Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The World Health Organization (WHO), the body charged with implementing global pandemic response, figured heavily in the Republican and Democratic campaigns of the 2020 US presidential election. The contrast was stark: Donald Trump drew on and ramped up dissatisfaction with the United Nations system in general and the WHO in particular, culminating in his decision to pull the US out of the WHO in the middle of the pandemic, while Joe Biden rescinded the decision to leave the WHO the day after assuming the presidency. Despite this difference, neither party heeded renewed calls during COVID to put health justice and primary healthcare at the heart of global health policy. Both parties continued to prefer private philanthropic sources of funding for global vaccine initiatives, and both sought economic returns on vaccine development, potentially missing a rare opportunity to incorporate global health justice into US global health diplomacy.

The USA has played, and continues to play, a distinctive and significant part in the history of IVF and assisted reproductive technology worldwide. American IVF emerged in the scientific context of contraceptive and fertility research, in the social context of a wealthy nation without universal healthcare, and in the political context of the abortion debate and its impact on federal versus state funding and regulation. IVF had its first clinical success in the USA in 1981. Since then, IVF in the USA has become known for procedures involving third, fourth and fifth parties as gamete donors and surrogates. The USA has also been one of the pioneers in domestic and transnational deployment of IVF for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) parenthood, and a pioneer of the social egg-freezing revolution. US IVF has been marked by professional and patient advocacy for such things as the honest reporting of success rates, recognition of the risks of postponed childbearing, and the need for insurance coverage. Certain landmark legal custody disputes over IVF embryos and offspring, as well as media attention to gendered, racialized, and class-based access to and pricing of assisted reproductive technology, have also driven the development of IVF in the USA.

The USA has played, and continues to play, a distinctive and significant part in the history of IVF and assisted reproductive technology worldwide. American IVF emerged in the scientific context of contraceptive and fertility research, in the social context of a wealthy nation without universal healthcare, and in the political context of the abortion debate and its impact on federal versus state funding and regulation. IVF had its first clinical success in the USA in 1981. Since then, IVF in the USA has become known for procedures involving third, fourth and fifth parties as gamete donors and surrogates. The USA has also been one of the pioneers in domestic and transnational deployment of IVF for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) parenthood, and a pioneer of the social egg-freezing revolution. US IVF has been marked by professional and patient advocacy for such things as the honest reporting of success rates, recognition of the risks of postponed childbearing, and the need for insurance coverage. Certain landmark legal custody disputes over IVF embryos and offspring, as well as media attention to gendered, racialized, and class-based access to and pricing of assisted reproductive technology, have also driven the development of IVF in the USA.

Cet article explore les trois jalons identitaires du recours au genre [ punctuated gendering ] dans la recherche biomédicale sur les cellules souches en Californie. J'y défends l'idée selon laquelle le développement de ce secteur a eu besoin des femmes à trois reprises, mais pas de toutes les femmes à chaque fois. En d'autres termes, suivant les étapes que franchissait le développement de l'innovation autour des cellules souches, les femmes ont été sollicitées en fonction d'une perception du genre à chaque fois différente. Ainsi, il a d'abord fallu faire appel à elles en tant que citoyennes, au croisement des rapports de sexe, de race et de classe ; on a ensuite eu besoin d'elles en tant que corps biologiques ; elles ont, enfin, été sollicitées en tant que consommatrices. Le but de ce triple recours aux femmes selon des identités de genre à chaque fois spécifiques, fut d'abord d'attirer des capitaux publics et privés dans ce secteur, une fois le soutien de l'état californien garanti ; puis d'assurer l'approvisionnement de la recherche en morceaux de corps humain ; et enfin, de permettre le développement de l'économie autour de l'innovation sur les cellules souches. Cet article s'appuie sur mes précédents travaux sur la biomédicalisation et la marchandisation de la reproduction, mais il s'inscrit également dans la perspective des théories de la division sexuée du travail, et de la construction sociale du genre par la publicité et la consommation. Au croisement de ces logiques, l'innovation biomédicale apparaît donc comme un espace privilégié pour étudier le genre comme répertoire identitaire dynamique, à travers une mise en œuvre concrète de l'idée d'intersectionnalité.