Abstract
During the past decade the notion of bioeconomy has gained increasing attention as an area needing special governmental attention to stimulate biotechnological innovation in Europe and elsewhere. In a parallel, but ostensibly unrelated movement, a number of legal initiatives are said to be aimed at safeguarding the body from economic exploitation. Social science scholars have criticized the trade in human biological material, and claimed that the legal work to protect the body is nothing more than a symbolic gesture covering up exploitation for economic gain. With this chapter I suggest that though ‘symbolic’, treaties aimed at protecting the body are symbols with great impact. Similarly, the material preparation of body parts as tradable grafts involves symbolic work and this symbolism is an essential part of making a ‘market’. I argue that instances of ‘symbolic law’ can reflect situations in which several competing agendas are at play and to understand the effects, we therefore need to investigate empirically what emerges through this friction between competing governmental ambitions. My discussion is based on studies of tissue exchange in Europe and seeks to integrate theories of symbolic law with social science theories of performativity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aubert, V. 1966. Some social functions of legislation. Acta Sociologica January 10(1/2): 98–120.
Butler, J. 1993. Bodies that matter. On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.
Callon, M. 1998. The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. In The laws of the markets, 1–57. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Commission of the European Communities. 2005. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering, 1–6. Brussels: The European Parliament.
Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine. Convention of human rights and biomedicine.
Dickenson, D. 2007. Property in the body. Feminist perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, M. 1995[1966]. Purity and danger. An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.
The European Parliament, and The Council of the European Union. 2004. EU Tissue and Cells Directive (EUTCD) Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells.
Fabre, C. 2006. Whose body is it anyway? Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Faulkner, A. 2012. Commensuration and proliferation. Similarity and divergence in law’s shaping of medical technology. Law, Innovation and Technology 4(2): 165–184.
Foray, D. 2004. The patent system and the dynamics of innovation in Europe. Science and Public Policy 31(6): 449–456.
Fox, M. 2000. Pre-persons, commodities or cyborgs. The legal construction and representation of the embryo. Health Care Analysis 8: 171–188.
Gieryn, T.F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science. Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48(6): 781–795.
Gocke, D.J. 2005. Tissue donor selection and safety. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 435: 17–21.
Gold, E.R. 1996. Body parts. Property rights and the ownership of human biological materials. Washington, DC: Georgetwon University Press.
Goodwin, M. 2006. Black markets. The supply and demand of body parts. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Halpern, S.A. 2004. Lesser harms. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Harris, J.T. 1996. Who owns my body. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 16(1): 55–84.
Harrison, C.H. 2002. Neither Moore nor the market. Alternative models for compensating contributors of human tissue. American Journal of Law & Medicine 28: 77–105.
Herring, J., and P.-L. Chau. 2007. My body, your body, our bodies. Medical Law Review 15: 34–61.
Hoeyer, K. 2007. Person, patent and property. A critique of the commodification hypothesis. BioSocieties 2(3): 327–348.
Hoeyer, K. 2009. Tradable body parts? How bone and recycled prosthetic devices acquire a price without forming a ‘market’. BioSocieties 4(2–3): 239–256.
Hoeyer, K. 2010. An anthropological analysis of European Union (EU) health governance as biopolitics. The case of EU tissues and cells directive. Social Science and Medicine 70: 1867–1873.
Hoeyer, K. 2013. Exchanging human bodily material. Rethinking bodies and markets. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hoeyer, K., A.M.B. Jensen., and M. Olejaz. 2015 Transplantation as an abstract good – Practicing deliberate ignorance in deceased organ donation in Denmark. Sociology of Health and Illness 37(4): 578–593.
Hoeyer, K., and A.M.B. Jensen. 2013. Transgressive ethics. Professional work ethics as a perspective on ‘aggressive organ harvesting’. Social Studies of Science 43(4): 599–619.
Hogle, L.F. 1999. Recovering the Nation’s body. New Brunswick/London: Rutgers University Press.
Hyde, A. 1997. Bodies of law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kirn, T.F. 1987. How does tissue banking work? Virginia bank, while not typical, may offer some insights. JAMA 258(3): 304–305.
Landecker, H. 1999. Between beneficence and chattel. The human biological in law and science. Science in Context 12(1): 203–225.
Lenk, C., and K. Beier. 2012. Is commercialisation of human tissue and body material forbidden in the countries of the European Union? Journal of Medical Ethics 38(6): 347–350.
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969. The raw and the cooked. An introduction to the science of mythology, vol. 1, 1–387. Trans. J & W Weightman. New York: Harper & Row.
Mason, J.K., and G.T. Laurie. 2001. Consent or property? Dealing with the body and its parts in the shadow of Bristol and alder hey. The Modern Law Review 64(5): 710–729.
Mohr, S. 2014. Containing sperm – Managing legitimacy. Lust, disgust, and hybridity at danish sperm banks. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 45(3): 1–24.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2011. Human bodies. Donation for medicine and research, 1–254. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2005. Proposal for a major project on the bioeconomy in 2030. A policy agenda. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2011. The bioeconomy to 2030. Designing a policy agenda.
Pirnay, J.P., A. Vanderkelen, D. De Vos, J.P. Draye, T. Rose, C. Ceulemans, N. Ectors, I. Huys, S. Jennes, and G. Verbeken. 2013. Business oriented EU human cell and tissue product legislation will adversely impact Member State’s health care systems. Cell and Tissue Banking 14: 525–560.
Rabinow, P. 1992. Severing the ties. Fragmetation and dignity in late modernity. Knowledge and Society: The Anthropology of Science and Technology 9: 169–187.
Rose, C.M. 2005. Afterword. Whither commodification. In Rethinking commodification. Cases and readings in law and culture, ed. M. Ertman and J. Williams. New York: New York University Press.
Scheper-Hughes, N. 2002. Commodifying bodies. London: Sage.
Sharp, L.A. 2007. Bodies, commodities, and biotechnologies. Death, mourning, and scientific desire in the realm of human organ transfer. New York: Columbia University Press.
Skegg, P.D.G. 1975. Human corpses, medical specimens and the law of property. Anglo-American Law Review 4: 412–424.
Stark, D. 2009. The sense of dissonance. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2005. Universal draft declaration on bioethics and human rights. Paris: UNESCO.
Van der Burg, W., and F.W.A. Brom. 2000. Legislation on ethical issues. Towards an interactive paradigm. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3(1): 57–75.
Wadmann, S., and K, Hoeyer. 2014. Beyond the ‘therapeutic misconception’. Research, care and moral friction. BioSocieties 9(1): 3–23.
Zwart, H. 2014. The donor organ as an ‘object a’. A Lacanian perspective on organ donation and transplantation medicine. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17(4): 559–571.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hoeyer, K. (2016). Bioeconomy, Moral Friction and Symbolic Law. In: van Klink, B., van Beers, B., Poort, L. (eds) Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw. Legisprudence Library, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33365-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33363-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33365-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)