Ontogeny, Ontology, and Phylogeny: Embryonic Life and Stem Cell Technologies
Ontogeny, Ontology, and Phylogeny: Embryonic Life and Stem Cell Technologies
复制标题
个体发育、本体论和系统发育：胚胎生命和干细胞技术
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Squier
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Waldby;S. Squier
2.这种废弃身体部位的盈利能力已经导致了几次法律的尝试，以获得捐赠者在随后利润中的所有权或专利权。参见Paul Rabinow，“割断纽带：晚期现代性中的碎片化和尊严”，载于同前，《理性人类学论文集》（新泽西州普林斯顿：Princeton University Press，1996）; Robert Mitchell，“$ell：The Rhetorical Ecology of 'Dignity'，'Waste'，and 'Information' in U.S. Tissue Economies”（unpublished MS，2003）on the now well analyzed case of摩尔v. the Regents of University of加州州for accounts of such cases.生物医学和生物技术越来越多地利用边缘形式的活组织作为治疗物质的来源。越来越多的生物医学治疗依赖于组织的收集、储存、转化和重新分配，以及新型“可分离、可交换和可再生的身体部位”的开发。[1]这些组织中的一些--癌细胞、胎盘、从唾液中提取的DNA--被认为是边缘的，或者确实是危险的，对捐赠者的继续生命是危险的。正如Robert Mitchell所指出的那样，这些组织一般来说被收集起来并进行技术转化，几乎没有社会异议或争议，这正是因为它们是废物。
2. The profitability of such waste body parts has lead to several legal attempts to gain ownership or patent rights for the donors in subsequent profits. See Paul Rabinow, “Severing the Ties: Fragmentation and Dignity in Late Modernity,” in idem, Essays on the Anthropology of Reason (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996); Robert Mitchell, “$ell: The Rhetorical Ecology of ‘Dignity,’ ‘Waste,’ and ‘Information’ in U.S. Tissue Economies” (unpublished MS, 2003) on the now well analyzed case of Moore v. the Regents of University of California for accounts of the stakes in such cases. Biomedicine and biotechnology increasingly draw on marginal forms of living tissue as sources of therapeutic substances. More and more biomedical treatments rely on the collection, storage, transformation, and redistribution of tissues, the development of new kinds of “separable, exchangeable, and reincorporable body parts.”1 Some of these tissues—cancerous cells, placentas, DNA extracted from saliva—are considered marginal, or indeed dangerous, to the continuing life of the donor. As Robert Mitchell points out, these tissues are, generally speaking, collected and technically transformed with little social objection or controversy, precisely because of their status as waste.2 As such, they are relatively open to forms of commodification and patent, and form the basis for an increasingly lucrative biotechnology industry: