English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

New advances in biology— from the rise of genomics in the late twentieth century and more recent breakthroughs in gene editing technologies— have conjured the cultural imagination of the “cure.” When Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan launched the ChanZuckerberg Initiative in 2016 with their bounty from Facebook, they put forward an audacious goal: “to cure all diseases within the century” (Sample 2016). In the same year, representatives from both political parties advanced and eventually passed the 21st Century Cures Act in the US Congress, with the explicit aim of accelerating more cures to patients (Hudson and Collins 2017). Part of this legislation supported the “Cancer Moonshot” led by Joseph Biden, which carries the aim of delivering longsought after cures for the elusive scourge (Lowy and Collins 2016). If the prior century was a golden age for physics, our current century has been branded by prominent scientists as one defined by the young and maturing field of biology and its promise for human health (Venter and Cohen 2014). This chapter locates these hopes, however, within a context of a paradox: just as these imaginations are gaining greater traction, buttressed in part by gains in the science of human disease and treatment, a future of curative therapies appears further out of reach. To unpack this contradiction, I explore recent transformations in politicaleconomic dynamics and valuation practices in biomedicine that can belie the very existence of curative therapies. These transformations— which place what Birch and Muniesa (this volume) describe as the “asset form” at the center of scientific and technological innovation for health— combine to constitute what I call the assetization of biomedicine. This analysis departs from more commonly 4 A Crisis for Cures? Tracing Assetization and Value in Biomedical Innovation