Banner Portal
Biocapital, biopolítica e biossocialidades no contexto global de gênero
PDF

Palavras-chave

Relações de gênero
Desenvolvimento sustentável
Biotecnologia da saúde
Genética
Corpo

Como Citar

ACERO, Liliana. Biocapital, biopolítica e biossocialidades no contexto global de gênero: revisão teórica e evidências. Cadernos Pagu, Campinas, SP, n. 62, p. e216215, 2021. Disponível em: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/cadpagu/article/view/8667135. Acesso em: 23 jun. 2024.

Resumo

O artigo discute tendências dominantes e contra tendências em genética e biotecnologia da saúde, seguindo principalmente as perspectivas teóricas de Rose, Haraway e Braidotti e seus seguidores, reformuladas para o contexto do desenvolvimento, e em direção a uma recriação positiva das relações de gênero e do desenvolvimento sustentável. Os elementos conceituais dessas teorias incluem: a ascensão do cidadão biopolítico, o desenvolvimento de biossocialidades e a construção da biopolítica focada na responsabilidade genética e na ética do corpo.

PDF

Referências

AGAMBEN, Giorgio. Homo sacer: o poder soberano e a vida nua Belo Horizonte, Editora UFMG, 2010.

BEESON, Diane; LIPPMAN, Abby. Egg-harvesting for Stem-Cell Research –- Medical Risks and Ethical Problems. Alliance for Humane Biotechnology, 2007. Disponível em: http://www.rbmonline.com/4DCGI/Article/Article?38%091%09=%202503%09. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2019.

BHARADWAJ, Aditya. Ethic of consensibility, subalternethicality: the clinical application of embryonicstem cells in India. BioSocieties (8), 2013, pp.25-40.

BIRCH, Kean; TYFIELD, David. Theorizing the Bioeconomy: Biovalue, Biocapital, Bioeconomics or…What? Science, Technology & Human Values, 00(0), 2012. Disponível em: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.969.8878&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Acesso em: 11 jul. 2019.

BORTZ, Gabriela; VASEN, Federico; ROSEMANN, Achim. Construção das terapias com células-tronco na Argentina: regulação, gestão de riscos e políticas de inovação. Sociologias [online], (2), n. 50, 2019, pp.116-155.

BRAIDOTTI, Rossy. Posthuman Affirmative Politics In: S.E. WILMER, Sam; ZUKAUSKAITE, Audronė (Ed.). Resisting Biopolitics: Philosophical, Political, and Performative Strategies New York, Routledge, 2015, pp.30-57.

BRAIDOTTI, Rossy. Posthuman Humanities. European Educational Research Journal (12),n. 1, 2013, pp.1-19.

BROWN, Phil et alii. Embodied health movements: new approaches to social movements in health. Sociology of Health &Illness, (26), n. 1, 2004, pp.50-80.

DARLING, Marcia. Gender, New Technologies and Development. In: HARCOURT, Wendy; DARLING, Marcia; WOLBRING, Catherine (Ed.). New Technologies and Development. Development, Journal of the Society for International Development, (49), n. 4, 2006, pp.23-27.

DARNOVSKY, Marcy. FDA halts 23 and Me personal genetic tests. Medical Laboratory Observer Março 19, 2014 Disponível em: https://www.mlo-online.com/home/article/13006245/fda-halts-23andme-personal-genetic-tests. Acesso em: 17 Maio 2019.

DICKENSON, Donna. Me Medicine vs. We Medicine: Reclaiming Biotechnology for the Common Good New York, Columbia University Press, 2016.

DICKENSON, Donna. Body Shopping: Converting Body Parts to Profit Oxford, One World Publications, 2008.

DICKENSON, Donna; DARNOVSKY, Marcy. Did a permissive scientific culture encourage the “CRISPR babies” experiment? Nature Biotechnology (37), 2019, pp.355-357.

EINSIEDEL, E.; ADAMSON, H. Stem cell tourism and future stem cellt ourists: policy and ethical implications. Developing World Bioethics, v. 12, n. 1, 2012, pp.35-44.

EUROPEAN Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE). Opinion n. 29. The ethical implications of new health technologies and citizen participation. Brussels, European Commission, 2015. Disponível em: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e86c21fa-ef2f-11e5-8529-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-77404221. Acesso em: 12 jan. 2019.

FEDERACIÓN Argentina de Enfermedades Poco Frecuentes (FADEPOF). Informe sobre ensayo clínico con células madres en pacientes con lesiones oculares, Nov. 2, 2014. Disponível em: http://fadepof.org.ar/noticias/53. Acesso em: 7 ago. 2019.

FERREIRA, Verônica; ÁVILA, Maria Betania; PORTELLA, Ana Paula (Org.). Feminismo e novas tecnologias reprodutivas. Recife, SOS Corpo, 2006.

FRANKLIN, Sarah; KAFTANTZI, Louise. Industry in the Middle: Interview with Intercytex Founder and CSO, Dr Paul Kemp. Science as Culture, Special Issue on Stem Cells, Part II (17), n. 4, 2008, pp.449-462.

FRANKLIN, Sarah; LOCK, Margaret. Remaking Life and Death: Toward an Anthropology of the Biosciences. London, Palgrave, 2003.

GIBBON, Sarah. Charity, breast cancer activism and the iconic figure of the BRCA Carrier. In: GIBBON, Sarah; NOVAS, Carlos (Ed.). Genetics, Biossocialities and the Social Sciences: Making Biologies and Identities Oxon, Routledge, 2008, pp.19-37.

GURA, Theodore. Citizen Science: Amateur experts. Nature (496), 2013, pp.259- 262.

HARAWAY, Donna. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan© _Meets_ Oncomouse™ London, Routledge, 1997.

HARAWAY, Donna. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In: HARAWAY, Donna (Ed.). Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature New York, Routledge, 1991a, pp.149-183.

HARAWAY, Donna. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. In: HARAWAY, Donna, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, New York, Routledge, 1991b, pp.183-203.

HARCOURT, Wendy. Editorial: Where Did All the Flowers Go?: Contradictions in world economies. In: HARCOURT, Wendy (Ed.). Sustaining local economies. Development (53), n. 3, 2010, pp.301-304.

HARVEY, Michael; MC MEEKIN, Andy. Publicor Private Economies of Knowledge? Turbulence in the Biological Sciences. London, Edward Elgar, 2007.

HWANG, Seyoung; SLEEBOOM-FAULKNER, Margaret. Bioethical governance in South Korea: tensions between bottom-up movements and professionalization, and scientific citizenship. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal (8), n 2, 2014, pp.209-228.

INTERNATIONAL Cellular Medicine Society (ICMS). Presidential Task Force on the Use of Unproven Cellular Therapies: Reference Guide, 2015. Disponível em: http://www.celltherapysociety.org/?page=PTF2015. Acesso em: 22 jan. 2019.

INTERNATIONAL Society For Stem Cell Research (ISSRC). Patient Handbook on Stem Cell Therapies A Report from the International Society for Stem Cell Research. London, ISSRC, 2008. Disponível em: https://www.closerlookatstemcells.org/patient-resources. Acesso em: 22 dez. 2018.

IRWIN, Alan; ELGAARD, Torben; JONES, Kevin. The good, the bad and the perfect: Criticizing engagement practice. Social Studies of Science (43), n. 1, 2012, pp.118-135.

ISASI, Rosario et.al. Disclosure and management of research findings in stem cell research and banking: policy statement. Regenerative Medicine (7),n.3, 2012, pp.439-448.

KASS, Leon. Science, Religion, and the Human Future. Commentary, 2007, pp.36-48.

KURIYAN, Ajay et al. Vision loss after intravitreal injection of autologous “stem cells” for AMD. New England Journal of Medicine (376), 2017, pp.1047-1053.

LOCK, Margaret. Comprehending the body in the era of the epigenome. Current Anthropology (56), 2015, pp.151-177.

LUCIANO, Dana; CHEN, Mel. Has the Queer Ever Been Human? GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies (21), n. 2-3, 2015, pp.182-195.

MAC DOWELL DOS SANTOS, Maria Cecilia. Quem pode falar, onde e como: uma conversa “não o inocente” com Donna Haraway. cadernos pagu (5), Campinas, Núcleo de Estudos de Gênero-Pagu/Unicamp, 1995, pp.43-72.

MAC MAHON, Dominique. The global industry for unproven stem cell interventions and stem cell tourism. Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, (11), n. 1, 2014, pp.1-9.

MARGOTTINI, Laura. Italian Parliament Orders€3 Million Trial of Disputed Therapy. Science (340), 31 May 2013,pp.6136. Disponível em: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6136/1028. Acesso em: 15 jun. 2019.

MAZANDERANI, Fadhila; KELLY, Jenny; DUCEY, Ariel. From embodied risk to embodying hope: Therapeutic experimentation and experiential information sharing in a contested intervention for Multiple Sclerosis. Biosocieties (13), n. 1, 2018, pp.232-254.

MBEMBE, Achille. Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15, 2003, pp.11-40.

MONSORES, Natan; LOPES, Cecilia; BESSA BEZERRA, Edilnete; LUNARA SILVA, Natasha. Netnografia e análise bioética de blogs de turismo terapêutico com células-tronco. Ciência e saúde coletiva 21 (10), 2016. Disponível em: https://www.scielosp.org/article/csc/2016.v21n10/3049-3059/. Acesso em: 24 maio 2019.

MORE, Max. The Extropian Principles: A Transhumanist Declaration, 1999. Disponível em: http://www.extropy.org/extprn3.htm. Acesso em: 11 maio 2019.

NIOSI, Jorge; HANEL, Ptr; REID, Susan. The international diffusion of biotechnology: the arrival of developing countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, online, 2012. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jorge_Niosi2/publication/234074296_The_International_Diffusion_of_Biotechnologies/links/57a3c06e08ae3f4529250812.pdf. Acesso em: 14 maio 2019.

PARKER, Richard. Grassroots Activism, Civil Society Mobilization, and the Politics of the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic. The Brown Journal of World Affairs (17), n. 2, 2011, pp.21-37.

PETROPANAGOS, Angel; CATTAPAN, Alana; BAYLIS, Francoise; LEADER, Arthur. Social eggfreezing: risk, benefits and other considerations.Canadian Medical Association Journal (16), v.187, n. 9, 2015, pp.666-669.

PINTO, Deirdre; MARTIN, Dominique; CHENHALL, Richard. Chasing cures: Rewards and risks for rare disease patient organizations involved in research. Biosocieties (13), n. 1, 2018, pp.123-147.

PEREZ REQUEJO, José Luis; AZNAR LUCEA, Jorge. Turismo de células madre. Medicina e Morale (1), 2012, pp.32-56.

PRECIADO, Beatriz. The Pharmaco-pornographic Regime: Sex, Gender, and Subjectivity in the Age of Punk Capitalism. In: STRYKER, Susan; AIZURA, Aren (Ed.).Transgender Studies Reader (2), 2006, pp.271-284.

RABERHARISOA, Vololona et alii. From “politics of numbers” to “politics of singularisation”: Patients’ activism and engagement in research on rare diseases in France and Portugal. Biosocieties (9), n. 2, 2014, pp.194-217.

RABINOW, Paul. Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biossociality. In: RABINOW, Paul. Essays on the anthropology of reason Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1996, pp.91-107.

RABINOW, Paul; ROSE, Nikolas. Biopower today. Biosocieties (1), 2006, pp.195-217.

RABINOW, Paul; ROSE, Nikolas (Ed.). The essential Foucault: Selections from essential works of Foucault, 1954-1984. New York and London, New Press, 2003.

RAPP, Rayna. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America New York, Routledge, 2000.

RISOY, S.; SIRNES, T. The decision: Relations to oneself, authority and vulnerability in the field of selective abortion. Biosocieties (10), n. 3, 2015, pp.317-340.

ROSE, Nikolas.The human sciences in a biological age. Theory Culture & Society (30), 2013, pp.3-34.

ROSE, Nikolas. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2007.

ROSE, Nikolas; NOVAS, Carlos. Biological citizenship. In: ONG, Andrew; COLLIER, Susan (Ed.). Global assemblages: Technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishing, 2005, pp.439-63.

ROSEMANN, Achim; BORTZ, Gabriela; VASEN, Federico. Regulatory developments for non hematopoietic stem cell therapeutics: perspectives from the EU, the USA, Japan, China, India, Argentina, and Brazil. In: CHEN, Xiao-Dong (Org.). A road map to non-hematopoietic stem cell-based therapeutics. From the bench to the clinic Londres, Elsevier, 2018, pp.463-92.

SHARON, T Healthy citizenship beyond autonomy and discipline: Tactical engagements with genetic testing. Biosocieties (10), n. 3, 2015, pp.295-316.

SLEEBOOM-FAULKNER, Margaret. The large grey are a between “bonafide” and “rogue” stem cell interventions ethical acceptability and the need to include local variability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, (109), 2016, pp.76-86.

SUNDER RAJAN, Kaushik. Genomic Capital: Public Cultures and market Logics of Corporate Biotechnology. Science as Culture, Online, (9), 2008a, pp.87-121.

SUNDER RAJAN, K.aushik. Biocapital as an emergent form of life: speculations on the figure of the experimental subject. In: GIBBON, Sarah; NOVAS, Carlos (Ed.) Genetics, Biossocialities and the Social Sciences: Making Biologies and Identities Oxon, Routledge, 2008b, pp.157-188.

THACKER, Eugene. Data MadeFlesh: BiotechnologyandthediscourseofthePosthuman. Cultural Critique (53), 2003, pp.72-97.

THORSTEINSDÓTTIR, Halla et alii. Introduction: promoting global health through biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology (22), Supplement, 2004, pp.DC3-DC7.

WALDBY, Catherine. Oocyte markets: women’s reproductive work in ESCR. New Genetics and Society (27), n. 1, 2008, pp.19-31.

WALDBY, Catherine. Tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health (6), 2002, pp.305-323.

WORLD Health Organization (WHO). Genomics and World Health Geneva, WHO, The Advisory Committee on Health Research, 2002.

YOXEN, E. Life as a productive force: capitalizing upon research in molecular biology. In: LEVIDOW, Lynn; YOUNG, Robert (ed.). Science, Technology, and the Labour Process London, Blackrose Press, 1981, pp.66-122.

Creative Commons License
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2021 Liliana Acero

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.