In 2004, prenatal risk assessment (PRA) was implemented as a routine offer in Denmark, in order to give all pregnant women an informed choice about whether to undergo prenatal testing. PRA is a non-invasive intervention performed in the first trimester of pregnancy and measures the risk of a fetus having Down's syndrome or other chromosomal disorders. The risk figure provides the basis for action, i.e. the decision about whether or not to undergo invasive fetal testing via the maternal route (amniocentesis (...) or chorionic villus sampling), which, however, involves the risk of inducing a miscarriage. On the basis of ethnographic fieldwork in an ultrasound clinic in Denmark and interviews with pregnant women and their partners, this paper investigates how ideals such as autonomy and non-directiveness are practised in processes of decision-making. We view such ideals as forming social practice rather than neutral instruments to reach a certain goal. Focusing on one couple's trajectory through the clinical practices of PRA and the process through which a decision is reached, we call into question the assumption that more choice and more objective information is a source of empowerment and control. We make evident how decisions are made through a complicated process of meaning-making, which emerges through the relationship between professionals, the clinical setting and the social life of the couples. In the face of complex risk knowledge, PRA users are reluctant to make choices and seek to re-install authority in the health professionals. However, when assumptions about autonomy and self-determination are inscribed into the social practice of PRA, authority is transferred to the couple undergoing PRA and a new configuration of responsibility evolves between the couple and their relationship to the fetus. It is argued that PRA performs a form of government that works not through compulsion or persuasion but through choice. An ethic of a shared responsibility for PRA and its outcome between pregnant women and health professionals would be more in agreement with how decisions are actually made. (shrink)

In 2004 prenatal risk assessment was implemented as a routine offer to all pregnant women in Denmark. It was argued that primarily the new programme would give all pregnant women an informed choice about whether to undergo prenatal testing. On the basis of ethnographic fieldwork in an ultrasound clinic in Denmark and interviews with pregnant women and their partners, we call into question the assumption underlying the new guidelines that more choice and more objective information is a source of empowerment (...) and control. We focus on one couple's experience of PRA. This case makes it evident how supposed choices in the context of PRA may not be experienced as such. Rather, they are experienced as complicated processes of meaning-making in the relational space between the clinical setting, professional authority and the social life of the couples. PRA users are reluctant to make choices and abandon health professionals as authoritative experts in the face of complex risk knowledge. When assumptions about autonomy and self-determination are inscribed into the social practice of PRA, authority is transferred to the couple undergoing PRA and a new configuration of responsibility evolves between the couple and their relationship to the foetus. It is argued that al-though the new programme of prenatal testing in Denmark presents itself in opposition to quasi-eugenic and paternalistic forms of governing couples' decisions it represents another form of government that works through the notion of choice. An ethics of a shared responsibility of PRA and its outcome would be more in agreement with how decisions are actually made. (shrink)

The article illustrates the main features of the concept of medicalization, starting from its theoretical roots. Although it is the process of extending the medical gaze on human conditions, it appears that medicalization cannot be strictly connected to medical imperialism anymore. Other "engines" of medicalization are influential: consumers, biotechnology and managed care. The growth of research and theoretical reflections on medicalization has led to the proposal of other parallel concepts like pharmaceuticalization, genetization and biomedicalization. These new theoretical tools could be (...) useful in the analysis of human enhancement. Human enhancement can be considered as the use of biomedical technology to improve performance on a human being who is not in need of a cure: a practice that is increasingly spreading in what might be defined as a "bionic society". (shrink)

Is Big Data science a whole new way of doing research? And what difference does data quantity make to knowledge production strategies and their outputs? I argue that the novelty of Big Data science does not lie in the sheer quantity of data involved, but rather in the prominence and status acquired by data as commodity and recognised output, both within and outside of the scientific community and the methods, infrastructures, technologies, skills and knowledge developed to handle data. These developments (...) generate the impression that data-intensive research is a new mode of doing science, with its own epistemology and norms. To assess this claim, one needs to consider the ways in which data are actually disseminated and used to generate knowledge. Accordingly, this article reviews the development of sophisticated ways to disseminate, integrate and re-use data acquired on model organisms over the last three decades of work in experimental biology. I focus on online databases as prominent infrastructures set up to organise and interpret such data and examine the wealth and diversity of expertise, resources and conceptual scaffolding that such databases draw upon. This illuminates some of the conditions under which Big Data needs to be curated to support processes of discovery across biological subfields, which in turn highlights the difficulties caused by the lack of adequate curation for the vast majority of data in the life sciences. In closing, I reflect on the difference that data quantity is making to contemporary biology, the methodological and epistemic challenges of identifying and analysing data given these developments, and the opportunities and worries associated with Big Data discourse and methods. (shrink)

A decade after the completion of the Human Genome Project, the widespread appeal of personalized genomic medicine's vision and potential virtues for health care remains compelling. Advocates argue that our current medical regime “is in crisis as it is expensive, reactive, inefficient, and focused largely on one size fits all treatments for events of late stage disease.” What is revolutionary about this kind of medicine, its advocates maintain, is that it promises to resolve that crisis by simultaneously increasing the ability (...) to be “personalized,” “predictive,” “preventive,” and “participatory.” Some call personalized genomic medicine “P4 Medicine,” inscribing these cardinal virtues into the movement's name. All of these putative virtues have interesting implications for the future of health care. In this essay, we are especially interested in the claims that personalized medicine will lead to a more “participatory” or “patient‐centered” approach to health care, in which patients are “empowered” to take more personal control over their care. The rhetoric of patient empowerment is nothing new in health care, but personalized medicine is an interesting case study because it portrays empowerment as one of its key virtues and as a mechanism for fixing the health care “crisis.”. (shrink)

Personalized genomics companies (PG; also called ‘direct-to-consumer genetics’) are businesses marketing genetic testing to consumers over the Internet. While much has been written about these new businesses, little attention has been given to their roles in science communication. This paper provides an analysis of the gene concept presented to customers and the relation between the information given and the science behind PG. Two quite different gene concepts are present in company rhetoric, but only one features in the science. To explain (...) this, we must appreciate the delicate tension between PG, academic science, public expectation, and market forces. (shrink)