Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bio-Identification, Value Creation and the Reproductive Bioeconomy: Insights from the Reprogenetics Sector in Spain

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bioeconomies

Abstract

This chapter addresses the social, economic, legal and political articulations of the reproductive bioeconomy in Spain . More specifically, it studies the process of value creation , appropriation and distribution sustaining the reprogenetics sector of the Spanish reproductive bioeconomy . Drawing from 28 semi-structured interviews with IVF patients undergoing PGD/PGS in Spain, Pavone suggests that value does not proceed entirely from the extraction and appropriation of the latent (re)generative capabilities of the human body , but rather from the incorporation of reproductive tissue and practices in the capitalist regime of accumulation . This incorporation seems to be accomplished through a process of bio-identification, which stabilizes recalcitrant bio-objects , like PGD/PGS embryos , and attributes value to them as they get incorporated into a reprogenetics value chain based on four, overlapping, technical, normative, social and economic steps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ADECES. (2015). Técnicas de Reproducción Asistida La necesidad de invertir. Madrid: Asociación pro Derechos Civiles, Económicos y Sociales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeling, R. (2007). Selling genes, selling gender: Egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. American Sociological Review, 72(3), 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeling, R. (2009). Gender and the value of bodily goods: Commodification in egg and sperm donation. Law & Contemporary Problems, 72(3), 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, S. (2011). Fertility tourism: Circumventive routes that enable access to reproductive technologies and substances. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 36(2), 280–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, K. (2016). Rethinking value in the bio-economy finance, assetization, and the management of value. Science, Technology & Human Values, 42(3), 460–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, K., & Mykhnenko, V. (2014). Lisbonizing versus financializing Europe? The Lisbon Agenda and the (un) making of the European knowledge-based economy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(1), 108–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, K., & Tyfield, D. (2013). Theorizing the Bioeconomy Biovalue, Biocapital, Bioeconomics or… What? Science, Technology and Human Values, 38(3), 299–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, K., & Schultz, S. (2012). Oöcytes for research: Inspecting the commercialization continuum. New Genetics and Society, 31(2), 135–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. (2007). Shifting tenses: Reconnecting regimes of truth and hope. Configurations, 13(3), 331–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., Machin, L., & McLeod, D. (2011). Immunitary bioeconomy: The economisation of life in the international cord blood market. Social Science & Medicine, 72(7), 1115–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, L. R., Degraaff, R. A., Danzon, P. M., Kimberly, J. R., Kissick, W. L., & Pauly, M. V. (2002). The Wharton School study of the health care value chain. The health care value chain: Producers, purchasers and providers (pp. 3–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. (2008). Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drazba, K. T., Kelley, M. A., & Hershberger, P. E. (2014). A qualitative inquiry of the financial concerns of couples opting to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis to prevent the transmission of known genetic disorders. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 23(2), 202–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrich, K., & Williams, C. (2010). A ‘healthy baby’: the double imperative of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Health:, 14(1), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, A. (2012). Law’s performativities: Shaping the emergence of regenerative medicine through European Union legislation. Social Studies of Science, 42(5), 753–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E., Tao, X., Ferry, K., Taylor, D., Treff, N., & Scott, R. (2012). Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Human reproduction, 27(4), 1217–1222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (2006a). Embryonic economies: The double reproductive value of stem cells. BioSocieties, 1(1), 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (2006b). The IVF-stem cell interface. International Journal of Surgery, 4(2), 86–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. B. (2013). Biological relatives: IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S., Roberts, C., Throsby, K., Braude, P., Shaw, J., Lashwood, A., et al. (2005). Factors affecting PGD patients’ consent to donate embryos to stem cell research. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 10, 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gianaroli, L., Crivello, A. M., Stanghellini, I., Ferraretti, A. P., Tabanelli, C., & Magli, M. C. (2014). Reiterative changes in the Italian regulation on IVF: The effect on PGD patients’ reproductive decisions. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 28, 125–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardarson, T., Hanson, C., Lundin, K., Hillensjö, T., Nilsson, L., Stevic, J., et al. (2008). Preimplantation genetic screening in women of advanced maternal age caused a decrease in clinical pregnancy rate: A randomized controlled trial. Human Reproduction, 23, 2806–2812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, J., Coonen, E., de Rycke, M., Harton, G., Moutou, C., Pehlivan, T., et al. (2010). ESHRE PGD consortium data collection X: Cycles from January to December 2007 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2008. Human Reproduction, 25, 2685–2707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershberger, P. E., Gallo, A. M., Kavanaugh, K., Olshansky, E., Schwartz, A., & Tur-Kaspa, I. (2012). The decision-making process of genetically at-risk couples considering preimplantation genetic diagnosis: Initial findings from a grounded theory study. Social Science & Medicine, 74(10), 1536–1543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, T., Schwennesen, N., & Webster, A. (2011). Bio-objects and the bio-objectification process. Croatian Medical Journal, 52(6), 740–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, J. (2008). The fetal tissue economy: From the abortion clinic to the stem cell laboratory. Social Science & Medicine, 67(11), 1747–1756.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. (2013). Predicting probability: Regulating the future of preimplantation genetic screening. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, 8(2), 284–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, L. P., & Kaebnick, G. E. (2007). Reprogenetics: Law, policy, and ethical issues. Baltimore: JHU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupka, M. S., Ferraretti, A. P., De Mouzon, J., Erb, K., D’Hooghe, T., Castilla, J. A., et al. (2014). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction, 29(10), 2099–2113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mamo, L. (2007). Tissue economies: Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 297, 414–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P., Brown, N., & Turner, A. (2008). Capitalizing hope: The commercial development of umbilical cord blood stem cell banking. New Genetics and Society, 27(2), 127–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D., & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business logistics, 22(2), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzler, I., & Webster, A. (2011). Bio-objects and their boundaries: Governing matters at the intersection of society, politics, and science. Croatian Medical Journal, 52(5), 648–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novas, C. (2006). The political economy of hope: Patients’ organizations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties, 1(3), 289–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, K., & Haran, J. (2009). From reproduction to research: sourcing eggs, IVF and cloning in the UK. Feminist Theory, 10(2), 191–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormondroyd, E., Donnelly, L., Moynihan, C., Savona, C., Bancroft, E., Evans, D. G., et al. (2012). Attitudes to reproductive genetic testing in women who had a positive BRCA test before having children: A qualitative analysis. European Journal of Human Genetics, 20(1), 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pande, A. (2009). Not an “Angel” not a “Whore”: Surrogates as “Dirty Workers” in India. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 16(2), 141–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parens, E., & Knowles, L. P. (2003). Reprogenetics and public policy: Reflections and recommendations. Hastings Center Report, 33(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, B. (2015). Narratives of neoliberalism:‘Clinical labour’in context. Medical Humanities, 41(1), 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavone, V., & Arias, F. (2012). Beyond the geneticization thesis: The political economy of PGD/PGS in Spain. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(3), 235–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavone, V., & Funes, S. L. (2014). Pacientes, consumidoras o ninguna de las dos: narrativas y posicionamientos de mujeres en el caso de diagnóstico preimplantacional en el Estado español. Revista de derecho y genoma humano, 1, 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A., & Krisjansen, I. (2015). Assembling ‘the bioeconomy’: Exploiting the power of the promissory life sciences. Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 28–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of interpreting naturally-occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, K. S. (2006). Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. F. (2012). God’s laboratory: Assisted reproduction in the Andes. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salama, M. (2014). Cross border reproductive care (CBRC): A global perspective. Obstetrics & Gynecology International Journal, 1, 00008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, B. (2013). Governing innovation paths in regenerative medicine: The european and global struggle for political advantage. In The Global Dynamics of Regenerative Medicine: A Social Science Critique, edited by Andrew Webster pp. (194–216). London: Palgrave..

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, B., & Faulkner, A. (2011). State strategies of governance in biomedical innovation: Aligning conceptual approaches for understanding ‘Rising Powers’ in the global context. Globalization and Health, 7(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, B., Zhou, Y., & Datta, S. (2014). Health consumers and stem cell therapy innovation: Markets, models and regulation. Regenerative Medicine, 9(3), 353–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, B., Zhou, Y., & Datta, S. (2015). Hegemony in the marketplace of biomedical innovation: Consumer demand and stem cell science. Social Science & Medicine, 131, 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, S., & Braun, K. (2013). Procuring tissue: Regenerative medicine, oocyte mobilisation, and feminist politics. The Global Dynamics of Regenerative Medicine: A Social Science Critique, edited by Andrew Webster pp. (118–149). London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEF. (2013). Registro de la Sociedad Española de Fertilidad: Técnicas de reproducción asistida (IA y FIV/ICSI). Madrid: Sociedad Española de Fertilidad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanley, M. L. (2002). Collaboration and commodification in assisted procreation: Reflections on an open market and anonymous donation in human sperm and eggs. Law and Society Review, 36(2), 257–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, L. M. (2000). Reprogenetics: Third millennium speculation. EMBO Reports, 1, 375–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spar, D. (2007). The egg trade—making sense of the market for human oocytes. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(13), 1289–1291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen, M. N., & Koch, L. (2008). Unpacking the ‘Spare Embryo’. Facilitating Stem Cell research in a moral landscape. Social studies of Science, 38(1), 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. (2007). Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation.Regenerative medicine, 2(2), 203–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throsby, K. (2004). When IVF fails: Feminism, infertility and the negotiation of normality. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Niekerk, A., & van Zyl, L. (1995). The ethics of surrogacy: Women’s reproductive labour. Journal of Medical Ethics, 21(6), 345–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vora, K. (2009). Indian transnational surrogacy and the commodification of vital energy. Subjectivity, 28(1), 266–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C. (2002). Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health, 6(3), 305–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C. (2006). Tissue economies. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Health, Illness, Behavior, and Society, 2448–2450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C. (2008). Oocyte markets: Women’s reproductive work in embryonic stem cell research. New Genetics and Society, 27(1), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C. (2014). ‘Banking time’: Egg freezing and the negotiation of future fertility. Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 17(4), 470–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C., & Cooper, M. (2008). The biopolitics of reproduction: Post-fordist biotechnology and women's clinical labour. Australian Feminist Studies, 23(55), 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C., & Cooper, M. (2010). From reproductive work to regenerative labour: The female body and the stem cell industries. Feminist Theory, 11(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C., & Cooper, M. (2014). Clinical labor: Tissue donors and research subjects in the global bioeconomy. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldby, C., & Mitchell, R. (2006). Tissue economies: Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, A. (2012). Introduction. In N. Vermeulen, S. Tamminen, & A. Webster (Eds.), Bio-objects: Life in the 21st century. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarzeczny, A., & Caulfield, T. (2009). Emerging ethical, legal and social issues associated with stem cell research & and the current role of the moral status of the embryo. Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, 5(2), 96–101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Consejo Superior Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain

    Vincenzo Pavone

Authors
  1. Vincenzo Pavone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain

    Vincenzo Pavone

  2. Kukupa Research Ltd, Pigeon Bay, Germany

    Joanna Goven

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pavone, V. (2017). Bio-Identification, Value Creation and the Reproductive Bioeconomy: Insights from the Reprogenetics Sector in Spain. In: Pavone, V., Goven, J. (eds) Bioeconomies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55651-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55651-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55650-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55651-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation