This article contributes to existing feminist technoscience analyses by proposing a new tool for examining how norms governing viable and unviable bodies are discursively constructed in an increasingly technologized world. This tool is the result of synthesizing two existing concepts: white noise from the field of media theory/information studies, and the abject from psychosemiotics/gender studies. Synthesizing these two concepts produces an enriched term for detecting interrelations between discursive disturbances and disturbances in bodily norms. In this article, the synthesized concept (abject/ noise) is used as a tool to analyse material concerning the assignment of International Nonproprietary Names (or ‘generic’ names) to biotechnological drugs. Biotech offers itself as a prime testing ground for this new tool, replete as it is with bodily anxieties, powerful discourses and innovative technologies. This article compares three versions of an INN guidance document showing how anxieties about bodily norms are reflected in, and managed through, these documents.
Akrich M. ( 1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker WE and Law J (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society, Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 205-224.
2.
Åsberg C. and Johnson E. ( 2009) Viagra selfhood: Pharmaceutical advertising and the visual formation of Swedish masculinity. Health Care Analysis17(2): 144-157.
3.
Balsamo A. ( 1996) Technologies of the Gendered Body: Reading Cyborg Women . Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
4.
Berg A-J. and Lie M. ( 1995) Feminism and constructivism: Do artifacts have gender?Science, Technology and Human Values20(3): 332-351.
5.
Bernauer T. and Meins E. ( 2003) Technological revolution meets policy and the market: Explaining cross-national differences in agricultural biotechnology regulation . European Journal of Political Research42(5): 643-683.
6.
Blackford R. ( 2002) Beyond the Frankenscientist: Biotech and biomedical themes in recent Australian science fiction. In: Pastourmatzi D (ed.) Biotechnological and Medical Themes in Science Fiction. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 335-350.
7.
Butler J. ( 1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York and London: Routledge .
8.
Chen Z. and McDermott A. ( 1998) International comparisons of biotechnology policies. Journal of Consumer Policy21(4): 527-550.
9.
Cockburn C. and Ormrod S. ( 1993) Gender and Technology in the Making. London: Sage.
10.
Diprose R. ( 1995) A ‘genethics’ that makes sense. In: Shiva V and Moser I (eds) Biopolitics: A Feminist and Ecological Reader on Biotechnology. London: Zed Books , 162-173.
11.
Douglas M. ( 1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Pollution and Taboo . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul .
12.
Epstein S. ( 2004) Bodily differences and collective identities: The politics of gender and race in the United States. Body and Society10(2-3): 183-203.
13.
Franklin S., Lury C. and Stacey J. ( 2000) Global Nature, Global Culture. London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage.
14.
Fukuyama F. ( 2002) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
15.
Gibbon M. ( 1999) Feminist Perspectives on Language. London and New York: Longman .
16.
Happe KE ( 2006) Heredity, gender and the discourse of ovarian cancer. New Genetics and Society25(2): 171-196.
17.
Haraway DJ ( 1991) The biopolitics of postmodern bodies: Constitutions of self in immune system discourse. In: Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books, 203-230.
Haraway DJ ( 2008) ‘There are always more things going on than you thought!’ Methodologies as thinking technologies: Interview with Donna Haraway. In: Smelik A and Lykke N (eds) Bits of Life: Feminism at the Intersections of Media, Bioscience, and Technology. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 32-41.
20.
Harrison K. ( 2010) Discursive Skin: Entanglements of Gender, Discourse and Technology. Linköping: Linköping University Press.
21.
Holmberg T. ( 2005) Questioning ‘the number of the beast’: Constructions of humanness in a Human Genome Project (HGP) narrative. Science as Culture14(1): 23-37.
22.
Jasanoff S. ( 1995) Product, process, or programme: Three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In: Bauer M (ed.) Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 311-331.
23.
Kittler FA ( 1990) Discourse Networks 1800/1900. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
Kittler FA ( 1997) Gramophone, film, typewriter. In: Johnston J (ed.) Literature Media Information Systems. Amsterdam: G+B Arts International, 29-49.
25.
Kittler FA ( 1999) Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
Kristeva J. ( 1982) Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. New York: Columbia University Press.
27.
Leysen B. ( 1996) Medicalization of menopause: From ‘feminine forever’ to ‘healthy forever’. In: Lykke N and Braidotti R (eds) Between Monsters, Goddesses and Cyborgs: Feminist Confrontations with Science, Medicine and Cyberspace. London: Zed Books, 173-191.
28.
Lohan M. ( 2000) Constructive tensions in feminist technology studies. Social Studies of Science30(6): 895-916.
29.
Luhmann N. ( 1995) Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
Luhmann N. ( 2000) Reality of the Mass Media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
Lykke N. ( 2010) Feminist Studies: A Guide to Intersectional Theory, Methodology and Writing. New York and London : Routledge.
32.
Nelkin D. and Lindee MS ( 1995) The DNA Mystique: The Gene as Cultural Icon. New York: WH Freeman.
33.
Perrotta M. ( 2008) The organizational construction of the body in assisted reproductive technologies. In: Molfino F and Zucco F (eds) Women in Biotechnology: Creating Interfaces. Springer Science and Business Media, 171-181.
34.
Rabinow P. and Dan-Cohen T. ( 2005) A Machine to Make a Future: Biotech Chronicles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
Serres M. ( 2007) The Parasite. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
36.
Shannon CE and Weaver W. ( 1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
37.
Spender D. ( 1985) Man Made Language. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
38.
Smelik A. and Lykke N. ( 2008) Bits of life: An introduction. In: Smelik A and Lykke N (eds) Bits of Life: Feminism at the Intersections of Media, Bioscience, and Technology . Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, ix-xix.
39.
Thacker E. ( 2003) Data made flesh: Biotechnology and the discourse of the posthuman. Cultural Critique53: 72-97.
40.
Thacker E. ( 2006) The Global Genome: Biotechnology, Politics and Culture . Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
41.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2006a) International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Biological and Biotechnological Substances: A Review. Available at: www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/BioRevforweb.pdf.
42.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2006b) International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Biological and Biotechnological Substances: A Review. Available at: www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/INN_Biorev11-06.pdf.
43.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2007) International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Biological and Biotechnological Substances: A Review. Available at: www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/CompleteBioRevdoc%2008-11-07_2_.pdf.
44.
WHO (World Health Organization). (2008) Executive Summary from 46th Consultation on International Nonproprietary Names for Pharmaceutical Substances. Available at: www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/46thINNConsultation_ExecSummary.pdf.
