This article explores the development of a novel biomedical research organism, and its potential to remake the species and spaces of translational medicine. The humanized mouse is a complex experimental object in which mice, rendered immunodeficient through genetic alteration, are engrafted with human stem cells in the hope of reconstituting a human immune system for biomedical research and drug testing. These chimeric organisms have yet to garner the same commentary from social scientists as other human–animal hybrid forms. Yet, they are (...) rapidly being positioned as central to translational medicine in immunological research and pharmaceutical development. This article explores the complex relations between species and spaces they seek to enact. Humanizing mice simultaneously moves these animal forms towards the intimate geographies of corporeal equivalence with humans and the expansive geographies of translational research. These multiple trajectories are achieved by the way humanized mice function as both uncertain ‘epistemic things’ and as expansive ‘collaborative things’, articulating mouse genetics with other research, notably stem cell science. In the context of post-genomics, their indeterminacy is critical to their collaborative value; their expansive potential follows as much from their biological openness as from specific expectations. Yet, these new research organisms have both accumulative and disruptive capacities, for there are patterns of interference between these trajectories, remaking boundaries between experimental practices and clinical contexts. (shrink)

It is argued that neoliberal political ideology has redefined the regulatory state to have greater convergence of interests and goals with the pharmaceutical industry than previously, particularly regarding acceleration and cost reduction of drug development and regulatory review. Consequently, the pharmaceutical industry has been permitted to set the agenda about how shorter term and cheaper alternative carcinogenicity testing systems are investigated for validity. The authors contend that, with the tacit approval of the neoliberal regulatory state, the commercial interests of the (...) pharmaceutical industry framed the process and interpretation of validating these new test systems, thereby influencing what counts as knowledge about the carcinogenic status of new pharmaceuticals. While such alternative tests were occasioned by “molecularization,” the framing of their validation was not determined by technoscientific logic or a lack of standards of validation, but by the sociopolitical goals of the controlling institutions. Indeed, a different validation process could have been conducted had the priority been to develop carcinogenicity testing in the interests of public-health protection. While the resulting validation indicated that the short-term alternative tests posed small risks to the commercial interests of pharmaceutical firms, they provided little reassurance that patients would not be exposed to greater risks than before from undetected carcinogens. (shrink)