Post-genomic research relies on blood samples and health information from great numbers of individuals as well as on access to medical records. Studies of collecting and banking bio-resources have increasingly focused on the policy and commodification issues that arise when human DNA enters the information economy. Yet, what has been given much less attention is the process through which citizens are recruited to contribute to post-genomic research. This article analyses practices of recruiting psychiatric patients to a pharmacogenomic research centre in Denmark. It argues that recruitment activities may be conceived as interpellation practices that ‘hail’ individual patients and ask them to place themselves in relationships to other citizens and state institutions by giving researchers access to blood samples, medical records and sensitive life-and-illness information. The interpellation practices studied demonstrate a tension between techniques that operate through distance (sending out letters with information and consent forms) and techniques that operate through presence (making phone calls to patients). These techniques are not simply seen as contrasting ethical conducts, but as complementary and coexisting ways of constituting spatial and social state–citizen relationships.

If the first half of the twentieth century was a golden age for physics, the second half saw the coming of age of the life sciences. As we enter the twenty-first century, our individual and collective lives are being fundamentally altered by developments in cellular and molecular biology. The drivers of these developments, and the stakes in them, are not merely scientific-they are therapeutic, economic, political, ideological and ethical. Put another way, developments in genomics, stem cell research, pharmacology, neuroscience all raise questions, not just about the nature of living processes and their amenability to understanding and manipulation, but also about the forces and ambitions shaping progress in the life sciences themselves, and the ways in which the life sciences are transforming different societies, locally, nationally and globally, in a multitude of different practices from the clinic to the factory.

In this article, I address the enduring American interest in the manipulation and eradication of the need for human sleep through the powers of science. In particular, I focus on military research regarding the possible reduction of necessary sleep times as well as historical attempts to modify and maximize the scheduling of warfare; these military efforts are juxtaposed to the efforts of sports professionals who have attempted to test the limits of human sleep, either for scientific concerns or for that of victory. These various scientific pursuits are compared to science fictional representations of the eradication of human sleep, or its significant modification. I argue that it is not solely the actual realization of sleep’s modification that impacts dominant understandings of sleep, but rather that the fantasies of science’s powers reconfigure conceptions of the human and its limitations.

This article studies how our understanding of population-level disease transmission has evolved over time. The main question is: what happens to ‘facts’ in the course of their life history? The concept of life history captures the process that shapes the facts of disease transmission, mobilizes them via mathematical and graphical representations, and allows them to evolve and change over time. Hence, this concept provides continuity from knowledge production to utilization. Life history is developed through phases in the ‘lives’ of ‘facts’: birth and youth, adulthood and reproductive years, and old age. The life-history approach consists of a set of ‘facts’ binding together knowledge of a disease, its routes of transmission, and the susceptibility of the exposed population; it thus provides an adequate framework to explore the complex nature of population-level disease transmission. The analytical focus of this article is concerned with how these ‘facts’ are disseminated via model-based or mathematical representations. Just as life histories are stories full of interactions, surprises and struggles, this article highlights the underlying contingencies in the dissemination and accumulation of factual knowledge.

In the Netherlands, the opposition between advocates of embryo selection (preimplantation genetic diagnosis, PGD) and opponents seeking to ban PGD altogether escalated in May and June 2008, shortly after the State Secretary of Health proposed to rescind the ban on PGD for hereditary breast cancer. The clash between the Social Democratic Labour Party and the Reformed Christian Party, both represented in the Dutch Parliament, was ultimately settled in a quite friendly atmosphere. The active engagement in the debate of women and some men with a family history of hereditary breast cancer, who wrote or told their personal stories to the media, may have helped solve the conflict. In this article, I identify the stories of suffering and the arguments for or against PGD that BRCA mutation carriers made public in response to the controversy. Subsequently, the empirical findings are interpreted in light of political theories on the role of storytelling in political discourse. Deborah Stone’s recognition that storytelling is part and parcel of all political discourse and Iris Marion Young’s analysis of what stories do are used to evaluate the transformative effect that the real-life stories had in the Dutch public debate on PGD for hereditary breast cancer.

Testing for food allergy/intolerance is a rapidly expanding market. We present an exploration of the efforts of one of the market leading companies in this sector to promote and justify their product in the face of considerable opposition from conventional medicine, as well as a range of alliances with patient groups, so-called ‘lifestyle gurus’ and their customers. In extracting the latent value of an immunoglobin called IgG, testing companies engage with and extend entrepreneurial patienthood and new forms of pastoral expertise in their efforts to identify and manage a group of low-level chronic conditions that resonate with contemporary social unease about the hazards of modernity. Rather than foregrounding novelty and hope, we found that a great deal of emphasis was placed upon establishing conventionality with business practice and scientific method, and relief from the past. We also found that the local circuits and networks of engagement, in which the company operated to secure their reputation and extend their market, were vitally important. We end by reflecting upon the implications of our analysis for contemporary scholarship on biocapitalism.

The Dutch approach to genomics and society is taken as an example to show that the dream of achieving a symmetrical dialogue between social and bioscientists is not easily realized. Dutch social science and genomics experts aspired to create a bottom-up network for society and genomics that would enable social scientists to bring their own expertise and views into the dialogue with bioscientists. However, in the final stage of founding the network, this aspiration was nipped in the bud. As a result, the genomics and society research agenda has become primarily governed by the desire to adequately implement genomics in society.

This article explores the FBI's early efforts to develop and implement a standardized DNA profiling regime in a legal and scientific landscape shaped by strong defense challenges to the technique. Although the FBI claimed numerous times that its standardization efforts were purely ‘technical’, the FBI knew it had to create a social infrastructure that would serve to ensure the validity and reliability of the forensic DNA evidence. At the center of the system would be the FBI, serving as the obligatory, if reluctant, passage point for both technical and social exchanges. The FBI decided largely by fiat that forensic scientists based in public crime laboratories, but with little molecular biology and genetics training, bore the primary responsibility for setting standards, as well as carrying out, forensic DNA analysis. At the same time, the FBI actively excluded representatives from the private biotechnology companies that introduced the technique into the legal system, as well as the members of the defense community that were responsible for highlighting potential problems with the technique in court.

Concern that advances in predictive genetic testing might result in increased numbers of individuals being denied access to life assurance has led many countries to restrict insurers’ historic ‘right to underwrite’. Critics of the insurance industry present genetic discrimination as a threat to the social values of equality and inclusion. However, by unpacking the foundational principles of private insurance, and adopting a more critical approach to genetic information, discrimination, fairness and inclusion, this article suggests that the normative values underpinning life assurance in Britain are unlikely to engender widespread exclusion in an age of increased genetic knowledge, but over-regulation of industry might itself create unacceptable inequity within the market. This suggests that we ought to link the legitimacy of regulatory constraint to the type of social good particular forms of insurance exemplify, and instead of focusing narrowly on genetic information consider the broader implications of risk assessment for the privatization of welfare.

Genetics for the human race was the title of a special supplement of Nature Genetics published in November 2004. This was based on a meeting held at Howard University on 15 May 2003, entitled ‘Human genome variation and “race”—the state of the science’. A month earlier, on 14 April 2003, announcing the release of the ‘essentially completed’ human genome sequence, Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute had said, ‘All of this study of genotypes will have profound consequences on our understanding of race and ethnicity’ and told scientists they were obligated to translate what they learn about race, ethnicity and genetics into ‘information that will be usefully included as part of the often-contentious dialogue about race in our society’.At the heart of these concerns lay a crucial question—would the genomics of the twenty-first century resurrect,or finally lay to rest, the scientific racism that has played such a formative and bloody role in the history of our present?

This article provides an empirical account of the application of genetic counselling in China based on interviews, clinical observation and literature research during a field study from September 2008 to February 2009, carried out mainly in China and partly in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Making comparisons with the situation in the UK and in Hong Kong, and from a social science perspective, the article outlines the situation of genetic counselling in China, discussing the qualifications for genetic counselling providers, the model of genetic clinical services, and their governance and supervision in Chinese social contexts. The article discusses Chinese practitioners’ understanding of and practice around ethical issues such as non-directiveness, informed choice and decision-making, and explores the extent to which this reflects the administrative, political and socio-economic environments in Chinese society. The article argues that the current state of genetic counselling in China arises mainly from its executive governance, non-professional genetic counselling provision, economic conditions and the lack of full healthcare coverage.

The purpose of this article is to comment upon an interesting gap in the criticism heaped upon Woo Suk Hwang following the revelation that his apparently groundbreaking stem cell research involved both the falsification of data and the unethical recruitment of egg donors. It is, of course, unsurprising that his fraudulent research and a possible breach of the Helsinki Declaration have come under considerable scrutiny. More interesting, in my view, is that there has been very little interest in the fact that human embryos may have been pointlessly destroyed. It is generally believed that research involving human embryos is legitimate only when it serves an important scientific purpose. Hwang’s research could serve no useful scientific purpose, and hence it would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify the destruction of embryos. I ask whether the comparative lack of interest in this aspect of the Korean stem cell research scandal points to a shift in our attitudes towards the instrumental use of the early human embryo.