↓ Skip to main content

Cord blood banking – bio-objects on the borderlands between community and immunity

Overview of attention for article published in Life Sciences, Society and Policy, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cord blood banking – bio-objects on the borderlands between community and immunity
Published in
Life Sciences, Society and Policy, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40504-015-0029-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nik Brown, Rosalind Williams

Abstract

Umbilical cord blood (UCB) has become the focus of intense efforts to collect, screen and bank haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in hundreds of repositories around the world. UCB banking has developed through a broad spectrum of overlapping banking practices, sectors and institutional forms. Superficially at least, these sectors have been widely distinguished in bioethical and policy literature between notions of the 'public' and the 'private', the commons and the market respectively. Our purpose in this paper is to reflect more critically on these distinctions and to articulate the complex practical and hybrid nature of cord blood as a 'bio-object' that straddles binary conceptions of the blood economies. The paper draws upon Roberto Esposito's reflections on biopolitics and his attempt to transcend the dualistic polarisations of immunity and community, or the private and the public. We suggest that his thoughts on immunitary hospitality resonate with many of the actual features and realpolitik of a necessarily internationalised and globally distributed UCB 'immunitary regime'.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 37 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Other 6 15%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Librarian 4 10%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 31%
Social Sciences 7 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Computer Science 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,468,281
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#77
of 109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,782
of 278,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Life Sciences, Society and Policy
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them