Paper short abstract:

Fetuses are valued in many different ways. Often in terms of non-quantified scales such as emotional and ethical value. This paper asks how we can study how objects (such as fetuses) shift and meander (aborted-fetus-waste; fetal research saves the human herd) when they meet the limits of valuing.

Paper long abstract:

Fetuses are valued in many different ways. They are often valued in terms of non-quantified scales such as emotional and ethical value. Sometimes (less often) they become valuable in terms of their epistemic potential—as raw material for laboratory research. At other times (even less frequently) they become valued as economic objects. However, the value of fetuses is often so controversial that the very idea of fetal research freightens researchers, politicans, and organizations.

This paper attends to a space—reproductive research—where the study of valuation practices are met by limitations. Where the fear of being discovered as unethical makes the value practices become permeated with disquiet, shame, secrecy, or fear. For example, in interviews about fetal research the agenda of discussion is sometimes quitely shifted to something more important than the fetus—such as public health; or to aborted fetuses as waste—where the aborted-fetus-as-waste becomes possible to value as research. 

These examples point to an interesting dynamics of studying value practices: when the shifting of yardsticks and scales of measurement face the limits of valuation. With the point of departure in reproductive research this paper examines how objects (fetuses) become transformed into other objects (waste) in order to make a yardstick of value acceptable. The paper draws on Vivana Zelizer's work on intimacy and value and Anne-Marie Mol's work on ontological politics. I ask how we can study how objects shift and meander when they meet the limits of valuation?