Chp 5: Biological Citizens
Nikolas Rose argues that a new type of citizenship based on biology is emerging “in the age of biomedicine, bio-technology, and genomics” (p. 131). There is a transformation from the binding nationalist forms of citizen identity to one that extends from the realms of the individual and family to transnational dimensions. Value systems appear to be changing as a population’s resources move from the collection of individuals to the group’s genetic characteristics. “Biological citizenship is both individualizing and collectivizing. It is individualized, to the extent that individuals shape their relations with themselves in terms of a knowledge of their somatic individualality…Biological citizenship also has a collectivizing moment…Biosocial groupings-collectives formed around a biological conception of a shared identity” (p 134). Within these transitions the genetic citizen, through education, takes on the “eugenic” responsibility of the early twenty century state of maintaining one’s own heredity. The state role in managing the character and make up of a nation’s blood and race finds its form in public health measures, which influence medical routines through promotional programs. “Making up biological citizen also involves the creation of a person with a certain kind of relation to themselves…the language with which citizens are coming to understand and describe themselves is increasingly biological” (p. 140-1).
The Commentor from the audience sounds strangely familar
As patients or probable pre-patients, biological citizens learn how the drugs they are prescribed work on the molecular level and are asked to become active in their own recovery. “Activism and responsibility have now become not only desirable but virtually obligatory – part of the obligation of the active biological citizen, to live her or her life through acts of calculation and choice” (p. 147). Those who have a disease are responsible to educate themselves and others in way that not only contribute to the cure but increase awareness about their condition. The biological becomes political. “The regulated political economy of health – consisting of relations between the state apparatus, scientific and medical knowledge, the activities of commercial enterprises and the health related consumption of individuals – is being reshaped, as the potentialities embodied in life itself become sources of value” (p. 150). Concepts of human life are transformed as life itself enters the marketplace creating a “biocitizen-consumer of health.” Rose concludes with the obligations that this economy of health places on these new consumers: “the active responsible biological citizen must engage in a constant work of self-evaluation and the modulation of conduct, diet, lifestyle, and drug regime, in response to the changing requirements of the susceptible body” (p. 154).
Chp 6: Race in the Age of Genomic Medicine
Nikolas Rose begins with a critical 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?” He argues that in order to address these concerns the debate has to transcend racial and biological understandings of the past. The current systems do not view race as a deterministic and closed identity, but as “an unstable space of ambivalence between the molecular level of the genome and the cell, and the molar level of classifications in terms of population group, country of origin, cultural diversity, and self-perception” (p. 161).
Rose examines one of the primary means that a states uses to classify and categorizing individuals into race populations, the census. The naming of groups becomes a site of political contention as racial categories are contested and/or recognition as a race is sought to gain resources and equality. Through government sponsorship of research, primarily NIH grants, these classifications found their way into the realm genetic research. “These census categories will come to organize the shaping of scientific truth, not only the techniques for selection of samples and collection of data but its analysis and the search for differences” (p. 174). As genetic technologies have advanced, bio-communities made up of specific races, lineages or groups of individuals who share a common disease have offered their genetic selves to commercial research companies in order to solve their community’s biological issues. Rose suggests “that the forms of collectivization being shaped in the links of ethnicity with medicine are not those of racial science but those of biosociality and active biological citizenship” (p. 176). The quest to discover one’s identity in regards to a community is not raced based but a result of being a territorialized social citizen. People want to know where they came from and who they are in relation with biologically and socially.
Pharmaceutical corporations, however, have found ways to turn race based genetic differences into capital. NitroMed capitalized on these differences, “by claiming to tailor therapies to the genetic profiles of ethnically identified consumers, and enabling them to repatent the drug for African Americans in 2000, thus extending it patent life” (p. 182-3). While there is resistance to this racialization of drugs in America, “the belief that drugs act differently act differently in different populations is already widely accepted in many countries in Asia” (p. 183).
How difference is governed is changed as our understandings of individuals and populations in terms of genetics grow. While there are socio-economic variables connected to risk and susceptibility, ancestral and geographic origins should also be part of the equation. “New kinds of biosocial associations and communities increasingly define their citizenship in terms of their rights (and obligations) to life, health, and cure and these active biological citizens demand that the particularities of their conditions be given weight in genomic biomedical research and the development of therapeutics” (p. 185 -6).
Discussion Questions
1) How do you see yourself in terms of Biological Citizenship (language, activities, knowledge, regulations, communities)?
2) One of the primary debates in making population specific drugs appears to be, "What has more influence socio-economics and enviroment or ancestral genetics?" The answer to these questions might not only effect how populations are viewed, but also the resources allocated via the government and/or the market. Using an example, what might be some consequences of life itself becomeing part of the marketplace in terms of what Rose calls pharmacogenomics?
The molecularization of life itself and the process of breaking things down into the realm of its microscopic components are undoubtedly polarizing. Whether this advancement in biotechnology is ethical or our quickened road to hell on earth depends on which side of the ideological debate one chooses to stand on. Shall we be the transcendent human race marching triumphantly into the age of singularity or shall we be devoured by our mechanization? We may become soulless drones directed by our supercomputers and live in a world that could only be imagined by the most vivid science fiction movies. Perhaps it will be the salvation of the human race. We will find out one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteThe dilemma in classification based upon arbitrary signifiers like race has always been problematic. This dilemma becomes more convoluted when we drag the genetic question into the equation. Pharmaceutical companies need to sell more drugs. Similar to the cash hungry druglord popularized by the Hollywood narrative who diabolically conjures new and inventive ways of locking down the entire neighborhood with his special brand of crack or smack, pharmaceutical companies want to sell us their dope. There is a drug out there with your name on it, no matter what box you check on your census. You can fight the categorization all you want, but the molecularization will tell you exactly what you need to know. Let us see your genes. Inside your genetic code there is a possibility for a debilitating disease that can be managed by the medicine. Be a good biocitizen and produce things for the advancement of society. Forget about your anxiety, this knowledge is here to liberate mankind.
This post may reek of unbridled cynicism, but as we saw form the 23 and me website, the possibilities that were laid out were rather silly. If I eat massive amounts of cake, high fructose corn syrup, slabs of sauce-dripping ribs, anything from McDonalds on a consistent basis, I probably will develop diabetes, heart disease and cancer. How about living a healthy lifestyle? I am not here to underestimate the good genetic testing can do, but I am here to criticize this obsession with encouraging the balance of the populous to submit to this testing for “our own good” or some manufactured notion of citizenship. Be a good parent and control the pet population. Be kind and respect others. Learn to love and not to fear. The last thing I need is another corporation telling me how to be a good citizen. This phony, coercive hailing be damned: I am a human being not a genome; I am a man not a molecule, I am a scholar not a sucker. This is certainly about power and subjectivity and who gets to design the rules. Ultimately it is up to us to decide whether or not we submit to it.
Oh God.. where in the world did you find that video????
ReplyDeleteIn response to Brandon’s question regarding my perception of myself as a biological citizen, I believe that I fit into Rose’s category of a “genetic citizen;” within that of the biological citizen. Management of my ‘own genome’ passed through my own genetic influences often cross my mind regarding choices I make possibly determining my fate. First, I see myself as a genetic citizen rather than an individual obscured by a future pathology. In my case, the genetic influence that my paternal grandmother poses on my health weighs on my beliefs and attitudes regarding the management of my own health. Louise Slattery, my grandmother, died of breast cancer in the late 1960s. Of full Italian descent, Louise was ‘at-risk’ for the cancer in comparison to many other global ethnic groups. While I am Italian, I also possess English, Irish and Native American blood. Although, breast cancer also occurs in these groups, it is not as commonplace. Regardless of my own genetic makeup, health practitioners stress the genetic influence my grandmother poses in my future health status. For example, increased preventive measures such as early mammograms have become incorporated in my “chart.” That is, susceptibility has created a biological citizen out of my own individuality, as I am now a node in a network providing rich material information for future citizens and the future of biomedicine. Secondly, through “the politics of hope” of preventing future illness, I see how I constitute an active biological citizen as I actively produce bio value to the economic market. Especially, through increased visits to doctors and Because I possess an increased susceptibility to breast cancer, according to genetic influences I am expected to continually evaluate myself as my own bodily processes produce economic value. Health practitioners advocate the ideology of a “regime of self,’ whereby the human body is constantly redefined. As a genetic citizen, I continually act to shape and reshape my ultimate fate.. Regardless of my true susceptibility, I “should” act within the ethics of care.
ReplyDeleteI am on a different computer and have been able to move my post down to comments! yay!
ReplyDeleteBrandon asks, “How do you see yourself in terms of Biological Citizenship (language, activities, knowledge, regulations, communities?”
As Rose asserts, “Activism and responsibility have now become not only desirable but virtually obligatory – part of the obligation of the active biological citizen, to liver his or her life through acts of calculation and choice” (p. 147). I believe that an ongoing and recent example that we have previously briefly discussed in class is breast cancer awareness. Last month was the annual breast cancer awareness month and to my surprise this awareness is becoming more ingrained in citizenship, even in the forms of sports. I was very surprised to see NFL football players wearing pink bands on their bodies displaying their awareness of breast cancer. This obligation is also surpassing gender barriers of promoting awareness of female breast cancer by both men and women more readily.
Another sport-like example that comes to mind is the philanthropy of sororities for breast cancer. For example, every October, sororities from my undergraduate alma mater, Youngstown State University, hold a well-attended cheer a-thon event in which area high school cheerleading teams compete and raise money for breast cancer awareness. The event is very profitable and proceeds benefit the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
What I find it ironic that in these two events it is the participants themselves, the football players and the cheerleaders, that are most likely have healthy-abled bodies supporting and promoting others being aware of breast cancer. More so, as we have briefly discussed before in class, what does this awareness do? For the average boy or girl watching the football game or the cheerleading competition, other than associating pink with breast cancer and obtaining a general understanding that some serious illness such as breast cancer exists, a child or teen may be more influenced to exercise and possibly adopt a healthier lifestyle – thus fulfilling the role of a responsible biocitizen. That may just simply be the overall objective of sports promoting disease and cancer awareness. – STAY IN SHAPE; FIGHT OFF ILLNESSES; PROMOTE THE SALE OF PINK PRODUCTS!!! I know this may seem a bit cynical, but Rose states that there is an essential political economy aspect of responsible biocitizens “who must engage in a constant work of self-evaluation and the modulation of conduct, diet, lifestyle, and drug regime, in response to the changing requirements of the susceptible body” (p. 154).
Lastly, the countless amount of breast cancer and other diseases/conditions/illness walks illustrate the importance of continuously managing and taking preventative health measures for both prepatients and postpatients of such illnesses. Regardless of one’s risk, fitness is IN and it is the “new” way to promote awareness of illnesses, raise money for such foundations, and act responsibily as a citizen.