BIOSBIOS News

Bioethics and society

Issue 5 • Winter 2007

In this issue

Bioethics as a discipline relies on the Committee. Ethical dilemmas and challenges surrounding informed consent, research on human subjects or the growing use of ‘enhancement’ medications are complex. Consequently, the convening of interdisciplinary committees, councils and consultations, with both expert and lay participation, play an important role in creating spaces for debate and discussion, as well as in ensuring that different views are heard in regulatory processes.

With researchers at BIOS carrying out studies in the fi elds of neuroscience, regenerative medicine and bio-economics, bioethical dilemmas and controversies are often at the heart of the kinds of research questions being asked. And over the past few terms, BIOS’ engagement with bioethics has manifested itself in a few different ways. In late 2006, Professor Nikolas Rose was appointed to the Nuffi eld Council on Bioethics (with effect from January 2007) which examines ethical issues raised by new developments in biology and medicine. Earlier in the year, Dr Ilina Singh of BIOS was awarded the fi rst-ever Wellcome Trust University Lectureship in Bioethics and Society which will allow her to pursue

her research into various dimensions of stimulant drug treatment for attention-defi cit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Moreover, in November 2006, BIONET – a 21-partner European-Chinese collaboration on biomedical governance in the life sciences coordinated from BIOS – was kicked off in London with a remit to explore key issues surrounding the ethical regulation of contemporary biomedical research in China and Europe.

Notwithstanding the important role that ethical committees and consultations can and do play in efforts to address new developments in the bio-sciences, research projects carried out at BIOS have focused on the important contribution that detailed, empirical sociological/anthropological study can make in bioethical debates. In this issue of BIOS News, Scott Vrecko outlines his post-doctoral research project called ‘Ethics in the making’ which looks at emerging bioethical challenges in the research and development of cognitive-enhancing technologies. Ilina Singh sets out her coming research into various social and ethical dimensions of ADHD diagnosis in children using innovative, age-appropriate

qualitative methodologies. You will also fi nd a review of the BIONET kick-off event written by Kerstin Klein who participated in the two-day launch. And, in line with the theme of bioethical controversies and challenges, Lamprini Kaftantzi reviews Genomics and Society by George Gaskell and Martin Bauer (eds.), which was recently launched at the BIOS Centre in cooperation with Earthscan. The book covers thirty years of research into interactions between public perceptions, new biotechnological developments and policy-making.

Also in this issue are research updates from our three ‘new’ PhD students – Shahanah Schmid, Joy Zhang and Valentina Amorese – who outline the projects they will be carrying out while at BIOS. On a sad note, we will be saying goodbye to Dr. Michael Barr who has been with BIOS since December 2004 and who has played a vital role in building up our centre in the past years. We wish him the best of luck with his new Research Fellowship at PEALS in Newcastle (see Michael’s research update for more)!

Lamprini Kaftantzi, David Reubi, Ayo Wahlberg

Editorial 1

Ethics in the makingby Scott Vrecko 2

Children’s voices – social and ethical implications of stimulant drug treatment for ADHDby Ilina Singh 3

Review of ‘Genomics and Society’by Lamprini Kaftantzi 4

BIONET kicks offby Kerstin Klein 6

Research updates 7

Postcards from BIOS visitors 8

Publications and conference presentations 9

Upcoming events 12

BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007 1

Participants at the launch of BIONET in London, 10 November 2006.

Just as this current edition of BIOS News is going to press, I have fi nished off my one-year ESRC postdoc, and have begun a new, three-year research fellowship that is generously being funded by the Wellcome Trust’s program in Biomedical Ethics. Thus, it seems like an excellent time for me to share with readers a little bit about my new project, which is entitled ‘Ethics in the making: a study of emerging standards of social, scientifi c, and corporate conduct in relation to the development of psychopharmacological enhancement technologies’.

Over the last few years, it has increasingly been acknowledged that the potential exists to use psychopharmacological preparations in order to enhance the affective states, mental capacities, and personal traits of normal individuals who are not ill. But no doubt, some of you will immediately be asking yourselves whether we really need another bioethics investigation of enhancement. Some might even suggest that we’re already facing a bit of a glut in literature that considers the

possible implications of enhancement with psychotropic drugs – particularly since the new subspecialty of bioethics referred to as ‘neuroethics’ has taken off. After all, neuroethicists have identifi ed the enhancement of cognition (eg, memory and executive functioning) as one of the forms of mental enhancement most likely to pose diffi cult dilemmas and challenges for contemporary societies, and several have begun to draw on the principles and methods of moral philosophy in order to engage with these.

I actually share those reservations, to an extent; my study actually emerges, in part, out of concerns about the particular ways that bioethical/neuroethical treatises have tended to approach the issue of enhancement. Most have mainly been concerned with philosophical speculation about enhancement technologies along three axes: precedents versus novelties (in what respects is a particular form of psychopharmaceutical enhancement similar to and different from other psychopharmaceuticals, and other

types of enhancement); risks versus benefi ts (what sorts of social and moral implications are these new practices likely to have for the safety, equality, and justice); and yes versus no (under what conditions and with what restrictions should the form of enhancement in question be approved, if at all?). Consider, for example, the explicitly-stated objective of a recent article co-authored by several leading neuroethicists in Nature Neuroscience Reviews. The authors say: ‘Our goal is to review the state of the art in neurocognitive enhancement, its attendant social and ethical problems, and the ways in which society can address these problems’ [1: 421]. These goals might be boiled down to asking the questions: what can we, and what should we do with the science and technologies that are given to us by scientists?

Such deliberations are not without value; however, I think that it’s useful to consider whether the range of ethical issues raised by the new brain sciences might extend beyond asking ‘what are the scientifi c facts, and how should we use them’. My project is based upon an understanding that ethical issues raised by cognitive enhancement are not only philosophical, but also involve concrete factors, from the scientifi c and commercial choices that shape laboratory and clinical research and development, to the marketing strategies and regulatory considerations that are involved in introducing new products to the public.

My project will thus be based on archival research and interviews with key actors involved in the development, production, and promotion of enhancement medications – for example, with scientists, corporate executives, and regulators. Although I’m still in the beginning stages of my research, it seems to me that the commercial

Ethics in the makingby Scott Vrecko

2 2 BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007

‘Ethical issues raised by cognitive enhancement are not only philosophical, but also involve concrete factors, from the scientifi c and commercial choices that shape laboratory and clinical research and development, to the marketing strategies and regulatory considerations that are involved in introducing new products to the public.’

In the United Kingdom, some estimate that between 2 and 26% of all children are potential candidates for a diagnosis of Attention Defi cit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Estimated US prevalence rates are similar; indeed, ADHD diagnoses have increased by an average of 500% in the past fi ve years in a majority of European countries. As stimulant drugs are increasingly the recommended fi rst line of treatment, we face in our society today, a situation in which potentially hundreds of thousands of children could be spending substantial periods of their lives on drugs.

How have these developments affected everyday experiences of living, particularly experiences of the self, behaviour, and achievement/performance – for the target children, their families, and the larger communities in which they all live? On the broadest level, this has been the question that has animated my research for the past decade. In that period, I have spent many hours in clinics, observing the processes by which a perceived troubled or diffi cult child is formally declared an ill child,

for whom treatment is available. I have gone into the classrooms and living rooms of working class and middle-class families in London and Cambridge to hear from parents how they understand this disorder, what they think the medication does, and how they feel about their child now that he (it is usually a ‘he’) is under treatment. Most recently, I have conducted a pilot study with children, asking them to tell me how they understand various moral dimensions of their self, behaviour, and personhood, now that they have been diagnosed with ADHD and are taking medication. To conduct the interviews with the children, some of whom were as young as eight, I developed new, age-appropriate interview methods that involved creative uses of cameras, photographs, standardized pictures, and personal drawings. Such methods have enabled children to tackle the complex task of exploring and relating their experiences.

Talking to children is in some ways considered a radical form of inquiry. When I fi rst began work on ADHD and Ritalin in graduate school, I was advised not to conduct a

project that involved interviews with children, because such a project would not survive the dissertation review committee. In developmental psychology, interviews with children were considered unreliable data which needed to be backed up with some quantitative measures. (I ended up interviewing parents for my doctoral project.) The intervening years have made for a challenging intellectual journey – with many rejected grant proposals along the way! Still, I held on to one of my major goals: to obtain funding in order to properly pursue the research with children.

This autumn, with the enormously generous help of Nikolas Rose and the integral support of the School, I was fortunate to receive a Wellcome Trust University Lectureship in Bioethics and Society. This is the fi rst permanent lectureship in BIOS, and the fi rst time the Wellcome Trust has funded a university lectureship in biomedical ethics. In the fi rst 3-4 years of this lectureship, I will be focusing full-time on research. My goals are to contribute to the building of an empirical evidence base relevant to the range of concerns expressed

Children’s voices –social and ethical implications of stimulant drug treatment for ADHDby Ilina Singh

context in which cognitive enhancement pharmaceuticals are developed will be one of the central ethical issues that requires attention. As a recent market analysis noted, there is predicted to be a vast potential market for drugs for ‘mild cognitive impairment’ and ‘the even more ubiquitous ‘age-related cognitive decline’, which we all experience from age forty on’ [quoted in 2: 77]. The present study will focus on such medications – and, importantly, the companies that produce them. Such companies should provide excellent sites for a concrete investigation of enhancement, because they explicitly aim to develop and market medications which could be used even in the absence of clear and specifi c cognitive disorders. For example, Neurome Inc. describes its goal as ‘nothing less than novel therapeutics, agents of prevention, and creative strategies for maintenance, rehabilitation and enhancement of brain function’

(www.neurome.com/company/market.htm). Saegis Pharmaceuticals Inc. promotes itself as ‘the fi rst company devoted to developing therapeutics to preserve and enhance the human mind’ (www.saegispharma.com/research.html). And one of the main priorities of Memory Pharmaceuticals Inc. is the development of medications for use in ‘age associated cognitive decline’ – the ‘slow decline in the ability to perform in tests of cognitive ability’ which ‘is not clearly linked to a defi nable disease condition and may be a ‘normal’ part of the aging process’ (www.memorypharma.com/market_aacd.html).

So over the next while, I expects to be grappling with how to best (1) describe the social and ethical issues that arise in relation to basic and clinical scientifi c research into cognitive enhancement; (2) map out how ethical considerations infl uence the commercial development of cognitive-enhancing products; and (3) investigate the norms, values, and

understandings of mental health and human nature that are embedded in public relations and marketing materials of fi rms developing cognitive-enhancing pharmaceuticals. I look forward to hearing from those of you who have interests and/or expertise in these areas… and to reporting back to BIOS News on my progress over the years come!

1. Farah, M.J., et al., Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2004. 5: p. 421-425.

2. Dal-Bianco, P., Amnestic mild cognitive impairment – a prestatus of Alzheimer’s Disease, in Global Heathcare: Advanced Medical Technologies 2004. 2004, Touch Briefi ngs. p. 74-77.

BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007 3

Biotechnological developments are advancing so rapidly that society can barely keep pace with the ethical and social complexities they bring. New science and emerging biomedical technologies offer exciting possibilities in the quest for cures for otherwise untreatable diseases, as well as new ways to reproduce and improve our bodies, our minds and our environments. However, at the same time, there is a danger that the pace of scientifi c advances will suffer if ethical issues are not debated openly and honestly. Part of the responsibility for ensuring that this debate takes place rests with the scientifi c community and governments. The public, on the other hand, has a right to know how new rules will resolve what it

perceives to be the risks and also to play a part in the framing of new policies and regulations.

In the last 30 years of biotechnology’s eventful history, policy processes and outcomes have often been contested and civil society has emerged as a very powerful actor in these debates. The media have always been a crucial site where public debates have been defi ned and played out over the years with media representations of risk and hype surrounding new technologies, on the one hand, raising public awareness and, on the other, providing evidence of changing public attitudes.

Genomics and Society: Legal, Ethical, and Social Dimensions, is a book about the relationship between the public, the media and the governance of new biotechnologies. It is an exploration of how the debates/dilemmas in biotechnology are portrayed in the public sphere, how public opinion is shaped by and shapes the biotechnology trajectory, and how the implications of scientifi c developments are not pre-determined by technological facts. It brings together an international group of social scientists from Europe, North America and Japan.

In the fi rst section of the book, authors explore some of the most pressing issues to have found their way into the public sphere during the last decade, raising public concern about genetics

and the life sciences. With a focus on some of the most controversial regenerative medicine technologies – xenotransplantation, reproductive cloning and stem cell research – the section begins by introducing the reader to the concept of genetic information (medical and non-medical) as well as current and potential future uses of that information that have triggered and fuelled the debates. It also contains a number of well researched and convincing country case studies that support the rise of societal concerns across Europe. For example, in chapter 3 authors examine the trajectories of debates around regenerative medicine in Canada, France and Germany, both by following the history of the development of these techniques and by giving an account of the regulatory acts that have been produced as a result at both the national and the international level. Chapters 4 and 5 address how reproductive cloning and GM food have been crucial issues in the history of biotechnology, in challenging public policy making, in prompting the institutionalisation of bioethics in Europe and in generating positive or negative public perceptions/attitudes regarding future risky decisions about biotechnological products.

The second section of the book examines the role of public opinion in the shaping of biotechnology policy. The authors give a number of possible explanations to account

Book ReviewGenomics and Society: Legal, Ethical and Social DimensionsEdited by: George Gaskell, Martin W. Bauer

Earthscan, London, 2006, 280 ppISBN 1-84407-113-8

Review by Lamprini Kaftantzi

by both bioethicists and the general public about the impact of stimulant drug treatment on children. Above all, my hope is that, when this project is done, we will know more about whether stimulant drug treatment may have an impact on children’s moral self-understandings (personal authenticity, conceptions of autonomy, responsibility, free will). The project builds on the pilot study mentioned above, and will involve three groups of children: those ‘at-risk’ for ADHD, those already on stimulant drug medication, and a group of children not considered at-risk. Simultaneously, we will be looking

at the potential effects of national culture and gender on these outcomes, and so will be interviewing groups of up to 100 children (boys and girls of diverse ethnic background) in both the US and the UK.

I am delighted to have found a permanent home in BIOS; I could not imagine fi nding a more congenial, supportive, and stimulating intellectual community. As I move now into the next phase of my career, I look forward to sharing the challenges and opportunities to come with all of you.

Children’s voices continued…

4 BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007

for the observed policy shift in European regulation of agricultural biotechnology but admit that a number of inconsistencies among EU countries (time of onset of the debate, actors involved, risk perceptions, NGO/Government activities and media reporting) put the proposed linkage between public perception and policy shift in question. The section also examines the development and nature of public participation as well as the extent to which institutionalisation of public participation has occurred in six countries (Canada, Denmark, Portugal, France, Switzerland and the UK). And while the authors agree that there is a clear trend towards increasing public engagement they cast doubt on its infl uence on the trajectory of modern biotechnology. Media coverage of modern biotechnology is also examined, providing evidence on the limited but defi ned impact of mass media on public perception as well as documenting an international/national level thematic shift (after 1996-7) from green (agricultural applications) to red (medical applications) biotechnology issues. Chapters 9 and 10 concern the fears and promises that especially stem cell research has generated, with the latter chapter identifying and analysing the cultural bearing of monsters and

monstrosity in the image(s) of modern biotechnology as a specifi c means for contemporary culture to deal with technological innovations.

The third section of the book provides evidence on the globalisation of the above-mentioned issues by showing how various countries have dealt with genetic engineering and relevant debates between 1990 and 2000. Chapter 11 shows how the issues have penetrated international pop culture and how pop culture, in turn, can shape future science and technology. The four concluding chapters give an account of specifi c countries (North America, Japan, Brazil) and how public debate has been shaped in each country, through changing media coverage, policy making and resistance towards or adoption of external infl uences.

Genomics and Society: Legal, Ethical and Social Dimensions is a signifi cant collection of work on the public debates on biotechnology during the last 30 years. The book reads as a well-organised multidisciplinary project in which each group of authors addresses the issues from within their own discipline, yet with clear evidence of the conversations that took place between project

participants to avoid overlaps. All articles are carefully placed around an emerging triangle of mediation (Public Perception-Mass Media-Policy Formation) and are developed with a depth that one expects from good scholarship. As such, Genomics and Society is a valuable contribution to ongoing attempts to understand the role of the public and the media in the shaping of the biotechnology agenda and vice versa. It is a work that addresses a wide range of audiences and would be appropriate for both newcomers and experts in the fi eld of public understanding of science, social studies of biomedicine or other STS related fi eld. Hopefully, it will also attract life scientists and policy makers, for whom it will provide useful insights into the powerful voice of the public and how respecting that voice is crucial if emerging biotechnologies are to be accepted and reach their markets.

‘Genomics and Society: Legal, Ethical, and Social Dimensions, is a book about the relationship between the public, the media and the governance of new biotechnologies. It is an exploration of how debates in biotechnology are portrayed in the public sphere, how public opinion is shaped by and shapes the biotechnology trajectory, and how the implications of scientifi c developments are not pre-determined by technological facts.’

(L-R) Martin Bauer, Rob West and George Gaskell at the launch of

Genomics and Society, 23 November 2006

BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007 5

As a follow-up to the article in the third issue of BIOS News, this is an update on what has happened since the announcement that Bionet was granted funding from the EU Commission. Bionet is a collaborative project between 21 European and Chinese partners which aims to explore key issues around the ethical regulation of contemporary biomedical research and to build capacity among participants. Workshops and conferences in China will bring together researchers, practitioners, ethicists, social scientists and policy makers to compile and evaluate research and evidence on contemporary policies and practices for the ethical governance of advanced biomedical research.

After the green light was given from the EU, there were a few administrative ‘hurdles’ in the form of EU paperwork requirements that needed to be climbed. As everyone who is experienced in project management can imagine, this is an even more complex challenge in the case of such a massive consortium of members from many different EU countries and from China.

Finally, on the 9th and 10th of November, the project was brought to life, with the offi cial launch of Bionet. For this occasion, LSE and the BIOS Centre hosted a gathering

which was certainly rare in its constitution, comparable perhaps only to the ethics committees of international organizations such as the UNESCO or WHO. 6 members from China (incl. a German DAAD representative from Shanghai) and 15 further partners from the UK, France, Poland, Slovenia, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy not only came together from a variety of national cultures, but also represented a broad base of academic disciplines. Each partner is in one way or another involved in the research, practice, social theory and/or political governance of the life sciences. What makes Bionet so unique is this cultural and disciplinary variety of collaborating philosophers, human geneticists, ethicists, social scientists, lawyers, molecular biologists, historians, clinicians, criminologists, and psychologists.

On November 9, the kick-off meeting started with a public seminar, which was jointly conducted by James Wilsdon from the London-based political think tank ‘Demos’ and Nikolas Rose of BIOS. The event took place at the Wellcome Trust and was provocatively titled: ‘The wild east? The governance and ethics of biomedical research in China’. Most of the speakers, such as Professors Qiu Renzong, Xiaomei Zhai, and Herbert Gottweis were Bionet members, so the event was a good occasion for all to meet for the fi rst time. The aim of the seminar was to address debates about the rise of Chinese science which all too often appear infused by myths of an unregulated ‘wild east’, where the onward march of scientifi c progress is unconstrained by ethical qualms or public unease. In contrast to this, speakers discussed how policymakers and scientists in Europe are often unaware of the philosophical traditions that inform biomedical ethics in China, and how these are now being applied.

The following day was the essential part of the kick-off meeting, where for the fi rst time, partners sat down together at a large table, and the road map of Bionet was laid out. Plans were made for Bionet’s future workshop and conference activities in China, and everyone had the chance to raise important questions and make suggestions – all of which are crucial requirements in the enormous task of bringing to life an enormously important and timely project on intercultural understandings of bioethics and biopolitics. A long day ended with a terrifi c guide through the Ancient China exhibition in the British Musieum and a lingering dinner in its restaurant from which no one seemed to be eager to leave, despite the fact that some had to take planes back to China or elsewhere on the same day.

For myself, I have already taken home a great deal, right from the start of Bionet, through talks and conversations with the involved partners, every one of which is a high-profi le expert in their fi eld. With much pleasure, I learned about the history and variety of philosophy in China, the constructedness of ‘race’ in the prominent fi eld of race and genomics, what a young sophisticated generation of Chinese might think about informed consent and the relation to family, and not least I was surprised to see how refreshingly outspoken Chinese are in contrast to what we are used to thinking. This is why I believe Bionet will be a place of profound debate, where everyone will learn a lot from their partners. I look very much forward to the future activities and feel lucky that I have the chance to be involved in Bionet.

For more information, please visit the Bionet website: www.bionet-china.org

Contact: bionet@lse.ac.uk

‘Debates about the rise of Chinese science all too often appear infused by myths of an unregulated ‘wild east’, where the onward march of scientifi c progress is unconstrained by ethical qualms or public unease.’

bionet kicks offby Kerstin Klein

6 BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007

Research updates

Dr Michael BarrResearch fellow

Farewell

After two years at BIOS, I shall be leaving in January 2007 to start a Research Council UK Academic Fellowship at the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre (PEALS) at the University of Newcastle. Although I am in the highly enviable position of having a fi ve year fellowship, followed by a permanent position, I leave BIOS with a very heavy heart (and London with a slightly overdrawn current account). My new work will focus on the geopolitical aspects of biosecurity – a topic in which BIOS is already heavily invested, so I am hopeful that future collaborations are in the air.

Of course if you fi nd yourself in the country north of London (known as England), please do shout and I will happily initiate you to the land of Geordies. I shall leave my contact details with Sabrina Fernandez in the BIOS offi ce. Thank you to everyone who lent their support during my time here, especially to Nikolas and Ilina. I wish you all a healthy and productive 2007!

Shahanah SchmidPhD Candidate

‘Social and cultural changes in the context of New Reproductive Technologies in Switzerland: a comparative approach’

For most of my fi rst two months at BIOS, I have been preoccupied with practical research: on the geography and functioning of LSE, the rules and regulations of the sociology department, the social workings of BIOS itself, and, not to be neglected, the idiosyncrasies of London’s transport system and practical issues about opening a bank account. Apart from such mundane, but nevertheless indispensable activities, I have thrown myself with much delight into all that BIOS has to offer: The MSc course

is constantly opening my eyes to yet more interesting aspects of the life sciences, whereas the reading group sessions, roundtables and BIOS seminars offer in-depth discussions of specifi c issues. Thus, I am working on achieving a solid foundation of knowledge from which to tackle my own research project.

For this, I have started out by beginning to gain an overview of relevant literature, as well as by compiling material on the development and status of reproductive medicine in Switzerland. The next steps will be to complete this, and use it as a backdrop against which to narrow and defi ne my research question, as well as to consider methodological issues in detail.

In my research project I will be studying processes of negotiation of meanings in the context of reproductive technologies. Such negotiations could concern, among others, gender constructions, kinship symbols, defi nitions about the beginning of life, boundaries of the body and concepts of personhood, as well as the perceived relation of nature to culture. However, although these aspects have been documented in previous research, I cannot know what I will fi nd, since research so far has in the vast majority been restricted to Anglophone countries. I will therefore try to introduce a comparative aspect and account for differences as well as similarities found. All in all, I can’t wait to get out into the ‘fi eld’ to see what it is that is happening in the context of reproductive technologies.

Valentina AmoresePhD Candidate

‘An investigation on the capacity of science to listen to the public opinion using the case of Genetically Engineered Foods’

My name is Valentina and I came to BIOS for the fi rst time last year when I attended the MSc ‘Bioscience, Biomedicine and society’. My previous background was almost entirely scientifi c. In fact, I successfully graduated with a degree in Agricultural Biotechnology in 2004 from the Universita’ degli Studi in Milan. While working on my fi nal dissertation I had the chance to do some laboratory research, and from this time I understood that I did not belong in that environment.

At the same time, I started to develop a sincere interest with regards to public opinion and opposition to Genetically Modifi ed foods (GMOs). I sincerely thought that this resistance was prevalently moved because of a lack of knowledge in the public and that motivated me to attend an MSc, organized by the Universita’ dell’Insubria, in Scientifi c Journalism. I thought I could be much more useful as a scientifi c communicator than as a scientist. At BIOS, I found a course which gave me an incredible chance to go much deeper into these issues allowing me to develop a more social perspective. Here I fi nally felt ‘at home’.

In my research project, I would like to investigate the relationship between science and society. I have always thought that they have to communicate, since they both need each other. Despite this, almost all of the attention today is focused on how science can better communicate, as a speaker, with its public. I think that, for successful communication, as well as being a good communicator, science needs to be a good listener. In my research, through the topic of GMOs, I wish to analyse whether science is (or is yet) a good listener. In particular, I will consider if

BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007 7

public resistance to the so-called ‘Frankenfood’ has infl uenced the development of science in a specifi c direction. To put it more simply, my research question asks whether science has shifted its efforts to develop Genetically Engineered Foods which encounter public necessities.

Joy ZhangPhD Candidate

‘China Stem Cell Research Policy and Related Ethical Issues’

I graduated from Peking University China with a Medicine/Surgery degree and have just fi nished the MSc course at BIOS. I have been a freelance journalist for nine years. Most of my work were critiques or special reports. I have also been a photographer for six years, now a member of the China Artistic Photography Society. My PhD study

will be concentrated on investigating emerging ethical and regulatory issues in the context of Chinese stem cell science. More specifi cally, I am interested in how China’s existing culture and social characteristics affect the shape of future regulatory frameworks. This research is intended to defi ne the core moral and ethical issues at stake in China, and give suggestions of applying ethical protocols governing the future regulation of its own stem cell research community.Postcards from BIOS visitors

‘I remember a very busy, perfectly organised and successfully transdisciplinary Vital Politics conference with equally vital and joyful conference and post-conference nights, as well as the innovative BIOS experiment at the EAST conference, shedding light on accordances but also on seldom discussed differences in the ways STS research is laid out.’

8 BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007

Bettina Bock von Wülfi ngUniversity of Bremen

Greetings

‘Well, you might have the offi ce all for yourself’, the current postdocs in Berlin updated me about what I could expect from my new position at the Humboldt University. However privileging ‘a room of my own’ might be, only those who have spent time at BIOS will understand how different that will be. The location of my new offi ce will be as spectacular as that of BIOS: In the middle of symbols (contradicting and co-dependent) like the GDR-Palace of the Republic, the Brandenburger Tor and Checkpoint Charly. However, I might well miss energetically discussing with offi ce-fellows like Btihaj, whether Agamben could compete with Foucault (well, I admit that I fi nally bought homo sacer), to chat with David about necessary differences in interview situations in Europe and Asia, to share similarly inspiring time, debating options for analysis of Biology from within, in the surrounding parks with Anelis or to fi nd Chris devoted to

some talk paper on the LSE 11th fl oor even on Sunday. Thus, I have already offered to share offi ce space with other fellows and made contacts with neighbouring departments in Berlin as one result of my stay at BIOS.

To start this stay with the famous BIOS-picnic at Primrose Hill in July privileged me to feel integrated from the very beginning, when I was still shy and excited to understand with whom I was now sharing crumbs on the blanket, enjoying hospitality and down-to-earth-ism in a literal and fi gurative sense. I remember a very busy, perfectly organised and successfully transdisciplinary Vital Politics conference with equally vital and joyful conference and post-conference nights (surrounded by classic paintings or cowboy hats), as well as the innovative BIOS experiment at the EAST conference, shedding light on accordances but also on seldom discussed differences in the ways STS research is laid out. Another highlight was the Tools for Studying the Life Sciences workshop which in discussion with Nik, Sarah and other scholars made it easier to grasp the ever-prevailing issues of disciplinarity.

My stay was made very easy by support from all of you, be it when struggling to answer the phone (Ayo and Filippa will remember), with all kinds of institutional issues (thanks so much Linsey!) or when trying to use my computer software (‘hi’ to Priska and Mathew!). Greetings and thanks especially to Sarah who enabled my stay in the fi rst place and helped sharpen my ideas within a ‘transbiological’ framework! I am looking forward to meeting you again guys, keep vital and vitalo-critical, Bettina

Postcards from BIOS Visitors

BioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBioSocietiesBOut now!

Publications

Bauer, MW (2006) ‘Garantindo os benefi cios de uma moratoria. Lavouras transgenicas no Brasil – espicalmente a de soja (1995-2004)’ in Plenarium – Camara dos Deputados, Vol. 3(3 September): 216-243[www2.camara.gov.br/publicacoes/edicoes/plenarium3]

Franklin, S (2006) ‘Shulamith Firestone’ in John Scott (ed.) 50 Key Sociologists The Contemporary Theorists, London: Routledge, pp. 77-80.

Franklin, S (2006) ‘Mapping Biocapital: new frontiers of bioprospecting’ in Cultural Geographies, Vol. 13:61-4.

Franklin, S (2006) ‘The Cyborg Embryo: our path to transbiology’ in Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 23(7-8) 167-187

Franklin, S (2006) ‘Bio-economies: biowealth from the inside out’ in Development, Vol.: 49:4:97-101.

Franklin, S (2006) Born and Made: en ethnography of preimplantation genetic diagnosis, Princeton: Princeton University Press (with Celia Roberts)

Hamilton, C (2006) ‘Biopiracy as a challenge to intellectual property rights systems’ in Development, Vol. 49(4): forthcoming

Lentzos, F (2006) ‘Rationality, Risk and Response: A Research Agenda for BioSecurity’, BioSocieties, Vol.1(4):453-464.

Lentzos, F (in press) ‘The Political Economy of Fear: Mapping the Emerging Biodefense Industry’ in Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol.25(1-2)

Rose, N (2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Rose, N (2006) ‘The death of the social? Refi guring the territory of government’ in Roger Cotterrell (ed.) Law and Social Theory, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 395-424 (reprint of paper of 1996)

Rose, N (2006) ‘Governing ‘Advanced’ Liberal Democracies’ in A. Gupta and A. Sharma, The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, Oxford: Blackwell (reprint of Chapter of 1996 in Foucault and Political Reason)

Rose, N (2006) ‘Unreasonable rights: mental illness and the limits of the law’ in J. Peay (ed.) Seminal Issues in Mental Health Law, Aldershot: Ashgate (reprint of paper of 1985)

Rose, N (2006) ‘Beyond the public/private division: Law, power and the family’ in International Library of Essays in Law and Society, Ashgate (reprint of paper of 1987)

Rose, N (2006) ‘Biopower today’ in BioSocieties, Vol. 1(2): 195-218 (with Paul Rabinow).

Publications, lectures and conference presentations

by BIOS staff, associates and students

Issues three and four of BioSocieties: an interdisciplinary journal for social studies of neuroscience, genomics and the life sciences, published for LSE by CUP, September and December 2006.

www.journals.cambridge.org/jid_BIO

BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007 9

Rose, N (2006) ‘O concepto de biopoder hoje’ in Política & Trabalho, Vol. 24: 27-57 (Brazilian translation of ‘Biopower today’, with Paul Rabinow)

Rose, N (2006) ‘Governmentality’ in Annual Review of Law and Society, Vol. 2: 83-104 (with Pat O’Malley and Mariana Valverde)

Singh, I (2006) ‘Not just naughty: 50 years of stimulant drug advertising’ in A. Toon and E. Watkins (eds.) Medicating Modern America, New York: NYU Press

Singh, I (2006) ‘A framework for understanding trends in ADHD diagnoses and stimulant drug treatment: Schools and schooling as a case study’ in BioSocieties, Volume 1(4): in press

Singh, I (2006) ‘Clinical implications of ethical concepts: The case of children taking stimulants for ADHD’ in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, forthcoming

Presentations

Ajana, B (2006) ‘ ‘I’ is a Border’, paper presented at Embodiment and the State, Middelfart, Denmark, 27-28 October 2006

Burchell, K (2006) ‘Noise and silence in the UK sciencehorizons public dialogue project’, paper presented at 4S Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 2-5 November 2006

Franklin, S. (2006) ‘From the Cyborg Embryo to Transbiology: the IVF-Stem Cell Interface in the UK’, invited lecture at the UCLA Centre for Genomics and Society, 14 November 2006, and at the Science, Technology and Society Center, Berkeley, 15 November 2006

Franklin, S. (2006) ‘The Rise of the Cell and the Epigenetic Turn’, paper presented to the American Anthropological Association annual meeting, San Jose, California, 15-19 November 2006

Franklin, S. (2006) ‘Accounting for Provenance: embryo donation to stem cell research in the UK’, invited seminar presentation, Centre for Biotechnology and Accounting, Department of Social Anthropology, University of Cambridge, 27 November 2006

Hamilton, C (2006) ‘Patents, plants, progress and piracy: The impact of biopiracy on IPR regimes’, paper presented at Propeur Final Conference, Birmingham, 20-21 September 2006

Kabatoff, M (2006) ‘Our Border is not Your Border: An Analysis of the e-Borders System’, paper presented at Identity in a Networked World Conference, New York University, New York, 29-30 September 2006

Lentzos, F and Sims, N (2006) Statement to the Biological Weapons Convention Sixth Review Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 21 November 2006

Lentzos, F (2006) ‘Mapping the Emerging Biodefence Industry’, invited presentation, 25th Workshop of the Pugwash Study Group on the Implementation of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions: Towards a Successful Outcome of the Sixth Review Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 18-19 November 2006

Lentzos, F (2006) ‘Biosecurity Regulation: Factoring Local Contexts and Confi gurations’, invited presentation, Genomics Forum Workshop on Genomics and BioSecurity, Edinburgh, 13-14 November 2006

Lentzos, F and Balmer, B (2006) ‘Promoting and Silencing Myths in Biological Disarmament’, paper presented at 4S Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 1-5 November 2006

Lentzos, F (2006) ‘Framing the Bioterrorism Threat and Policy Response in Britain’, invited presentation, IGBIS Seminar Series, University of Nottingham, 12 Oct 2006

Lentzos, F and Rose, N (2006) ‘Framing Biorisks: Politico-Economic Responses to Bioterrorism in Britain and the United States’, paper presented at Vital Politics II, LSE, London, 7-9 September 2006

McGoey, L (2006) ‘Drugs, democrats and dissent: on the relationship between objectivity and democracy’, paper presented at Social Science and Democracy: A philosophy of science perspective, University of Ghent, Belgium, September 2006

Reubi, D (2006), ‘From Anatomical Liberal to Cellular Ethical Governance’, paper presented at the Free School Lane Seminars of the Centre for Family Research, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge, 30 October 2006

Roepstorff, A (2006), ‘Understanding and Misunderstanding: Cognition, Mind Culture’, paper presented at Humanities in the European Research Area, Finnish Academy, Helsinki, Finland, 23 November 2006

Publications, lectures and conference presentations cont…

10 BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007

Roepstorff, A (2006), ‘BASIC: Brain – Agency – Intersubjectivity – Self and Consciousness’, paper presented at CNCC launch conference, European Science Foundation, United Kingdom, 14 November 2006

Roepstorff, A (2006), ‘The neuroturn: challenging anthropology or anthropological challenge?’, paper presented at the Department of Anthropology, University of Oxford, 27 October 2006

Roepstorff, A (2006), ‘Neurocosmology: a new master narrative in the 21 Century?’, paper presented at Making Things Better – Cosmologies of Wellbeing, British Museum and University College London, 10 October 2006

Roepstorff, A (2006), ‘Before the Fact: From Meetings of Minds to Neurodystopiae’, paper presented at Vital Politics II, London School of Economics and Political Science, 9 September 2006

Rose, N (2006) ‘The politics of life in the twenty fi rst century’, Social Theory and Health Annual Public Lecture, London, 12 October 2006

Rose, N (2006) ‘Changing ideas of Normality and Abnormality’, Public Lecture, Danish Pedagogical University, Copenhagen, Denmark, 26 October 2006

Rose, N (2006) ‘Neuropolitics: the politics of mental distress in the twenty fi rst century’, presented at Embodiment and the State, University of Southern Denmark, 26-27 October 2006

Rose, N (2006) ‘Psychiatric Genetics – Social Aspects: Normality and Abnormality in a Biological Age’, presented at XIV World Congress on Psychiatric Genetics, Cagliari, Sardinia, 30 October 2006

Rose, N (2006) ‘Biopolitics today: governing life in an age of susceptibility and precaution’, University of Munich, 6 December 2006

Schmid, S (2006) ‘Reproductive Medicine: The Swiss context’, paper presented at New Reproductive Technologies and the Making of Bodies, Persons and Families in Russia and Switzerland, Research Workshop, Institute for Social Anthropology, University of Zurich, Switzerland, December 2006

Singh, I (2006) ‘Doing Bad and Feeling Good: Stimulant Drugs in Childhood’, presented at EMBO/EMBL Conference on Genes, Mind/Brain and Behavior, Heidelberg, Germany, November, 2006

Singh, I (2006) ‘Social and Cultural Factors in ADHD Diagnosis’, presented at National Institute of Clinical Excellence Consensus Conference on ADHD Diagnosis, London, October 2006 (with Nikolas Rose)

Singh, I (2006) ‘Psychopharmacology and the Authentic Self: The Case of Ritalin’, presented at Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics Summer School, Cambridge, September 2006

Singh, I (2006) ‘Advertising Behaviour’, paper presented at Vital Politics II, London School of Economics, 7-9 September 2006

Singh, I (2006) ‘Quality and Explanation in Qualitative Research’, presented at ESRC Methods Festival, Oxford University, July 2006 (with G. Gaskell and M. Bauer)

Vrecko, S (2006) ‘Regimes of neurochemical control’, paper presented at 4S Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 2-5 November 2006

Vrecko, S (2006) ‘Reinventing addiction as a brain disorder: From disease of the will to pathology of desire?’, paper presented at Centre for Freudian Analysis and Research, London, 25 November 2006

Vrecko, S (2006) ‘Capital ventures into gambling brains’, presented at Institute for the Study of Genetics, Biorisks and Society, University of Nottingham, 30 November 2006

Wahlberg, A (2006) ‘Caught in transition – traditional medicine and the emergent problem of ‘unhealthy lifestyles’ in postcolonial Vietnam’, paper presented at the joint annual meeting of 4S and the History of Science Society, Vancouver, 1-5 November 2006

Wahlberg, A (2006) ‘Quality of life and the politics of human subjectivity’, invited presentation at Governing Lives in the Knowledge Society, International Workshop, Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg, Delmenhorst, Germany, 7-8 December 2006

BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007 11

Upcoming BIOS events

During term time, the BIOS research seminar series and BIOS reading group sessions are held regularly on Thursdays and Wednesdays respectively. The Thursday seminar series feature invited speakers to discuss their research on various social and ethical aspects of the life sciences and biomedicine, while the reading group facilitates discussion around a series of topics that are of interest to persons associated with BIOS or who have an interest in the life sciences throughout LSE and beyond.

Dates for your calendar January – April 2007

BIOS Reading GroupThe reading group will meet 1-3pm on 24 January, 14 February and 7 March. Check the BIOS website for an updated Lent Term programme and reading list.

BIOS RoundtablesBIOS roundtables will continue in the Lent Term aiming at exploring shared interests in the BIOS community, and to address problems, issues, and concerns encountered. The roundtables will be held at the BIOS Centre 12-1.30pm on the following dates:

10 January, 31 January, 21 February, 14 March

SO455 Key Issues in Bioscience, Biomedicine and Society Thursdays in Room S53 from 10am-1pm during the Lent Term.

8 February 2007, 5-7pm, Room TBA‘Negotiating Ethics and Ethnography’Professor Michael Parker, ETHOX Centre, Oxford University

1 March 2007, 5-7pm, Room TBA‘Stories, nuances and dilemmas: creative responses to disability and bioethics’Dr Tom Shakespeare, PEALS, University of Newcastle

BIOS • The London School of Economics and Political Science • Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE

Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 6998 Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 6565www.lse.ac.uk/collections/BIOS/

12 BIOS News Issue 5 • Winter 2007