Public Umbilical Cord Blood (UCB) banking is defined by the dominant bioethics and biomedical literature as working in a regime of valuation that connects the social value of solidarity and the clinical value of collected quality UCB. Adopting the notion of registers of valuing (Heuts, F., and A. Mol. 2013. “What Is a Good Tomato? A Case of Valuing in Practice.” Valuation Studies 1 (2): 125–146), this paper challenges the aforementioned view. By exploring the Italian public system of UCB banking, it discusses disputes around the organization of the logistic of UCB donation, inspired by divergent registers of valuing enacted by involved actors. This paper focuses on the Italian public UCB banks’ involvement in experimental clinical protocols, using cells derived from UCB. It demonstrates how these experimental applications are deployed by Italian UCB bank practitioners to legitimize their work and to advance claims of jurisdictional monopoly over UCB banking and donation. It concludes that concrete arrangements of UCB banking are the outcome of negotiations among involved actors.

中文翻译：

---

将希望锚定在真理制度中。在意大利使脐带血衍生产品的使用合法化

公共脐带血 (UCB) 银行被主流生物伦理学和生物医学文献定义为在一种将团结的社会价值和收集的优质 UCB 的临床价值联系起来的评估制度中工作。采用估值寄存器的概念（Heuts, F., and A. Mol. 2013. “What Is a Good Tomato? A Case of Valuing in Practice.” Valuation Studies 1 (2): 125–146)，这篇论文提出了挑战上述观点。通过探索 UCB 银行的意大利公共系统，它讨论了围绕 UCB 捐赠后勤组织的争议，受到相关参与者制定的不同估值登记册的启发。本文重点介绍意大利公共 UCB 银行使用来自 UCB 的细胞参与实验临床协议。它展示了意大利 UCB 银行从业人员如何部署这些实验性应用程序，以使其工作合法化，并推动对 UCB 银行业务和捐赠的管辖权垄断主张。它的结论是，UCB 银行业务的具体安排是相关参与者之间谈判的结果。