Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:37:21.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Person, Patent and Property: A Critique of the Commodification Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2007

Klaus Hoeyer
Klaus Hoeyer
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Institute of Public Health, Department of Health Services Research,Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 15, Ground Floor, PO Box 2099, DK-1014 Copenhagen K, DenmarkE-mail: k.hoeyer@pubhealth.ku.dk
Get access

Abstract

It is a striking feature of current biomedicine that it increasingly relies on access to various types of human biological material. Social scientists often criticize the exchange systems facilitating this access for causing a process of ‘commodification’. Though it is not always clear what commodification is thought to imply, a morally degrading transformation from something intrinsically human to an object of ownership seems to be at stake in most accounts. Enrolment in capitalist exchange is typically portrayed as (actively) changing the status of the (passive) body part from being part of a dignified human whole to be a mere fungible commodity. In this article I argue that the notion of commodification is inadequate for an analysis of the dynamics at play in the establishment of exchange systems for human biological material. In particular I focus on the development of the patent regime. The point is that rather than focusing merely on what capitalist forms of exchange do to biotechnology and the body, we might begin to appreciate what biotechnology and the socio-cultural significance of the body do to capitalism and its property structures—or, more precisely, how people’s engagement with, and concern about, biotechnology contributes to the shaping of multiple capitalisms.

Keywords

biotechnologycapitalismcommodificationhuman bodyintellectual property rightspatenting
Type
Articles
Information
BioSocieties , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 327 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © London School of Economics and Political Science 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, L., & Nelkin, D. (2001). Body bazaar: The market for human tissue in the biotechnology age. New York: Crown Publications.Google Scholar
Barth, F. (1967). Economic spheres in Darfur. In Firth, R. (Ed.), Themes in economic anthropology. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Becker, C. (1999). Money talks, money kills—The economics of transplantation in Japan and China. Bioethics, 13, 236–243.Google Scholar
Bloch, M., & Parry, J. (1989). Introduction: Money and the morality of exchange. In Parry, J. & Bloch, J. (Eds), Money and the morality of exchange, 1–32. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Bohannan, P., & Bohannan, L. (1968). Tiv economy. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP.Google Scholar
Borrás, S. (2003). The innovation policy of the European Union: From government to governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E.W. (1986). Patent basics: History, background, and searching fundamentals. Government Information Quarterly, 3, 381–405.Google Scholar
Brown, N., Faulkner, A., Kent, J., & Michael, M. (2006). Regulating hybrids: ‘Making a mess’ and ‘cleaning up’ in tissue engineering and transpecies transplantation. Social Theory and Health, 4, 1–24.Google Scholar
Burrows, B. (1997). Second thoughts about US Patent #4,438,032. Bulletin of Medical Ethics, 124, 11–14.Google Scholar
Cambon-Thomsen, A. (2004). The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks. Nature Review Genetics, 5, 6–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrier, J.G. (1997). Introduction. In Carrier, J.G. (Ed.), Meanings of the market: The free market in Western culture, 1–67. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Cheney, A. (2006). Body brokers: Inside America’s underground trade in human remains. New York: Broadway Books.Google Scholar
Caulfield, T., & von Tigerstrom, B. (2006). Gene patents, health care policy and licensing schemes. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 24, 251–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, H. (1998). Colonial encounters in postcolonial contexts. Critique of Anthropology, 18, 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, V. (2000). The practice of organ transplants: Networks, documents, translations. In Lock, M.Young, A.& Cambrosio, A.(Eds), Living and working with the new medical technologies: Intersections of inquiry, 263–287. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1995). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
European Parliament, & Council of the European Union. (2004). On setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells, Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March, L 102/48, Brussels.Google Scholar
Everett, M. (2002). The social life of genes: Privacy, property and the new genetics. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabre, C. (2006). Whose body is it anyway? Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M. (2000). Pre-persons, commodities or cyborgs: The legal construction and representation of the embryo. Health Care Analysis, 8, 171–188.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. (2003a). Ethical biocapital: New strategies of cell culture. In Franklin, S.& Lock, M.(Eds), Remaking life and death: Toward an anthropology of the biosciences, 97–127. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press/James Currey.Google Scholar
Franklin, S. (2003b). Kinship, genes, and cloning: Life after Dolly. In Goodman, A., Heath, D.&Lindee, S.(Eds), Genetic nature/culture: Anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide, 95–110. Berkeley: U California Press.Google Scholar
Franklin, S., & Lock, M. (2003). Animation and cessation: The remaking of life and death. In Franklin, S. &Lock, M.(Eds), Remaking life and death: Toward an anthropology of the biosciences, 3–22. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press/James Currey.Google Scholar
Gold, E.R. (1996). Body parts: Property rights and the ownership of human biological materials. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.Google Scholar
Gold, E.R., & Gallochat, A. (2001). The European biotech directive: Past as prologue. European Law Journal, 7, 331–366.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. (2006). Black markets: The supply and demand of body parts. New York: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hann, C.M. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of property. In Hann, C.M.(Ed.), Property relations: Renewing the anthropological tradition, 1–47. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Haskell, T.L. (1985). Capitalism and the origins of the humanitarian sensibility, Part 2. American Historical Review, 90, 547–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1999). Spørgsmålet om Teknikken [Die Frage nach der Technick]. In Goll, M.& Zahavi, M. (Eds), Spørgsmålet om Teknikken og Andre Skrifter, 36–65. Copenhagen: Samlerens Bogklub.Google Scholar
Helgason, A., & Pálsson, G. (1997). Contested commodities: The moral landscape of modernist regimes. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3, 451–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M.A., & Eisenberg, R.S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280,698–701.Google Scholar
Herder, M. (2006). Proliferating patent problems with human embryonic stem cell research? Bioethical Inquiry, 3, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeyer, K. (2004). The emergence of an entitlement framework for stored tissue—Elements and implications of an escalating conflict in Sweden. Science Studies, 17, 63–82.Google Scholar
Hoeyer, K. (2005). The role of ethics in commercial genetic research: Notes on the notion of commodification. Medical Anthropology, 24, 45–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoeyer, K. (2006). The anthropology of human boundary objects. Paper presented at EASST Conference, Lausanne, August.Google Scholar
Hoeyer, K., & Koch, L. (2006). The ethics of functional genomics: Same, same, but different? TRENDS in Biotechnology, 24, 387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogle, L. (1996). Transforming ‘body parts’ into therapeutic tools: A report from Germany. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 10, 675–682.Google Scholar
Holland, S. (2001). Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 11, 263–284.Google Scholar
Hopkins, M.M., Mahdi, S., Thomas, S.M., & Patel, P. (2006). The patenting of human DNA: Global trends in public and private sector activity (the PATGEN Project). University of Sussex: SPRU.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on ethics: Immanuel Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, P., & Cambrosio, A. (2003). Biomedical platforms: Realigning the normal and the pathological in late-twentieth-century medicine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kent, J., & Faulkner, A. (2002). Regulating human implant technologies in Europe—Understanding the new era in medical device regulation. Health, Risk and Society, 4, 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevles, D.J. (1998). Diamond v. Chakrabarty and beyond: The political economy of patenting life. In Thackray, A. (Ed.), Private science—Biotechnology and the rise of the molecular sciences, 65–79. Philadelphia: U Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Kimbrell, A. (1993). The human body shop: The engineering and marketing of life. London: Harper Collins Religious.Google Scholar
Klinenberg, E. (2001). Bodies that don’t matter: Death and dereliction in Chicago. Body & Society, 7, 121–136.Google Scholar
Knowles, L.P. (1999). Property, progeny, and patents. Hastings Center Report, 29, 38–40.Google Scholar
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In Appadurai, A.(Ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective, 64–91. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (1999). What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy, 28, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovac, C. (1998). Tissue trade in Hungary is investigated. British Medical Journal, 316, 645.Google Scholar
Landecker, H. (1999). Between beneficence and chattel: The human biological in law and science. Science in Context, 12, 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurie, G. (2002). Privacy and property. In Genetic privacy: A challenge to medico-legal norms, 299–328. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Linke, U.(2005). Touching the corpse: The unmaking of memory in the body museum. Anthropology Today, 21, 13–19.Google Scholar
Lock, M.(2005). Eclipse of the gene and the return of divination. Current Anthropology, 46, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lock, M. (2002). Human body parts as therapeutic tools: Contradictory discourses and transformed subjectivities. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1406–1418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macfarlane, A.(1998). The mystery of property: Inheritance and industrialization in England and Japan. In Hann, C.M.(Ed.), Property relations, 104–123. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Marks, J. (2001). ‘We’re going to tell these people who they really are’: Science and relatedness. In Franklin, S. & McKinnon, S.(Eds), Relative values: Reconfiguring kinship studies, 355–383. Durham, NC: Duke UP.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1972). Capital. Excerpted in Tucker, R. (Ed.), The Marx–Engels reader, 2nd edn, 294–437. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. (1985). A category of the human mind: The notion of person; the notion of self. In Carrithers, M.Collins, S. & Lukes, S. (Eds), The category of the person: Anthropology, philosophy, history. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
McAfee, K. (2003). Neoliberalism on the molecular scale: Economies and genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles. Geoforum, 34, 203–219.Google Scholar
Merz, J.F., & Cho, M.K. (2005). What are gene patents and why are people worried about them? Community Genetics, 8, 203–208.Google Scholar
Miyazaki, H., & Riles, A. (2005). Failure as an endpoint. In Ong, A. & Collier, S.J.(Eds), Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems, 320–332. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morgan, L. (2002). ‘Properly disposed of’: A history of embryo disposal and the changing claims on fetal remains. Medical Anthropology, 21, 247–274.Google Scholar
Muraleedharan, V.R., Jan, S., & Prasad, S.R. (2006). The trade in human organs in Tamil Nadu: The anatomy of regulatory failure. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 1, 41–57.Google Scholar
National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, & US Department of Health and Human Services (2006). First-generation guidelines for NCI-supported biorepositories (Rep. No. 4140–01–P). Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute.Google Scholar
Novas, C., & Rose, N. (2000). Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society, 29, 485–513.Google Scholar
Novas, C.&Rose, N. (2004). Biological citizenship. In Ong, A.& Collier, S.J.(Eds), Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems. London:Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parry, B. (2004). Trading the genome: Investigating the commodification of bio-information. New York: Columbia UP.Google Scholar
Parry, B. (forthcoming). Entangled exchange: Reconceptualising the characterisation and practice of bodily commodification. Geoforum.Google Scholar
Parry, B., & Gere, C. (2006). Contested bodies: Property models and the commodification of human biological artefacts. Science as Culture, 15, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parthasarathy, S. (2005). The patent is political: The consequences of patenting the BRCA genes in Britain. Community Genetics, 8, 235–242.Google ScholarPubMed
Plomer, A. (2006). Stem cell patents: European patent law and ethics report (Rep. No. 005251). Nottingham: University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Pottage, A.(2004). Introduction: The fabrication of persons and things. In Pottage, A. & Mundy, M. (Eds), Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social: Making persons and things. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P.(1999). French DNA: Trouble in purgatory. Chicago: U Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ridgeway, J.(2004). It’s all for sale—The control of global resources. Durham, NC: Duke UP.Google Scholar
Rose, C.M. (1993). Authors and owners: The invention of copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Rose, C.M. (2005). Afterword: Whither commodification? InErtman, M.& Williams, J.(Eds), Rethinking commodification: Cases and readings in law and culture. New York: New York UP.Google Scholar
Rose, H. (2001). The commodification of bioinformation: The Icelandic health sector database. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
Schechter, R.E., & Thomas, J.R. (2003). Intellectual property: The laws of copyright, patents and trademarks. Eagan, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2000). The global traffic in human organs. Current Anthropology, 41, 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2001a). Commodity fetishism in organ trafficking. Body & Society, 7, 31–62.Google Scholar
Scheper-Hughes, N. (2001b). Bodies for sale—Whole or in parts. Body & Society, 7, 1–8.Google Scholar
Schlich, T. (2007). The technological fix and the modern body: Surgery as a paradigmatic case. In Crozier, I. (Ed.), The cultural history of the human body, vol. 6 The Age of Change: 1920–present. London: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
Scott, J. (1976). The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.Google Scholar
Sharp, L.A. (2000). The commodification of the body and its parts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 287–328.Google Scholar
Sharp, L.A.(2007). Bodies, commodities, and biotechnologies: Death, mourning, and scientific desire in the realm of human organ transfer. New York: Columbia UP.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. (1999). Property, substance and effect: Anthropological essays on persons and things. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, M. (2004). Losing (out on) intellectual resources. In Pottage, A. & Mundy, A.(Eds), Law, anthropology, and the constitution of the social: Making persons and things. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Suarez-Villa, L. (2001). The rise of technocapitalism. Science Studies, 14, 4–20.Google Scholar
Sunder Rajan, K. (2003). Genomic capital: Public cultures and market logics of corporate biotechnology. Science as Culture, 12, 87–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunder Rajan, K. (2006). Biocapital: The constitution of postgenomic life. Durham, NC: Duke UP.Google Scholar
Svendsen, M.N.(2007). Mellem reproduktiv og regenerativ medicin: Donation som handlerum i fertilitetsklinikken. In Koch, L.& Høyer, K. (Eds), Håbets teknologi: Samfundsvidenskabelige perspektiver på stamcelleforskning i Danmark, 176–200. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1995). To follow a rule. In Philosophical arguments, 165–180. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Teilmann, S. (2000). Flaubert’s crime: Trying free indirect discourse. Literary Research/Recherche Littéraire, 17, 74–87.Google Scholar
Timmermans, S. (2006). Postmortem: How medical examiners explain suspicious deaths. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. (1997). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Tutton, R. (2004). Person, property and gift: Exploring languages of tissue donation to biomedical research. In Tutton, R.& Corrigan, O.(Eds), Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA, 19–38. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Waldby, C. (2000). The Visible Human Project: Informatic bodies and posthuman medicine. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldby, C. (2006). Umbilical cord blood: From social gift to venture capital. BioSocieties, 1, 55–70.Google Scholar
Waldby, C., & Mitchell, R. (2006). Tissue economies: Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. London: Duke UP.Google Scholar
Walsh, S. (2006). A short history of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Position on not patenting people. URL (accessed June 2007): www.justinhughes.net/patentingpeople/papers/walsh.pdfGoogle Scholar
Weiner, A.(1992). Inalienable possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: U California Press.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. (2000). Commodification arguments for the legal prohibition of organ sale. Health Care Analysis, 8, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witte, J., & Have, H.T. (1997). Ownership of genetic material and information. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 51–60.Google Scholar
Zelizer, V.A. (1998). The proliferation of social currencies. In Callon, M.(Ed.), The laws of the market, 58–68. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar