Biobanks in the Context of techno-scientific Biosociality: Ethics of Genetization or Genetization of Ethics?

Biosociality is closely related to various forms of biomedicalization of society. The expansion of the role of genes in the treatment, diagnosis, and bio-identity of humans is a form of biomedicalization. The more we know about how genes affect human health, life trajectories and their behavior, the more attractive it is to use the results of biomedical discoveries in the social sphere.

At the same time, science associated with society is organized and developed according to the principles of hybrid technoscience. In this regard, the development of biobanks should be considered as a technoscientific project in which several key problems of modern biomedicine are faced: hybridization of cultural and scientific discourses, genetization and the problem of protecting autonomy in a new biomedical environment built from scientific networks for processing genetic information. Genetic data is a significant source of information about a person, which, moreover, allows to draw certain conclusions for a long periods of time. Biobanks are one of the key elements of the concept of genetization of society, where genetic information becomes the main source of knowledge about the disease and human behavior. The article explores how biobanks are related to technoscientific biosociality and what impact they can have on ideas about benefits and autonomy. It is concluded that the phenomenon, which can be described as the genetization of ethics, is a recognition of the relationship of genes and social paths for the studied objects and a social recognition of the objectivity of the influence of the expression of individual genes on autonomy.

Keywords

biobank, hybrid technoscience, autonomy, benefit, paternalism, biosociality

Received

12.12.2019

Publication date

12.12.2019

Number of characters

22025

Cite

GOST	Belyaletdinov R. Biobanks in the Context of techno-scientific Biosociality: Ethics of Genetization or Genetization of Ethics? // Chelovek – 2019. – V. 30. – Issue №6 C. 42-53 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://chelovek-journal.ru/S023620070007667-0-1 (circulation date: 25.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S023620070007667-0
MLA	Belyaletdinov, Roman R "Biobanks in the Context of techno-scientific Biosociality: Ethics of Genetization or Genetization of Ethics?." Chelovek 30.6 (2019):42-53. DOI: 10.31857/S023620070007667-0
APA	Belyaletdinov R. (2019). Biobanks in the Context of techno-scientific Biosociality: Ethics of Genetization or Genetization of Ethics?. Chelovek 30(6), pp.42-53 DOI: 10.31857/S023620070007667-0

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 3, views: 1275

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Varkhotov Т., Alasania К., Bryzgalina Е. et al. Tehnonauka i etos uchenogo: kontury jetiki biobankinga glazami rossijskogo nauchnogo soobshhestva (po rezul'tatam oprosa specialistov v oblasti biomediciny i smezhnyh vidov dejatel'nosti. [Techno-science and the scientific ethos: the outlines of ethics of biobanking through the eyes of the russian scientific community (based on a survey of specialists in the field of biomedicine and related research activities)] ΠΡΑΞΗΜΑ. 2018. N 4. P. 61–83.

2. Bao A. M., Swaab D. F. Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders. Frontiers in neuroendocrinology. 2011. Vol. 32, N 2. P. 214–226.

3. Caspi A., McClay J., Moffitt T. E. et al. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science. 2002. Vol. 297. P. 851–853.

4. Cohen S. The logic of the interaction between beneficence and respect for autonomy. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2019. Vol. 22, N 2. P. 297–304.

5. Dupuy J. P. Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. The Journal of medicine and philosophy. 2007. Vol. 32, N 3. P. 237–261.

6. Hamilton J. A Genetic test that reveals alzheimer's risk can be cathartic or distressing. NPR. 12.07.2019. URL: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/12/740714662/a-genetic-test-that-reveals-alzheimers-risk-can-be-cathartic-or-distressing (date of reference: 31.08.2019).

7. Latour B. We have never been modern. Harvard university press. 1993.

8. Pradeu T. The limits of the self: immunology and biological identity. Oxford University Press. 2011.

9. Rabinow P. Artificiality and enlightenment: from sociobiology to biosociality. Anthropologies of modernity: Foucault, governmentality, and life politics. 2008. P. 181–193.

10. Rakić V. Genome Editing for Involuntary Moral Enhancement. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2019. Vol. 28. P. 46–54.

11. Rommetveit K., Wynne B. Technoscience, imagined publics and public imaginations. Public Understanding of Science. 2017. Vol. 26, N 2. P. 133–147. Doi: 10.1177/0963662516663057

12. Wiesea D., Escobara J. R., Hsua Y. et al. The fluidity of biosocial identity and the effects of place, space, and time. Social Science & Medicine. 2018. Vol. 198. P. 46–52. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.023

13. Weiner K., Martin P., Richards M., Tutton R. Have we seen the geneticisation of society? Expectations and evidence. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2017, V. 39, №. 7. P. 1–16. DOI: 10.1111/1467–9566.12551

14. Wyatt S. Technological Determinism Is Dead; Long Live Technological Determinism. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 2008. P. 165–180.