Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Proactionary Manifesto

  • Chapter
Book cover The Proactionary Imperative

Abstract

‘Humanity’ is about more than the survival of the animal Homo sapiens. That point is already made in the word: ‘humanity’ literally means the quality of being human, independent of who or what may possess that quality. The ancient Greeks had various ways of deciding who might be so qualified: some wanted evidence of ‘good character’, others were satisfied with an ability to pay. That all members of Homo sapiens are eligible to be treated as humans is essentially an Abrahamic theological aspiration that over the past five centuries has been sharpened by science. This aspiration has typically included a desire to overcome the body of one’s birth; hence the world-historic significance of Jesus — and not only in Christianity, which depicts his resurrection as having redeemed the idea of a humanity created ‘in the image and likeness’ of God, but also in the progressive secular world, where Jesus stands for the refusal to accept that one’s starting position in life determines one’s destiny. To be proactionary is, in the first instance, to identify with this progressive historical narrative, which in the secular West has been known mainly as ‘Enlightenment’ but in our own day is expressed as the drive to ‘human enhancement’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Agassi, J. (1975). Science in Flux. Dordrecht NL: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anson, M. (2006). The Handbook of Alternative Assets. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, K. (2009). The Case for God: What Religion Really Means. London: The Bodley Head.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnhart, L. (1998). Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature. Albany NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C. and Guston, D. (2008). ‘Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement and Integration’. In: E. Hackett et al. (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 979–1000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, J. and Tipler, F. (1988). The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bashford, A. and Levine, P. (eds) (2010). Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (1991). Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge UK: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, J. et al. (2011). ‘Molecular Genetics and Economy’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4): 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G.S. (1964). Human Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benassi, D. (2010). ‘Father of the Welfare State?’ Sociologica 3: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benyus, J. (1997). Biomimicry. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, K. and Tyfield, D. (2013). ‘Theorizing the Bioeconomy: Biovalue, Biocapital, Bioeconomics or... What?’ Science, Technology & Human Values 38: 299–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleed, P. (1986). ‘The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or reliability?’ American Antiquity 51: 737–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, H. (1992). The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1959). Capital and Interest: History and Critique of Interest Theories. (Orig. 1884). South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L. and Thévenot, L. (2006). On Justification: Economies of Worth. (Orig. 1991). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, N. (2005). ‘In Defense of Posthuman Dignity’. Bioethics 19(3): 202–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom, N. and Sandberg, A. (2009). ‘The Wisdom of Nature: An Evolutionary Heuristic for Human Enhancement’. In: J. Savulescu and N. Bostrom (eds), Human Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 375–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, R. (2005). ‘Sentient Nature and Human Economy’. History of the Human Sciences 19(1): 23–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box, J.F. (1978). R.A. Fisher: The Life of a Scientist. London: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brague, R. (2007). The Law of God: The Philosophical History of an Idea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brattain M (2007). ‘Race, Racism, and Antiracism: UNESCO and the Politics of Presenting Science to the Postwar Public’. American Historical Review 112(5): 1386–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggle, A. (2010). A Rich Bioethics. South Bend IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broberg, G. and Roll-Hansen, N. (eds) (2005). Eugenics and the Welfare State. Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M.F. (2003). Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S. (1975). ‘Should History of Science Be Rated X?’ Science 183: 1164–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busby, H. (2004), Reassessing the ‘gift relationship’: The meaning and ethics of blood donation for genetic research in the UK. (PhD dissertation) Nottingham UK: University of Nottingham, School of Sociology and Social Policy. Available at: http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/192/1/busby_thesis_final.pdf [accessed 18 September 2012].

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabresi, G. and Melamed, D. (1972). ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability’. Harvard Law Review 85: 1089–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cañizares-Esguerra, J. (2006). Nature, Empire and Nation. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassirer, E. (1923). Substance and Function. (Orig. 1910). La Salle IL: Open Court Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S., Zee Y.-K., Jayson, G. and Harris, J. (2011). ‘“Risky” research and participants’ interests: The ethics of phase 2C clinical trials’. Clinical Ethics 6: 91–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. (2011), Gene Patents. Should New Zealand Let the Gene Genie Out of the Patent Bottle? (LLB Dissertation) Otago NZ: University of Otago, School of Law. Available at: http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/oylr/2011/ Tom%20Cleary%20-%20LLB%20Honours%20Diss%202011.pdf [accessed 18 September 2012].

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, G. and Regis, F. (2012). Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (1999). Macrohistory: Essays in Sociology of the Long Run. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comfort, N. (2012). The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Commager, H.S. (1977). The Empire of Reason: How Europe Imagined and America Realized the Enlightenment. Garden City NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook-Deegan, R. (2008). ‘Gene Patents’. In: Crowley, M. (ed.) From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns. Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center, pp. 67–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbyn, Z. (2013). ‘Craig Venter: “This isn’t a fantasy look at the future. We are doing the future”’. Observer (London): 13 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 (4 November)

    Google Scholar 

  • ETS 5. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3b04.html [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • Crichton, M. (2006). Next. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P.J. (2002). ‘Geology of mankind’. Nature 415: 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, L. (2006). God and the Welfare State. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, W. (2010). ‘Economics and the “nonsense” of law: The case of the Chicago antitrust revolution’. Economy and Society 39: 64–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beaune, S., Coolidge, F. and Wynn, T. (eds) (2009). Cognitive Archaeology and Human Evolution. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann, U. (1996). Biologists under Hitler. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the Spell. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmond, A. and Moore, J. (2009). Darwin’s Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, Q.T. (2000).’ statement before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property on the Judiciary U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’. (13 July) Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ web/offices/ac/ahrpa/opa/bulletin/genomicpat.pdf/ac/ahrpa/opa/bulletin/ genomicpat.pdf [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1937). Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1967). The Biology of Ultimate Concern. New York: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1973). ‘Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution’. The American Biology Teacher 3: 125–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhem, P. (1969). To Save the Appearances: An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo (Orig. 1908). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. (1977). Truth and Other Enigmas. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, R. (2006). ‘Story of Diamond v. Chakrabarty’, In: J.C. Ginsburg and R.C. Dreyfuss (eds), Technological Change and the Subject Matter Boundaries of the Patent System Intellectual Property Stories. New York: Foundation Press, pp. 327–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmarsafy, Z. (2009). The Enlightenment Qur’an: The Politics of Translation and the Construction of Islam. Oxford: Oneworld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsik, C. et al. (2009). ‘The Genome Sequence of Taurine Cattle: A Window to Ruminant Biology and Evolution’. Science Vol. 324(5926) (24 April): 522–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1983). Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1998). ‘Deliberation and Constitution making’. In: J. Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 97–122.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engels, F. (1939). The Dialectics of Nature. (Orig. 1883). Introduction by J.B.S. Haldane. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esfiandiary, E.M. (1973). Up Wingers: A Futurist Manifesto. New York: John Day Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D. (2012). Risk Intelligence. London: Atlantic Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Extropy Institute (2004). ‘Extropy Institute’s Vital Progress Summit Challenges President Bush’s Bioethics Council Report’. (Press Release: 19 February) Available at: http://www.extropy.org/summitpress.htm [accessed 30 July 2012].

  • Festinger, L., Riecken, H. and Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. New York: Dover.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. and Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010). What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, S.A. (2011). ‘Wright’s Adaptive Landscape versus Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem’. In: E. Svensson and R. Calsbeek (eds), The Adaptive Landscape in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedland, J. (2012). ‘Eugenics: The skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet’. Guardian (London) 12 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (2002). Our Posthuman Future. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, R.B. (1968). Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. New York: E.P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (1988). Social Epistemology. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2000). The Governance of Science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2002). Knowledge Management Foundations. Woburn MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2006). The New Sociological Imagination. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2007a). Science vs. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2007b). New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2008a). Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism. Cambridge UK: Icon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2008b). ‘The Future Is Divine: A History of Human God-Playing’. In: A. Miah (ed.), Human Futures. Liverpool and Chicago: University of Liverpool Press and University of Chicago Press, pp. 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2008c). ‘The Normative Turn: Counterfactuals and a Philosophical Historiography of Science’. Isis 99: 576–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2009). The Sociology of Intellectual Life. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2010). Science: The Art of Living. Durham UK and Montreal: Acumen and McGill-Queens University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2011a). Humanity 2.0: What It Means to Be Human Past, Present and Future. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2011b). ‘Why Does History Matter to the Science Studies Disciplines? A Case for Giving the Past Back Its Future’. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5: 562–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2012). Preparing for Life in Humanity 2.0. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2014). ‘Neuroscience, Neurohistory and History of Science: A Tale of Two Brain Images’. Isis 105: 100–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. and Collier, J. (2004). Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge. 2nd edn (Orig. 1993, by Fuller). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funkenstein, A. (1986). Theology and the Scientific Imagination. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, S.M. (1996). ‘The Precautionary Approach to Fisheries’. In: FAO Technical Fisheries Papers (No. 350). Rome: United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/ W1238E/W1238E01.htm#ch1 [accessed 30 July 2012].

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, W. (1991). ‘Towards a paradigm shift in biology’. Nature 349: 99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glad, J. (2011). Jewish Eugenics. Washington DC: Wooden Shores Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. (2007). Liberal Fascism. Garden City NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, S. (1991). The History and Philosophy of the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J. (1988). Wonderful Life. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J. (1999). Rocks of Ages. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The First 5000 Years. Brooklyn NY: Melville House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, D.S. (2007). Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, F. (1992). ‘Theologians, Science, and Theories of Truth in 19th Century.’ In: M.J. Nye et al. (eds) The Invention of Physical Science. Dordrecht NL: Kluwer, pp. 81–96.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann, R. and Stehr, N. (2001). ‘Why Is Werner Sombart Not Part of the Core of Classical Sociology?’ Journal of Classical Sociology 1: 257–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (2002). The Future of Human Nature. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannaford, I. (1996). Race: The History of an Idea in the West. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’. Science 162(3859): 1243–8 (13 December).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. (2007). Enhancing Evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, P. (2007). The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. (1952). The Counter-Revolution in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, J.M. (2003). The End of the Soul. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, L.J. (1970). On the Social System: Selected Writings, (ed.) B. Barber. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry Hughes, Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys (2010). Waitangi Tribunal Report on Flora & Fauna Claim (WAI 262). Available at: http://www.henryhughes.co.nz/Site/News_Articles_Case_Notes/Articles/Latest/Waitangi_Tribunal_ Report_WAI_262.aspx#_ftnref1 [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • Higgins, E.T. (1997). ‘Beyond Pleasure and Pain’. American Psychologist 52(12): 1280–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A.O. (1991). The Rhetoric of Reaction. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogben, L. (ed.) (1938). Political Arithmetic. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, J. (1953). Evolution in Action. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, J. (1957). New Bottles for New Wine. London: Chatto & Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaksen, L. (2002). ‘Masculine dignity and the dirty body’, NORA — Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 10(3): 137–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. (2013). Medical Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, M. (1996). Sustainable Development: A Reconstructive Critique of the United Nations Debate. (PhD dissertation.) Göteborg, Sweden: University of Göteborg, Department of Theory of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, B. (2011). ‘Corporations Are Patenting Human Genes and Tissues — Here’s Why That’s Terrifying’ (Interview with Harriet Washington). Available at: http://www.alternet.org/story/153203/corporations_are_ patenting_human_genes_and_tissues_—_here%27s_why_that%27s_ terrifying?page=0%2C1 (23 November) [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • Kass, L. (1997). ‘The Wisdom of Repugnance’. New Republic 216 (22), (2 June).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, L. (2000). Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Palo Alto CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. (2011). What Technology Wants. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevles, D. (2013). ‘Can they patent your genes?’ New York Review of Books (7 March).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawlatow, G. (2012). ‘Patentowanie Ludzkich Genow’. Diametros 32: 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koerner, L. (1999). Linnaeus: Nature and Nation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler, A. (1959). The Sleepwalkers. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krier, J. and Schwab, S. (1995). ‘Property Rules and Liability Rules: The Cathedral in Another Light’. New York University Law Review 70: 440 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edn (Orig. 1962). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). The Politics of Nature. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2013). An Inquiry into the Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurie, G. (2002). Genetic Privacy: A challenge to medico-legal norms. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, H. (02.11.2010). ‘US Government wants limits on gene patents’. Science. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101102/full/news.2010.576. html (2 November) [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • Leonard, T. (2005). ‘Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era’. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19/4: 207–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (2001). The Future of Ideas. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LSE Mackinder Programme (2010). The Hartwell Paper: A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. London: London School of Economics. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/ [accessed 30 July 2012].

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, J.K. and Laurie, G.T. (2013). Mason & McCall Smith’s Law and Medical Ethics 9th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (2002) ‘The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality’. Daedalus, Winter: 89–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D. (1975). ‘The Economics of Enclosure’. In: W. Parker and E. Jones (eds), European Peasants and their Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 123–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, S. (2009). Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milbank, J. (1990). Theology and Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M.G. (2004). The Rise and Fall of the Cosmic Race. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, P. (1989). More Heat than Light. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, P. (2002). Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monod, J. (1974). Chance and Necessity. London: Fontana.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, A. (2011). ‘Intellectual Property’. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. Zalta (ed.). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/ entries/intellectual-property/ [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • More, M. (2005). ‘The Proactionary Principle’. Available at: http://www.maxmore.com/proactionary.htm.

  • Morozov, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. (2010). Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health (2005). ‘Comparing the chimp and human genomes’ National Human Genome Research Institute. (31 August) Available at: http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD020730.html [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • National Institutes of Health (2011) ‘Comparative Genomics’. National Human Genome Research Initiative. (13 October) Available at: http://www.genome.gov/11509542 [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • National Science and Technology Council (2011). Materials Genome Initiative for Global Competitiveness. Committee on Technology. ( June) Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/materials_ genome_initiative-final.pdf [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • Neumann, F. (1944) Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism: 1933–1944. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Newey, G. (2012). ‘I have £2000, you have a kidney’. London Review of Books. 34(12): 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D.F. (1997). The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. (eds) (1993). The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, J.R. (1973). The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, P., Hall, S. and Forero, O. (2013). ‘Biological Diversity in the Patent System’. PLOS ONE 8(11): e78737 (16 pp.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N. and Conway, E. (2013). ‘The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future’. Daedalus 142(1): 40–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, J. (1970). The Perfectibility of Man. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelan, J., Link, B. and Feldman, N. (2013). ‘The Genomic Revolution and Beliefs about Essential Racial Differences: A Backdoor to Eugenics?’ American Sociological Review 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichot, A. (2009). The Pure Society. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plehwe, D. (2009). ‘Introduction’. In: P. Mirowski and D. Plehwe (eds), The Road from Mont Pèlerin. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–42.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. (1988). Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. (1991). Value-Free Science? Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinbach, A. (1990). The Human Motor. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, N. (1997). ‘The Mid-century Biophysics Bubble: Hiroshima and the Biological Revolution in America, Revisited’. History of Science 35: 245–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, R. (2012). Guardians of the Future. Weymouth: Green House Publications. http://www.greenhousethinktank.org/files/greenhouse/home/Guardians_ inside_final.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick, C. (2012). British Sociology’s Lost Biological Roots: A History of Futures Past. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Renwick, C. (2013). ‘Completing the Circle of the Social Sciences?’ Philosophy of the Social Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reubi, D. (2012). ‘The human capacity to reflect and decide: Bioethics and the reconfiguration of the research subject in the British biomedical sciences’. Social Studies of Science 42: 348–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R.J. (2010). ‘Darwin Tried and True’. American Scientist (May–June).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripstein, A. (2007). ‘As If It Never Happened’. William & Mary Law Review 48(5): 1957–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, E. (2001). Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet and the Enlightenment. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runciman, D. (2008). Political Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1996). Monad to Man. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1999). Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction? Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Safrin, S. (2004). ‘Hyperownership in a Time of Biotechnological Promise: The International Conflict to Control the Building Blocks of Life’. American Journal of International Law. 98: 641–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. (2007). The Case Against Perfection. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. (2012). What Money Can’t Buy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2011). ‘Science agencies must bite innovation bullet’. Nature 471: 137 (10 March).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrag, Z. (2010). Ethical Imperialism: Institutional Review Boards and the Social Sciences, 1965–2009. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E. (1955). What is Life? The Physical Aspects of the Living Cell (Orig. 1944). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J.C. (1998). Seeing Like a State. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scruton, R. (2012). How to Think Seriously about the Planet: The Case for an Environmental Conservatism. London: Atlantic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seville, C. (2009). European Intellectual Property Law and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sewell, D. (2009). The Political Gene. London: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheena, M. (2005). Policing Pregnancy: The Law and Ethics in Obstetric Conflict, London: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, L. (1997). Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1999). A Darwinian Left. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, Q. (1969). ‘Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas’. History and Theory 8: 3–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. and Lewontin, R. (1982). ‘Artifact, Cause and Genic Selection’. Philosophy of Science 49: 157–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. London: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Stepan, N. (1991). The Hour of Eugenics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susen, S. and Turner, B.S. (eds) (2014). Luc Boltanski. London: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swartz, D. (2012). Moral Minority: The Evangelical Left in an Age of Conservativism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N.N. (2012). Antifragile: How to live in a world that we don’t understand. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1961). The Phenomenon of Man. (Orig. 1955) New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipler, F. (2007). The Physics of Christianity. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titmuss, R. (1970). The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. (2010). ‘The Conservative Disposition and the Precautionary Principle’. In: C. Abel (ed.), The Meanings of Michael Oakeshott’s Conservatism. Exeter: Imprint Academic, pp. 204–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, R. and West, C. (1998). The Future of American Progressivism. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (1987). ‘Prevention and control of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)’ (A/RES/42/8), Official Record. New York, 42nd Session, 26 October.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly (2011). ‘Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS: Intensifying Our Efforts to Eliminate HIV and AIDS’ (A/RES/65/277), Official Record. New York, 65th Session, 10 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Energy (2010) Genetics and Patenting. Office of Science. (7 July) Available at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/ Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • United States Patent and Trademark Office (2011). 35 U.S.C. Patent Laws: Appendix L, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. (1 October) Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf [accessed 18 September 2012].

  • Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Von Schomberg, R. (2006). ‘The precautionary principle and its normative challenges’. In: E. Fisher, J. Jones and R. von Schomberg (eds), Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 19–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Schomberg, R. (2013). ‘A vision of responsible innovation’. In: R. Owen, M. Heintz and J. Bessant (eds), Responsible Innovation. London: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, B. (1888). ‘Charles Darwin’s Religious Life’. Presbyterian Review, pp. 569–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, H. (2011). Deadly Monopolies: The Shocking Corporate Takeover of Life Itself — And the Consequences for Your Health and Our Medical Future. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weindling, P.J. (2004). Nazi Medicine and the Nuremberg Trials: From Medical Warcrimes to Informed Consent. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weir, T. (ed.) (2012). Monism: Science, Philosophy, Religion, and the History of a Worldview. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werskey, G. (1978). The Visible College: A Collective Biography of British Socialists and Scientists in the 1930s. London: Free Association Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whately, R. (1963). Elements of Rhetoric. (Orig. 1828). Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatcroft, G. (2012). ‘Meet the real William Beveridge’. Guardian (London) 7 December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N. (1967). The Human Use of Human Beings. (Orig. 1950). New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J. and Mean, M. (2004). Masters of the Universe. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E.O. (2006). The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolbring, G. (2006). ‘Ableism and NBICS’ (15 August). Available at: http://www.innovationwatch-archive.com/choiceisyours/choiceisyours. 2006.08.15.htm [accessed 13 July 2013].

  • Wright, S. (1977). ‘Panpsychism and science’. In: J. Cobb and D. Griffin (eds), Mind in Nature: The Interface of Science and Philosophy (Chap. 2). Washington DC: University Press of America

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Steve Fuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veronika Lipińska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2014 Steve Fuller and Veronika Lipińska

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fuller, S., Lipińska, V. (2014). The Proactionary Manifesto. In: The Proactionary Imperative. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137302922_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation