Empirics prove – the US Supreme Court is an instrument utitlized as a biopolitical tool by the sovereign state to extend its control of their citizens – this means that reform about the ideology of the way it’s used must be addressed

The history of biopolitics in social and political advocacy—∂ both as a term and as a set of concerns raised by∂ developments in the life sciences and the biotechnology∂ industry—has been less frequently discussed than has its∂ academic genealogy. A full discussion of this history∂ would be an important contribution to understanding the∂ current landscape of biopolitics. This entry provides just a∂ few landmarks on a rather sketchy map.∂ Emergence of Issues. Several events in the mid-1970s∂ presaged the emergence of biopolitics in the United States∂ and around the world. The publication in 1975 of∂ Edward O. Wilson’s Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, which argued that genetics rather than social and∂ environmental conditions are determinant in individual∂ human behavior and in social formations, sparked heated∂ controversy about the politics of biology. Also in 1975∂ some 140 biologists, physicians, lawyers, and others∂ gathered in California at the “Asilomar Conference on∂ Recombinant DNA” to discuss the potential hazards of∂ biotechnology and to draw up voluntary safety guidelines∂ that many believe were designed to fend off calls for∂ enforceable regulation. The conference and its recommendations∂ pushed the emerging field of biotechnology∂ into public awareness (Berg et al. 1975). In 1976 venture∂ capitalist Robert Swanson and biochemist Herbert Boyer∂ launched a company called Genentech, an event often said∂ to mark the founding of the biotechnology industry.∂ In 1980, still during the prehistory of biopolitics, a US Supreme Court case, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, and a∂ piece of congressional legislation, the Bayh-Dole Act,∂ encouraged the development of the private-sector biotechnology∂ industry and set in motion some of the∂ important economic and political dynamics underlying∂ the emergence of biopolitics. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty,∂ the court ruled that genetically engineered organisms∂ could be patented, and the Bayh-Dole Act allowed∂ universities and individual scientists to patent and∂ commercialize technical inventions. In 1983 the first US∂ public-interest organization focusing on the social, ethical,∂ and environmental implications of modern genetic∂ technologies was established in Cambridge, Massachusetts.∂ Called the Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG),∂ the organization has examined biological weapons, worker∂ and community safety in biotechnology laboratories,∂ agricultural biotechnologies, and biomedical developments.∂ It has also developed critiques of genetic∂ reductionism, genetic determinism, and germ-line genetic∂ interventions (Council for Responsible Genetics 2013a).∂ By the late 1980s and early 1990s a different∂ approach to human biotechnologies in general—and to∂ inheritable genetic modification and other enhancement∂ technologies in particular—began to take shape. This was∂ the futurist ideology, today known as transhumanism,∂ which advocates using genetic and other technologies to∂ enhance (as adherents see it) human capacities and to take∂ control of human evolution. An early transhumanist∂ organization, the libertarian Extropy Institute, was∂ founded in 1990; in 1998 the World Transhumanist∂ Association was established (Hughes 2004). starkly different political and ethical commitments. In∂ 2002 the environmental writer and activist Jeremy Rifkin∂ published “Fusion Biopolitics” in The Nation, a leftleaning∂ journal of opinion. Rifkin’s news hook was thenpending∂ federal legislation about a research cloning∂ technique, but he went on to note that opposition to∂ creating cloned human beings was found among both∂ progressives and social conservatives. The latter, he said,∂ were motivated by “what they regard as the rights of the∂ unborn,” whereas many progressives “argue that with∂ cloning the new progeny become the ultimate shopping∂ experience—designed in advance, produced to specification∂ and purchased in the biological marketplace. … The∂ left also warns that cloning opens the way to a commercial∂ eugenics civilization.” Rifkin went on to predict that new∂ and emerging biotechnologies would rearrange traditional political affiliations: “The current debate over cloning∂ human embryos and stem cell research is already∂ loosening the old alliances and categories. It is just the∂ beginning of the new biopolitics.”∂ Transhumanists also began using the term biopolitics.∂ According to the World Transhumanist Association∂ founder James Hughes (2004, 55), “at one end of the∂ biopolitical spectrum are the bioLuddites, defending∂ humanity from enhancement technologies, and at the∂ other the transhumanists, advocating for our right to∂ become more than human.” Like Rifkin, Hughes argues∂ that biopolitics is becoming “a new dimension” of the∂ “political terrain of the twenty-first century,” cutting∂ “across the existing political lines.” Hughes distinguishes∂ between what he calls “right bioconservatives” and “left∂ bioconservatives” and describes a “polarization between∂ the transhumanist and bioconservative positions within∂ biopolitics” (Hughes 2011, 165).∂ The Center for Genetics and Society (CGS), with∂ which both authors of this entry are or have been∂ affiliated, was founded in 2001. Its initial focus was the∂ threat to social justice and equality raised by the prospect∂ of inheritable genetic modifications that could be enabled∂ by cloning, gene transfer, and assisted reproductive∂ technologies. CGS’s mission statement, published on∂ the organization’s website, signaled its commitments to∂ fundamental progressive principles, including “the equitable∂ provision of health technologies,” reproductive∂ rights, disability rights, and a precautionary approach to∂ new technologies (Center for Genetics and Society∂ 2013a). The organization soon adopted the term∂ biopolitics; in 2006 it established a blog called Biopolitical∂ Times, accessible through its website. For CGS the term∂ progressive biopolitics and the phrase a new biopolitics∂ connote a commitment to social justice, human rights,∂ and public-interest values. CGS has worked with scholars∂ across a range of disciplines, including law, sociology,∂ anthropology, public health, biology, and science and technology studies, and with advocates promoting various∂ issues, including reproductive health, rights, and justice;∂ racial justice; disability rights; and environmentalism∂ (Center for Genetics and Society 2013b).∂ BIOPOLITICAL CONTROVERSIES∂ What does biopolitics look like on the contemporary∂ political landscape? This section offers several brief∂ comments on selected biopolitical issues that have∂ emerged as politically or socially significant in the∂ twenty-first century. This is far from an exhaustive list;∂ the issues discussed here have been chosen because they∂ are widely recognized as politically salient, have triggered∂ legislation or judicial decisions, or have been engaged∂ by public-interest organizations and civil-society∂ constituencies.