In the Netherlands, the opposition between advocates of embryo selection (preimplantation genetic diagnosis, PGD) and opponents seeking to ban PGD altogether escalated in May and June 2008, shortly after the State Secretary of Health proposed to rescind the ban on PGD for hereditary breast cancer. The clash between the Social Democratic Labour Party and the Reformed Christian Party, both represented in the Dutch Parliament, was ultimately settled in a quite friendly atmosphere. The active engagement in the debate of women and some men with a family history of hereditary breast cancer, who wrote or told their personal stories to the media, may have helped solve the conflict. In this article, I identify the stories of suffering and the arguments for or against PGD that BRCA mutation carriers made public in response to the controversy. Subsequently, the empirical findings are interpreted in light of political theories on the role of storytelling in political discourse. Deborah Stone’s recognition that storytelling is part and parcel of all political discourse and Iris Marion Young’s analysis of what stories do are used to evaluate the transformative effect that the real-life stories had in the Dutch public debate on PGD for hereditary breast cancer.

Exchange of material originating in human bodies is essential to many health technologies but potentially conflicts with a prominent moral ideal according to which human bodies and their parts are beyond trade. In this article, I suggest that the inclination to keep bodies apart from ‘commercial exchange’ has significant implications for the way their parts come to be exchanged. The analysis revolves around two versions of the hip: one prosthetic version made of metal and one version made of bone, the femoral head, which is excised in conjunction with hip replacements and later used for transplantation. How are exchange systems for something moving in and out of human beings organized? Who provides what and who receives what? When and where does money change hands? How are the specific amounts determined? By answering these questions, I provide a description of the exchange form that avoids assuming it to be simply a ‘market’ or a ‘gift economy’. I focus on the mechanisms that allow money to be generated despite the moral ideal viewing body parts as beyond trade—or, rather, the how the ideal facilitates mechanisms through which money can be generated without being viewed as profit. In particular, I suggest that ‘compensation’ is an important example of a mechanism in need of further scrutiny.

In this article, I address the enduring American interest in the manipulation and eradication of the need for human sleep through the powers of science. In particular, I focus on military research regarding the possible reduction of necessary sleep times as well as historical attempts to modify and maximize the scheduling of warfare; these military efforts are juxtaposed to the efforts of sports professionals who have attempted to test the limits of human sleep, either for scientific concerns or for that of victory. These various scientific pursuits are compared to science fictional representations of the eradication of human sleep, or its significant modification. I argue that it is not solely the actual realization of sleep’s modification that impacts dominant understandings of sleep, but rather that the fantasies of science’s powers reconfigure conceptions of the human and its limitations.

One of the big success stories in synthetic biology is the re-engineering of an existing organism to produce the anti-malarial drug artemisinin. The drug is also found naturally in extracts of the plant Artemisia annua (Wormwood), but demand is far oustripping supply and extracting the drug from the plants is complex, time-consuming and expensive. In this lecture, Jay Keasling describes how he and his laboratory re-designed yeast microbes into living mini anti-malaria drug factories producing artemisinin more cheaply and efficiently. The lecture was given at the 12 May 2009 launch of the Imperial-based Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation—established in partnership with the London School of Economics and funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as part of a science and innovation award.

In this lecture, Pam Silver describes some of the exciting work her laboratory has carried out in synthetic biology and illustrates how engineers are not only bringing new tools to traditional biology but also a new perspective. Traditional biology has emphasized understanding the causes and mechanisms of biological processes, but bioengineers put that knowledge to practical use. Our progress in understanding life, particularly the detailed molecular biology of cells, coupled with new technologies and computing power, is starting to transform biology from a ‘soft’ science focused on description to a ‘hard’ science focused on quantifying, predicting and controlling its properties. The lecture was given at the 12 May 2009 launch of the Imperial-based Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation—established in partnership with the London School of Economics and funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as part of a science and innovation award.

This article examines the historical roots of synthetic biology, highlighting the multiple meanings and understandings of the term. Synthetic biology as it is used today refers to an especially wide range of endeavors, embodying an equally wide range of aims, and having correspondingly various relations to the activities generally included in the discipline of biology. To address the question of what synthetic biology has to do with biology, this article illustrates some of the ways in which the entanglement of synthetic biology as the epitome of technoscience and synthetic biology as an alternative, artificial biology plays out in three different examples of synthetic biology—one current and two historical.

The scientific community has shown unusual leadership in early and proactive identification of some of the social, environmental, ethical and security concerns raised by synthetic biology. The current influx of social scientists focusing their attention on the technology has, however, broadened the concerns and challenges of synthetic biology and, to some extent, altered the focus of the debate about social context. This article provides a snapshot of some of the main events and discussions that have taken place in the United Kingdom over the last few months on socio-political aspects of synthetic biology.