Literature DB >> 18458755

GOOD GIFTS FOR THE COMMON GOOD: Blood and Bioethics in the Market of Genetic Research.

Deepa S Reddy1.   

Abstract

This article is based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted with the Indian community in Houston, as part of a NIH-NHGRI-sponsored ethics study and sample collection initiative entitled "Indian and Hindu Perspectives on Genetic Variation Research." At the heart of this research is one central exchange-blood samples donated for genetic research-that draws both the Indian community and a community of researchers into an encounter with bioethics. I consider the meanings that come to be associated with blood donation as it passes through various hands, agendas, and associated ethical filters on its way to the lab bench: how and why blood is solicited, how the giving and taking of blood is rationalized, how blood as material substance is alienated, processed, documented, and made available for the promised ends of basic science research. Examining corporeal substances and asking what sorts of gifts and problems these represent, I argue, sheds some light on two imbricated tensions expressed by a community of Indians, on the one hand, and of geneticists and basic science researchers, on the other hand: that gifts ought to be free (but are not), and that science ought to be pure (but is not). In this article, I explore how experiences of bioethics are variously shaped by the histories and habits of Indic giving, prior sample collection controversies, commitments to "good science" and the common "good of humanity," and negotiations of the sites where research findings circulate.

Year:  2007        PMID: 18458755      PMCID: PMC2367312          DOI: 10.1525/can.2007.22.3.429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cult Anthropol        ISSN: 0886-7356


  18 in total

Review 1.  Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement. North American Primary Care Research Group.

Authors:  A C Macaulay; L E Commanda; W L Freeman; N Gibson; M L McCabe; C M Robbins; P L Twohig
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

2.  India challenges gene piracy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 54.908

3.  Commentary: what "community review" can and cannot do.

Authors:  E T Juengst
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  The kindness of strangers: organ transplantation in a capitalist age.

Authors:  T A Shannon
Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J       Date:  2001-09

5.  Where it hurts: Indian material for an ethics of organ transplantation.

Authors:  Lawrence Cohen
Journal:  Daedalus       Date:  1999

6.  The meanings of "race" in the new genomics: implications for health disparities research.

Authors:  S S Lee; J Mountain; B A Koenig
Journal:  Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics       Date:  2001

7.  A vision for the future of genomics research.

Authors:  Francis S Collins; Eric D Green; Alan E Guttmacher; Mark S Guyer
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-04-14       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 8.  How a drug becomes "ethnic": law, commerce, and the production of racial categories in medicine.

Authors:  Jonathan Kahn
Journal:  Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics       Date:  2004

9.  Group identity and human diversity: keeping biology straight from culture.

Authors:  E T Juengst
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 11.025

10.  The role of community review in evaluating the risks of human genetic variation research.

Authors:  M W Foster; R R Sharp; W L Freeman; M Chino; D Bernsten; T H Carter
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 11.025

View more
  5 in total

1.  Caught in Collaboration.

Authors:  Deepa S Reddy
Journal:  Collab Anthropol       Date:  2008

2.  "If I could in a small way help": motivations for and beliefs about sample donation for genetic research.

Authors:  Marsha Michie; Gail Henderson; Joanne Garrett; Giselle Corbie-Smith
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Flexible positions, managed hopes: the promissory bioeconomy of a whole genome sequencing cancer study.

Authors:  Rachel Haase; Marsha Michie; Debra Skinner
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 4.634

4.  Parent perspectives on pediatric genetic research and implications for genotype-driven research recruitment.

Authors:  Holly K Tabor; Tracy Brazg; Julia Crouch; Emily E Namey; Stephanie M Fullerton; Laura M Beskow; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Citizens in the commons: blood and genetics in the making of the civic.

Authors:  Deepa S Reddy
Journal:  Contemp South Asia       Date:  2013
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.