Dimond, R. and Stephen, N.Legalising Mitochondrial Donation: Enacting Ethical Futures in UK Biomedical Politics. Printforce, The Netherlands: Palgrave Macmillan. 2018. 147pp £43.99 (Hardcover) ISBN 978‐3‐319‐74644‐9 £34.99 (eBook) ISBN 978‐3‐319‐74645‐6

Abstract

Rebecca Dimond and Neil Stephens’ book Legalising Mitochondrial Donation: Enacting Ethical Futures in UK Biomedical Politics documents how the UK became the first country to legalise mitochondrial donation. Mitochondrial donation is a technique developed to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease from mother to child using part of a donated egg to replace faulty mitochondria (Castro 2016). The book contributes to wider science and technology studies (STS) commentary on mitochondrial donation and is rich with data extracts, from both stakeholder interviews and documentary analysis. The text then employs a thematic analysis that is both ‘structural’ and ‘microsocial’ (p. 16) to demonstrate its thesis. The book argues, ‘The legalisation of mitochondrial donation is the latest iteration of a particular UK sociotechnical around human embryo research and use is rendered ethical through a permissive but highly scrutinised system’ (p. 1). The book realises this argument through rich historical examples as well as the mitochondrial donation case and, importantly, raises how this sociotechnical imaginary will impact future biotechnology debates in the UK context, for example, genome editing. Legalising Mitochondrial Donation: Enacting Ethical Futures in UK Biomedical Politics draws upon a theoretical base from within STS and sociology, particularly Jasanoff and Kim's recent work on sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff and Kim 2015). Dimond and Stephens complete an effective unpacking of the sociotechnical imaginary and its relevance for the mitochondrial donation debate. Dimond and Stephens ground their claim of the UK's significant as a case study by citing its historical reputation as a permissive regulator of biomedical technologies. In providing this historical overview, the authors cite numerous examples from both interviews and documentary analyses that hone in on imaginaries and performances in debates in quangos, governmental bodies and parliamentary committees. After setting up these organisations as integral to the process of legalising biomedical technologies, the book examines how consensus-building activities and public gauging tools were used by these organisations to implement the legalisation of mitochondrial donation in the UK. The book's establishment of the lens of ‘for’ clusters and ‘against’ clusters represents a novel contribution to STS methodological approaches and assists in generating a new understanding of the mitochondrial donation debate. This approach allows the reader to visualise the networks and cements the authors’ claim that links forged by the ‘for’ group allowed them to establish a collective narrative surrounding mitochondrial donation techniques that was eventually integral to their success in legalising these technologies (p. 27). Dimond and Stephens also identify political strategies used by the ‘for’ cluster to achieve its goal. Examples of these strategies include the establishment of Doug Turnbull as a ‘promissory agent’ (p. 27) and collective action by the ‘for’ cluster to enact an ethical future which aligned with the established sociotechnical imaginary of embryo research in the UK (p. 27). Legalising Mitochondrial Donation: Enacting Ethical Futures in UK Biomedical Politics is of relevance to those interested in social constructivist approaches to new and emerging biomedical and, or, assisted reproductive technologies. As such, it is likely to appeal to STS scholars, medical anthropologists and sociologists. Scholars reading this book will benefit from the strong empirical and conceptual investigations of this text. Through examining the sociotechnical imaginaries, the book aims to explore the ‘operation of power’ (p. 131). However, the text could be more explicit about what this operation of power refers to, and the ways in which these operations of power were performed successfully by the ‘for’ cluster and unsuccessfully by the ‘against’ cluster. If this were achieved the reader could have a better understanding of the role of power dynamics within the particular sociotechnical imaginary set out by Dimond and Stephens. Dimond and Stephens’ book sits within a small but very well-established epoch of literature that employs critical approaches to the mitochondrial debate through interdisciplinary approaches. An example of such literature is the special issue of the journal Bioethics (Volume 31, Issue 1) that focused on issues raised by mitochondrial replacement techniques. Furthermore, Dimond and Stephens’ book builds upon critical perspectives on mitochondrial donation arising from bioethics, STS and social science disciplines, filling gaps in the academic discussion before building upon their own thesis using empirical data and conceptual approaches in this far longer text. The book highlights an emerging area of study where the authors look forward to the relationship between mitochondrial donation and the next ‘potential iteration of this imaginary’ (p. 137) which relates to the contestation of the genome-editing debate. Legalising Mitochondrial Donation gives a clear and concise historical account of the debate and Dimond and Stephens demonstrate their thesis, concerning the role that sociotechnical imaginaries play in the legalisation of new and emerging biomedical technologies in the UK.