Advertisement

BioSocieties

pp 1–19 | Cite as

Shall we stop talking about egg donation? Transference of reproductive capacity in the Spanish Bioeconomy

  • Sara Lafuente-FunesEmail author
Original Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

More than 8% of babies born in Spain in 2014 were conceived through assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs); almost four out of every 10 babies born that year after direct-IVF depended on egg donation according to data from the Spanish Fertility Association. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork with 25 professionals linked either to researching reproduction or practicing reproduction using IVF (five researchers from universities and 20 professionals from 10 reproductive clinics), this paper suggests that the complex role of eggs, indeed what they actually are today within these bioeconomies, cannot be completely understood by relying solely on the concept of egg donation. Their roles are understood to be much better apprehended and visualized using the broader idea of transference of reproductive capacity, a concept that facilitates our understanding of the socio-technical practices in which eggs are currently entangled, signified, and made sense of. Thus, I argue that we ought to stop talking about egg donation (particularly when identifying it as a “technique”) and talk instead about the socio-technical practices of transference of reproductive capacity.

Keywords

Feminist STS Reproductive bioeconomies Bioeconomies Egg donation Assisted reproduction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad [Grant No. CSO-2619(2012-2014)]. I thank Vincenzo Pavone, main researcher of the project who funded this research, for his comments and for encouraging me to write this paper. I am particularly thankful to Cressida Limon and the comments received around this work by the participants at her seminar “Eggs, Milk and Honey: Law and Global Biocommodities” at Western Sydney University. Also, to the comments received at the Panel on Bioeconomies at the 4S meeting in Sydney, particularly those by Thomas Lemke, to whom I also must thank for his support. I am also thankful to the two anonymous reviewers of the manuscript: their comments helped improve the paper and made me think further about the ideas on it. Finally, I want to thank Jose Luis Aznarte, Amaia Orozco and Emily Mack for their comments and editions on this and earlier versions of this piece.

References

  1. Alkorta Idiakez, I. 2003. Los derechos reproductivos de las españolas. En especial, las técnicas de reproducción asistida. DS: Derecho y Salud 11(2): 165–178.Google Scholar
  2. Alkorta Idiakez, I. 2008. Innovación tecnológica y nuevos derechos reproductivos: ¿avance o retroceso?, within the Panel Innovación en el ámbito de la salud, SARE (Space and time for equlity), Vitoria – Gasteiz.Google Scholar
  3. Almeling, R. 2011. Sex cells: The medical market for eggs and sperm. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alonso, L.E. 1998. La mirada cualitativa en sociología: Una aproximación interpretativa. Madrid: Fundamentos.Google Scholar
  5. Álvarez Plaza, C. 2008. La materia humana en un alambique: nuevos modos de engendrar y la asimetría de la donación de semen y óvulos. In Construyendo intersecciones: aproximaciones teóricas y aplicadas en las relaciones entre los ámbitos del parentesco y la atención a la salud en contexto intercultural, ed. Piella, Sanjuán and Valenzuela, 65–81. San Sebastián: Ankulegi.Google Scholar
  6. Barnes, L. 2014. Conceiving masculinity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Birch, K. 2006. The neoliberal underpinnings of the bioeconomy: The ideological discourses and practices of economic competitiveness. Genomics, Society and Policy 2 (3): 1–15.Google Scholar
  8. Birch, K., and D. Tyfield. 2013. Theorizing the bioeconomy biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or… what? Science, Technology & Human Values 38 (3): 299–327.Google Scholar
  9. Bock von Wülfingen, Bettina. 2012a. Economies and the cell. Conception and heredity around 1900 and 2000. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Habilitationsschrift.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, J. 1997. Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. Nueva York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Calhaz, J., et al. 2016. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: Results generated from European registers by ESHER. Human Reproduction 31 (8): 1638–1652.Google Scholar
  12. Colen, S. 1995. “Like a mother to them”: Stratified reproduction and West Indian childcare workers and employers in New York. In Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction, ed. Ginsburg & Rapp, 78–102. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, M., and C. Waldby. 2014. Clinical labor: Tissue donors and research subjects in the global bioeconomy. North Carolina: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Coroleu Lletget, B. 2011. Orígenes, antecedentes e hítos más importantes de la especialidad en España. En Libro Blanco Sociosanitario “La Infertilidad En España: Situación Actual Y Perspectivas”. Madrid: Imago Concept. España.Google Scholar
  15. Feminismo Autónomo. 1990. GENcrítica: Revista Contra la Ingenieria Genética y las Nuevas Tecnologías de Reproducción. Madrid: Self-edited.Google Scholar
  16. Folbre, N., and J. Nelson. 2000. For love or money—Or both? Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (4): 123–140.Google Scholar
  17. Franklin, S. 2013. Biological relatives-IVF, stem cells and the future of kinship. Carolina del Norte: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Friese, C., C. Becker, and R.D. Nachtigall. 2006. Rethinking the biological clock: eleventh-hour moms, miracle moms and meanings of age-related infertility. Social Science & Medicine 63 (6): 1550–1560.Google Scholar
  19. Haraway, D.J. 2016. Staying with the trouble. Making kin in the Chthlucene. Carolina del Norte: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hewitson, Gillian. 2014. The commodified womb and neoliberal families. Review of Radical Political Economics 46 (4): 489–495.Google Scholar
  21. Hudson, N., L. Culley, and E. Blyth. 2011. Cross-border reproductive care: A review of the literature. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 22: 673–685.Google Scholar
  22. Humm, K.C., and D. Sakkas. 2013. Role of increased male age in IVF and egg donation: Is sperm DNA fragmentation responsible? Fertility and Sterility 99 (1): 30–36.Google Scholar
  23. Kroløkke, C.H. 2014. West is best: Affective assemblages and Spanish oöcytes. European Journal of Women’s Studies. 21 (1): 57–71.Google Scholar
  24. Lafuente, S. 2017a. Egg donation in the making: Gender, selection and (in)visibilities in the Spanish bioeconomy of reproduction. In Bioeconomies. Life, technology, and capital in the 21st century, ed. V. Pavone and J. Goven. London: Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar
  25. Lafuente, S. 2017b. Bioeconomías Reproductivas: Los óvulos en la biología pos fecundación in vitro. PhD Thesis, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociología, Complutense University of Madrid.Google Scholar
  26. Lie, M., M. Ravn, and K. Spilker. 2011. Reproductive imaginations: Stories of egg and sperm. NORA-Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 19 (4): 231–248.Google Scholar
  27. Marre, Diana. 2009. Los silencios de la adopción en España. Revista de Antropología Social 19: 97–126.Google Scholar
  28. Marre, D., B. San Román, and D. Guerra. 2018. On reproductive work in Spain: transnational adoption, egg donation, surrogacy, medical anthropology. Routledge 37 (2): 158–173.Google Scholar
  29. Marshall, C., and G.B. Rossman. 2011. Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Martin, E. 1991. The egg and the sperm: how science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. Signs 16 (3): 485–501.Google Scholar
  31. Matorras, R., and J. Hernández. 2007. Estudio y tratamiento de la pareja esteril. Madrid: Adalia.Google Scholar
  32. Matorras Weinig, R. 2005. ¿Turismo reproductivo o exilio reproductivo? Revista Iberoamecina de Fertilidad 22: 85.Google Scholar
  33. Mitra, S., S. Schicktanz, and T. Patel. 2018. Cross-cultural comparisons on surrogacy and egg donation interdisciplinary perspectives from India. Germany and Israel, London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  34. Moore, L.J. 2008. Sperm counts: Overcome by man’s most precious fluid. Nueva York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nahman, Michal. 2006. Materializing israeliness: Difference and mixture in transnational ova donation. Science as Culture 15 (3): 199–213.Google Scholar
  36. Nahman, Michal. 2018. Migrant extractability: Centring the voices of egg providers in cross-border reproduction, Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online.Google Scholar
  37. Oikkonen, V. 2009. Narrating descent: Popular science, evolutionary theory and gender politics. Science as Culture 18 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  38. Orobitg, Gemma, Joan Bestard, and Carles Salazar. 2013. El Cuerpo (Re) Productivo. Interés económico y altruismo social en las experiencias de un grupo de mujeres donantes de óvulos. Revista Andaluza de Antropologia 5: 91–104.Google Scholar
  39. Pavone, V., and F. Arias. 2012. Beyond the geneticization thesis the political economy of PGD/PGS in Spain. Science, Technology and Human Values 37 (3): 235–261.Google Scholar
  40. Pavone, V., and J. Goven (eds.). 2017. Bioeconomies: Life, technology, and capital in the 21st century. Cham (Switzerland): Palgrave McMillan-Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  41. Pennings, G. 2002. Reproductive tourism as moral pluralism in motion. Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (6): 337–341.Google Scholar
  42. Pérez Milán, F. 2011. La reproducción asistida en el medio sanitario público. En Roberto Matorras Weinig (ed.): Libro Blanco Sociosanitario “La infertilidad en España: situación actual y perspectivas”. Madrid: Imago Concept.Google Scholar
  43. Pérez Orozco, A. 2014. Subversión Feminista de la Economía Madrid: Traficantes de Sueños.Google Scholar
  44. Pérez Orozco, A, and López Gil, Silvia. 2011. Desigualdades a flor de piel: Cadenas Globales de Cuidados. Madrid: ONU Mujeres.Google Scholar
  45. Rodríguez, E. and Campo, S. 2008. Percepción social de la ciencia y la tecnología - Estudios CIS no 2652. CIS: Centro Investigaciones Sociológicas 5. Boletín CIS: 1–14.Google Scholar
  46. Rudrappa, Sharmila. 2015. Discounted life: The price of global surrogacy in India. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Santiso, R., M. Tamayo, J. Gosálvez, et al. 2010. Simultaneous determination in situ of DNA fragmentation and 8-oxoguanine in human sperm. Fertility and Sterility 93 (1): 314–318.Google Scholar
  48. Sharp, L.A. 2000. The commodification of the body and its parts. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 287–328.Google Scholar
  49. SEF - Sociedad Española de Fertilidad. 2014, 2015. Yearly data reports on ARTs use. Open access. http://www.sefertilidad.net/.
  50. Strathern, M. 2010. An end and a beginning for the gift? Le Journal de la Société des Océanistes 130–131: 119–128.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, C. 2005. Making parents: The ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. Cambridge (USA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Thompson, C. 2007. Why we should, in fact, pay for egg donation. Future Medicine: Regenerative Medicine 2 (2): 203–209.Google Scholar
  53. Vora, Kalindi. 2015. Life support: Biocapital and the new history of oursource labor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  54. Waldby, C. 2002. Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health 6 (3): 305–323.Google Scholar
  55. Waldby, C., and M. Cooper. 2008. The biopolitics of reproduction: post-fordist biotechnology and women’s clinical labour. Australian Feminist Studies 23 (55): 57–73.Google Scholar
  56. Weis, C. 2017. Reproductive migrations: Surrogacy workers and stratified reproduction in St Petersburg, PhD Thesis from De Monfort University. https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/15036.
  57. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2009. Methods for critical discourse analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Publicos (IPP)Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations