Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T19:26:57.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Molecular Politics in a Global Economy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Susan Wright
Susan Wright*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, USA
Get access

Abstract

Launched during the heydays of the copying machine and the U.S. sunshine laws and surrounded by controversy from its inception, genetic engineering may be the best documented technology ever to emerge from a laboratory. This essay draws on the pages that flowed forth from formal policy arenas as well as from less accessible places to examine the rise and fall of genetic engineering controls in the United States and Britain. The general argument developed here is that the settling of the issues raised by this field was achieved not through the resolution of technical problems but rather through the exertion of social interests—notably those of national governments, transnational corporations, genetic engineering firms, scientists, and sectors of the public. A synthesis of methods of analysis drawn from critiques of pluralism and from Foucault's analysis of the relation between power and discursive practice is used to assess the relative effects of these interests.

Type
Regulating Genetic Engineering
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , September 1996 , pp. 249 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. (1977). “No Sci-Fi Nightmare after All.” New York Times (July 24).Google Scholar
Anon. (1980). “Britain's Biotechnology Company Takes Off.” New Scientist (August 13):396–99.Google Scholar
Anon. (1981a). “Scientists Slam White Paper on Biotechnology.” New Scientist (March 12):660.Google Scholar
Anon. (1981b). “Science after the Cuts.” New Scientist (August 13):396–99.Google Scholar
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1962). “The Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56:947–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1963). “Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework.” American Political Science Review 57:641–55.Google Scholar
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1970). Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. (1981). “On the ‘Hows’ and ‘Whys’ of Cultural Change.” Social Studies of Science 11:481–99.Google Scholar
Berg, P. et al. (1974). “Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA Molecules.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 71:2593–94.Google Scholar
Berg, P. et al. (1975). “Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules.” Science 188:991–99.Google Scholar
Brenner, S. (1974). “Evidence for the Ashby Working Party.” Paper submitted to the Working Party on the Experimental Manipulation of the Genetic Composition of Micro-organisms. Recombinant DNA History Collection, Institute Archives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bud, R.(forthcoming). “Molecular Biology and the Long-term History of Biotechnology.” In Thackray, A., (ed.), Pnvate Science. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Cohn, V. (1976). “Drug Industry Seeks to Alter U.S. Rules on Genetic Studies.” Washington Post (November 26):A3.Google Scholar
Confederation of British Industry (1979). “Policy Issues Arising from Genetic Engineering.” In United Kingdom, House of Commons, Recombinant DNA Research: Interim Report.Google Scholar
Confederation of British Industry (1981). “Issues Arising from Scale-up of Recombinant DNA,” March 26. In National Institutes of Health Office of Recombinant DNA Activities Records, doc.1027.Google Scholar
Connally, W. (1972). “On ‘Interests’ in Politics.” Politics and Society 12:459–77.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, B. (1974). Letter to Paul Berg, September 5. Recombinant DNA History Collection, Institute Archives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Dickson, D. and Noble, D. (1981). “By Force of Reason: The Politics of Science and Technology Policy.” In Ferguson, T. and Rogers, J. (eds.), The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. and Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
European Molecular Biology Organization (1978). Report, Fifth Meeting of the Standing Advisory Committee on Recombinant DNA, London, 2–3 December. Unpub. EMBO files, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge; Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1990). The History of Sexuality. Translated by Hurley, R. Vol. 1. New York: Random House (Vintage Books).Google Scholar
Fredrickson, D. (1982). “Science and the Cultural Warp: RDNA as a Case Study.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, January; unpub.Google Scholar
Frey, F. (1971). “Comment: On Issues and Nonissues in the Study of Power.” American Political Science Review 65:1081–1101.Google Scholar
Glick, L. (1981). “The Biotechnology Industry.” Paper for the American Law Institute and the American Bar Association, Committee on Continuing Professional Education, October.Google Scholar
Gorbach, S. (1977). Letter to NIH director Donald Fredrickson, July 14. NIH Office of Recombinant DNA Activities records.Google Scholar
Gorbach, S., ed. (1978). “Risk Assessment of Recombinant DNA Experimentation with Escherichia coli K12.” Journal of Infectious Diseases 137:611–714.Google Scholar
Gottweis, H.(forthcoming). “The Political Economy of Biotechnology in Europe: The Case of the United Kingdom.” In Thackray, A., (ed.), Private Science. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Halvorson, H. (c.1976-c. 1978). Telephone log. Harlyn Halvorson personal papers, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Hartsock, N. (1990). “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women?” In Nicholson, L.J. (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Imperial Chemical Industries (1976). Unpub. memorandum. Press files, Imperial Chemical Industries, Runcorn, UK.Google Scholar
Itakura, K. et al. (1977). “Expression in Escherichia coli of a Chemically Synthesized Gene for the Hormone Somatostatin.” Science 198:1056–63.Google Scholar
Johnson, I. (1981). Letter to William Gartland, July 20. In National Institutes of Health, Office of Recombinant DNA Activities Records, Doc.1027.Google Scholar
Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kenney, M.(forthcoming). “The Creation of a New Economic Space: The Commercialization of Molecular Biology.” In Thackray, A., ed., Private Science. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kevles, D.(forthcoming). “Diamond v. Chakrabarty and Beyond: The Political Economy of Patenting Life.” In Thackray, A., (ed.), Private Science. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1982). Genetic Alchemy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (1977). Essays in Social Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (1981a). “Interests, Positivism and History.” Social Studies of Science 11:498–503.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (1981b). Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (1990). Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merelman, R. (1968). “On the Neo-Elitist Critique of Community Power.” American Political Science Review 62:451–66.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. and Whelan, W.J. (1979). Recombinant DNA and Genetic Experimentation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Nicholson, L.J. (1990). Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
NOVA (1982). Life: Patent Pending. Transcript of documentary film. Boston: WGBH Foundation.Google Scholar
Royal Society (1981). Biotechnology and Education: Report of a Working Group.Google Scholar
Saunders, P. (1979). Urban Politics: A Sociological Interpretation. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (1988). “Following Scientists Around: Review of Latour, Science in Action.” Social Studies of Science 18:533–55.Google Scholar
United Kingdom (1975). Report of the Working Party on the Experimental Manipulation of the Genetic Composition of Micro-organisms. Cmnd. 5880. January.Google Scholar
United Kingdom (1981). Biotechnology. Cmnd. 8177. March.Google Scholar
United Kingdom. Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development, Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and the Royal Society (1980). Biotechnology: Report of a Joint Working Party. March.Google Scholar
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Education, Science, and Arts Committee (1982). Biotechnology: Interim Report on the Protection of the Research Base in Biotechnology. Sessional Papers 1981–82, July 27.Google Scholar
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Select Committee on the European Communities (1980). Genetic Manipulation (DNA). Sessional Papers 1979–80, 39th Report. March 4.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce (1977). George S. Gordon, Memorandum for the Record, “Meeting to Discuss Possible Approaches to Development of Private Sector Voluntary Compliance with the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research, under Surveillance by the Department of Commerce.” Unpub.Department of Commerce records. Ca. December.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1978). Minutes, meeting of DHEW committee with representatives of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. Office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare records. October 13.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1979). Minutes, meeting of DHEW General Counsel Peter Libassi and representatives of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. Unpub. Office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare records. May 25.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology (1978). Report: Science Policy Implications of DNA Recombinant Molecule Research. 95th Cong. 2d. Sess.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Office of Recombinant DNA Activities (1976a). Associate Director for Public Planning and Evaluation to Director, NIH, “Summary of Your Meeting with Private Industry, June 2.” June 4. In U.S. National Institutes of Health, Recombinant DNA Research 1:129–33.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Office of Recombinant DNA Activities (1976b). Enteric Bacteria Meeting. August 31. Unpub. transcript.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Office of Recombinant DNA Activities (1978a). Transcript, U.S.-EMBO Workshop to Assess the Containment Requirements for Recombinant DNA Experiments Involving the Genomes of Animal, Plant, and Insect Viruses. January 27–29.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Office of Recombinant DNA Activities (1978b). “U.S.-EMBO Workshop to Assess Risks for Recombinant DNA Experiments Involving the Genomes of Animal, Plant, and Insect Viruses.” Federal Register 43 (March 31):13748–55.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Office of Recombinant DNA Activities (1979). Minutes, Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. May 21–23. Unpub. Office of Recombinant DNA Activities records.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Office of Recombinant DNA Activities (1980). Minutes, Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, June 5–6. Unpub. Office of Recombinant DNA Activities records.Google Scholar
U.S. National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director (1976). Associate Director for Program Planning and Evaluation to Director, NIH, December 1. Unpub. Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health records.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space (1977). Hearings: Regulation of Recombinant DNA Research. 95th Cong. 1st Sess.Google Scholar
Wade, N. (1975). “Genetic Conference Sets Strict Controls to Replace Moratorium.” Science 187:931–33.Google Scholar
Wolstenholme, G. and O'Connor, M. (1972). Civilization and Science: In Conflict or Collaboration? Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wbolgar, S. (1981). “Interests and Explanation in the Social Studies of Science.” Social Studies of Science 11:365–99.Google Scholar
Wight, S. (1986a). “Recombinant DNA Technology and Its Social Transformation.” Osiris 2:303–66.Google Scholar
Wight, S. (1986b). “Molecular Biology or Molecular Politics? The Production of Scientific Consensus on the Hazards of Recombinant DNA Technology.” Social Studies of Science 16:593–620.Google Scholar
Wight, S. (1990). “Biotechnology and the Military.” In Gendel, S.M. et al. (eds.), Agricultural Bioethics: Implications of Agricultural Biotechnology. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Wight, S. (1994). Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972–1982. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar