Introduction: The intensive biotech research and development

industries currently expanding globally, but especiallyin the U.S., represent the opening of new avenues forcolonizing all bodies—andcommodifying and patent-ing all of life—at themolecular and geneticlevel. Certain branches ofbiotechnology—in partic-ular ART (Assisted or Ad-vanced Reproductive Tech-nologies)—are generallyfar more invasive and com-plicated for women thanthey are for men. Women’sbodies have become theprime sites for rationalizedand eugenic biogeneticreproductive and medicalprocesses that implement one of the most intensebody colonizations that can be imagined. Under the

guise of optimizing reproduction—and “improving”human beings—today’s reproductive technologies arebeing naturalized without a critical discussion of theirlatent eugenic content. Further, at the same time that

new biogenetic, medical,and microsurgical tech-nologies are facilitating in-creased medicalization ofwomen’s bodies, there hasbeen a marked erosion ofan activist women’s healthmovement which could beproviding critical voicesand interventions into thissituation. As feminist theo-rists and others have vari-ously pointed out, in thebiotech century the femalebody has become the pre-eminent laboratory and

rich body-parts mine for a lucrative medical/pharma-ceutical industry.2

THE ECONOMIES

of ART— A SUBROSA PROJECT —

subrosa is a (reproducible) cyberfeminist cell of cultural producers

and researchers. Initially, we have focusedon Assisted Reproductive Technologies

because they provide such a telling illus-tration of biotechnologies’ gendered

effects on bodies. Our work questionsand challenges the way in which marketforces drive the research, developmentand deployment of biotech’s products

and “services.” Current subRosa projectsfocus specifically on examining the inter-secting economies that serve to normalize

and naturalize ART, and on exposingtheir historical connections to eugenics

and colonizing ideologies .1

subRosa’s MA

RTHA

ART dem

onstration at Expo Emm

aGenics

nparadoxa 5/17/01 12:11 AM Page 1 (Black plate)

ART with a Difference“Gamete traffic has unapologetically linked the

public sphere of economics (paid donor remunerationand marketed gametes) to the private realm ofsex/love and body interiority.” 3

The new era of medicalization of women’s bodiesbegan in the early ’70s with the rise of intensiveresearch in genetics and biomedicaltechnologies coupled with thedevelopment of sophisticated newvisualization machines. Linkedtogether, these made new reproduc-tive technologies possible. AssistedReproductive Technologies are apowerful ideological and socio-eco-nomic instrument of control ofwomen’s bodies, particularly oftheir reproductive functions, andthey have been developed as alucrative private enterprise by an intensely capitalizedmedical consumer market.

As the final recipients of gametes—be they IVFzygotes, or “donor” eggs or sperm—and as the solebearers of children, women experience ART with adifference. On the part of the woman, ARTs requirefar more technological intervention, surveillance,pain, and constant contact with medical institutionsthan they do for a man. 4

Other differences are clearly illustrated by compar-ing “spermatic” and ovarian economies.5 Men pro-duce millions of sperm every day, while women areborn with all the eggs they will ever have. Strangely,ART processes can invert the spermatic economy ofexcess and the ovarian economy of scarcity. For exam-ple, micro manipulation of sperm now makes it pos-sible to achieve fertilization using just one sperm.Hormonal stimulation of the ovary can cause womento produce from 20 to 50 eggs in one cycle. Compared

to sperm collection (usually by masturbation) eggretrieval is far more labor intensive—employing hightech medical and monitoring procedures, lengthyhormone stimulation protocols, repeated ultrasoundand blood tests, laparoscopic surgery, special cryo-genic preservation procedures, and the like.

High tech reproduction is also far more laborintensive than sexual reproductionin its use of multiple female bodyparts and bodies A recent graphicillustration of cloning in Time mag-azine inadvertently shows theunbalanced economy of gender dif-ferences in ART: To (possibly) pro-duce one live take-home-baby, itwould take about 40 women pro-ducing a total of 400 eggs to befused with the stem cells (notsperm) from one man; and

then 50 more women acting as hostwombs for the embryos resulting from“rebuilt” eggs.6 Fertility clinicsoften claim that the chance of apregnancy resulting fromsexual intercourse in anygiven month more or lessequals that of an IVF (invitro fertilization) cycle.But they refrain frompointing out that theformer is free (and usu-ally fun) while the latter cancost anywhere from$10,000 to $25,000plus a lot of pain, un-certainty, and emo-tional anguish for thewoman.

subRosa’s SmartM

om: w

ww

.andrew.cm

u.edu/user/fwild

subR

osa

nparadoxa 5/17/01 12:12 AM Page 2 (Black plate)

ART: Where Infotechmarries Biotech

The economies of gamete sales and distributionrely on a cybernetic feedback loop between digitalinformation and communications technologies andspecialized biotech providers. The labor intensity and

number of special-ized workersneeded for ARTconception ismind-boggling.Consider thistypical assem-bly line ofworkers andadministra-tors through

whose databanks, hands, and machines a

female gamete (egg) would haveto pass to get from woman donor to recipient womb:receptionist, nurse; gynecologist; fertility counselor;egg-donation broker or agent; lab technicians; insur-ance agent; medical advisor; accountant; bank or loanagent; psychologist; social worker; pharmacist; sonog-rapher; embryologist; geneticist; surgeon; anesthesiol-ogist; plus an unseen army of production workersmaking the materials and supplies needed by thisassembly line.7

Such labor intensification and specialization natu-rally comes at a high price to consumers. But likeevery other valuable product in a commodity econo-my, ARTs have been popularized by appealing direct-ly to consumer desire, through niche marketing, tar-get audience advertising (especially on the Internetand in middle-class magazines), and development of

attractive consumer technologies and products. subRosa’s Your Guide to Expo EmmaGenics (the

program for a performance in the form of a tradeshow), described the entrepreneurial development ofART:

Entrepreneurs in the United States realized earlyon that ART offered a lucrative and consumerfriendly new field of entrepreneurial develop-ment. In the US the infertility industry is notregulated by the government, so it is possible forenterprising business people to start up clinicsand fertility programs. Entrepreneurs are free tohire doctors and lab technicians to pioneer andperfect clinical procedures and develop special-ties in fertility technologies. They design mar-keting campaigns to reach consumers directlythrough the Internet, mass print advertising,and trade shows at medical and business con-ventions. Stock companies which can providesuperior, tested, and guaranteed, human cells,gametes, and transgenic cell lines are a naturaloutgrowth of this entrepreneurial spirit, andseveral are now under rapid development.8

subR

osa’

s M

ateF

inde

r fo

r Pa

lm

subRosa’s Emm

aGenics w

eb site and Zygote Monitor

nparadoxa 5/17/01 12:12 AM Page 3 (Black plate)

Human Caviar andgenetic colonization

Bio-piracy and patenting of biologicalmaterials and human genes by pharmaceu-tical and biogenetic companies is already a flourishingeconomy worldwide. In Expo EmmaGenics, subRosaintroduced a product called “Human Caviar” to drawattention to the expanding (global) consumer marketin gametes and genes. This market is driven by “posi-tive” eugenic attitudes perpetuated as consumer“choice,” and the economic ability to pay for thesechoices. Capitalist consumerism deals with the prob-lem of excess production by seducing consumers tobuy products to fulfill their desiresrather than needs. Human Caviarcapitalizes on the desire for fertility,and the age-old search to find waysof enhancing or controlling it, byoffering a beautifully packaged,“rare,” product:

Human caviar is the happy resultof the excess of ripe eggs that canbe produced by women injectingpowerful hormones like Pergonal,Clomid, and HCG. These hor-mones can hyper stimulate andenlarge the ovaries several hun-dred percent to ripen up to 20 or50 eggs at once. Thus there arepotentially thousands more eggs available thanwill be needed for the fertility industry. Many ofthe excess eggs being produced are from womenin (selected) developing countries that recognizethat their input into the world’s gene pools isvery desirable though it is not yet being fully ex-ploited commercially. Expo EmmaGenics ismaking this very exclusive and limited productavailable to selected clients who want to take ad-vantage of its powerful fertility stimulation effect.

The rhetoric of exclusivity makes theexcess products of ART’s rationalized, tech-nology-driven (rather than “natural”) re-productive processes seem desirable. A dif-ferent tactic of exclusion is used in the egg

donor advertisement reproduced in this article. Herecertain racial and ethnic female gametes—Asian,Jewish, Nordic European—are explicitly sought out,while others—black, Native American, Hispanic—are silently excluded.

Consumer desire for ART is also propelled byrhetoric about “choice” and the promises of im-provement of one’s genetic heritage. Eugenics, thedangerous idea that some humans are better (more

valuable) than others, is rapidlybeing normalized through ART.Economically, parental “choice”translates into the purchase of per-fection: ideal female beauty, superiormale intelligence, perfect health—atany cost. Paradoxically, in the inter-est of having a “superior” child, thenuclear, genetic family is destabilizedby ART because these families must often bypass the essentialisteconomy of private ownership oftheir genes. To improve their chancesof reproducing, many ART familiesare raising (often secretly) “as their

own” a genetically unrelated child. On one hand thisis a type of genetic colonization, while on the other itopens the possibility of more fluid kinship and fami-ly relations—though at great cost. (Currently, ARTsare utilized mostly by middle-class people willing tomortgage their houses or take out big loans to pay thehigh costs.)

It is generally illegal for private parties to sell bodyparts in the US, but because of a legal loophole the

Hum

an C

avia

r at

Exp

o Em

maG

enic

s

nparadoxa 5/17/01 12:12 AM Page 4 (Black plate)

sale of gametes (which is usually dubbed a “donation”as in “donor egg”) is permitted. Similarly, the “rental”of a woman’s body as “host womb” (gestational surro-gate) is legally sanctioned—though the “rental” of awoman’s body for sex generally is not. Yet ARTproviders strenuously avoid such associations byfocusing on altruistic rather than economic motiva-tions of surrogates and donors. ART can capitalize onwomen’s economic needs by soliciting them to selltheir body services (gestational wombs) and bodyparts (eggs) as a noble contribution to humanity.Considered from a strictly economic point of view,these transactions can be compared to sex work, inwhich women also sell body services and parts tomake a living.

The sacrificial economy of naturalizing ART

Normalization is naturalization. It is in the interestof the fertility industry to normalize and naturalizethe practices of ART however experimental and riskythey might be. Thus customers are often counseled touse ART procedures before they are ready to repro-duce just in case they might become less fertile lateron. This is somewhat comparable to women with ahigh risk of breast cancer having mastectomies tominimize their risks of getting sick. Similarly, healthyyoung men and women are encouraged to deposittheir gametes with cryo preservation banks as insur-ance against future loss of fertility. As we have seen,for women egg retrieval is a risky and expensive med-ical procedure—very different than banking one’sblood before an operation, for example. Marketeconomies thrive on insurance, guarantees, and riskassessment. ARTs are sold as insurance and a rationalsolution to reproductive planning for couples or

singles pursuing career goals and putting off havingchildren. Lesbian and gay couples too, are encouragedto consider ARTs as giving them new and liberatoryreproductive options. This all helps to naturalize theidea that ARTs are a viable choice for everyone, infer-tile or not.

ARTs also thrive on the promise that you can have“your own” special child, often with one or the otherparent’s gametes in it, or borne by (one of ) the femalepartner(s), or by a gestational surrogate. By using thetechnologies of pre-implantation embryo screeningand selective reduction, you can zoom in on preciselythe child you want. Pursuing such desires comes at ahigh price. In this economy of excess and waste, moregametes and embryos are produced than can beused—the leftovers are discarded, used for research,or frozen for later use. (Though many clinics reportlower fertility rates from using frozen embryos,sperm, and eggs in ART procedures rather than freshones, clients are regularly urged to freeze excessgametes and embryos at monthly rental charges offrom $15–$50). Selective reduction is justified by the(eugenic) argument that it is the necessary means bywhich only ‘fit’ embryos are selected to be carried to full term—and that this is good for the future of humanity. Serious ethical discussions about the eugenic tendencies of ARTs are circumvented bysuch arguments.

subR

osa’

s A

uton

omy

to t

he M

othe

r co

unte

r de

mon

stra

tion

at

Expo

Em

maG

enic

s

nparadoxa 5/17/01 12:12 AM Page 5 (Black plate)

ART is not Autonomy“Academic discussions of the new technologies

center on ethics, global politics, and cyborgian bodies.Meanwhile, the industry moves on, driven in largepart by an economic model that looks for profit, notrighteousness or postmodern play.”9

Some early feminist critiques of new reproductivetechnologies focused on economic concerns and relat-ed them to ethical ones. For example, in the early1980s feminist biology professor Ruth Hubbardwarned the American Asso-ciation for the Advance-ment of Science about theNew Reproductive Tech-nologies which she felt hadnot been tested enough;“. . . she was also concernedthat InVitro fertilizationrequired extremely costlyand prolonged experimentation with highly skilledprofessionals and expensive equipment ‘distorting ourhealth priorities and funneling scarce resources into aquestionable effort’”.10 Neither Hubbard’s warnings,nor the cautions of many other feminists from differ-ent sectors of society, have prevented full steam aheadscientific research and development which has actual-ized many of the procedures only speculated about inthe ’80s. This has been facilitated by funds from will-ing clients who have given fertility doctors and geneti-cists unrestricted access to the innermost molecularand physical structures of their bodies as eugenicexperimental theatres.

Biotechnology and ARTs are (cyber)feminist issuesbecause the female body has become prime territoryfor biogenetic experimentation and exploitation.Entrepreneurial marketing and deployment of ARTshas helped naturalize the idea that creating a child byany means possible is a right which can be exercised

by any individual in any way she/he sees fit, withoutregard to how bodily autonomy is invaded-and howthese technologies enable the genetic control of futuregenerations. Too often the liberal rhetoric of “choice”is used to justify actions which implement eugenicideologies disguised as consumer desire. Let us be veryclear: At best ARTs are experimental, highly invasive,and expensive, technologies that have low successrates. There are many lower tech, inexpensive, andmore humanly responsible possibilities available to

people desiring to raise chil-dren. Critical public de-bates on the medical, envi-ronmental, and economicconsequences of ART areurgently needed. As historyshows, deploying untestedexperimental biotechnolo-gies in a global market can

have disastrous long-term genetic, cultural, and eco-nomic consequences; yet only minimal funds aredevoted to the assessment of long-term risks and con-sequences. The depressing situation is that a highlyprofitable biotech industry driven by economicmotives, and promoted by utopian promises, is steer-ing the fateful enterprise of (irreversibly) re-engineer-ing humans from the genes up. �

NOTES: 1. Made infamous by Nazi experiments, eugenic practices—which are based on the belief that some humans are genetically more“desirable” than others—were wide spread in the U.S. in the early part ofthe 20th century, and have included involuntary sterilization of the ‘unfit.’See subrosa’s WEB Page for a Eugenic Timeline: www.artswire.org/subrosa2. Playing Dolly: Technocultural Formations, Fantasies, & Fictions of AssistedReproduction, ed. E. Ann Kaplan and Susan Squier (New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press, 1999) 3. Dona Farquar, “Gamete Traffic /Pedestrian Crossings,” Playing Dolly, p. 24. 4. See subRosa’s Glossalalia:www.artswire.org/subrosa 5. Farquar, “Gamete Traffic / PedestrianCrossings,” p. 30. subrosa is indebted to this excellent article for the inspi-ration of the ART game we’ve created for this text. Many of the ideas dis-cussed by Farquar resonate with ideas used in subRosa performances andtexts. 6. Time Magazine, Feb. 26, 2001 pp. 42-43 7. Depending on howthey are going to be used and on the source, male gametes also increas-ingly are being surgically extracted and manipulated. 8. Your Guide toExpo EmmaGenics. See www.cmu.edu/emmagenics. 9. Pamela L. Moore,“Selling Reproduction.” Playing Dolly, p. 80 10. Sherman J. Silber, MD.How to Get Pregnant with the New Technology. (New York: Warner Books,1991), p. 21 Biographical note: subRosa members who contributed tothe projects discussed and shown in this article are: Steffi Domike,Christina Hung, Laleh Mehran, Lucia Sommer, Faith Wilding, HylaWillis, and Michelle Wright.

nparadoxa 5/17/01 12:12 AM Page 6 (Black plate)