| dc.description.abstract | The thesis compares the legislative decision-making in Germany and Britain with
regard to 'new' reproductive technologies (most prominently 1W and embryo
research). This entails the discourse analysis of legislative debates and papers and a
close reading of the two laws governing reproductive technologies, the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the German Embrvonencchulzgeselz
[Embryo Protection Act] of the same year. Reproductive technologies are read as
instances of modernisation. The legislative debates are therefore understood as
addressing the problems and effects of modernisation: individualisation,
detraditionalisation, the control and manipulation of (human) nature. Modernisation is
conceptualised as ambivalent, both holding the promise of a brighter future and the
risks of alienation and exploitation for humanity, and the erosion of tradition.
It is argued that the ambivalence of modernisation leads to conflicting concerns about
reproductive technologies, concerns (or risks) which are irreconcilable, which in turn
lead to insurmountable contradictions within each respective piece of legislation.
However, it is held that these contradictions should not be read as the ultimate failure
of the two laws. Rather, it turns out that the inability to overcome every contradiction,
their indeterminacy, is what enables the two pieces of legislation to resist some and
embrace other aspects of technological progress in the field of human reproduction.
The question whether the two laws can actually be said to 'rule' new reproductive
technologies is worked through by drawing on the legislative discourses themselves,
critical (legal) theory and contemporary theories of risk. The comparative perspective
allows us to see how the two laws' very different approaches lead to similar
dilemmas, highlighting that the ambivalence of modernisation is inescapable. The
thesis concludes with the (tentative) suggestion that even in today's world of
'scientism' and permanent modernisation, law does not simply get eroded. Through
its contingent nature, it resurfaces as the force that allows conflicting dynamics to coexist. | en_US |
