IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v63y2006i9p2277-2288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Purity and the dangers of regenerative medicine: Regulatory innovation of human tissue-engineered technology

Author

Listed:
  • Faulkner, Alex
  • Kent, Julie
  • Geesink, Ingrid
  • FitzPatrick, David

Abstract

This paper examines the development of innovation in human tissue technologies as a form of regenerative medicine, firstly by applying 'pollution ideas' to contemporary trends in its risk regulation and to the processes of regulatory policy formation, and secondly by analysing the classificatory processes deployed in regulatory policy. The analysis draws upon data from fieldwork and documentary materials with a focus on the UK and EU (2002-05) and explores four arenas: governance and regulatory policy; commercialisation and the market; 'evidentiality' manifest in evidence-based policy; and publics' and technology users' values and ethics. The analysis suggests that there is a trend toward 'purification' across these arenas, both material and socio-political. A common process of partitioning is found in stakeholders' attempts to define a clear terrain, which the field of tissue-engineered technology might occupy. We conclude that pollution ideas and partitioning processes are useful in understanding regulatory ordering and innovation in the emerging technological zone of human tissue engineering.

Suggested Citation

  • Faulkner, Alex & Kent, Julie & Geesink, Ingrid & FitzPatrick, David, 2006. "Purity and the dangers of regenerative medicine: Regulatory innovation of human tissue-engineered technology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(9), pages 2277-2288, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:9:p:2277-2288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(06)00309-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moreira, Tiago, 2005. "Diversity in clinical guidelines: the role of repertoires of evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 1975-1985, May.
    2. Faulkner, Alex & Kent, Julie, 2001. "Innovation and regulation in human implant technologies: developing comparative approaches," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 895-913, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Faulkner, Alex, 2009. "Regulatory policy as innovation: Constructing rules of engagement for a technological zone of tissue engineering in the European Union," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 637-646, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Allen, Davina, 2009. "From boundary concept to boundary object: The practice and politics of care pathway development," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 354-361, August.
    2. Taipale, Jaakko & Hautamäki, Lotta, 2021. "Clinical practice guidelines in courts’ representation of medical evidence and testimony," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 275(C).
    3. Broom, Alex & Adams, Jon & Tovey, Philip, 2009. "Evidence-based healthcare in practice: A study of clinician resistance, professional de-skilling, and inter-specialty differentiation in oncology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 192-200, January.
    4. Daskalopoulou, Athanasia & Palmer, Mark, 2021. "Persistent institutional breaches: Technology use in healthcare work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    5. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    6. Fascia, Michael, 2019. "Evaluation of knowledge transfer practices from a Leibniz Perspective," OSF Preprints 37kd2, Center for Open Science.
    7. Knaapen, Loes & Cazeneuve, Hervé & Cambrosio, Alberto & Castel, Patrick & Fervers, Beatrice, 2010. "Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements: A case study of French clinical cancer guidelines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 685-692, August.
    8. Alexander Schniedermann, 2021. "A comparison of systematic reviews and guideline-based systematic reviews in medical studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9829-9846, December.
    9. Bourret, Pascale & Keating, Peter & Cambrosio, Alberto, 2011. "Regulating diagnosis in post-genomic medicine: Re-aligning clinical judgment?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(6), pages 816-824, September.
    10. Fascia, Michael & fascia, sonny, 2019. "Creativity as a Competitive Entrepreneurial Enabler," OSF Preprints wqtvh, Center for Open Science.
    11. Wieringa, Sietse & Engebretsen, Eivind & Heggen, Kristin & Greenhalgh, Trish, 2021. "Clinical guidelines and the pursuit of reducing epistemic uncertainty. An ethnographic study of guideline development panels in three countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    12. France Légaré & Antoine Boivin & Trudy van der Weijden & Christine Pakenham & Jako Burgers & Jean Légaré & Sylvie St-Jacques & Susie Gagnon, 2011. "Patient and Public Involvement in Clinical Practice Guidelines," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(6), pages 45-74, November.
    13. Ulucanlar, S. & Faulkner, A. & Peirce, S. & Elwyn, G., 2013. "Technology identity: The role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 95-105.
    14. Moreira, Tiago, 2011. "Health care rationing in an age of uncertainty: A conceptual model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1333-1341, April.
    15. Wilson, Nicky & Pope, Catherine & Roberts, Lisa & Crouch, Robert, 2014. "Governing healthcare: Finding meaning in a clinical practice guideline for the management of non-specific low back pain," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 138-145.
    16. Clinch, Megan & Benson, John, 2013. "Making information ‘relevant’: General Practitioner judgments and the production of patient involvement," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 104-111.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:63:y:2006:i:9:p:2277-2288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.