{"title":"Adjusting the analytical aperture: propositions for an integrated approach to the social study of reproductive technologies.","authors":"Victoria Boydell, Katharine Dow","doi":"10.1057/s41292-021-00240-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ever-expanding availability of reproductive technologies, the continued roll-out of 'family planning' and maternity services across low- and middle-income settings and the rapid development of the fertility industry mean that it is more likely than ever that individuals, especially women and gender non-conforming people, will engage with more than one RT at some point in their life. These multiple engagements with RTs will affect users' expectations and uptake, as well as the technologies' availability, commercial success, ethical status and social meanings. We argue that an integrated approach to the study of RTs and their users not only makes for better research, but also more politically conscious research, which questions some of the ideological precepts that have led to reproduction being parcelled out into biomedical specialisations and a disproportionate focus on particular forms of reproduction in particular disciplines within public health and social science research. We offer this article as part of a wider movement in the study of reproduction and reproductive technologies, which takes inspiration from the reproductive justice framework to address forms of exclusion, discrimination and stratification that are perpetuated in the development and application of reproductive technologies <i>and</i> the ways in which they are studied and theorised.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":"17 4","pages":"732-757"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8374034/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00240-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The ever-expanding availability of reproductive technologies, the continued roll-out of 'family planning' and maternity services across low- and middle-income settings and the rapid development of the fertility industry mean that it is more likely than ever that individuals, especially women and gender non-conforming people, will engage with more than one RT at some point in their life. These multiple engagements with RTs will affect users' expectations and uptake, as well as the technologies' availability, commercial success, ethical status and social meanings. We argue that an integrated approach to the study of RTs and their users not only makes for better research, but also more politically conscious research, which questions some of the ideological precepts that have led to reproduction being parcelled out into biomedical specialisations and a disproportionate focus on particular forms of reproduction in particular disciplines within public health and social science research. We offer this article as part of a wider movement in the study of reproduction and reproductive technologies, which takes inspiration from the reproductive justice framework to address forms of exclusion, discrimination and stratification that are perpetuated in the development and application of reproductive technologies and the ways in which they are studied and theorised.
期刊介绍：
BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society.
BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances.
As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe.
BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
