Frankling Sarah Fron Lab to Art

8/13/2019 Frankling Sarah Fron Lab to Art

1/16

REFERENCE No.

13

End of Award Research Report

The IVF-Stem Cell Interface: a Sociology of Embryo Transfer

Prof S Franklin, ESRC Award RES-350-0006

Background

2008 marked the 30thanniversary of the birth of the worlds first test-tube baby atOldham General Infirmary an event that is rightly regarded as a landmark in the historyof biomedical science (Henig 2004, Johnson, et al, forthcoming). If we now live, as manyclaim, in the century of biology, there is no doubt one of the important precursors wasthe reproductive revolution launched in Oldham thirty years ago (Franklin 2008c).Perhaps even more important than the discovery of the structure of the double helixtwenty years earlier was the successful uploading of in vitrofertilisation into man in1978 (Johnson, et al, 2009a & b). Fittingly, the summer of 2008 also saw the penultimate

stages of the review of legislation concerning human fertilisation and embryology in theUK Parliament which led to the new Bills enactment unamended in early 2009,strengthening the UKs position as the most highly regulated but scientifically permissiveclimate anywhere in the world for human embryo research and experimentation(Franklin 2008a). The apparent lack of public unease in the UK about cloned humanembryos, human-animal hybrids, and savour siblings, leads to an interesting set ofquestions about the relationship of the history of IVF to the future of biomedicalinnovation. For example, we might ask whether the fact that IVF has been so quicklyroutinised and normalised is one of the most radical things about it?

Both human and non-human IVF were the outcome of a vigorous postwar research

culture in mammalian developmental biology that was in some respects unique to theUK, and in which medical, agricultural, veterinary and scientific research were fruitfullyrecombined to produce numerous novel offspring (Challoner 1999, Edwards 2004,Graham 2000). At Cambridge, Edinburgh, Oxford and London, a potent mix of cellculture methods, micromanipulation techniques, experimental embryology, and latermolecular methods of tracking and testing gene action rapidly enabled breakthroughssuch as the discovery of imprinting, while also enabling many practical applications, suchas cryopreservation of sperm, human contraception, and the cloning of livestock. IVF isone of the most significant offspring of this era, as are stem cells, and cloning (Edwards2005, Franklin 2007c, Wilmut and Highfield 2006).

That said, the road to human IVF was hardly straightforward (Edwards 1989, 2001).Human conception is not identical to that of rabbits, mice, sheep, or even primates. Thepossibility of human IVF, which began to be explored during the 1960s, wascontroversial, and in the UK was turned down for financial support for ethical and safetyreasons in the 1970s by the MRC (Johnson, et al, forthcoming). Considerable persistence

was needed by Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe to overcome obstacles such asdetermining the appropriate culture medium for human embryos (Edwards and Steptoe1980). Not until Louise Brown provided living proof that human conception could besuccessfully conducted in a Petri dish did IVF begin to become more widely accepted,and thus the door opened to a new set of human reproductive and scientific possibilities(Edwards 2005, Fischel and Symonds 1986).

To cite this output:

Franklin, Sarah (2010). The IVF-Stem Cell Interface: a sociology of embryo transfer: Full Research Report

ESRC End of Award Report, RES-350-27-0006. Swindon: ESRC


2/16

REFERENCE No.

14

Both the success of human IVF, and its somewhat unexpected popularity, have hadsignificant social consequences that continue to be mapped. As Marilyn Strathern hasargued, one of the most significant legacies of IVF was a new reproductive modelin whichthe natural facts of sexual reproduction were reimagined as engineerable, duplicable,substitutable, and intervenable (Strathern 1992 a & b). Not only has the ability directly to

manipulate human fertilisation and embryology altered the meaning of the facts of life,but it has challenged the idea that biology provides a base on which society is built. Inthe early 1990s, Strathern famously argued that new reproductive technologies not onlyestablished a new conception model, but that their success explicitly transformedunderstanding of human origins by removing the ability of natural or biological facts ingeneral to operate as a grounding function for other meanings. Like Dolly the sheep,IVF not only rewrote the biological rule book, but challenged the entire model wherebybiological or natural facts could be used to represent a stable basis of the humancondition (Franklin 1997, 2007a).

Especially in the wake of cloning, stem cells, and the human genome project as we

approach what theEconomistcalls biologys big bang, it is arguable that the importanceof IVF as a precursor or template for what Ian Wilmut (2000) calls the age of biologicalcontrol has been significantly overlooked or possibly displaced by the seemingly moreBrave New World scenarios conjured up by cloning, stem cells, genetic engineering, anddesigner babies (Franklin and Roberts 2006). Yet it is arguably its very ordinariness thatmakes IVF so revolutionary, as well as its popularity and rapid global normalization.Indeed the history of IVF might lead us to ask if the most relevant question is not howradically technology will alter human reproductive futures, but how normal and familiarin vitrooffspring already are?

In addition to being a bridge to a new life, IVF is also a bridge between clinical

medicine and science a fact of life that has become increasingly significant in thecontext of human embryo research, stem cell science, cloning and regenerative medicine.

While rightly described as a technique to alleviate infertility, IVF is nonetheless a crucialfoundation for many of the techniques, such as human embryonic stem cell derivation,that have followed in its wake. First, this is because successful human IVF established acrucial identity between in vivoand in vitroconception models. The ability for IVF tosubstitute for the real thing by establishing that Assisted Reproductive Technology(ART) could successfully imitate life -- has changed how we think about extracorporealprocreation (Franklin 1997, Strathern 1992a, 1992b, Thompson 2005). If IVF babies arein a sense the proof of the viability of a series of transfers from the human body, into aPetri dish, and back again we could say in anthropological terms that human

conception has become not only partible, but movable and fungible. Above all it isduplicable. The second major reason for the influence of IVF, then, is that it became asource of both new material, most notably eggs and embryos, and direct access to thebiology of human conception. Consequently, IVF introduced a new economy of partsand wholes a process we see magnified in the context of debate about the origins ofcellular potency, for which the embryo is the biological equivalent of ground zero(Landecker 2007).

Following the successful derivation of human embryonic stem cells in 1998, IVF took ona new significance as the source of both research and material of potential value tounderstanding fundamental mechanisms of cellular development, and also practical

applications of this knowledge. In addition to the IVF-Stem Cell interface that is thesubject of this Fellowship award, a broader nexus of intersecting fields was seen to auger





3/16

REFERENCE No.

15

unprecedented bioscientific promise at the dawn of the 21stcentury. Hence, IVF, stemcell research, regenerative medicine, and tissue engineering became newly conjoined later to be followed by the growth of synthetic, systems and nanobiology. The emergentfield of biosocial studies has attempted to address the social dimensions of thesedevelopments on the basis of interdisciplinary research such as that undertaken for this

award.

A second goal described in the original application was to focus on the IVF-Stem CellInterface in order to develop a sociological analysis of the movements, or transfers, thathave been intensified by the emergence of hES research to which thousands of IVFembryos have been donated in the hope of establishing new forms of therapy in what isnow a nationwide system of embryo supply. By doing so, the research sought tocontribute to a growing body of scholarship on the social life of the human embryo as ithas become more complex, and gained increasingly elaborate public, visual, legal,scientific, and regulatory dimensions, social science has begun to chart the significance ofthe extra-corporeal embryo and its circulations.

Objectives and Methods

The proposed research for this Fellowship under the ESRC Stem Cell Programme wasdivided into three core areas of activity. A primary goal was to consolidate my work withHESCCO, the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Coordinators network. This MRC-fundedinitiative was aimed at increasing interdisciplinary communication and nationalcoordination at the interface of IVF and hES derivation, by bringing together clinicians,scientists, nurses, and regulators to achieve practical national goals in the context ofembryo donation to stem cell research (Franklin 2006a, 2006b). As noted earlier, this

network ceased to function in July 2007, and as a result much of the work it had begunremains unfinished in particular the patient data collection exercises. Partly as a resultof this development, a different approach to the issues raised within the HESCCOnetwork was pursued with Professor Clare Williams at Kings in the form of anapplication to the Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics programme to fund aninvestigation into Ethical Frameworks for Embryo Donation to Stem Cell Research,involving many of the same centres envisaged as partners in the original application forthis Fellowship. As a co-applicant on the Wellcome study, which was successfully fundedin 2007, I have been able to take some of these research agendas forward, while alsodeveloping others more suited to the rapidly changing priorities of the medical andscientific teams involved in stem cell derivation in the UK at present.

1

1Important sociological work on the social life of the human embryo has been conducted by Becker 2000,Edwards 2000, Edwards et al 1999, Ganchoff 2004, Hogle 2003, Kitzinger et al 2005, Mulkay 1997, Pardo

2004, Parry 2006, Rapp 2003, Spallone 1996, Sperling 2004, Squier 2004, Strathern 1992a & b, Thompson2005, Waldby 2002, Waldby and Squier 2003, Waldby and Mitchell 2006, and Williams et al 2003, amongmany others.

In particular, the research sought todraw out the connections between the emergence of stem cell research and the history of

IVF by drawing on the history of embryology (for example Haraways early work, 1976),and the largely unwritten history of experimental embryology in the UK in the postwarperiod, to examine the specific technique of embryo transfer arguable the backbone ofIVF technology (Edwards 2001, 2004, 2005, Graham 2000). This aspect of the researchthus aimed to situate the new hES labs in the context of their emergence out of acomplex social history, and in particular what I have called a sociology of embryotransfer.





4/16

REFERENCE No.

16

These two objectives offered the opportunity to collaborate closely with scientists andclinicians to explore the emergence of the IVF-Stem Cell Interface out of the past 50years of embryo research in the UK and it has indeed proven apt to explore this topicat a point in time, when, in a sense, the embryo has come full circle (from lab to clinic,and now from clinic back to lab). Using a combination of ethnographic, historical and

interview methods, the project overall sought to add value to existing research bydeveloping some of its dimensions, through some additional data collection, and the rareopportunity of being enabled to take advantage of additional research time to analyse theresults in more depth.

A final, third component of the research involved a programme of writing up andpublication.

The main outcome of this Fellowship is a new monograph exploring the IVF-stem cell

interface by focussing on the trajectory that took IVF out of the lab and into the clinic,followed by its contemporary movement back from the clinic into the lab (Franklin,forthcoming). This, too, is seen to produce a new reproductive model indeed a newmodel of life itself, or what we might call life after embryo culture. The themes ofbiological relationality and relativity that arise in the context of embryo donation to stemcell research during which an embryo may be transferred but also translated orindeed even trans-substantiated into new kinds of entities belong to the wider set ofdebates about biosociality and biocapitalism that have come to occupy an increasinglyprominent place in social science (Brown and Webster 2004, Franklin and Lock 2003a &b, Rabinow 1996, Rose 2006, Sunder-Rajan 2006). Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells andthe Reproductive Frontier develops these arguments in considerable depth. It has been sent

to Duke, enthusiastically reviewed

Results, Activities and Outputs

2

Other outcomes included 33 presentations and 27 publications for a range of audiences,as well as 2 major international symposia, and two international workshops. Although, asmentioned earlier, some of the original research envisaged with the HESCCO networkproved impossible due to the networks unforeseen suspension of activity, the historical

work programme envisaged for the Fellowship research programme was significantlyenlarged and increased. A major empirical component of the Fellowship, in effectreplacing the patient interviews (which could not be undertaken in this period), with 20

, and offered a contract. Following revisions to themanuscript, it will go into press in 2010 for publication in 2011 or2012.

2Reader 1 summarised the book as follows: The promise of Biological Relativesis to show how reproductive(IVF) and regenerative (stem cell) technologies have become entwined how gametes and embryos have,in contemporary biomedicine, come to be transformed into such regenerative products as human cell-based clinical techniques. Franklin deftly moves away from standard, off-the-shelf analyses, arguing thatseeing these transubstantiations simply as brokering new kinds of commoditizations of life itself or asmere rescriptings of biological gifting misses what is unique to these conversions which is that theyare bound up with kinship relations. Franklin argues that we would do well to turn to kinship theory tounderstand what is going on here. Blending kinship theory with the arguments of such historians of scienceas Hannah Landecker, who has argued that, biotechnology changes what it means to be biological,Franklin argues that the IVF-Stem cell interface is key to understanding how the meaning of biologicalrelative is changing. When the facts of life (pregnancy, conception, embryogenesis, etc.) are somodifiable as to call into question their very status as stable facts, being biologically related can mean

many things. As Franklin asks, what does it mean to have a biological tie when biological substance hasbecome so dispersed? Or when the very meaning of biological has become unclear? We enter, Franklinargues, into an era of relative biology.





5/16

REFERENCE No.

17

interviews with leading scientists, clinicians, policy makers and parliamentarians whoplayed influential roles in UK science and policy in the field of human fertilisation andembryology. These interviews are the basis for a series of publications on the history ofmammalian developmental biology and IVF in the UK, for which additional funding hasbeen acquired from the Wellcome Trust History of Medicine Programme. Digital

recordings and transcripts of the interviews are being deposited in the British Library aspart of a new collection on the postwar life sciences. This project has generatedconsiderable interest and is one of the major outcomes of the fellowship.

For ease of assessment, the other main outputs are listed below in separate sections.

Key Presentations

I consider the presentation to the London Regenerative Medicine Network in June 2007a significant output as very few social scientists have presented research findings to thisinfluential forum. The opportunity to visit and present grand rounds at one of Europes

leading stem cell and transplant research facilities, in Sicily, in September 2007, was alsoan important forum for social science findings to be recognised. My keynote lectures atBarnard and the University of Santa Cruz were both broadcast to wide audiences, thelatter globally.

Key Publications

The articles and chapters I was able to see into print and prepare for future publicationaddress a wide range of audiences, including the arts, sciences, and medicine, as well associal science. The chapter on donation from the reproductive setting in the first majormedical textbook on Tissue Donation (Franklin and Kaufman 2009) is one I consider

particularly significant, as is the article publishing the HESCCO consent procedures andconsent forms (Franklin, et al, 2008). The most important, and influential, publication formy own future research was Anne McLarens obituary, prepared with much assistancefrom her family, colleagues, and friends, and introducing me to an avenue of furtherenquiry that has significantly reshaped my own intellectual trajectory. The two specialissues of Science as Culture dedicated to stem cells were also important projects duringthe course of the Fellowship, and represent, in my view, an important synthetic andcomparative contribution to the social science of stem cells.

Interviews

Among the 20 interviews conducted for this project are those with Frank Dobson, MaryWarnock, Anne McLaren, Richard Gardner, Chris Graham, and Roger Short, all ofwhich contain data relevant to the history of IVF and its regulation in the UK. A majorfuture research orientation of my work, in collaboration with martin Johnson and NickHopwood from Cambridge, will be the development of this new archive of material. Thefirst of three interlinked publications on MRC funding of IVF, MRC funding ofreproductive research in general, and changing meanings of ethics in ths context ofreproductive medicine will be submitted to Human Reproductionin September (Johnson, etal, forthcoming). I also conducted two additional interviews, which have been published,on wider aspects of the biosciences in Europe including one on EU knowledgeproduction with Helga Nowotny (Franklin 2007b) and tissue engineering (Franklin and

Kaftantzi 2008).





6/16

REFERENCE No.

18

Major Events

Two major conferences (The Future of Biological Control 2008, and 40 Years of IVF2009) were organised during the period of the Fellowship, as well as two smaller

workshops (the STEPS/BIOS Workshop on tissue engineering in Europe and Beyond

the Genome with Craig Venter on social and ethical aspects of synthetic biology). I wasalso involved in three sci-art, or bio-art, initiatives Future Mix, Crossing Over, and

Assembling Bodies. All of the above events have led to publications.

Archival Deposits

PROGRESS Educational Trust Archive LSE Social Campaigns Archive (complete andcatalogued)PAGIS Archive LSE Social Campaigns Archive (in progress)

Anne McLaren Archive British Library (complete and catalogued)Postwar UK Mammalian Developmental Biology Oral History Archive British Library

(in progress)

Summary

In sum, the Fellowship provide the opportunity both to consolidate existing researchtrajectories and to develop new concepts and approaches. Above all, it enabled theopportunity to (have time to) delve into more depth into the questions about the IVF-Stem Cell interface that motivated the original application, and to produce a monographaddressing these. Like many projects it took a number of unexpected turns, and someaspects of the research and writing that were initially envisaged were not, in the end,feasible. However, it has been possible to take some of these forward via other avenues,

and it is likely others of them will be realised in due course (e.g. when HESCCOreconvenes). A notably feature of the outputs is their almost extreme disciplinary breadth

a feature that may be considered either a liability or an asset, but which is in either casesymptomatic of both the rapid expansion of biosocial studies, and the wide range ofcollaborations this involves. My own experience of this has been very positive, especiallymy unexpected enrolment into a series of bio-art projects. The major outcome for myown future research, perhaps paradoxically, has been a much intensified sense of focuson the history of IVF and embryo transfer, and their significance for understanding stemcell, and bio-, futures.

References

Becker, Gay. 2000. The Elusive Embryo: How Men and Women Approach New ReproductiveTechnologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Edwards, Jeanette. 2000. Born and Bred Oxford: Idioms of Kinship and New reproductivetechnologies in England. Oxford: Oxford University Press





7/16

REFERENCE No.

19

Edwards, R. G. 2005. Introduction: the beginnings of In-Vitro Fertilization and ItsDerivatives inRBMOnlinepublications,Modern Assisted Conception, ReproductiveHealthcare Ltd., Cambridge, pp. 1-7

Edwards, R.G. 2004. Stem Cells Today: A. Origin and Potential of Embryo Stem Cells.

RBMOnline8:3:275-306.

Edwards, R. G. 2001. The Bumpy Road to Human In Vitro Fertilization.NatureMedicine. 7:10:1091-1094.

Edwards, Jeanette, Franklin, Sarah, Hirsch, Eric, Paton, Frances and Strathern, marilyn(1999) Technologies of procreation: kinship in the context of new reproductivetechnologies, 2nded. London: Routledge.

Franklin, Sarah. 1997.Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Reproduction. London:Routledge

Franklin Sarah 2006a. Embryonic Economies: The Double Reproductive Value of StemCells. Biosocieties1:1:71-90

Franklin, Sarah. 2006b. The IVF-Stem Cell Interface International Journal of Surgery 4:2:86-90.

Franklin, Sarah. 2007a. Dolly Mixtures: the Remaking of Genealogy.Durham: Duke UniversityPress.

Franklin, Sarah. 2007b. Visions of Frontier Knowledge: an interview with Helga

Nowotny, BioSocieties2(3):375-80.

Franklin, Sarah. 2007c. Crook Pipettes: Anglo-Australian Exchanges in Embryology,Journal of the History of Biology, Special Issue, Ed. Sarah Wilmot, From Farm to Clinic,December.

Franklin, Sarah. 2007d. Obituary: Dame Dr Anne McLaren Regenerative Medicine 2:5:853-9.

Franklin, Sarah (2008a) Reimagining the Facts of Life Soundings: a journal of politics andculture, Issue 40, No. 3, Winter 2008, pp. 147-156

Franklin, Sarah (2008b) Embryo Transfer: a View from the UK (Chapter 5) inFrancesca Molfino and Flavia Zucco, eds. Women in Biotechnology: Creating Interfaces, Berlin:Springer.

Franklin, Sarah (2008c) The Reproductive Revolution: how far have we come? (2005Inaugural lecture) BIOS Working Paper, BIOS Centre, London School of Eocnomics

Franklin, Sarah (2009) Genetic Bodies in Anita Herle, Mark Elliot and RebeccaEmpson, eds.Assembling Bodies: Art, Science and Imagination, Cambridge: CambridgeMuseum of Archaeology and Anthropology, pp. 66-67 (Exhibition Catalogue), ISBN

978-0-947595.





8/16

REFERENCE No.

20

Franklin, Sarah (in press b) Future Mix: Remodelling Biological Futures, CulturalAnthropology, Special Issue on Multispecies Futures edited by Stefan Helmreich andEben Kirksey, forthcoming January 2010

Franklin, Sarah (in press c) Revisiting Reprotech: Sulamith Firestone and the Question

of Technology in Mandy Merck, ed. The Further Adventures of The Dialectic of Sex,(London: Palgrave), forthcoming 2010.

Franklin, Sarah (under review) Species, Specimen, Spectacle: glancing the fetal form withSuzanne Anker, Special Issue of Social Texton Species and Specimens, ed Jasbir Puar,forthcoming Summer 2010

Franklin, Sarah (forthcoming) Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells and the ReproductiveFrontier, Duke University Press (due out 2011 or 2012)

Franklin, Sarah, Geesink, Ingrid and Prainsack, Barbara, eds. (2008a) Science as Culture

Special Issue, Part I: Stem Cell Stories 1998-2008. Vol. 17, No. 1, 100pp.

Franklin, Sarah, Geesink, Ingrid and Prainsack, Barbara (2008b) Guest Editorial: StemCell Controversies 1998-2008 Science as Culture, 17:4:351-362

Franklin, Sarah, Charles Hunt, Glenda Cornwell, Valerie Peddie, Paul Desousa, MoragLivie, Emma L Stephenson, and Peter R Braude (2008) HESCCO: Development ofGood Practice Models for hES Derivation, Regenerative Medicine3:1:105-116.

Franklin, Sarah and Emily Jackson (2008) The Future of Biological Control: law, ethics and policy(Summary and report of a one day international symposium held in honour of the work

of Dr Anne McLaren, London, 10 July 2008), London: BIOS Centre.

Franklin, Sarah and Kaftantzi, Lamprini (2008) Industry in the Middle: Interview withIntercytex Founder and CSO, Dr Paul Kemp, Science as Culture, 17:4:449-462.

Franklin, Sarah and Kaufman, Sharon R. (2009) Ethical and Consent Issues in theReproductive Setting: the case of egg, embryo and sperm donation in Ruth Warwick,Deirdre Fehily, Ted Eastlund, and Scott A. Brubaker, eds. Tissue and Cell Donation: an essentialguide Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 222-243 (Chapter 12).

Franklin, Sarah and Lock, Margaret, eds. 2003a. Remaking Life and Death: Towards an

Anthropology of Bioscience.Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research press

Franklin, Sarah and Lock, Margaret. 2003b. Animation and Cessation: the Remaking ofLife and Death Culture in S. Franklin and M. Lock, eds., Remaking Life and Death:Towards an Anthropology of Bioscience.Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research press,pp. 3-22.

Franklin, Sarah and Mason, Chris (2008) From Lab to Studio: The Arts of the LifeSciences in Catarina Albano, ed., Crossing Over: Exchanges in Art & Biotechnologies, London:

ArtAkt, pp. 9-16 (Royal Institution of Great Britain Exhibition catalogue), ISBNL: 978-0-9542416-1-2





9/16

REFERENCE No.

21

Franklin, Sarah and Roberts, Celia. 2006. Born and Made: an ethnography of preimplantationgenetic diagnosis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Graham, Chris. 2000. Mammalian Development in the UK (1950-1995). InternationalJournal of Developmental Biology44:51-55.

Ganchoff, Chris. 2004. Regenerating Movements: Embryonic Stem cells and the Politicsof Potentiality. Sociology of Health and Illness 26:6:757-774.

Hogle, Linda. 2003. Life/Time Warranty: Rechargeable Cells and Extendable livesCulture in S. Franklin and M. Lock, eds., Remaking Life and Death: Towards an Anthropologyof Biomedicine. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research press, pp. 61-96.

Johnson, Martin, Franklin, Sarah and Hopwood, Nick (2009a) 40 Years of IVF: reflectionson the human in vitro embryo (Summary and report of a one-day international symposiumsponsored byNatureand the Wellcome Trust).

Johnson, Martin, Franklin, Sarah and Hopwood, Nick (2009b) 40 Years of IVF: 14thFebruary 1969 2009 (Commemorative Programme for a one day internationalsymposium in Cambridge), London: Nature, 32 pp.

Johnson, Martin, Cottingham, Matt, Franklin, Sarah, and Hopwood, Nick (under review)The UK Medical Research Councils 1971 decision not to fund research into humanconception (submitted to Human Reproduction).

Kitzinger, Jenny and Williams, Clare 2005 Forecasting Science Futures: LegitimisingHope and Calming Fears in the Embryo Stem Cell Debate. Social Science and Medicine.

Forthcoming.

Landecker, Hannah. 2007. How Cells Became Technologies.Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

Pardo, Rafael 2004 Attitudes of the European and the US Public toward EmbryoResearch, paper presented at The Status of the Extrcorporeal Embryo, 14-16 October,Freiburg, Germany.

Parry, Bronwyn. 2005. The New Human Tissue Bill: Categorization and DefinitionalIssues and their Implications. Genomics, Society, and Policy1:1:74-85.

Parry, Sarah. 2006. Reconstructing Embryos in Stem Cell Research: Exploring theMeaning of Embryos for People Involved in Fertility Treatment. Social Science and

Medicine, Volume 62, Issue 10, pp. 2349-2359.

Prainsack, Barbara, Geesink, Ingrid, and Franklin, Sarah eds. (2008a) Special Issue, Part II:Stem Cell Technologies 1998-2008: Controversies and Silences, Science as Culture,Vol 17, No. 4,130 pp.

Prainsack, Barbara, Geesink, Ingrid, and Franklin, Sarah (2008b) Guest Editorial: StemCell Controversies 1998-2008 Science as Culture, 17:4:351-362





10/16


11/16

REFERENCE No.

23

Franklin ESRC Fellowship Publications

Forth-coming

The UK Medical Research Councils 1971 decision not to fundresearch into human conception (to be submitted to HumanReproduction September 2009), with Martin Johnson, Nick Hopwoodand Matt Cottingham.

Underreview

Species, Specimen, Spectacle: glancing the fetal form with SuzanneAnker, Special Issue of Social Texton Species and Specimens, edJasbir Puar, expected publication Summer 2010

Contracted Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Reproductive Frontier (DukeUniversity Press), expected publication 2011-12.

Acceptedforpublication

The IVF-Stem Cell Interface in the UK in R. Dorit, D. Haas-Wilson,and B. Merritt, eds. Stem Cell Futures, Washington: The BrookingsInstitute Press.

In Press a From Blood to Genes?: Rethinking Consanguinity in the Context ofGeneticisation in David Sabean, ed. Kinship and Blood in European Societyand Culture (University of California Press), expected publication 2011.

In Press b Future Mix: Remodelling Biological Futures, Cultural Anthropology,Special Issue on Multispecies Futures edited by Stefan Helmreich and

Eben Kirksey, forthcoming January 2010

In Press c Revisiting Reprotech: Sulamith Firestone and the Question ofTechnology in Mandy Merck, ed. Shulamith Firestone Revisited,(London:Palgrave), expected publication 2009.

2009 Ethical and Consent Issues in the Reproductive Setting: the case ofegg, embryo and sperm donation in Tissue and Cell Donation, ed. RuthWarwick, Deirdre Fehily, Ted Eastlund, Scott A. Brubaker(Chapter 12)pp. 222-243

2009 40 Years of IVF: reflections on the human in vitro embryo (Summary andreport of a one-day international symposium sponsored byNatureandthe Wellcome Trust), with Nick Hopwood and Martin Johnson

2009 Genetic Bodies in Anita Herle, Mark Elliot and Rebecca Empson,eds.Assembling Bodies: Art, Science and Imagination, Cambridge:Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, pp. 66-67(Exhibition Catalogue), ISBN 978-0-947595.

2009 40 Years of IVF: 14thFebruary 1969 2009 (CommemorativeProgramme for a one day international symposium in Cambridge),

London: Nature, 32 pp., with Nick Hopwood and Martin Johnson.





12/16

REFERENCE No.

24

2008c The Reproductive Revolution: how far have we come? (2005Inaugural lecture) BIOS Working Paper 2, BIOS Centre: LondonSchool of Economics, ISSN: 7159 0620, 22pp.

2008d To Know or Not to Know? (Book Review of Blood Mattersby Masha

Gessen)Nature454, 17 July, pp. 277-8.

2008 Science as Culture Special Issue: Stem Cell Technologies 1998-2008: Controversiesand Silences.Vol 17, No. 4, December 2008,130 pp, ISSN 0950-5431(Guest edited with Barbara Prainsack and Ingrid Geesink)

2008 Science as Culture Special Issue: Stem Cell Stories 1998-2008. Vol. 17, No. 1,March 2008. 100pp, ISSN 0950-5431 (Guest edited with IngridGeesink and Barbara Prainsack).

2008 HESCCO: Development of Good Practice Models for hES

Derivation. Regenerative Medicine 3:1:105-116 (with Charles Hunt,Glenda Cornwell, Valerie Peddie, Paul Desousa, Morag Livie, Emma LStephenson, and Peter R Braude).

2008b Embryo Transfer: a View from the UK (Chapter 5) in FrancescaMolfino and Flavia Zucco, eds. Women in Biotechnology: Creating Interfaces,Berlin: Springer, pp. 123-142, ISBN 978-1-4020-8610-6

2008a Reimagining the Facts of Life Soundings: a journal of politics and culture,Issue 40, No. 3, Winter 2008, pp. 147-156, London: Lawrence and

Wishart, ISSN 1362 6620

2008 Guest Editorial: Stem Cell Controversies 1998-2008 Science as Culture,Special Issue on Stem Cells, Part II,17:4:351-362 (with BarbaraPrainsack and Ingrid Geesink).

2008 Guest Editorial: Stem Cell Stories 1998-2008 Science as Culture, SpecialIssue on Stem Cells, Part I, 17:1:1-12 (with Ingrid Geesink and BarbaraPrainsack).

2008 Industry in the Middle: Interview with Intercytex Founder and CSO,Dr Paul Kemp in Science as Culture, Special Issue on Stem Cells, Part II,

17:4:449-462 (with Lamprini Kaftantzi).

2008 From Lab to Studio: The Arts of the Life Sciences in CatarinaAlbano, ed., Crossing Over: Exchanges in Art & Biotechnologies, London:ArtAkt, pp. 9-16 (Royal Institution of Great Britain Exhibitioncatalogue), with Chris Mason, ISBN: 978-0-9542416-1-2

2008 The Future of Biological Control: law, ethics and policy (Summary and reportof a one day international symposium held in honour of the work ofDr Anne McLaren, London, 10 July 2008), with Emily Jackson.

2007d Obituary: Dame Dr Anne McLaren Regenerative Medicine2:5: 853-9.





13/16

REFERENCE No.

25

2007b Visions of Frontier Knowledge: an interview with Helga Nowotny,BioSocieties2(3):375-80.

2007c Crook Pipettes: Anglo-Australian Exchanges in Embryology,Journal ofthe History of Biology, Special Issue, Ed. Sarah Wilmot, From Farm to

Clinic, December.





14/16

REFERENCE No.

26

Presentations for ESRC Fellowship Award, The IVF-Stem Cell Interface:a sociology of embryo transfer, 1 March 2007 31 August 2009-08-18

Professor Sarah Franklin, BIOS Centre, Department of Sociology,

London School of Economics

3 March 2007, Invited Speaker, Crook Pipettes: the IVF-Stem Cell Interface, The Times ofCloning, international conference, Max Planck Institute, Berlin.

21 March 2007, Organiser, Speaker and Chair, Tissue Engineering Translation and itsPublics in the UK, STEPS/BIOS Workshop, London School of Economics

26 April 2007, Chair, Live Donation, British Association of Tissue Banking, 15th

AnnualScientific Meeting, Donation Workshop, Nottingham

5 May 2007, Invited Speaker, Human Embryonic Stem Cell Coordination: determining best

practice for embryo donation to stem cell research, IHGH public seminar series, UCL

14 May 2007, Invited Speaker, From IVF to Stem Cells, Science CommunicationConference, British Association for the Advancement of Science, Institution of Engineeringand Technology, London.

7 June 2007, Invited Speaker, Best Practice in hES Cell Derivation: forming andimplementing ethical protocols, London Regenerative Medicine Network, Kings College,London

8 June 2007, Invited Speaker, PGD: a cultural account of biological control, Social andEthical Aspects of PGD Workshop, CBAS, Kings College, organised by Clare Williams.

21 June 2007, Invited Speaker, Transbiology: the Cyborg Embryo and its Futures, Womenand Biotechnologies: scientific and feminist approaches (International Conference sponsoredby the European Commission and Fondazione Brodolini and Associazione Donne e Scienza)Rome, Italy

14 September 2007, Invited participant, Academy-Industry Interactions in Stem CellResearch, ESRC Workshop, CBAS, Kings College, London, organised by Clare Williamsand Steven Wainwright

19 September 2007, Invited Speaker, Hope not Hype, UK National Stem Cell Bank PublicForum, National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), Potters Bar

27 September 2007, Invited Speaker, Tissue Donation for Research: Ethical Protocols for

Patient Information and Informed Consent, Grand Rounds, Istituto Mediterraneo per ITrapiente I Terapie ad Altas Specializazzione (ISMETT), Palermo, Sicily

12 October 2007, Invited Speaker, Social & Ethical Aspects of Stem Cell Research,European Stem Cells Business Summit 2007, organized by Select Biosciences, Edinburgh

23 October 2007, Chair, 'Spare Parts: One Day You Might Need Them', Public SeminarSeries, London, Dana Centre

24 October 2007, Organiser, Panelist, and Chair, Beyond the Genome: the Challenge ofSynthetic Biology, BIOS Centre Public Debate, London School of Economics, London

7 November 2007, Departmental Seminar Presentation, Beyond Dolly: a Visit to theGenealogical Frontier, Department of Sociology, University of York





15/16

REFERENCE No.

27

29 November 2007, Invited Speaker, Analogic Return (Commemorative Session for MarilynStrathern), American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California

18 January 2008, Invited Speaker, Genetic Bodies, Governing Genomics, BIOS CentreInternational Symposium, London School of Economics, co-organisers Nikolas Rose and

Barbara Prainsack

13 February, Launch Event, Future Mix ArtAkt, South Camden Community School, London

15 February 2008, Invited Speaker, Embryo Donation for Research: Ethical Protocols forPatient information and Consent, Guys Medical School, Kings College, London

20 February 2008, Departmental Seminar, Transbiology: Achieving Quality ControlledVitality, Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge

27 February 2008, Invited Panelist, From Blood to Genes?: rethinking consanguinity in thecontext of biomedicine, Blood Kinship, European Social Science History Conference,Lisbon, Portugal, organiser David Sabean.

13 March 2008, Public Lecture, Transbiology: the IVF-Stem Cell Interface, University ofCalifornia Santa Cruz, sponsored by the Centre for Cultural Studies and History ofConsciousness Programme (broadcast on UCTV 19 September 2008)

16 May 2008, Senior Seminar, The Merographic Embryo: modelling biological form,Department of Social Anthropology, University of Cambridge

22 May 2008, Public Lecture, Dolly, Cloning, and Stem Cells, William Goodenough CollegePublic Lecture Series, London

5 June 2008, Keynote Speaker, Transbiology: a preliminary cartography, Embryonic Hopes:Societal and Legal Dimensions of Reproductive Medicine and Human Cloning, Kings

College, Centre for Biomedicine and Society, organized by Barbara Prainsack and Marie-Andree Jacob

12 June 2008, Keynote Speaker, Five Million Miracle Babies Later: the cultural legacy of IVFat IVF as a Global Form: an international symposium, Department of European Ethnology,Humboldt University Berlin, organisers Michi Knecht and Maren Klotz

4 July 2008, Invited Participant and Panel Chair, The role of social science in public dialogueon science and technology, a ScoPE Project Workshop organised by Kevin Burchell andKathrin Braun, BIOS Centre, London School of Economics

10 July 2008, Co-organiser and Chair (with Emily Jackson), The Future of Biological Control:The Legacy of Anne McLaren in law, ethics and policy in reproductive biomedicine, co-

sponsored by the BIOS Centre and the Wellcome Trust

28 October 2008, Departmental Seminar, 'Five Million Miracle Babies Later', Centre forGender and Women's Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, (also presented to theDepartment of Anthropology, New York University, New York City 6 November 2008).

20 November 2008, Invited Panelist, 'Future Mix' paper presented on the Multi-SpeciesFutures panel, organised by Stefan Helmreich and Eben Kirksey, at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Anthropological Association, San Francisco, CA 20 November.

21 November 2008, Invited Discussant, Potentiality and Humanness: Revisiting theAnthropological Object panel, organised by Karen-Sue Taussig, at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Anthropological Association, San Francisco, CA 20 November.





16/16

REFERENCE No.

28

14 February 2009, Co-Organiser and Session Chair, 40 Years of IVF, University ofCambridge (with Martin Johnson and Nick Hopwood).

28 February 2009, Keynote Speaker, Transbiology: a feminist cultural account, the Scholarand the Feminist Conference, Barnard College, New York




Documents

Frankling Sarah Fron Lab to Art