Capital = Goods used to generate income. Bio= life living organism, so biocaptial is life or organisms generating income. There are so many different aspects of biocapital introduced by Stefan Helmreich in his article Species of biocapital. Helmreich’s article tries to tell the history and the meanings of the term biocapital.
The four species of capital are economic, cultural, social and symbolic. These types of capital can all be transferred and morphed into another. “a classification could also manifest as a table of exchanges between different coinages” (Helm,463) All these types of capital are represented in biocapital. The symbolic capital can be expressed as the prestige of the scholarly community, the cultural capital is expressed as networking; the symbolic capital can be expressed as respect or a perception of power.
Helmreich mentioned a man by the name of Edward Yoxen. Yoxen said that biocapital is capitalizing life, not only using this technology to help us generate money but as the basis of technology. Yoxen said that it is now “technology controlled by capital” (Helm, 464).
To me the picture of the microscope and the money says it all. Recently the United States decided to issue a stimulus package to boost jobs. This surge of money was meant to give jobs to Americans. A substantial amount of capital went to the sciences to fund biotech. The number was about 10.4 billion. The idea was to create jobs and a foundation of biotech for the future. Rajan says “speculative finance often motivates and mirrors the speculations of biotechnology” (Helm, 464) Of course what was expected in return? Something was expected and that was a commodity, maybe a drug to help diseases, a cure for some new symptoms, or a plant that will save the world. What it comes down to is that the United States doesn’t just give money away. They want something that will make money in return (Timmer).
Rajan also states “the subjectivities in making –for scientists, doctors and patients advocacy groups- meanwhile, also tune to future looking landscapes”(Helm, 465) He is saying that the opinions and feelings, beliefs the framework that doctors and patients and scientists face are shaping what the future of biotech will be. Helmreich writes about “new subjectivities are in the making depends on the claim that biopower operates through conjuring new common sense around what will count as the truth of the biological” (Helm, 465). The term biocapital has been evolving and ever changing throughout history.
Helmreich speaks about the idea of hope and hype and that effect on the biological industry making it more capitalistic in nature. The sources of capital that are coming into the universities and companies are supported by Hope and hype. These companies and universities are using marketing techniques and excitement of the future possibilities to generate large amount of cash to fund their research. We see this analogy in the United States every day. The crash of the economy was the result of banks hoping for the future to be unlimitedly prosperous and hyping up people that they are eligible for low interest rate loans and a future house. They lent large sums of money to people on flexible rate mortgages thinking that the markets are stable and these people will be able to hold their own. However when interest rates rose people could not afford their very high payments so they lost their house or they lost their jobs. We see this in the research world and the scholarly world often also. The Bayh-Dole Act is a good example of that. The act that permits universities and their employees to keep rights and patent inventions developed with government money. “Permit the holding of intellectual property in biological matter and knowledge”(Helm, 464).
Helmreichs definition of what biocapital is to him is expressed in an equation based upon a Marx equation. B - C - B. B is biomaterial, C is a way of changing the biomaterial into a commodity by using laborites and legal instruments which equals B, biocapital (Helm,472). This is so simple. The equation is in our everyday lives, the capitalist idea. Take something and add a little, sell it for a profit. However biocapital involves so many things. The laboratory practices are easy enough to understand, engineering the material and making it into something new. However the legal side of it is where the capitalism comes in. The idea that you have to go thought legislation to legalize, patent, distribute, or sell something.
Another point Helmreich made was and the equation b - c - b is too subjective. The lines are being blurred between the neatness of categorizing and keeping species separate. Although the formula is good for showing what the inputs are of biocapital in most cases it is very hard to classify these aspects of life. Gordon talks about “more and more how biomedicine evolves through social choices” In Gordons article Biomedicine Examined (20). The definition of biocapital is the same evolving.
Helmreich really tried to show the classification of what biocapital is defined as. However it is such a controversial topic that encompasses social, economic, cultural classifications it is very hard to define. There are so many barriers that arise. Such as the many types of capital, the view that scientists have of what really biotechnology is. How can we put a definition to something that we can’t all agree on is one thing. I think that Helmreich is saying that biology and capital are so intertwined and are becoming more intertwined that it will be difficult to separate and define.
Citations
"A Brief History of Patent Law in the United States". Semestra. 1/12/2010
Gordon, Deborah. "Biomedicine Examined". Culture Illness and Healing 1988: 19-37.
Helmreich, Stefan. "Species of Biocapital". Science as Culture December 2008: 463-475.
Timmer, John. "Qualifying successes of science stimulus spend is challenging". ARS Technica. 1/13/2010
