Abnormality as Accumulation Strategy: Orienting Embryos to Capital

References

• Aspa, J. 2019. Top 10 stem cell companies on the NASDAQ. Accessed January 21, 2020. https://investingnews.com/daily/life-science-investing/genetics-investing/top-stem-cell-nasdaq/).
   Google Scholar
• Beckles, H. 1989. Natural rebels: A social history of enslaved black women in Barbados. London: Zed.
   Google Scholar
• Birch, K. 2017. Rethinking value in the bio-economy: Finance, assetization, and the management of value. Science, Technology & Human Values 42 (3):460–90. doi: 10.1177/0162243916661633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braidotti, R. 1999. Signs of wonder and traces of doubt: On teratology and embodied differences. In Feminist theory of the body, ed. J. Price and M. Shildrick, 290–301. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bush, G. W. 2001. Stem cell speech. Accessed June 23, 2019. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010809/aponline214933_000.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Callon, M. 1998. Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. The Sociological Review 46 (1, Suppl.):1–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1998.tb03468.x.
   Google Scholar
• Canguilhem, G. 1991. The normal and the pathological. New York: Zone Books.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, A. E., J. R. Fishman, J. R. Fosket, L. Mamo, and J. K. Shim. 2000. Technoscience and the new biomedicalization: Western roots, global rhizomes. Sciences Sociales et Santé 18 (2):11–42. doi: 10.3406/sosan.2000.1489.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, A. E., L. Mamo, J. R. Fosket, J. R. Fishman, and J. K. Shim, eds. 2010. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health, and illness in the U.S. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, A. E., J. K. Shim, L. Mamo, J. R. Fosket, and J. R. Fishman. 2003. Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine. American Sociological Review 68 (2):161–94. doi: 10.2307/1519765.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collard, R.-C., and J. Dempsey. 2017. Capitalist natures in five orientations. Capitalism Nature Socialism 28 (1):78–97. doi: 10.1080/10455752.2016.1202294.
   Google Scholar
• Collard, R.-C., and J. Dempsey. 2018. Accumulation by difference-making: An Anthropocene story, starring witches. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 25 (9):1349–64. doi: 10.1080/0966369X.2018.1521385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad, P. 1992. Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology 18 (1):209–32. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper Genomics. 2017a. Genetics in reproductive medicine: A counselling aid for clinical practice. Livingston, NJ: Cooper Genomics.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper Genomics. 2017b. PGT-A: Increasing IVF success rates. Livingston, NJ: Cooper Genomics.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, M. 2008. Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, M., and C. Waldby. 2014. Clinical labour: Tissue donors and research subjects in the global bioeconomy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daar, J. 2018. A clash at the petri dish: Transferring embryos with known genetic anomalies. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 5 (2):219–61. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsy015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalla Costa, M., and S. James. 1973. The power of women and the subversion of the community. Accessed October 10, 2019. https://libcom.org/library/power-women-subversion-community-della-costa-selma-james.
   Google Scholar
• England, M., M. Fannin, and H. Hazen, eds. 2018. Reproductive geographies: Bodies, places, and politics. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fannin, M. 2018. Making an “embryological vision of the world”: Law, maternity and the Kyoto collection. In Reproductive geographies: Bodies, places, and politics, ed. M. England, M. Fannin, and H. Hazen, 17–30. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Federici, S. 2004. Caliban and the witch: Women, the body, and primitive accumulation. New York: Autonomedia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1973. The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, S. 2006. Embryonic economies: The double reproductive value of stem cells. BioSocieties 1 (1):71–90. doi: 10.1017/S1745855205040081.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, S. 2013. Biological relatives: IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, S., and C. Roberts. 2006. Born and made: An ethnography of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, S., C. Roberts, K. Throsby, P. Braude, J. Shaw, and A. Lashwood. 2005. Factors affecting PGD patients’ consent to donate embryos to stem cell research. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Preimplantation Genetics, London, May 19–21.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. 2013. Fortunes of feminism: From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Frith, L., and E. Blyth. 2014. Assisted reproductive technology in the USA: Is more regulation needed? Reproductive Biomedicine Online 29 (4):516–23. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaddie, G. 2018. The personhood movement’s effect on assisted reproductive technology: Balancing interests under a presumption of embryonic personhood. Texas Law Review 96 (6):1293–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gidwani, V. 2008. Capital, interrupted: Agrarian development and the politics of work in India. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gidwani, V., and R. N. Reddy. 2011. The afterlives of “waste”: Notes from India for a minor history of capitalist surplus. Antipode 43 (5):1625–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00902.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golden, J. L. 2006. A social history of wet nursing in America: From breast to bottle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guthman, J. 2011. Weighing in: Obesity, food justice, and the limits of capitalism. Oakland: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guthman, J. 2012. Opening up the black box of the body in geographical obesity research: Toward a critical political ecology of fat. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (5):951–57. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2012.659635.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthman, J. 2015. Binging and purging: Agrofood capitalism and the body as socioecological fix. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47 (12):2522–36. doi: 10.1068/a140005p.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthman, J., and B. Mansfield. 2008. Toward a political ecology of the body? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Boston, April 15–19.
   Google Scholar
• Guthman, J., and B. Mansfield. 2013. The implications of environmental epigenetics: A new direction for geographic inquiry on health, space, and nature–society relations. Progress in Human Geography 37 (4):486–504. doi: 10.1177/0309132512463258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, B., C. Jiang, A. Chen, Y. Cui, J. Xie, J. Shen, J. Chen, L. Cai, T. Liao, S. Ning, et al. 2015. Establishment of human-embryonic-stem-cell line from Mosaic Trisomy 9 embryo. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 54 (5):505–11. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2015.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, P., and A. Neely. 2015. Triangulating health: Toward a practice of political ecology in health. Progress in Human Geography 39 (1):47–64. doi: 10.1177/0309132513518832.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kafer, A. 2013. Feminist, queer, crip. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landecker, H. 2007. Culturing life: How cells became technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Le Page, M. 2017. First results of CRISPR gene editing of normal embryos released. New Scientist. Accessed May 6, 2020. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S. 2019. Full surrogacy now: Feminism against family. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Louisiana Revised Statutes. 2017. Chapter 3: Human embryos. Accessed June 23, 2019. https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/louisiana/la-laws/louisiana_revised_statutes_title_9_chapter_3.
   Google Scholar
• Lupton, D. 1995. The imperative of health: Public health and the regulated body. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mansfield, B. 2012. Race and the new epigenetic biopolitics of environmental health. BioSocieties 7 (4):352–72. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2012.22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansfield, B., and J. Guthman. 2015. Epigenetic life: Biological plasticity, abnormality, and new configurations of race and reproduction. Cultural Geographies 22 (1):3–20. doi: 10.1177/1474474014555659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marketdata LLC. 2019. U.S. fertility clinics & infertility services: An industry analysis. Accessed June 25, 2019. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/5sk7kf/u_s_fertility?w=5.
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, J. B., J. Owen-Smith, and C. T. Scott. 2009. Distribution of human embryonic stem cell lines: Who, when, and where. Cell Stem Cell 4 (2):107–10. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2009.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McWhorter, L. 2009. Racism and sexual oppression in Anglo-America: A genealogy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mies, M. 1998. Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale: Women and the international division of labor. London: Zed.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, K., S. A. Marston, and C. Katz. 2003. Introduction: Life’s work. An introduction, review and critique. Antipode 35 (3):415–42. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. 2019. Human embryos research and cloning prohibitions. Accessed July 2, 2019. https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/special-research-considerations/use-human-stem-cells/areas-prohibited-research/human-embryo-research-cloning-prohibitions.
   Google Scholar
• National Institutes of Health. 2020. Estimates of funding for various research, condition, and disease categories. Accessed February 28, 2020. https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Parry, B. 2012. Economies of bodily commodification. In The Wiley-Blackwell companion to economic geography, ed. T. Barnes, J. Peck, and E. Sheppard, 213–25. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Parry, B. 2013. Knowing mycellf™: Personalized medicine and the economization of prospective knowledge about bodily fate. In Knowledge and the economy, ed. P. Meusburger, J. Glückler, and M. Meskioui, 157–72. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Parry, B. 2015. A bull market? Devices of qualification and singularization in the international marketing of U.S. sperm. In Bodies across borders: The global circulation of body parts, medical tourists, and professionals, ed. B. Parry, B. Greenhough, T. Brown, and I. Dyck, 53–72. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Parry, B., B. Greenhough, T. Brown, and I. Dyck, eds. 2015. Bodies across borders: The global circulation of body parts, medical tourists, and professionals. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Payne, J. G. 2015. Reproduction in transition: Cross-border egg donation, biodesirability and new reproductive subjectivities on the European fertility market. Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 22 (1):107–22. doi: 10.1080/0966369X.2013.832656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puar, J. 2013. The cost of getting better: Ability and debility. In The disability studies reader, ed. L. J. Davis, 4th ed., 177–84. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pulido, L. 2016a. Flint, environmental racism, and racial capitalism. Capitalism Nature Socialism 27 (3):1–16. doi: 10.1080/10455752.2016.1213013.
   Google Scholar
• Pulido, L. 2016b. Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence. Progress in Human Geography 41 (4):524–33. doi: 10.1177/0309132516646495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajan, K. S. 2006. Biocapital: The constitution of post-genomic life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rao, R. 2008. Equal liberty: Assisted reproductive technology and reproductive equality. The George Washington Law Review 76 (6):1457–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, D. 1997. Killing the black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Rolls-Hansen, N. 2010. Eugenics and the science of genetics. In The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics, ed. A. Bashford and P. Levine, 80–97. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schurr, C. 2017. From biopolitics to bioeconomies: The ART of (re-)producing white futures in Mexico’s surrogacy market. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 35 (2):241–62. doi: 10.1177/0263775816638851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurr, C. 2018a. The baby business booms: Economic geographies of assisted reproduction. Geography Compass 12 (8):e12395–15. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurr, C. 2018b. Multiple mobilities in Mexico’s fertility industry. Mobilities 14 (1):103–19. doi: 10.1080/17450101.2019.1522881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurr, C., and E. Militz. 2018. The affective economy of transnational surrogacy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 50 (8):1626–45. doi: 10.1177/0308518X18769652.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schurr, C., and L. Perler. 2015. “Trafficked” into a better future? Why Mexico needs to regulate its surrogacy industry (and not ban it). Accessed August 10, 2019. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slavery/trafficked-into-better-future-why-mexico-needs-to-regulate/.
   Google Scholar
• Sharpe, C. 2010. Monstrous intimacies: Making post-slavery subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shi, Y., P. Kirwan, J. Smith, G. MacLean, S. H. Orkin, and F. J. Livesey. 2012. A human stem cell model of early Alzheimer’s disease pathology in Down syndrome. Science Translational Medicine 4 (124):124ra29. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson, E., D. Ilic, L. Jacquet, O. Genbacev, and S. J. Fisher. 2013. PGD and human embryonic stem cell technology. In Preimplantation genetic diagnosis in clinical practice, ed. T. El-Toukhy and P. Braude, 153–64. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Subramaniam, B. 2014. Ghost stories for Darwin: The science of variation and the politics of diversity. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, C. 2005. Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge, IL, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• University of Michigan Stem Cell Program. 2018. Donation of genetically affected embryos. Accessed July 25, 2018. http://www.stemcellresearch.umich.edu/donation/abnormal.html.
   Google Scholar
• Wainwright, S. P., C. Williams, M. Michael, B. Farsides, and A. Cribb. 2006. Ethical boundary-work in the embryonic stem cell laboratory. Sociology of Health & Illness 28 (6):732–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2006.00539.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldby, C. 1996. AIDS and the body politic: Biomedicine and sexual difference. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Waldby, C. 2000. The visible human project: Informatic bodies and posthuman medicine. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Waldby, C., and M. Cooper. 2008. The biopolitics of reproduction: Post-Fordist biotechnology and women’s clinical labour. Australian Feminist Studies 23 (55):57–73. doi: 10.1080/08164640701816223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldby, C., and M. Cooper. 2010. From reproductive work to regenerative labour: The female body and the stem cell industries. Feminist Theory 11 (1):3–22. doi: 10.1177/1464700109355210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldby, C., and R. Mitchell. 2006. Tissue economies: Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldby, C., and S. M. Squier. 2003. Ontogeny, ontology, and phylogeny: Embryonic life and stem cell technologies. Configurations 11 (1):27–46. doi: 10.1353/con.2004.0015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, E. 1994. Capitalism and slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. doi: 10.1086/ahr/50.4.782.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, M. 2006. Disposable women and other myths of global capitalism. London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar