Exploring the intersection where biotechnology transforms legal institutions and redefines sociality in the 21st century
Imagine a world where your genes determine not just your health, but your legal status, your kinship ties, even your identity in the eyes of the law.
This isn't science fiction—it's the emerging reality of biolegality, a revolutionary field where advances in biotechnology are fundamentally transforming our legal institutions and social relationships. As DNA analysis becomes commonplace in courtrooms, and reproductive technologies challenge traditional concepts of parenthood, the very boundaries between biology and law are being redrawn 1 .
How genetic information is reshaping concepts of personal identity and legal personhood in unprecedented ways.
The ways legal systems are adapting to incorporate biological evidence and redefine traditional legal categories.
This intersection represents one of the most significant developments of our time, creating what scholars term "biolegality"—the complex and often contested ways in which biotechnology and biological knowledge are reworked by, with, and against legal knowledge 1 .
Biolegality represents a programmatic intervention in how we understand the relationship between legal institutions and biological sciences. According to scholars Sonja van Wichelen and Marc de Leeuw, biolegality offers "a conceptual and methodological toolkit to study biolegal knowledge production" 1 . But what does this mean in practice?
Examining how legal norms shape biological research and its applications—determining what research is permissible, how biological materials can be used, and what counts as ethical practice.
Investigating how biological discoveries challenge and transform legal concepts—forcing courts and legislatures to reconsider longstanding definitions of property, personhood, evidence, and kinship 2 .
This dual relationship creates what scholars call "coproduction"—the simultaneous shaping of both legal and scientific knowledge as they interact 3 . For instance, when DNA profiling was first introduced in criminal justice systems, it required legal systems to adapt to new forms of evidence while also shaping how those DNA technologies developed in response to legal requirements.
Examining how social contexts influence scientific development
Studying how legal systems construct social reality
Analyzing how political power shapes biological existence
Questioning fundamental concepts of human nature 1
Perhaps the most striking example of biolegality in action is the use of DNA databases in criminal investigations. The Portuguese experience provides a fascinating case study of how these technologies travel across different legal systems and cultural contexts, creating what researchers call the "forensic imaginary" 3 .
The forensic imaginary represents the widespread belief that DNA technology offers infallible identification of criminals, effectively combating crime through scientific certainty 3 . This "imaginary" combines two powerful ideas: that biology and genetics provide unquestionable individual identification, and that expanding DNA databases will inevitably improve criminal investigation efficiency 3 .
Helena Machado and Susana Costa, who have studied the Portuguese context, describe how this creates an "imaginary of the 'truth machine'," largely fueled by media representations like the CSI television series 3 . The public develops perceptions of DNA technology as a form of "super science" that can solve crimes with absolute certainty, often overlooking the real-world complexities and limitations of these technologies.
In Portugal, the implementation of DNA technology has created significant tensions between this "forensic imaginary" and the actual practice of criminal investigation:
Portuguese police must obtain judicial authorization before collecting biological samples from suspects 3 .
Criminal investigation structures may lack resources for optimal use of genetic technologies.
Portugal's inquisitorial justice system differs significantly from the adversarial systems (like England and the US) where DNA technology originated 3 .
These factors create what Machado and Costa term "local configurations"—distinctive arrangements where global technologies meet local legal cultures 3 . The result is a gap between the public's expectations of DNA evidence (shaped by media portrayals) and the actual contingencies of its application in criminal investigations.
Biolegality extends earlier concepts of biocitizenship—which focused on health-based identities—to the criminal justice context. Instead of producing "at risk" medical identities, biolegality produces "risky suspects," "pre-suspects," and "statistical suspects" 3 .
| Aspect | Biocitizenship | Biolegality |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Context | Healthcare, medicine | Criminal justice, law |
| Identity Produced | "At risk" patients | "Risky" suspects |
| Relationship to State | Health management | Surveillance and control |
| Key Technologies | Medical testing, genetic screening | DNA databases, forensic analysis |
Through DNA databases, suspect identities emerge from both criminal investigation practices and genetic expertise. Individuals become subjects of state surveillance through the collection of biological samples that connect them to increasingly complex technological systems combining genetic information with other police data like criminal records and fingerprints 3 .
To better understand the real-world implications of biolegality, let's examine a hypothetical experiment designed to investigate how media portrayals of forensic science affect public trust in criminal justice systems. This study illustrates the methodological approaches used in biolegality research.
The experiment would recruit 1,200 participants from diverse demographic backgrounds.
Participants randomly assigned to one of three conditions:
All participants complete detailed surveys. A subset of 120 participants also participate in focus group discussions.
The results would likely demonstrate a significant CSI effect—participants exposed to dramatic television portrayals of forensic science would show markedly higher expectations of DNA evidence capabilities compared to other groups.
| Statement | CSI Group | Documentary Group | Control Group |
|---|---|---|---|
| "DNA evidence is 99.9% accurate" | 78% | 42% | 51% |
| "All serious crimes can be solved with DNA" | 65% | 28% | 31% |
| "I would convict based solely on DNA" | 71% | 35% | 38% |
| "DNA databases prevent crime" | 82% | 56% | 61% |
The focus group discussions would reveal that the CSI effect extends beyond mere expectations about evidence to shape fundamental understandings of justice itself. Participants in the CSI group would tend to view complex social problems of crime through a technological lens, placing faith in biological solutions over social interventions.
This experiment would highlight a crucial aspect of biolegality: the coproduction of technology and social expectations. The "forensic imaginary" isn't merely a misconception—it actively shapes how technologies are developed, regulated, and implemented within legal systems 3 .
The data would suggest that media representations create a feedback loop: public expectations shaped by fictional portrayals pressure legal systems to adopt and expand forensic technologies, which in turn reinforces the cultural perception of these technologies as infallible. This has real consequences for legal processes, potentially influencing jury decisions, funding allocations, and policy priorities.
Studying biolegality requires both conceptual and methodological tools. Here are the key "research reagents" in the biolegality toolkit:
| Research Tool | Function | Example Application |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Analysis | Examining how laws regulate biological materials and data | Analyzing DNA database legislation 3 |
| Ethnographic Observation | Studying practices in laboratories and legal settings | Observing how forensic experts interpret DNA evidence |
| Interview Methods | Understanding perspectives of key stakeholders | Interviewing police, lawyers, and suspects about DNA databases 3 |
| Media Analysis | Tracing cultural representations of science | Examining how TV crime shows portray DNA evidence 3 |
| Historical Archival Research | Contextualizing current developments | Studying historical transitions in legal evidence standards |
| Cross-cultural Comparison | Identifying different biolegal configurations | Comparing DNA database use across countries 3 |
These methodological "reagents" allow researchers to investigate the complex interrelationships between biology and law across multiple levels—from individual experiences to institutional practices to cultural representations.
These research approaches demonstrate how biolegality bridges multiple disciplines to understand the complex relationship between biology and law in contemporary society.
The emerging field of biolegality challenges us to rethink fundamental categories of social life. As biological technologies continue to advance—from gene editing with CRISPR-Cas9 to increasingly sophisticated neurotechnologies—the legal system will face ever more complex questions about what counts as nature, property, personhood, and community 2 1 .
The key insight of biolegality is that biology doesn't simply determine social arrangements, nor does law simply control biological applications. Instead, these domains continuously shape and reshape each other, creating new ways of being human together.
Understanding these dynamics becomes increasingly urgent as biotechnology continues its rapid advance. By studying biolegality, we equip ourselves to participate more thoughtfully in shaping our collective future.
Biolegality represents more than just another academic specialty—it offers a crucial lens for understanding and navigating some of the most pressing challenges of our time. By examining how biology and law co-produce new forms of sociality, we can better understand the transformations reshaping our collective existence 1 .
As van Wichelen and de Leeuw argue, these "biolegal contestations represent philosophical and anthropological challenges to existing understandings of exchange, self, kinship, and community" 1 .