380.Maranto G. Deoxyribonucleic Acid Trip: Review of Redesigning Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future by Gregory Stock // The New York Times 25.08. 2002. http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/20020825_nytimes_maranto.html.
381.Marden E., Nelkin D. Displaced agendas: Current regulatory strategies for germline gene therapy // McGill Law Journal. 2000. Vol. 45 No 2. P. 2.
382.Mehler B. In Genes We Trust: When Science Bows to Racism // RaceFile.-1995.-Vol. 3, No 3.-P. 53-54.
383.Miller H.I. When Worlds Collide: Science, Politics and Biotechnology // Priorities.-1997.-Vol. 9. - No 4.
384.Ming Hsu, Anen C., Quartz S.R. The Right and the Good: Distributive Justice and Neural Encoding of Equity and Efficiency // Science. 2008. V. 320. P. 1092–1095.
385.Muller-Hill B. Murderous Science: Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies and Others in Germany, 1933-1945. Oxford: Univ. Press, 1998.-258 p.
386.Nakamura T., Muramatsu T., Ono Y. Et al., Seronin transporter gene regulatory rgion polymorphism and anxiety-related trais in Japanese // Amer. Journ. Med. Genet.-1974.-Vol.74.-P.544-545.
387. Nelkin D., Lindee S. The DNA Mystique: The Gene as Cultural Icon. New York: Freeman & Co, 1996.
388.New Advocacy of Inheritable Genetic Modification // Genetic Crossroads. 2002. Bull. 27. http://www.genetics-and-society.org/newsletter/archive/27.html
389.New Goals for the U.S. Human Genome Project: 1998-2003 // Science.- 1998.-Vol. 282.- P. 682-689.
390.New Proposals to 'Rethink our Opposition to Eugenics // Genetic Crossroads. 2002. Bull.5. http://www.genetics-and-society.org/newsletter/archive/b05.html.
391.Norenzayan A., Shariff A.F. The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality // Science. 2008. V. 322. P. 58–62.
392.O'Brien C.C. Thomas Jefferson: Radical and Racist // Atlantic Monthly.-Vol. 278, No 4.-P. 54-74.
393.Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development / Ellis B. J., Bjorklund D. F. (Eds.).. New York: Guilford Press. 2005.
394.Paabo S. The Human Genome and Our View of Ourselves// Science.-2001.-Vol. 291,.-P.1219-1220.
395. Paul D. B. The Politics of Heredity/ Albany: State Univ. Of New York Press, 1998.
396.Paul D.B. Marxism, Darvinism and Theory of of Two Science // Marxist Perspect.-1979.-Vol. 2.-P. 116-143.
397.Paul D.B. What is Genetic Test, and Why does it Matter // Endeauvour.-1999.-Vol. 23.-P. 159-161
398.Paul D.B., Falk R. Scientific Responcibility and Political Context: The Case of Genetics under Swastika // Biology and Foundation of Ethics.-Cambridhge, Univ. Press, 1999.-P.257-275.
399.Paul D.B., Spencer H.G. The Hidden Science of Eugenics // Nature.-1995.-Vol. 374.-P. 302-304
400.Payne S.G.A History of Fascism. Madison: Univ. Of Wisc., 1995.-P.179-181.
401.Pearson R. Heredity and Humanity: Race, Eugenics and Modern Science. Washington: Scott-Townsend, 1996.-162 p.
402.Potthast T. Bioethics and Epistemic-Moral Hybrids: Perspectives from the History of Science // Biomed. Ethics.-2000.-Vol.5. - No 1.
403. Prato-Previde E., Fallani G., Valsecchi P. Gender Differences in Owners Interacting with Pet Dogs: An Observational Study // Ethology. 2006. V. 112. №1. P. 64-73.
404.Proctor R.N. Rase Hygiene. Medicine under Naciz. Cambridge: Harvard Univ., 1988.- P.95-118
405.Public vs Public Genomics // Nature.-2000.-Vol.403.-P.117.
406.Ramsey P. Fabricated Man. The Ethics and Genetic Control. New Haven; London: Yale Univ., 1970.-P. 15.
407.Reilly Ph.R. Involuntary sterilization in the United States: a surgical sollution // Quarterly Rev. Biol.-1987.-Vol. 62.-P. 153-162.
408.Reynolds J. Human Biotechnology: Responding to Emerging Dangerous New Human Genetics. http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/cgs/200304_z_reynolds.html.
409.Roberts L. Controversial from the Start // Science.-2001.-Vol. 291.- No 5507.-P.1182-1188.
410.Robertson J. Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton: Univ. Press, 1994.
411.Robertson J.A. Liberty, Identity and Human Cloning // Texac Law Rev.-1998.-Vol. 76.-P.1371.
412.Roll-Hansen N. A New Perspectives of Lysenko // Ann. Sci.-1985.-Vol.42.-P.261-278.
413.Rorvik D. In his Image. The Cloning of a Man. Philadelphia; N.Y.: Lippincot Co.-1978
414.Rorvik D. Na obraz i podobenstvo swoje.-Warsawa: Krajowa agencja wyd., 1983.-335 s.
415.Russel B. Ikarus, or the Future of Science. London: Paul, Ttrench, Trubner and Co, 1924.
416.Searl G.R. Eugenics and Politics in Britain in the 1930s // Ann. of Sci.-1979.-Vol. 36.-P. 159-169.
417.Shogren E. White House to Seek Genetic Test Safeguard // New York Times.-20.01.1998.
418.Silver L. Remaking Eden: How Cloning and Beyond will Change the Human Family. Avon, 1998.
419.Smith J.D., Nelson K.R. The Sterilization of Curry Buck.-Far Hills, N.J.: New Horizon, 1989.-268 p.
420.Somit A., Peterson S.A. Darvinism, Dominance and Democracy: The bilogical Bases of Authoritarism. Westport: Praeger, 1997.
421.Somit A., Peterson S.A. Darvinism, Dominance and Democracy: The bilogical Bases of Authoritarism. Westport: Praeger, 1997.
422.Spranger E. Lebensformen.- Halle, 1925.
423.Tauer C.A. International Policy Failures: Cloning and Stem-cell Research // The Lancet 2004. Vol. 364, No. 9429.
424.Thompson B., Harrub B. Human cloning and stem-cell research sciences slippery slope // Reason and Relevation.-2001.-No 8, 9, 10.
425.Toffler A. Future Shock.-N.Y.: Bentam, 1970.-562 p.
426.Tolischus O.D. 400 000 Germans to be Sterilised // New York Times.-21.12.1933.
427.Torn W. Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind // Proc. Brit. Acad.-1933.-Vol. 19.-P.123-124.
428.Turner L., "Bioethics Inc." Nature Biotechnology. 2004, Vol. 22.. http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/200408_naturebt_ turner.html
429.Universal Declaration on Human Genome and Human Rights // EUBIOS Journ. of Asian and Int. Bioethics.-1998.-No8.-P.4-6.
430.US Supreme Court. Buck versus Bell // US Supreme Court Reporter.-1927.-Vol. 47.-P. 584-585.
431.Valendor E.J., Lanhn B.T. Positive selection on the human Genome // Human Molec. Genet.-2004.-Vol. 13, Suppl. 2.-P.245-254
432.Venter C., Adams M.D., Myers E.W. et al. The Sequence of Human Genome // Science.-2001.-Vol. 291. - No 5507.-P.1304-1351.
433. Waal De F.B.M. Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and other Animals.-Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.Press, 1996.
434.Wallace B., Cesarini D., Lichtenstein P., Johannesson M. Heritability of ultimatum game responder behavior // Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2007. V. 104. P. 15631–15634
435.Watson J.D. All for the Good. Why Genetic Engineering Must Soulder on // Time. 1999.-Vol.153. - No 1.
436.Watson J.D. Genes and Politics // J.Mol.Med.-1997.-Vol. 75.-P.624-636.
437.Watson J.S. The elementary nature of purposive behavior: Evolving minimal neural structures that display intrinsic intentionality // Evolutionary Psychology. 2005. Vol. 3. P. 24-48
438.Whitney G. Reproduction Technology for a New Eugenics // The Mankind Quarterly. 1999. Vol. 40, No. 2. P. 179-192.
439.Williams E.D. A call for Global Bioethics// Практична філософія. 2004.-№ 1.-С.16-17
440.Wilson E.O. Biological Basis of Morality // Atlantic Monthly.-1998.-Vol. 281. - No 4.-P.53-70.
441.Wilson E.O. Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology // The Sociobiological Debate: Readings on the Ethical and Scientific Issues Concerning Sociobiology.- N. Y., 1978.-P. 227.
442.Wilson E.O. On the Human Nature. Cambridge: Harvard Univ., 1977.-P. 191.
443.Wilson E.O. Science and Ideology // Academ. Questions.-1995.-Vol.8.
444.Wilson E.O. Sociobiology: the New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard Univ., 1975.-697 p.
445.Yesly M.B. Protecting Genetic Differencies // Ethical Challenges as We Approach to the End of Human Genome Project. Christchurch: EUBIOS, 2000.-P. 78-84.
446.Zircle C. L'Affaire Lysenko.-Journ. Heredity.-1956.-Vol. 47. - No 2.-P. 47-56.
SUMMARY
Introduction. Genesis and evolution of bio-power. Concept of «bio-power» got wide distribution in the last decade of ХХ centuries in a single complex with a bio-policy, bioethics, bio-technology and biomedicine. As grounded in the investigation, it is possible to understand the phenomenon of bio-power within the framework of globally-evolutional, and more precisely, globally-coevolutional methodologies – as one of central elements of mechanism of mutual interface of biological and socio-cultural forms of evolutional process from and techno-cultural balance. Dichotomy of vectors of socio-cultural and biological evolution of human became reason of origin of the phenomenon of bio-power. As a mechanism, providing bio-social coevolution, a natural selection is not enough effective. Bio-power became additional, considerably more fast-acting and powerful element of integration of human in swiftly changing socio-cultural continuum. In this sense it can be examined as one of major socio-cultural adaptations.
Technologies of bio-power during the last one hundred years passed a few stages of the development:
4. modification of phenotypical constitution – on the basis of direct or indirect (by means of «public opinion», market state of affairs, generally accepted standards et cetera) compulsion;
5. genetic technologies - interference with the selection of paternal pair, pre-natal and post-natal selection, sterilization etc;
6. Technology of the guided (controlled) evolution - gene-engineering reconstructions of the genetic program of ontogenesis and mental transformation of thoughts and behavior for «social adaptation».
In the epoch of globalization speech goes about the prospects of civilization, fates of humanity and Intellectual life in general. Humanity enters into the epoch of the guided evolution. Bio-power becomes the key link of further evolutional process.
Socio-cultural and mental sources of bio-political collisions. End 19 – beginning 20 centuries was period of extraordinary popularity of attempts to decision of gene-cultural collision, that diagnosed (from different positions and by different appearance) by Nicshe and Gal'ton, Lombrozo and Freud, by the theoretical and technological developments of natural science. In final analysis all of them required strengthening of direct influence of bio-power on a «reproductive choice», i.e. intruding in one of the most intimate spheres of somatic life of human creature. The conflict of bio-power was set with other base dominant of Western thought – doctrine of Natural Human rights. Primate of freedom of own ”Ego” is for the man of modern Western – technogenic civilization a powerful competitor of dominant of family predetermination. Most intolerant for him is feeling of extraneous interference to self-development of the personality. Stratification of both mental “archetypes” serves as the source of one of basic bio-political conflicts of contemporary. The kernel of this conflict is made by feeling of programmed of own fate. This programmed simultaneously internal (in relation to somatic life of man, because results from properties of his own genome) and external (in relation to spiritual life, “soul”). We will name yet two “archetypes” of western mentality, determining the resulting vector of development of bio-power. First from them is faith in magic force which gives it to the possessor knowledge of the authentic name of other person or personificated natural forces. Second ones is perception of Nature as a certain phototypograph in which a project is coded Divine. (From here attempts to “extract” the text of Bible or musical symphony, etc from DNA). Therefore decoding and interpretation of any information, touching the present status or future of concrete personality as a result of psychological tests or gene diagnostics, is interpreted as trenching upon its social autonomy, dignity and identity.
Following after and as a result of Second World War narrowing of sphere of direct normative action of bio-power changed its form, but not efficiency. Indirect -through the system of the organs of power of recommendations and advices scientifically grounded and supported authority, influence of bio-power appeared even more effective and no less powerful, than before. Relations two constituents of evolution of man – genetic and socio-cultural are obviously multiple-valued. It once again confirms nonlinear character their gene-cultural coevolution: development of somatic life takes a place irrespective to of concrete social changes.
Legislative and executive structures which actually can set certain norms and control their observance come forward as proprietors of bio-power. However by non-obvious appearance, the possessors of bio-power are transmitters scientific knowledge - researchers and experts, on whose conclusion the members of parliament, governments, judges et cetera lean really or declarative. Science in technogenic civilization acts part of the hidden or obvious mechanism of acceptance of political decisions. In such situation scientists appear under the strongest political pressing, and, consequently, – conflict of interests (professional and political).
The paternalistic model of co-operation of society and science takes a place as follows: society inquires science about possibility of decision of arising up problem, and the last orders society the method of its decision.
After medicine such chart of relations becomes firmly established and for other areas of natural science – as they acquire economic and political meaningfulness. Science becomes religion of technogenic civilization, decision the basic questions of life of man in this world.
With birth of gene technologies a situation acquires drastic alternations. In face of global crisis and possibility of loss humanity of own identity a scientific association already cannot ignore aspiring of other side to more free and equal in rights dialog. Thus, a science place modified acquisition of political value substantial appearance into society. In democratic civil society these changes can be defined as achievement of parity between scientific knowledge and everyday presentations and mental stereotypes.
Procedure of logical and empirical verification of scientific knowledge during social practice is replaced by social verification. The mutual additionalness of objectively-rationalistic and socially-ethics constituents of scientific theory lies in basis of last ones. In practice it means changing of priorities one or another constituent.
We look after the socially conditioned stratification of single process of scientific cognition on two autonomous on the social functions stream:
I. First stream (actually «Risk science»), is coordinate to the general vector of evolution of technogenic civilization – transformation of the world according to ideal appearance of the desirable future. By virtue of the prognostic function the objective, i.e. scientific knowledge comes forward the instrument of realization of such transformations.
II. The second stream of scientific cognition («warning science») is intended for an exposure and calculation of risks, generated by «scientific and technical progress», i.e. by «dangerous knowledge».
A bio-policy is in the system of globalization. Bio-power (true or virtual) becomes the element of global geopolitical strategy. Bio-policy on the whole – as a method of realization of bio-power can be attributed to one of three types-strategies:
4. liberal strategy is maximal limitation of purview direct (administrative, legal, political) compulsion, predominance of self-organizational processes, based on the acts of the free informed choice;
5. repressive strategy is direct prohibition on sending of certain modes of realization of biological functions. The enough powerful (but not necessarily effective) vehicle of control supposes a presence;
6. resticortum-normative strategy is limitation and government control of those модусов of realization of biological functions at individual and group level, which are beyond an ethics norm, that possible in the society. Carried out relatively «soft» a way is forming of the proper legal environment and economic state of affairs (system of taxation, prohibition of the state financing, licensing system et cetera).
In the different spheres of bio-policy different strategies of bio-power are used (depending on space-temporal localization, socio-cultural and socio-political tradition, historical experience, etc.
Liberal bio-political strategy is not equivalent weakening of bio-power as such. In this case there is a redistribution of relative weight between two mechanisms of realization of bio-power - to the lines (administrative power, right) and unlines (ethics norms, public opinion, advertising and other forms manipulation consciousness, etc).
Consequently, in a clean kind such strategy appears effective in the developed civil society at presence of the already formed dominant system of ethics priorities and in relation to quiet rates of changes – in absence sharp social conflicts, sharp political turns. Otherwise at insufficient power of mechanisms of socio-political homoeostasis the liberal model of bio-power in the field of modern bio-, mental and social technologies becomes the additional source of risk and can come forward as powerful enough attractor, in itself braking or doing impossible process of forming of civil society.