medigraphic.com

2024, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Revista Colombiana de Bioética 2024; 19 (1)

A look at contemporary biopolitics: from genomic sovereignty to decolonial governance in the Mexican experience

Siede LV

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: 1-19
PDF size: 211.04 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose/Background: This article analyzes the concept of genomic sovereignty in the Mexican experience, from contemporary biopolitics. The question arises about its significance in governability as a political power linked to the genomic resources of the population in globalization.
Methodology/Approach: The methodological strategy is qualitative- exploratory, in which the study of the Mexican experience with in-depth interviews and documentary hermeneutics is used as methodological tools. The relevance of human biological samples as a genomic resource is highlighted, characterizing it in molecular terms, highlighting the role of biological citizenship, protagonist of changes in the governance of global biopower, and its relationship with the governability of the State.
Results/Findings: From the global techno-scientific scenario, the Mexican experience is delved into and the significance from contemporary biopolitics, the decolonial turn and the perception of 2 key social actors, from the academic field and from the area of the State that propose divergent interpretations about the term, linked to governance closer or further from considering the relevance of the political agency of the republic.
Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions: Governance of genomic resources is required where populations intervene through the agency of individuals who have become biological citizens as population groups where health-disease is resolved without borders. But at the same time, it requires the continuous agency of the State for governance, as a protection policy for the improvement of health, the participation of the population and the care of vulnerable populations.


REFERENCES

  1. Benjamin, Ruha. 2009. “A Lab of Their Own: Genomic Sovereignty as PostcolonialScience Policy.” Policy and Society 28, no. 4: 341-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2009.09.007

  2. Bernal Camargo, Diana Rocío. 2013. “Protección de los recursos genéticos de lospueblos indígenas en los sistemas universal e interamericano de derechos humanos.”Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado 46, no. 138: 909-937. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0041-8633(13)71156-6

  3. Bobbio, Norberto, Nicola Matteucci y Gianfranco Pasquino. 1993. Diccionario dePolítica. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI editores.

  4. Bota i Arqué, Alexandre. 2004 “El reto de la muestra biológica en los estudiosfarmacogenéticos.” Acta Bioética 10, no. 2: 201-212. https://doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2004000200008

  5. Castells, Manuel. 2009. Comunicación y Poder. Buenos Aires: Alianza Editorial.

  6. Castro Gómez, Santiago y Ramón Grosfoguel, ed. 2007. El giro decolonial: reflexionespara una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global. Bogotá, Colombia:Siglo del Hombre Editores.

  7. Chen, Yongxi y Lingqiao Song. 2018. China: concurring regulation of cross-bordergenomic data sharing for statist control and individual protection. HumanGenetics 137, no. 4: 605-615. 10.1007/s00439-018-1903-2

  8. Diccionario Etimológico Castellano en Línea. s. f. “Genómica.” Accedido sept. 23,2020. http://etimologias.dechile.net/

  9. Foucault, Michel. 2007. Seguridad, Territorio y Población. Buenos Aires: Fondo deCultura Económica

  10. Foucault, Michel. 2010. Nacimiento de la Biopolítica. Buenos Aires: Fondo de CulturaEconómica.

  11. Habermas, Jürgen. 1986. Ciencia y técnica como ideología. Madrid: Tecnos. Hardt, Michael y Antonio Negri. 2011. Commonthwealth, el proyecto de una revolucióndel común. España: Akal.

  12. Jiménez Sánchez, Gerardo y César Lara Álvarez. 2007. “Retos bioéticos de la medicinagenómica.” En Panorama internacional en salud y derecho, coordinadopor Ingrid Brena Sesma. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.http://ru.juridicas.unam.mx/xmlui/handle/123456789/27915

  13. Lara, César. 2020. “Percepción de la soberanía genómica en la modificación de laley y sus alcances políticos.” Entrevista realizada por Liliana Siede, agosto 8 de2020 y septiembre 22 de 2021.

  14. Lemke, Thomas. 2002. “Genetic testing, Eugenics and Risks.” Critical Public Health12, no. 3: 283-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590210153399

  15. López Beltrán, Carlos. 2011. Genes y mestizos – Genómica y raza en la biomedicinamexicana. México: Ficticia.

  16. López-Beltrán, Carlos y Vivette García Deister. 2013. “Aproximaciones científicasal mestizo mexicano.” História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 20, no. 2: 391-410.https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-597020130002000002

  17. Marey, Macarena, ed. 2021. Teorías de la República y prácticas republicanas. Barcelona,España: Editorial Herder.

  18. Moreno, Andrés y Karla Sandoval. 2013. “Diversidad genómica en México: Pasadoindígena y mestizaje.” Cuicuilco 20, no. 58: 249-275.

  19. Mukherjee, Siddhartha. 2017. El gen, una historia personal. Barcelona: Debate.

  20. OECD. 2009. “Guidelines on Human Biobanks and Genetic Research Databases.”OECD. https://bbmri.at/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/44054609.pdf

  21. Ortega Gómez, Hugo. 2019. “Bioética: ¿una estrategia biopolítica? Tensiones entreSalud Pública y autonomía de los enfermos.” Tesis de maestría, Universidadde Valparaíso. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332696349_Bioetica_una_estrategia_biopolitica

  22. Penchaszadeh, Víctor. 2012. Genética y Derechos Humanos. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Paidós.

  23. Petryna, Adriana. 2004. “Biological Citizenship: The Science and Politics ofChernobyl-Exposed Populations.” Osiris 19, no. 1: 250-265. https://doi.org/10.1086/649405

  24. Rabinow, Paul y Nikolas Rose. 2006. “Biopower Today.” BioSocieties 1, no. 2: 195-217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855206040014

  25. Raman, Sujatha y Richard Tutton. 2010. “Life, Science, and Biopower.”Science, Technology, and Human Values 35, no. 5: 711-734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909345838

  26. Resende Carvalho, Sergio y Ricardo Rodrigues Teixeira. 2017. Politics of life itselfand the future of medical practices: dialogues with Nikolas Rose (part 3). Interface21, no. 60: 221-230. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-57622016.0848

  27. Rifkin, Jeremy. 2000. La era del acceso, la revolución de la nueva economía. BuenosAires, Argentina: Paidós.

  28. Rose, Nikolas. 2012a. Políticas de la vida: biomedicina, poder y subjetividad en el sigloXXI. La Plata, Argentina: UNIPE.

  29. Rose, Nikolas. 2012b. “Democracy in the contemporary life sciences.” Biosocieties7, no. 4: 459-472. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2012.26

  30. Rose, Nikolas y Carlos Novas. 2005. Biological Citizenship. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30528478_Biological_Citizenshi

  31. Rotimi, Charles. 2008. “Straight talk with...Charles Rotimi.” Nature Medicine 14,no. 7: 704-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0708-704

  32. Schwartz-Marín, Ernesto. 2020. “Percepción de la soberanía genómica en la modificaciónde la ley y sus alcances políticos.” Entrevista realizada por LilianaSiede, ag. 17, 2020.

  33. Schwartz-Marín, Ernesto y Eduardo Restrepo. 2013. “Biocoloniality, Governance,and the Protection of ‘Genetic Identities’ in Mexico and Colombia.” Sociology47, no. 5: 993-1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513494506




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com