‘We All Have a Responsibility to Each Other’: Valuing Racialised Bodies in the Neoliberal Bioeconomy

Abstract

In neoliberalism, human tissue has been targeted as a novel source for the extraction of surplus value. Entire new markets for human biomaterials such as reproductive tissue, organs and clinical data have emerged. Commercial attention has also turned to ethnic and racial minorities, resulting in myriad products and services specifically developed for them. In this paper, we focus on this market interest in racialised tissue by exploring two contested empirical examples: clinical trials for pharmaceuticals in the United States and stem cell transplantation in the United Kingdom. Both examples use racial taxonomies as useful tools in discerning human biological difference to draw conclusions about the economic potential of donors' and participants' genetic constitutions. We will show, first, how they do so by appealing to racialised minorities' sense of responsibility toward 'their' communities, not only actively buttressing the conflation of the social and biological registers of human variation but also demonstrating neoliberalism's mobilisation of discourses of community. However, while the inclusion of racialised minorities is hoped to bring economic benefits, it also aims to work towards the beneficent ends of addressing racial inequalities in healthcare provision. Drawing on debates in Science and Technology Studies, we argue, second, that in our examples, economic, social and cultural values cannot be disentangled. This compels us to complement narratives of the commodification of racialised difference in neoliberal (consumer) culture, and focus on the intersections between different values pertaining simultaneously to economic and ethical realms. Ultimately though, we find that whilst important work is being done to ameliorate racial inequities, the broader socioeconomic and 2 political inequalities minority communities face go unaddressed, likely precluding the realisation of bioscience's promise of health equality.

Ethico‐racial positioning in campaigns for COVID‐19 research and vaccination featuring public figures

“…The team crossed‐checked this analysis to ensure completeness and consistency. Our explanatory account (Spencer et al., 2003) was developed by the team across a series of meetings, drawing on existing theories such as the operation of ‘ethico‐racial imperatives’ (Merz & Williams, 2018; Williams, 2021), and Brown et al.’s (2004) conceptualisation of health activism.…”

“It’s harder for the likes of us”: racially minoritised stem cell donation as ethico-racial imperative

“…This sense of racialised obligation infuses much of the work of recruitment. As I have noted elsewhere (Merz and Williams 2018 ), this work is highly affective—trying to draw an audience into a narrative on highly personal and emotive terms often through creative practices. We see this in the recruitment co-ordinator’s exasperation with the woman who declined, insufficiently influenced by the ‘semantic complex’ of guilt/duty (Lemke 2013 ) in the co-ordinator’s words.…”

“…An example of this can be found in how racially minoritised individuals are approached and enrolled into biomedical projects like clinical trials and tissue donation. Merz and Williams ( 2018 ), for example, argue that such efforts are often underwritten by claims that suffering within minoritised communities is directly exacerbated by a lack of these communities’ participation. This necessarily frames participation in biomedical projects as the ethical decision .…”

Brexit as heredity redux: Imperialism, biomedicine and the NHS in Britain

“…This terrain is further complicated by the selling of biological diversity as a resource for the UK’s biomedical research industry. In 2015, civic leaders in Birmingham announced that the city’s ‘multicultural population is ideal for clinical trials’ hoping to attract biomedical investment through Birmingham’s ‘large and ethnically diverse pool of patients’ (Ward, 2015) and profit from scientific mobilisations of ethnicity (see Merz & Williams, 2018). Biomedical knowledge thus plays a significant role in shaping understandings of ancestry and heredity which, in turn, tacitly shape assumptions about medical provision, investment and technology development.…”