National Biobanks: Clinical Labor, Risk Production, and the Creation of Biovalue.

Robert Mitchell
Author Information
  1. Robert Mitchell: Duke University Catherine Waldby The University of Sydney.

Abstract

The development of genomics has dramatically expanded the scope of genetic research, and collections of genetic biosamples have proliferated in countries with active genomics research programs. In this essay, we consider a particular kind of collection, national biobanks. National biobanks are often presented by advocates as an economic "resource" that will be used by both basic researchers and academic biologists, as well as by pharmaceutical diagnostic and clinical genomics companies. Although national biobanks have been the subject of intense interest in recent social science literature, most prior work on this topic focuses either on bioethical issues related to biobanks, such as the question of informed consent, or on the possibilities for scientific citizenship that they make possible. We emphasize, by contrast, the economic aspect of biobanks, focusing specifically on the way in which national biobanks create biovalue. Our emphasis on the economic aspect of biobanks allows us to recognize the importance of what we call clinical labor-that is, the regularized, embodied work that members of the national population are expected to perform in their role as biobank participants-in the creation of biovalue through biobanks. Moreover, it allows us to understand how the technical way in which national biobanks link clinical labor to databases alters both medical and popular understandings of risk for common diseases and conditions.

References

  1. Sociol Health Illn. 2005 Mar;27(2):271-92 [PMID: 15787778]
  2. Nature. 2007 Jan 18;445(7125):259 [PMID: 17230172]
  3. Hum Biol. 2000 Feb;72(1):63-132 [PMID: 10721614]
  4. Genet Med. 2004 Jan-Feb;6(1):38-47 [PMID: 14726808]
  5. Science. 1989 May 12;244(4905):707-12 [PMID: 2470152]
  6. Am J Psychiatry. 2000 Nov;157(11):1723-4 [PMID: 11058462]
  7. Account Res. 2004 Jan-Mar;11(1):1-26 [PMID: 15341044]
  8. Lancet. 1994 Nov 26;344(8935):1453-7 [PMID: 7968118]
  9. Community Genet. 2006;9(3):184-9 [PMID: 16741348]
  10. Science. 2002 Nov 8;298(5596):1158-61 [PMID: 12424349]
  11. Lancet. 2005 Oct 22-28;366(9495):1484-98 [PMID: 16243094]
  12. Genet Med. 2003 Nov-Dec;5(6):451-7 [PMID: 14614397]
  13. Nature. 2004 May 27;429(6990):475-7 [PMID: 15164074]
  14. Lancet. 2001 Oct 20;358(9290):1356-60 [PMID: 11684236]
  15. Comp Funct Genomics. 2003;4(6):628-34 [PMID: 18629026]

Grants

  1. /Wellcome Trust
  2. P50 HG003391/NHGRI NIH HHS
  3. P50 HG003391-05/NHGRI NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0biobanksnationalgenomicseconomicclinicalgeneticresearchNationalworkaspectwaybiovalueallowsusdevelopmentdramaticallyexpandedscopecollectionsbiosamplesproliferatedcountriesactiveprogramsessayconsiderparticularkindcollectionoftenpresentedadvocates"resource"willusedbasicresearchersacademicbiologistswellpharmaceuticaldiagnosticcompaniesAlthoughsubjectintenseinterestrecentsocialscienceliteraturepriortopicfocuseseitherbioethicalissuesrelatedquestioninformedconsentpossibilitiesscientificcitizenshipmakepossibleemphasizecontrastfocusingspecificallycreateemphasisrecognizeimportancecalllabor-thatregularizedembodiedmemberspopulationexpectedperformrolebiobankparticipants-increationMoreoverunderstandtechnicallinklabordatabasesaltersmedicalpopularunderstandingsriskcommondiseasesconditionsBiobanks:ClinicalLaborRiskProductionCreationBiovalue

Similar Articles

Cited By (25)