Abstract
Currently influential accounts of research use of human tissue depict biomedical science as operating in opposition to the norms and values of ‘the public’. Using historical analysis and empirical data from a qualitative study of 79 family members of a child with cancer, this article challenges such accounts of ‘the public’. Families of a child with cancer generally reported that they considered themselves to be members of a community united by a sense of common purpose, in which values and interests are shared and members of the community are to be trusted. The value of tissue for patients and families lay not so much in the way it embodied some essence of the self, as in the way it embedded them within the childhood cancer community. Historical analysis demonstrates that science and its broader ‘public’ are interdependent, mutually constitutive components of a culture, interacting and exchanging rhetoric and imagery relating to research and research materials, as well as the material itself. Rather than separate social worlds of ‘bioscience’ and ‘the public’, our evidence suggests that the childhood cancer community, in respect of the area of tissue banking for research, is much better conceived of as a hybrid. Understanding ‘the public’ and ‘science’ as a multiplicities helps clarify the existence of often competing views of tissue use.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ablett S., Doz F., & Morland B. New Agents Group of the UK Children's Cancer Study Group (UKCCSG) and Pharmacology Group of the French Society of Paediatric Oncology (SFOP). (2004). European collaboration in trials of new agents for children with cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 40, 1886–1892.
Andrews L., & Nelkin D. (2000). Body bazaar: The market for human tissue in the biotechnology age. New York: Crown Publishers.
Andrews L.B. (1986). My body, my property. Hastings Center Report, 16, 28–38.
Anon (1987). Human tissue as alternative in biomedical research. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 14, 375–385.
Appadurai A. (1986). Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value, 3–63. In The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Barr M. (2006). ‘I'm not really read up on genetics’: Biobanks and the social context of informed consent. BioSocieties, 1, 251–262.
Bauer M.W. (2005). Public perceptions and the mass media in the biotechnology controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 4–22.
Bauer M.W., & Gaskell G. (1999). Toward a paradigm for research on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 29, 163–186.
Belkin G.S. (2004). Moving beyond bioethics: History and the search for medical humanism. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 47, 372–385.
Binmore K. (2006). The origins of fair play. Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute of Economics, Evolutionary Economics Group.
Bowker G.C., & Star S.L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Busby H. (2004). Blood donation for genetic research. In Tutton R. & Corrigan O. (Eds), Genetic database: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge.
Busby H. (2006). Biobanks, bioethics and concepts of donated blood in the UK. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28, 850–865.
Clarke A., & Montini T. (1993). The many faces of RU486: Tales of situated knowledges and technological contestations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18, 42–78.
Crichton M. (2006). Next. London: HarperCollins.
Dewar S., & Boddington P. (2004). Returning to the Alder Hey report and its reporting: Addressing confusions and improving inquiries. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 463–469.
Dickenson D. (2004). Consent, commodification and benefit-sharing in genetic research. Developing World Bioethics, 4, 109–124.
Dixon-Woods M., Young B., & Ross E. (2006). Researching chronic childhood illness: The example of childhood cancer. Chronic Illness, 2, 165–177.
Dixon-Woods M., Ashcroft R.E., Jackson C.J., Tobin M.D., Kivits J., Burton P.R. et al. (2007). Beyond ‘misunderstanding’: Written information and decisions about participating in a genetic epidemiology study. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 2212–2222.
Docherty S., & Sandelowski M. (1999). Interviewing children. Research in Nursing and Health, 22, 177–185.
Durbach N. (2005). Bodily matters: The anti-vaccination movement in England, 1853—1907. Durham, NC: Duke UP.
Einsiedel E. (2007). Editorial: Of publics and science. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 5–6.
Emirbayer M., & Sheller M. (1998). Publics in history. Theory and Society, 27, 727–779.
Epstein S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: U California Press.
Ferrando A.A., & Look A.T. (2004). DNA microarrays in the diagnosis and management of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. International Journal of Hematology, 80, 395–400.
Fine G., & Sandstorm K. (1988). Knowing children: Participant observation with minors. London: SAGE.
Giddens A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glaser B., & Strauss A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Goffman E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Gold E.R. (1997). Body parts: Property rights and the ownership of human biological materials. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.
Gouldner A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Hedgecoe A.M. (2004). Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics, 18, 120–143.
Hoeyer K. (2004). Ambiguous gifts: Public anxiety, informed consent and biobanks. In Tutton R. & Corrigan O. (Eds), Genetic databases: Ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. London: Routledge.
Kass L. (1988). The wisdom of repugnance. In Kass L. & Wilson J. (Eds.), The ethics of human cloning. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Khanna C., & Helman L.J. (2006). Molecular approaches in pediatric oncology. Annual Review of Medicine, 57, 83–97.
Kimbrell A. (1997). The human body shop: The cloning engineering and marketing of life. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Inc.
Kleinman A. (1999). Moral experience and ethical reflection: Can ethnography reconcile them? A quandary for ‘the new bioethics’. Daedalus, 128(4), 69–98.
Kolm S. (2005). Reciprocity: Its scope, rationality and consequences. In Kolm S. & Ythier J. (Eds), Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, vol. 1. Oxford: North-Holland.
Lane M. (2004). Bioethics, health, and inequality. The Lancet, 364, 1017–1019.
Laurie G. (2002). Genetic privacy: A challenge to medico-legal norms. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Lawrence S.C. (1998). Beyond the grave—the use and meaning of human body parts: A historical introduction. In Weir R.F. (Ed.), Stored tissue samples: Ethical, legal and public policy implications. Iowa City: U Iowa Press.
Lock M. (2001). The alienation of body tissue and the biopolitics of immortalized cell lines. Body & Society, 7, 63–91.
McHale J., Habiba M., Dixon-Woods M., Cavers D., Heney D., & Pritchard-Jones K. (2007). Consent for childhood cancer tissue banking in the UK: The effect of the Human Tissue Act 2004. Lancet Oncology, 8, 266–272.
Mason K., & Laurie G. (2001). Consent or property? Dealing with the body and its parts in the shadow of Bristol and Alder Hey. Modern Law Review, 64, 710–729.
Mauss M. (1966). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Miller P., Kurunmaki L., O'Leary T. Accounting, hybrids and the management of risk (2007). Accounting, Organizations and Society (in press) doi:101.1016.
Misztal B.A. (1996). Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Morgan L.M. (2002). ‘Properly disposed of’: A history of embryo disposal and the changing claims on fetal remains. Medical Anthropology, 21, 247–274.
Medical Research Council (2001). Human tissue and biological samples for use in research—Operational and ethical guidelines. London: MRC.
Nelkin D., & Andrews L. (1998). Homo economicus: Commercialization of body tissue in the age of biotechnology. Hastings Center Report, 28(5), 30–39.
Novas C. (2006). The political economy of hope: Patients’ organizations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties, 1, 289–306.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (1995). Human tissue: Ethical and legal issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Offer A. (1997). Between the gift and the market: The economy of regard. Economic History Review, 50, 450–476.
Otten A. (1986). Researchers’ use of blood, bodily tissues raises questions about sharing profits. Wall Street Journal, 29 January.
Parker M. (2005). When is research on patient records without consent ethical? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, 183–186.
Perley S.N. (1992). From control over one's body to control over one's body parts: Extending the doctrine of informed consent. New York University Law Review, 67, 335–365.
Pfeffer N., & Kent J. (2007). Framing women, framing fetuses: How Britain regulates arrangements for the collection and use of aborted fetuses in stem cell research and therapies. BioSocieties, 2(4), 429–447.
Prior L. (2003). Belief, knowledge and expertise: The emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25, 41–57.
Pritchard-Jones K., Kaatsch P., Steliarova-Foucher E., Stiller C.A., & Coebergh J.W. (2006). Cancer in children and adolescents in Europe: Developments over 20 years and future challenges. European Journal of Cancer, 42, 2183–2190.
Putnam R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone.
Riley R.D., Heney D., Jones D.R., Sutton A.J., Lambert P.C., Abrams K.R. et al. (2004). A systematic review of molecular and biological tumor markers in neuroblastoma. Clinical Cancer Research, 10(1 part 1), 4–12.
Rose N. (2006). The politics of life itself. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.
Rose N., & Novas C. (2005). Biological citizenship. In Ong A. & Collier S. (Eds), Global assemblages: Technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Rosenberg C.E. (1999). Meanings, policies, and medicine: On the bioethical enterprise and history. Daedalus, 128, 27–46.
Rothstein M.A. (2005). Expanding the ethical analysis of biobanks. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33, 89–101.
Scheper-Hughes N. (2001). Bodies for sale—Whole or in parts. Body & Society, 7, 1–8.
Seale C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Seale C., Cavers D., & Dixon-Woods M. (2006). Commodification of body parts: By medicine or by media? Body & Society, 12, 25–42.
Sebire N.J., & Dixon-Woods M. (2007). Towards a new era of tissue-based diagnosis and research. Chronic Illness, 3, 301–309.
Sharp L.A. (2000). The commodification of the body and its parts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 287–328.
Silber I.F. (2003). Pragmatic sociology as cultural sociology: Beyond repertoire theory?. European Journal of Social Theory, 6, 427–449.
Slater D., & Tonkiss F. (2001). Market society: Markets and modern social theory. Cambridge: Polity.
Smith M.A., & Anderson B.D. (2004). Commentary on ‘European collaboration in trials of new agents for children with cancer’ by Ablett et al. European Journal of Cancer, 40, 1893–1895.
Squier S.M. (1994). Babies in bottles: Twentieth-century visions of reproductive biology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP.
Squier S.M. (2004). Liminal lives: Imagining the human at the frontiers of biomedicine. Durham, NC: Duke UP.
Star S.L., & Griesemer J.R. (1988). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
Start R.D., Brown W., Bryant R.J., Reed M.W., Cross S.S., Kent G. et al. (1996). Ownership and uses of human tissue: Does the Nuffield bioethics report accord with opinion of surgical inpatients? British Medical Journal, 313, 1366–1368.
Strauss A.L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sturdy S. (2000). Medicine, health and the public sphere in Britain, 1600–2000. London: Routledge.
The Times (1954). Progress made in study of common cold: Virus propagation in human tissue. 28 July: 5.
Titmuss R. (1970). The gift relationship. London: Allen & Unwin.
Tutton R. (2002). ‘They want to know where they came from’: Population genetics, identity, and family genealogy. New Genetics and Society, 23, 105–120.
Tutton R. (2004). Person, property and gift: Exploring languages of tissue donation. In Tutton R. & Corrigan O. (Eds), Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and storage of DNA. London: Routledge.
Waldby C., & Mitchell R. (2006). Tissue economies: Blood, organs, and cell lines in late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke UP.
Weir R.F., & Olick R.S. (2004). The stored tissue issue: Biomedical research, ethics and law in the era of genomic medicine. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council (2000). Public perceptions of the collection of human biological samples: Collection of human biological samples. London: Wellcome, MRC.
Wilson D. (2005). The early history of tissue culture in Britain: The interwar years. Social History of Medicine, 18, 225–243.
Wilson D. (2007). Whose body (of opinion) is it anyway? Historicising tissue ownership and problematising ‘public opinion’ in bioethics. In Rothman B.K. Armstrong E. & Tiger R. (Eds.), Advances in medical sociology, 9. Bioethical issues: Sociological perspectives. New York: Elsevier.
Young B., Dixon-Woods M., Findlay M. & Heney D. (2002). Parenting in a crisis. Conceptualising mothers of children with cancer. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 1835–1847.
Acknowledgements
The qualitative research reported in this study was funded by ESRC Science in Society Programme grant ESRC RES-151-25-0026. The historical research on ‘publics’ and tissue culture, performed by DW at Manchester University's Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine (CHSTM), was funded by the Wellcome Trust. This study could not have been done without the support we received from the seven paediatric oncology centres at: Addenbrooke's Hospital Cambridge, Alder Hey Children's Hospital Liverpool, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Queen's Medical Centre Nottingham and the Royal Marsden Hospital Surrey. We thank the families and staff members who took part in our study, and those who recruited the participants, both for the efforts involved in recruitment and in gaining R&D approval for the study. The theorization of trust and its relationship with regulation was funded by ESRC grant RES-000-22-1908. Much of this paper was written up while Mary Dixon-Woods was a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Queen Mary, University of London, and she gratefully acknowledges the support of the College and, in particular, conversations with Richard Ashcroft. Thanks to Gavin Cameron for many lively discussions of tumour banking.
Conflict of interest: Kathy Pritchard-Jones was chief investigator for the CCLG tumour bank from 1998 until 2005. She has an interest in promoting the collection and storage, with consent, of tissue samples from children with cancer for research purposes. No other author has a conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dixon-Woods, M., Wilson, D., Jackson, C. et al. Human Tissue and ‘the Public’: The Case of Childhood Cancer Tumour Banking. BioSocieties 3, 57–80 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855208005954
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855208005954