematization · Sociology · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Law · Philosophy · Reproductive Health and Technologies
States of reproduction
How the governance of and through digital contact tracing technologies shapes geographies of power
Developmental Landmarks and the Warnock Report
Committee Work: Stem Cell Governance in the United States
Data Paradoxes
Queer/ing and trans/ing science and technology studies
Reproductive self-determination and regulation of termination of pregnancy in Germany
What makes minerals critical? Problematizing sovereignty in times of crisis
Bioconstitutional visions in the debate on non-invasive prenatal testing in Germany
Historicizing problematization
Techno-natalism
Making citizens, procedures, and outcomes
Harnessing the value of human bodily material
Heritage with cows. Conserving Nordic human and nonhuman animals
The Role of Vitrification in Spanish Reproductive Labs
Age-discriminated IVF Access and Evidence-based Ageism
Bioconstitutional Imaginaries and the Comparative Politics of Genetic Self-knowledge
Saved by the Moon
Constitutionalism at the Nexus of Life and Law
Not-Quite-Dead
The Embryo Research Debate
Designs on Nature
Dreamscapes of Modernity
The Politics of Life Itself
States of Knowledge
In the democracies of DNA
Not “human” enough to be human but not “animal” enough to be animal – the case of the HFEA, cybrids and xenotransplantation in the UK
The politics of cloning
Contested change
Regulating Dangerous Futures
Pharmacopolitics
Born and Made
| Unique citing works | 20 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,86 |
| Citation span | 2019 - 2026 (8) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 17 |