↓ Skip to main content

The Race Idea in Reproductive Technologies: Beyond Epistemic Scientism and Technological Mastery

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
The Race Idea in Reproductive Technologies: Beyond Epistemic Scientism and Technological Mastery
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11673-015-9663-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camisha Russell

Abstract

This paper explores the limitations of epistemic scientism for understanding the role the concept of race plays in assisted reproductive technology (ART) practices. Two major limitations centre around the desire to use scientific knowledge to bring about social improvement. In the first case, undue focus is placed on debunking the scientific reality of racial categories and characteristics. The alternative to this approach is to focus instead on the way the race idea functions in ART practices. Doing so reveals how the race idea (1) helps to define the reproductive "problems" different groups of women are experiencing and to dictate when and how they should be "helped"; (2) helps to resolve tensions about who should be considered the real parents of children produced by reproductive technologies; and (3) is used to limit ART use where that use threatens to denaturalize the very sociopolitical landscape the race idea has created. In the second case, scientific knowledge regarding reproduction is thought to call for technological control over that reproduction. This leads to an overemphasis on personal responsibility and a depoliticization of racialized social inequalities.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Lecturer 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Computer Science 2 9%
Philosophy 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2021.
All research outputs
#5,750,018
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#220
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,123
of 387,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#11
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.