Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Sociology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mulkay, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Science and Family in the Great Embryo Debate

Michael Mulkay

The public debate following the Warnock Report has furnished the interpretative context in which embryo research and the technology of assisted reproduction have begun to be institutionalised in Britain. Social scientists have been quick to examine this debate and to assess how far it has fostered changes in the established patterns of, and ideals of, kinship and family relationships. In the present study documentary evidence is used to argue that the central theme of the public debate was not so much the new forms of social parenthood made possible by assisted reproduction, on which analysts have tended to concentrate, as the supposed threat to the continuation of ordinary family life posed by what many people saw as the creation of real, living persons outside the kinship system. Widespread controversy over this issue was generated by the existence of long-standing and contrasting definitions of family membership. Nevertheless, all the major groupings involved in the controversy justified their views and their practical proposals by linking them to the maintenance of the conventional, small scale, heterosexual family unit. Thus the overall effect of the public debate has not been to promote widespread consideration of new kinship patterns, but to ensure that the research and technology of assisted reproduction have been accepted and bureaucratically organised as social practices consonant with a conservative ideal of normal family life.

Key Words: science • family • embryo research • assisted reproduction • technology • social change

Sociology, Vol. 28, No. 3, 699-715 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0038038594028003004


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
M. Horst
Cloning sensations: mass mediated articulation of social responses to controversial biotechnology
Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2005; 14(2): 185 - 200.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Science Technology Human ValuesHome page
M. Mulkay
Frankenstein and the Debate Over Embryo Research
Science Technology Human Values, April 1, 1996; 21(2): 157 - 176.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Critical Social PolicyHome page
T. Shakespeare
Back to the future? New genetics and disabled people
Critical Social Policy, October 1, 1995; 15(44-45): 22 - 35.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
M. Mulkay
Political parties, parliamentary lobbies and embryo research
Public Understanding of Science, January 1, 1995; 4(1): 31 - 55.
[Abstract] [PDF]