Mulinari, Holmberg & Ideland: Money, Money, Money? Politico-Moral Discourses of Stem Cell Research in a Grant Allocation Process

Concerns have been raised about the marketization of science through the prevailing funding regime. However, the present article will discuss how it comes that the potentially marketable stem cell science is not more commercialized than what is currently the case. We approach this question by analysing discursive pluralism in defining the value of stem cells within a grant allocation process. More specifically, we focus on how the commercial imperative is challenged by other cherished values surrounding stem cell research. The case study used to discuss this is the Swedish Government’s funding of stem cell research within so-called strategic research programmes. The analysis focuses on the co-existence of what we refer to as entrepreneurial, translational and basic research politico-moral discourses. How the co-existence of politico-moral discourses is possible, despite potential tensions, is investigated by drawing on the theoretical framework of bio-objectification. Specifically, we highlight how the relationship between various bio-identities and values was reorganized along the research grant allocation trajectory. We argue that there are obvious signs of temporally specific discursive shifts away from the commercial imperative in the grant allocation process. This suggests the need to study located processes, in order to understand the work of politico-moral discourses in the grant allocation process. This work contributes to an understanding of the uneven and varied impact of neoliberal policies on biomedicine.

[1]  Kaushik Sunder Rajan,et al.  Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life , 2006 .

[2]  Sakari Tamminen,et al.  Bio-objects life in the 21st century , 2012 .

[3]  Charlotte Salter,et al.  Governing innovation in the biomedicine knowledge economy: stem cell science in the USA , 2010 .

[4]  G. Daley,et al.  The promise and perils of stem cell therapeutics. , 2012, Cell stem cell.

[5]  Intermingling Academic and Business Activities , 2009 .

[6]  Carrie B. Sanders,et al.  Reframing norms: boundary maintenance and partial accommodations in the work of academic technology transfer , 2010 .

[7]  Huang Hoon Chng Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language: Norman Fairclough, London: Longman, 1995. £12.99 , 1996 .

[8]  Philip Mirowski,et al.  Introduction: STS and Neoliberal Science , 2010 .

[9]  C. Waldby Stem Cells, Tissue Cultures and the Production of Biovalue , 2002 .

[10]  Shai Mulinari,et al.  Regulating drug information in Europe: a pyrrhic victory for pharmaceutical industry critics? , 2013, Sociology of health & illness.

[11]  S. Sismondo An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies , 2003 .

[12]  P. Cerny,et al.  Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political Globalization , 1997, Government and Opposition.

[13]  Paul Martin,et al.  From Bedside to Bench? Communities of Promise, Translational Research and the Making of Blood Stem Cells , 2008 .

[14]  D. Pestre The Technosciences between Markets, Social Worries and the Political: How to Imagine a Better Future? , 2005 .

[15]  T. Caulfield Stem Cell Research and Economic Promises , 2010, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

[16]  Alexander Styhre,et al.  Venturing into the Bioeconomy: Professions, innovation, identity , 2011 .

[17]  Clare Williams,et al.  Spaces of speech and places of performance: an outline of a geography of science approach to embryonic stem cell research and diabetes , 2008 .

[18]  Sheila Slaughter,et al.  Changes in intellectual property statutes and policies at a public university: Revising the terms of professional labor , 1993 .

[19]  A. Webster,et al.  Bio-objects and the bio-objectification process , 2011, Croatian medical journal.

[20]  Philip Mirowski,et al.  Science Bought and Sold: Essays in the Economics of Science , 2002 .

[21]  Lorraine Daston,et al.  The Moral Economy of Science , 1995, Osiris.

[22]  N. Brown,et al.  Commercial development of stem cell technology: lessons from the past, strategies for the future. , 2006, Regenerative medicine.

[23]  D. Braun,et al.  The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science , 1998 .

[24]  Anke C. Plagnol,et al.  Industry perceptions of barriers to commercialization of regenerative medicine products in the UK. , 2009, Regenerative medicine.

[25]  B. Salter,et al.  Bioethics and the Global Moral Economy , 2007 .

[26]  Janus Hansen,et al.  Governing bio-objects: a research agenda , 2012, Croatian medical journal.

[27]  R. Wodak Critical Discourse Analysis , 2003 .

[28]  Stuart Hall Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’? , 2011 .

[29]  Sergio Sismondo,et al.  Ghosts in the Machine , 2009, Social studies of science.

[30]  B. Salter Governing stem cell science in China and India: emerging economies and the global politics of innovation , 2008 .

[31]  Andreas Strotmann,et al.  Commercialization and collaboration: competing policies in publicly funded stem cell research? , 2010, Cell stem cell.

[32]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[33]  Sheila Slaughter,et al.  Academic capitalism and the new economy : markets, state, and higher education , 2009 .

[34]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[35]  Philip Mirowski,et al.  The Contract Research Organization and the Commercialization of Scientific Research , 2005, Social studies of science.

[36]  T. Caulfield,et al.  Stem cell clinics online: the direct-to-consumer portrayal of stem cell medicine. , 2008, Cell stem cell.

[37]  Andrew Webster,et al.  Standardizing the Unknown: Practicable Pluripotency as Doable Futures , 2008 .

[38]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  Universities and the global knowledge economy , 1997 .

[39]  Annika Rickne,et al.  On the position and opportunities for Sweden within the field of Tissue Engineering & Regenerative Medicine, TERM, Report to the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems , 2008 .

[40]  D. Hess,et al.  Science and neoliberal globalization: a political sociological approach , 2011 .

[41]  S. Sörlin,et al.  Shaping strategic research: power, resources, and interests in Swedish research policy , 2007 .

[42]  R. Kohler, Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. , 1995 .

[43]  D. Haraway,et al.  Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse , 1997 .

[44]  Henrik Loodin,et al.  The politics of life itself Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century , 2009 .

[45]  N. Brown Beasting the Embryo: The Metrics of Humanness in the Transpecies Embryo Debate , 2009 .

[46]  Bob Jessop,et al.  The Future of the Capitalist State , 2002 .

[47]  A. Blaser,et al.  The Global Politics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Science: Regenerative Medicine in Transition , 2010, Politics and the Life Sciences.