Skip to main content
Log in

Beasting the Embryo: The Metrics of Humanness in the Transpecies Embryo Debate

  • Article
  • Published:
BioSocieties Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The creation and use of transpecies human-animal embryos for research has figured prominently in recent highly controversial changes to UK reproductive legislation. This article reflects on the debate in the UK parliamentary context, drawing on socio-anthropological writing on hybridity. It seeks to make sense of two related cultural contradictions evident in the debate. First, a paradoxical position has been taken over decades in which the law simultaneously bans and yet permits the production of transpecies embryos. Second, key stakeholders have based their arguments on the simultaneous differentiation and dedifferentiation of embryos. Attempts to distinguish between different classes of embryo (cybrids, chimeras, pure hybrids, etc.) have been in tension with pressures to homogenize all embryos as morally equal. The article explores both of these contradictory tensions in the debate and their significance for the regulation and oversight of reproductive research.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agamben G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agamben G. (2004). The open: Man and animal. Stanford. CA: Stanford UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barad K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences, 10(2), 87–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown N., Faulkner A., Kent J., & Michael M. (2006). Regulating hybrids—‘Making a mess’ and ‘cleaning up’ in tissue engineering and xenotransplantation. Social Theory and Health, 4, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown N., & Michael M. (2004). Risky creatures: Institutional species boundary change in biotechnology regulation. Health, Risk and Society, 6, 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown N. & Michael M. (2001). Switching between science and culture in transpecies transplantation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y., He Z.X., Liu A., Wang K., Mao W.W., Chu J.X. et al. (2003). Embryonic stem cells generated by nuclear transfer of human somatic nuclei into rabbit oocytes. Cell Research, 13, 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper M. (2004). Regenerative medicine: Stem cells and the science of monstrosity. Journal of Medical Ethics: Medical Humanities, 30, 12–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health (1990). Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. London: Stationery Office.

  • Department of Health (2006). Review of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. London: Stationery Office.

  • Department of Health (May 2007). Draft Bill, Human Tissues and Embryos. London: Stationery Office.

  • Department of Health (2008). Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. London: Stationery Office.

  • Derrida J. (2002). The animal that therefore I am. Critical Inquiry, 28(2), 369–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin S. (1999). Making representations: The parliamentary debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. In Edwards J., Franklin S., Hirsch E., Price F., & Strathern M. (Eds.), Technologies of procreation: Kinship in the age of assisted conception. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray J. (2002). Straw dogs. London: Granta Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and technoscience. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway D. (1995). Otherworldly conversations, terran topics, local terms. In Shiva V., & Moser I. (Eds.), Biopolitics: A feminist and ecological reader on biotechnology. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hird M.J. (2002a). Re(pro)ducing sexual difference. Parallax, 8(4), 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hird M.J. (2002b). The corporeal generosity of maternity. Body & Society, 13, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg T. (2005). Questioning the number of the beast: Constructions of humanness in a Human Genome Project. Science as Culture, 14, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology (2005). Human reproductive technologies and the law, vols I–II. London: The Stationery Office.

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2007a). HFEA statement on its decision regarding hybrid embryos, 5 September. URL (accessed November 2008): www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1581.html

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2007b). Hybrids and chimeras—A report on the findings of the consultation. London: Crown Copyright.

  • Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2005) Response by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to the Department of Health's consultation on the review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Report number 05/33273. London: Crown Copyright.

  • JCHTE (Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos [Draft] Bill) (2007a) Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, vol. I: Report (1 August). London: The Stationery Office.

  • JCHTE (Joint Committee on the Human Tissue and Embryos [Draft] Bill) (2007b) Human Tissue and Embryos (Draft) Bill, vol. II: Evidence (8 August). London: The Stationery Office.

  • Kirejczyk M. (1999). Parliamentary cultures and human embryos: The Dutch and British debates compared. Social Studies of Science, 29(6), 889–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach E. (1967). Genesis as myth. In Middleton J. (Ed.), Myth and cosmos. Garden City, NJ: Natural History Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks J. (2002). What it means to be 98 percent chimpanzee. Los Angeles: U California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin A. (2004). Can't anybody count? Counting as an epistemic theme in the history of human chromosomes. Social Studies of Science, 34, 923–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M'charek A. (2005). The mitochondrial eve of modern genetics: Of peoples and genomes, or the routinization of race. Science as Culture, 14(2), 161–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay M. (1993). Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate. Social Studies of Science, 23, 721–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay M. (1997). The embryo research debate: Science and the politics of reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Porter T.M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • President's Commission on Bioethics (1998). Proceedings of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. November, day 1. URL (accessed February 2009): govinfo.library.unt.edu/nbac/transcripts/nov98/day1_stemcell.htm

  • Parry S. (2003). The politics of cloning: Mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates. New Genetics and Society, 22, 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinow P. (1999). Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In Biagioli M. (Ed.), The science studies reader, 407–416. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squier S. (1998). Interspecies reproduction: Xenogenic desire and the feminist implications of hybrids. Cultural Studies, 12, 360–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weston K. (2002). Gender in real time: Power and transience in a visual age. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brown, N. Beasting the Embryo: The Metrics of Humanness in the Transpecies Embryo Debate. BioSocieties 4, 147–163 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209990020

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209990020

Keywords

Navigation