On Bioethics and the Commodified Body: An Interview with Donna Dickenson (Dispatch)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fellow at the University of Bristol, Donna Dickenson is a trailblazer in thinking about the commodification of the body.In her 40 year career Dickenson has made many contributions to examining the intersections between the embodied subject, labour, gender, property and care including (among other publications) her books Property in the Body: Feminist Perspectives (2007) and Body Shopping: The Economy Fuelled By Flesh and Blood (2008).In her keynote address to the 2015 symposium on Consuming Intimacies: Bodies, Labour, Care, and Social Justice, Dickenson spoke on "The Commodification of Women's Reproductive Tissue: The Lady Has Vanished and Is Still Missing," referencing her well-known, oft-cited article (Dickenson, 2006) on the absence of the women who provide eggs for the creation of embryonic stem cells from the stem cell debate.This keynote address provided critical insights about the ongoing utility of the term "commodification" to describe the systematic marketization of women's reproductive capacities and tissues, providing a corrective to the language of "choice" that focuses on the individual.Using the examples of the sale of eggs for in vitro fertilization and research, the banking of umbilical cord blood, international commercial surrogacy, and mitochondrial replacement techniques, Dickenson demonstrated how women's interests and voices continue to be largely absent from scholarship and debate over new technologies and treatments related to their reproductive bodies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".