Féconder in vitro dans des laboratoires en Inde et en France.Une somatotechnique ?

Abstract

À travers l’ethnographie de la préparation des ovocytes et des spermatozoïdes dans deux laboratoires de biologie de la reproduction situés en Inde et en France, cet article montre comment ces cellules sont porteuses de qualités à la fois biologiques et substantielles. Ces qualités sont associées à une approche mécanistique de la vie cellulaire et à l’idée que le corps est porteur d’identité personnelle et de capacités relationnelles de parenté propres à chaque contexte local. À partir de l’analyse de choix institutionnels réalisés pour administrer les dons de sperme, il propose de relativiser le préfixe « bio » des « biotechnologies » reproductives et d’introduire la notion de « somatotechnique », ce qui permet de souligner la prise en charge biomédicale des corps de la parenté, non réductibles à ce qu’une science biologique globalement partagée peut en dire et en faire ici et là.

Making and breaking families – reading queer reproductions, stratified reproduction and reproductive justice together

“…In some countries in the global south, transnational stratified reproduction that reflects prior colonial or imperial relations also reflects local and national meanings that value reproduction differently and that at least partially resist previous relations of power, and everywhere cultural specificity modulates transnational dynamics (Franklin and Inhorn, 2016;Merleau-Ponty, 2017). Aditya Bharadwaj's (2008) concept of 'bio-crossings' evident in Indian assisted procreation and stem-cell therapy captures this combination of being part of the frontier of international biomedicine and yet being distinctively Indian and resisting colonial meanings and valuations.…”

Acknowledging the plural Weberian rationalities in clinical embryology: When moral values, habits, and/or affection prevail beyond efficiency

“…substance (Merleau-Ponty, 2017). In the absence of exhaustive technical guidance in the form of guidelines, the selection of embryos to transfer, cryopreserve, or discard also depends on a subjective dimension regarding the viability of the embryo: the personal judgment made by the embryologist.…”

(Not) wanting to choose: outside agencies at work in assisted reproductive technology

“…pregnancy) ( Nel-Themaat and Nagy, 2011: S258–S259 ). All these elements lead professionals to assume decisions solely on the basis of their knowledge and expertise, they know to be partial and situated ( Haraway, 1988 , Merleau-Ponty, 2017 ) as they rely on their visual skills, and whose outcome is not certain. The professionals' scope for action is strictly defined by law, as well as by professional ethics, recommendations for good practice and the scientific community, which establishes, among others, the embryo assessment systems.…”

“…Biologists and laboratory technicians are also confronted with choices, and have the burden of responsibility for the outcome of the fresh in-vitro embryos they are responsible for selecting and discarding. Forced to reject embryos with a poor morphological aspect but still evolving – and therefore with the potential to develop – a technician exclaimed, ‘It pains me to throw them away!’ Professionals are well aware that what they handle are not just cells, but are at the intersection of ‘biological’, personal and substantial ( Merleau-Ponty, 2017: 515 ). Embryo selection is one of the tasks the technician has to carry out in her work, but she considers this to be unethical because ‘you don’t know how you looked when you were in your mother's womb’.…”