Silences, omissions and oversimplification? The UK debate on mitochondrial donation

Cathy Herbrand
{"title":"Silences, omissions and oversimplification? The UK debate on mitochondrial donation","authors":"Cathy Herbrand","doi":"10.1016/j.rbms.2021.07.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Drawing on scholarship from ignorance studies, this paper uses the case of the UK debates on mitochondrial donation (2012–2015) to emphasize the importance of deploying an analysis of ignorance that goes beyond medical and safety concerns when scrutinizing debates or campaigns around new reproductive technologies. In contrast to what happened with previous reproductive health treatments or drugs, the potential medical risks of mitochondrial donation were explicitly acknowledged and examined during its public and parliamentary discussions. However, I show, using the concepts of ‘acknowledged unknowns’ and ‘ignored knowns’, how the attention drawn to the medical risks contributed to obscuring the assessment of its economic and social impacts by silencing key knowledge regarding the limitations of mitochondrial donation in relation to the potential beneficiaries, the scope of the techniques, their alternatives and their costs. This article therefore calls for more systematic use of an integrated analytical framework of ignorance to be applied in the field of reproductive public policies, paying particular attention not only to the ways that medical risks are addressed, but also to the type of knowledge and disciplines this allows to silence or side-line in the framing and assessment of new biotechnologies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37973,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbms.2021.07.005","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405661821000241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Drawing on scholarship from ignorance studies, this paper uses the case of the UK debates on mitochondrial donation (2012–2015) to emphasize the importance of deploying an analysis of ignorance that goes beyond medical and safety concerns when scrutinizing debates or campaigns around new reproductive technologies. In contrast to what happened with previous reproductive health treatments or drugs, the potential medical risks of mitochondrial donation were explicitly acknowledged and examined during its public and parliamentary discussions. However, I show, using the concepts of ‘acknowledged unknowns’ and ‘ignored knowns’, how the attention drawn to the medical risks contributed to obscuring the assessment of its economic and social impacts by silencing key knowledge regarding the limitations of mitochondrial donation in relation to the potential beneficiaries, the scope of the techniques, their alternatives and their costs. This article therefore calls for more systematic use of an integrated analytical framework of ignorance to be applied in the field of reproductive public policies, paying particular attention not only to the ways that medical risks are addressed, but also to the type of knowledge and disciplines this allows to silence or side-line in the framing and assessment of new biotechnologies.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
沉默、遗漏和过度简化?英国关于线粒体捐赠的辩论
借鉴无知研究的学术成果,本文以英国关于线粒体捐赠的辩论(2012-2015)为例,强调在审查围绕新生殖技术的辩论或活动时,对超越医疗和安全问题的无知进行分析的重要性。与以前的生殖健康治疗或药物相比,线粒体捐赠的潜在医疗风险在公众和议会讨论中得到了明确承认和审查。然而,我通过使用“已知的未知”和“被忽视的已知”的概念,展示了对医疗风险的关注是如何通过沉默有关线粒体捐赠与潜在受益者、技术范围、替代方案及其成本相关的局限性的关键知识,从而模糊了对其经济和社会影响的评估。因此,本文呼吁在生殖公共政策领域更系统地使用无知的综合分析框架,不仅要特别注意解决医疗风险的方式,还要注意在新生物技术的框架和评估中允许沉默或边缘化的知识和学科类型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: RBMS is a new journal dedicated to interdisciplinary discussion and debate of the rapidly expanding field of reproductive biomedicine, particularly all of its many societal and cultural implications. It is intended to bring to attention new research in the social sciences, arts and humanities on human reproduction, new reproductive technologies, and related areas such as human embryonic stem cell derivation. Its audience comprises researchers, clinicians, practitioners, policy makers, academics and patients.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Telling donor-conceived children about their conception: Evaluation of the use of the Donor Conception Network children’s books The missed disease? Endometriosis as an example of ‘undone science’ Financing future fertility: Women’s views on funding egg freezing Ignoring international alerts? The routinization of episiotomy in France in the 1980s and 1990s
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1