Pub Date : 2022-12-05DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2151427
Eric Nost
{"title":"‘The tool didn’t make decisions for us': metrics and the performance of accountability in environmental governance","authors":"Eric Nost","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2151427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2151427","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44951448","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-28DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2151426
L. Brunet
{"title":"Transposing emotions to conserve nature? The positive politics of the metrics of ecosystem services","authors":"L. Brunet","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2151426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2151426","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49488879","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-09DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2137791
Guilherme Cavalcante Silva
{"title":"From data revolution to data narratives","authors":"Guilherme Cavalcante Silva","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2137791","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2137791","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"160 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49489536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-04DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2141106
Merete Lie
ABSTRACT In the fields of sci-art, bioart and speculative design, contemporary artists are creating experiential visions of the future based on trends within science. Two artworks with futuristic figurations of human reproduction, Pinar Yoldas’ Designer Babies and Ai Hasegawa’s I Wanna Deliver a Dolphin/I Wanna Deliver a Shark, serve as the point of departure for revisiting the eternal nature-culture debate. Hasegawa’s work explores relations to other species in the radical figuration of humans giving birth to sharks and dolphins. Yoldas plays with the notion of bioscientists as playing God, giving genetically modified progeny god-like features, while critically showcasing the potential of genetic engineering. Contemporary sci-art stages experiments and encounters of technoscience and human biology, thus experiments with the very ‘facts of life’. These sci-art works involve critical perspectives on the technoscience of assisted reproduction including surrogacy and genetic engineering. Still, they configure nature not as threatened but as dynamic, responsive, and continually undergoing change. By expanding the perspective on human reproduction through surprising and mind-expanding figurations, they address emerging technologies as a shift to new techno-natures, entailing the ongoing merging of natural biological processes with emerging biotechnologies.
{"title":"New techno-natures: the future of human reproduction in sci-art","authors":"Merete Lie","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2141106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2141106","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the fields of sci-art, bioart and speculative design, contemporary artists are creating experiential visions of the future based on trends within science. Two artworks with futuristic figurations of human reproduction, Pinar Yoldas’ Designer Babies and Ai Hasegawa’s I Wanna Deliver a Dolphin/I Wanna Deliver a Shark, serve as the point of departure for revisiting the eternal nature-culture debate. Hasegawa’s work explores relations to other species in the radical figuration of humans giving birth to sharks and dolphins. Yoldas plays with the notion of bioscientists as playing God, giving genetically modified progeny god-like features, while critically showcasing the potential of genetic engineering. Contemporary sci-art stages experiments and encounters of technoscience and human biology, thus experiments with the very ‘facts of life’. These sci-art works involve critical perspectives on the technoscience of assisted reproduction including surrogacy and genetic engineering. Still, they configure nature not as threatened but as dynamic, responsive, and continually undergoing change. By expanding the perspective on human reproduction through surprising and mind-expanding figurations, they address emerging technologies as a shift to new techno-natures, entailing the ongoing merging of natural biological processes with emerging biotechnologies.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"169 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47460301","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-27DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2138309
Stefano Crabu, I. Picardi, Valentina Turrini
ABSTRACT Since the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic concerned groups of people have produced knowledge refused by institutional science of how to manage public health and individual well-being in everyday pandemic life. Research in science and technology studies seeks to understand the social and cultural conditions under which contestation over scientific knowledge claims occurs. In the Italian case, ‘refused’ knowledge claims emerging outside institutionalised science play a performative role in questioning the current models for managing individual and public health. Such refused claims ascribe novel meanings to the COVID-19 pandemic and orient the ways in which people manage their own health and well-being during their everyday life. Two interrelated dimensions are at stake in the production and enactment of refused knowledge: (1) how experiential expertise is mobilised to reframe one’s body in a process of self-care, thus validating a corpus of refused knowledge through personal experience, and (2) how narratives demarcate between a body of refused knowledge and the prevalent biomedical paradigms as a way of gaining experiential epistemic autonomy.
{"title":"Refused-knowledge during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mobilising Experiential Expertise for Care and Well-being","authors":"Stefano Crabu, I. Picardi, Valentina Turrini","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2138309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2138309","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic concerned groups of people have produced knowledge refused by institutional science of how to manage public health and individual well-being in everyday pandemic life. Research in science and technology studies seeks to understand the social and cultural conditions under which contestation over scientific knowledge claims occurs. In the Italian case, ‘refused’ knowledge claims emerging outside institutionalised science play a performative role in questioning the current models for managing individual and public health. Such refused claims ascribe novel meanings to the COVID-19 pandemic and orient the ways in which people manage their own health and well-being during their everyday life. Two interrelated dimensions are at stake in the production and enactment of refused knowledge: (1) how experiential expertise is mobilised to reframe one’s body in a process of self-care, thus validating a corpus of refused knowledge through personal experience, and (2) how narratives demarcate between a body of refused knowledge and the prevalent biomedical paradigms as a way of gaining experiential epistemic autonomy.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"132 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45760096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-21DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2137789
A. Blok
{"title":"What is democracy according to STS?","authors":"A. Blok","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2137789","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2137789","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"156 - 160"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48764045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2143343
K. Paul, S. Vanderslott, M. Gross
,
，
{"title":"Institutionalised ignorance in policy and regulation","authors":"K. Paul, S. Vanderslott, M. Gross","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2143343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2143343","url":null,"abstract":",","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"419 - 432"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44938127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2137790
Erik Aarden
ABSTRACT Quantitative evidence and metrics play a central role in contemporary global health. Mortality statistics, for example, are considered essential for improving health in the global South. Yet, many observers lament that reliable cause of death data is not available for many low- and middle-income countries. The Million Death Study (MDS) in India forms an effort to address this issue, seeking to reduce ignorance around mortality by generating representative statistics by combining an existing, representative demographic sample with an innovative diagnostic method called verbal autopsy. Yet, ignorance is more than the absence of reliable mortality statistics in this study. Social science perspectives on institutionalized ignorance can help unpack how certain paradoxes of evidence-based global health manifest through three different articulations of ignorance in the MDS. First, the study’s simultaneously national and global ambitions intersect in arguments that present ignorance as legitimation for the study. Second, ignorance is presented as instrumental in balancing the need for expertise with the risk of bias in diagnosing causes of death. Third, MDS researchers dismiss remaining ignorance or uncertainty about diagnoses, by claiming it is relative compared to the ‘actionability’ of study results for improving public health. In exploring these various manifestations of institutionalized ignorance, several paradoxes of the MDS as an evidence-based global health project become visible. By exploring these paradoxes, this analysis suggests that studies of institutionalized ignorance can provide novel perspectives on how deliberate articulations and mobilization of ignorance helps constitute evidence-based global health.
{"title":"Ignorance and the paradoxes of evidence-based global health: the case of mortality statistics in India’s million death study","authors":"Erik Aarden","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2137790","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2137790","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Quantitative evidence and metrics play a central role in contemporary global health. Mortality statistics, for example, are considered essential for improving health in the global South. Yet, many observers lament that reliable cause of death data is not available for many low- and middle-income countries. The Million Death Study (MDS) in India forms an effort to address this issue, seeking to reduce ignorance around mortality by generating representative statistics by combining an existing, representative demographic sample with an innovative diagnostic method called verbal autopsy. Yet, ignorance is more than the absence of reliable mortality statistics in this study. Social science perspectives on institutionalized ignorance can help unpack how certain paradoxes of evidence-based global health manifest through three different articulations of ignorance in the MDS. First, the study’s simultaneously national and global ambitions intersect in arguments that present ignorance as legitimation for the study. Second, ignorance is presented as instrumental in balancing the need for expertise with the risk of bias in diagnosing causes of death. Third, MDS researchers dismiss remaining ignorance or uncertainty about diagnoses, by claiming it is relative compared to the ‘actionability’ of study results for improving public health. In exploring these various manifestations of institutionalized ignorance, several paradoxes of the MDS as an evidence-based global health project become visible. By exploring these paradoxes, this analysis suggests that studies of institutionalized ignorance can provide novel perspectives on how deliberate articulations and mobilization of ignorance helps constitute evidence-based global health.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"433 - 454"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41393436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-20DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2114335
G. Rees, Deborah White
ABSTRACT The sexual assault trial of R v Hartman included evidence from a sleep expert who found himself increasingly marginalised within the scientific community. Marginalisation takes place following a scientific controversy, when those considered to be on the losing side find it increasingly difficult to be heard by the community, and in particular, their ideas are removed from core texts in the field. Given a marginalised expert's ambiguous status, and a scientific knowledge deficit on the part of legal actors, on what grounds does a judge base their decision around the evidential value of their testimony? An analysis of the judge's decision in the trial indicates that she evaluated the expert's evidence by employing a version of a socio-technical review that included expectations of scientific rigour based on mechanical objectivity and procedural correctness. Drawing upon these processes and expectations of sound science, the judge had little difficulty evaluating the expert's evidence and finding it unsafe. In particular, she drew attention to the expert's mobilisation of a conspiratorial discursive style, a product of his marginalisation. This supports certain STS claims that legal actors already have tools for evaluating appropriate expertise, and these continue to be the cornerstone of judicial decision-making around expert testimony, even in highly ambiguous situations like post-controversy science.
{"title":"Judging Post-Controversy Expertise: Judicial Discretion and Scientific Marginalisation in the Courtroom","authors":"G. Rees, Deborah White","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2114335","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2114335","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The sexual assault trial of R v Hartman included evidence from a sleep expert who found himself increasingly marginalised within the scientific community. Marginalisation takes place following a scientific controversy, when those considered to be on the losing side find it increasingly difficult to be heard by the community, and in particular, their ideas are removed from core texts in the field. Given a marginalised expert's ambiguous status, and a scientific knowledge deficit on the part of legal actors, on what grounds does a judge base their decision around the evidential value of their testimony? An analysis of the judge's decision in the trial indicates that she evaluated the expert's evidence by employing a version of a socio-technical review that included expectations of scientific rigour based on mechanical objectivity and procedural correctness. Drawing upon these processes and expectations of sound science, the judge had little difficulty evaluating the expert's evidence and finding it unsafe. In particular, she drew attention to the expert's mobilisation of a conspiratorial discursive style, a product of his marginalisation. This supports certain STS claims that legal actors already have tools for evaluating appropriate expertise, and these continue to be the cornerstone of judicial decision-making around expert testimony, even in highly ambiguous situations like post-controversy science.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"32 1","pages":"109 - 131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42248923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2105691
Paulo F. C. Fonseca, Barbara E. Ribeiro, Leonardo F. Nascimento
ABSTRACT As supporters of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the Bolsonarism movement has promoted the drug chloroquine for treating Covid-19 in Brazil, despite it being mostly rejected by mainstream health institutions as an effective treatment. This situation can be investigated through the lens of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and ignorance studies supported by methods from digital sociology. Bolsonarist discourse does not contest scientific authority tout court, but rather constructs boundaries between what supporters of the president see as legitimate and illegitimate science. This institutionalised ignorance is produced and maintained through Telegram messenger, a backbone of the multi-platform media ecosystem of Bolsonarism. It is accomplished through boundary work: the exclusion or inclusion of knowledge via two complementary practices – pejorative accusations against mainstream science and the crafting of affective bonds with the chloroquine alternative. While the former aims to invalidate knowledge held by experts opposed to the use of chloroquine, the latter focuses on mobilising trust in an alternative model of science, which we refer to as patriotic science. This model of science is demarcated from mainstream science, framed as corrupt and ill-equipped for the needs of Brazilians. This case study advances STS resources for examining the epistemic demarcation between science/non-science, relevant to other polities and publics that use such boundary work to institutionalise ignorance.
{"title":"Demarcating Patriotic Science on Digital Platforms: Covid-19, Chloroquine and the Institutionalisation of Ignorance in Brazil","authors":"Paulo F. C. Fonseca, Barbara E. Ribeiro, Leonardo F. Nascimento","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2105691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2105691","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 As supporters of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, the Bolsonarism movement has promoted the drug chloroquine for treating Covid-19 in Brazil, despite it being mostly rejected by mainstream health institutions as an effective treatment. This situation can be investigated through the lens of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and ignorance studies supported by methods from digital sociology. Bolsonarist discourse does not contest scientific authority tout court, but rather constructs boundaries between what supporters of the president see as legitimate and illegitimate science. This institutionalised ignorance is produced and maintained through Telegram messenger, a backbone of the multi-platform media ecosystem of Bolsonarism. It is accomplished through boundary work: the exclusion or inclusion of knowledge via two complementary practices – pejorative accusations against mainstream science and the crafting of affective bonds with the chloroquine alternative. While the former aims to invalidate knowledge held by experts opposed to the use of chloroquine, the latter focuses on mobilising trust in an alternative model of science, which we refer to as patriotic science. This model of science is demarcated from mainstream science, framed as corrupt and ill-equipped for the needs of Brazilians. This case study advances STS resources for examining the epistemic demarcation between science/non-science, relevant to other polities and publics that use such boundary work to institutionalise ignorance.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"530 - 554"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43403874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：