Pub Date : 2022-04-29DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2065976
C. López-Beltrán, Abigail Nieves Delgado, Sandra P. González-Santos, Vivette García-Deister
ABSTRACT Empirical data gathered from group discussions with Mexican undergraduate students from different regions and backgrounds showed that students tend to incorporate information about genetics into their accounts of hereditary intergenerational transmission linked to issues of family resemblance, health, and mestizaje (racial admixture) in a nuanced, elaborated, and non-simplistic manner. Locality and cultural variations can define the ways hereditary transmission is understood, which precludes any generalization about how genetics contributes to defining group or personal features. In the students’ accounts, gene action appears as stable but not deterministic, and they tend to sideline genetics and race, when dealing with identity-linked notions like mestizo. Genes were considered by students to be only one influence among many that affect their health, identity, family resemblance and ancestry. They understood themselves as hereditarily linked to their relatives, their communities, and their localities in what we call the proximate dimension of belonging. This contrasted with how they portrayed themselves in distant, more abstract belongings pertaining to ethnic, regional, or national ascriptions. This dual framing of genetic narratives was a main feature of a connected set of ideas about heredity and belonging, which can be elucidated through the concept of heredity matrix. This complements previous STS contributions to the research on Genetics in Society and Public Understanding of Science.
{"title":"The Heredity Matrix: Genetics and the Understanding of Mestizaje, Health, and Belonging in Mexico","authors":"C. López-Beltrán, Abigail Nieves Delgado, Sandra P. González-Santos, Vivette García-Deister","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2065976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2065976","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Empirical data gathered from group discussions with Mexican undergraduate students from different regions and backgrounds showed that students tend to incorporate information about genetics into their accounts of hereditary intergenerational transmission linked to issues of family resemblance, health, and mestizaje (racial admixture) in a nuanced, elaborated, and non-simplistic manner. Locality and cultural variations can define the ways hereditary transmission is understood, which precludes any generalization about how genetics contributes to defining group or personal features. In the students’ accounts, gene action appears as stable but not deterministic, and they tend to sideline genetics and race, when dealing with identity-linked notions like mestizo. Genes were considered by students to be only one influence among many that affect their health, identity, family resemblance and ancestry. They understood themselves as hereditarily linked to their relatives, their communities, and their localities in what we call the proximate dimension of belonging. This contrasted with how they portrayed themselves in distant, more abstract belongings pertaining to ethnic, regional, or national ascriptions. This dual framing of genetic narratives was a main feature of a connected set of ideas about heredity and belonging, which can be elucidated through the concept of heredity matrix. This complements previous STS contributions to the research on Genetics in Society and Public Understanding of Science.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"357 - 381"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46482801","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 : 2022-04-17DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2062319
Henri Boullier, E. Henry
ABSTRACT Science and Technology Studies research has shown that processes of producing ignorance have been structurally embedded in the evaluation and regulation procedures of the tens of thousands of hazardous chemicals present on the market. What is the role of industrial actors, regulatory experts and scientific data in the institutionalisation of ignorance? Analysing two European expert panels demonstrates that institutionalised ignorance makes it difficult to justify and implement stringent regulations covering all types of population exposure. First, experts get caught up in ways of using scientific data that tend to reinforce industry’s influence on the production of regulatory knowledge (and ignorance). Second, several constraints press experts to play by the rules of the ‘regulatory science’ game, even if this undermines their capacity to challenge the dominant rules of expertise and the relevance of data. Third, the routine functioning of regulatory science tends to favour industry-sponsored studies, while obscuring other knowledge that could have been useful for regulation. Together, these pressures illustrate the concept of toxic ignorance, which weaves together research on institutionalised ignorance, the political economy of science and the social study of toxics. This concept provides a fruitful way of exploring how ignorance is enacted in the public assessment of chemicals, as well as in other instances where the toxic consequences are indirect.
{"title":"Toxic Ignorance. How Regulatory Procedures and Industrial Knowledge Jeopardise the Risk Assessment of Chemicals","authors":"Henri Boullier, E. Henry","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2062319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2062319","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Science and Technology Studies research has shown that processes of producing ignorance have been structurally embedded in the evaluation and regulation procedures of the tens of thousands of hazardous chemicals present on the market. What is the role of industrial actors, regulatory experts and scientific data in the institutionalisation of ignorance? Analysing two European expert panels demonstrates that institutionalised ignorance makes it difficult to justify and implement stringent regulations covering all types of population exposure. First, experts get caught up in ways of using scientific data that tend to reinforce industry’s influence on the production of regulatory knowledge (and ignorance). Second, several constraints press experts to play by the rules of the ‘regulatory science’ game, even if this undermines their capacity to challenge the dominant rules of expertise and the relevance of data. Third, the routine functioning of regulatory science tends to favour industry-sponsored studies, while obscuring other knowledge that could have been useful for regulation. Together, these pressures illustrate the concept of toxic ignorance, which weaves together research on institutionalised ignorance, the political economy of science and the social study of toxics. This concept provides a fruitful way of exploring how ignorance is enacted in the public assessment of chemicals, as well as in other instances where the toxic consequences are indirect.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"480 - 503"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43885397","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 : 2022-03-10DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2049597
Carin Graminius
ABSTRACT Affect is increasingly the object of study in research communication, and inducement of affect by means of different communication techniques is encouraged as a means for mobilizing the public. But a focus on affect in purely instrumental terms risks overlooking the multifaceted ways in which affect is used in research communication. Studying open letters on climate change penned by scientists provides an interesting context for an empirical and theoretical exploration of the intricate ways of using affect in research communication. Two analytical lenses which constitute two strands of research commonly seen as incompatible due to their different units of analysis – affect as linguistic representation and affect as practice – are combined to elucidate the aligning potentials of affect in communicative acts. Affective alignments as representation or practice are significant because affective connections made between actors, objects, actions and understandings are ways of looking at the indirect mobilization of the issue communicated. In relation to research communication, this analytical approach further reveals shifting science-society relations, where social alignments are responding to the nexus of practices in which researchers are situated. Attention to the use of affect in open letters reveals specific configurations between affect, cognition and action as scientists prescribe specific affective states – anxiety and concern – as integral to the understanding and action on climate matters. Furthermore, affect both aligns and separates scientists from other actors in society. Most notably, open letters position politicians as dissociated from scientists and civil society due to their lack of anxiety.
{"title":"Research Communication on Climate Change through Open Letters: Uniting Cognition, Affect and Action by Affective Alignments","authors":"Carin Graminius","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2049597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2049597","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Affect is increasingly the object of study in research communication, and inducement of affect by means of different communication techniques is encouraged as a means for mobilizing the public. But a focus on affect in purely instrumental terms risks overlooking the multifaceted ways in which affect is used in research communication. Studying open letters on climate change penned by scientists provides an interesting context for an empirical and theoretical exploration of the intricate ways of using affect in research communication. Two analytical lenses which constitute two strands of research commonly seen as incompatible due to their different units of analysis – affect as linguistic representation and affect as practice – are combined to elucidate the aligning potentials of affect in communicative acts. Affective alignments as representation or practice are significant because affective connections made between actors, objects, actions and understandings are ways of looking at the indirect mobilization of the issue communicated. In relation to research communication, this analytical approach further reveals shifting science-society relations, where social alignments are responding to the nexus of practices in which researchers are situated. Attention to the use of affect in open letters reveals specific configurations between affect, cognition and action as scientists prescribe specific affective states – anxiety and concern – as integral to the understanding and action on climate matters. Furthermore, affect both aligns and separates scientists from other actors in society. Most notably, open letters position politicians as dissociated from scientists and civil society due to their lack of anxiety.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"334 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46906134","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 : 2022-03-02DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2043840
C. Pinel
ABSTRACT Epigenetics research is well-known for its attention to the ‘environment,’ as it explores how what surrounds the genes impacts gene regulation. In addition, epigenetics has commonly been described as the new socio-biology capable of capturing how the broadly defined social environment, structured by social inequalities, shapes biology. Yet, this vision is not realised in the context of the entrepreneurial university. In the two laboratories where ethnographic fieldwork was conducted, scientists focus their research on narrow articulations of the notion of environment, around individual ‘lifestyle’ or micro-environments within which tumours develop. While the entrepreneurial university is characterised by multiple authoritative agencies evaluating and legitimising research, the narrowing of research priorities in epigenetics can be explained by the overlap of multiple scales of environment in which such authoritative agencies exercise authority: a disciplinary environment with peer-reviewed journals, an institutional environment with research managers, a market environment with funding bodies and commercial firms. In a general context of precarity, these environmental scales successively shape the content of research, by imposing filters on researchers’ practices, while implementing incentives encouraging certain forms of research. In particular, it favours a certain type of epigenetics research that is individualised and clinically centred, while leaving unexplored the social determinants of health and its biological corollary. This article adds to existing scholarship by, first, operationalising the broad concept of entrepreneurial university through the analysis of authoritative agencies and their role on research practices, and second, by providing empirical evidence of the interplay between research content and research environment.
{"title":"What Counts as the Environment in Epigenetics? Knowledge and Ignorance in the Entrepreneurial University","authors":"C. Pinel","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2043840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2043840","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Epigenetics research is well-known for its attention to the ‘environment,’ as it explores how what surrounds the genes impacts gene regulation. In addition, epigenetics has commonly been described as the new socio-biology capable of capturing how the broadly defined social environment, structured by social inequalities, shapes biology. Yet, this vision is not realised in the context of the entrepreneurial university. In the two laboratories where ethnographic fieldwork was conducted, scientists focus their research on narrow articulations of the notion of environment, around individual ‘lifestyle’ or micro-environments within which tumours develop. While the entrepreneurial university is characterised by multiple authoritative agencies evaluating and legitimising research, the narrowing of research priorities in epigenetics can be explained by the overlap of multiple scales of environment in which such authoritative agencies exercise authority: a disciplinary environment with peer-reviewed journals, an institutional environment with research managers, a market environment with funding bodies and commercial firms. In a general context of precarity, these environmental scales successively shape the content of research, by imposing filters on researchers’ practices, while implementing incentives encouraging certain forms of research. In particular, it favours a certain type of epigenetics research that is individualised and clinically centred, while leaving unexplored the social determinants of health and its biological corollary. This article adds to existing scholarship by, first, operationalising the broad concept of entrepreneurial university through the analysis of authoritative agencies and their role on research practices, and second, by providing empirical evidence of the interplay between research content and research environment.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"311 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41398685","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 : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2035710
G. Ottinger
ABSTRACT In the United States, ‘fenceline communities' next to petrochemical facilities have been conducting and advocating for air monitoring since the 1990s, highlighting gaps in U.S. environmental regulators' monitoring programs. Citizen science is imagined to be valuable as a source of data for filling such gaps. But fenceline communities' air monitoring activities also underscore regulators' hermeneutic ignorance, namely their lack of appropriate concepts, categories, and metrics for understanding the temporality of air pollution as experienced by marginalized communities. Citizen science could play a valuable role in addressing hermeneutic ignorance, by providing more adequate epistemic resources for understanding the environmental harms. In the case of community monitoring programs, these have included epistemic resources for understanding the immediacy of air pollution and the chronic nature of unpredictable spikes in pollution. However, regulators confronted with community-led monitoring have acknowledged neither citizen scientists’ contributions to epistemic resources nor their own hermeneutic ignorance, limiting the potential for citizen science to address institutionalized ignorance. Recognizing hermeneutic ignorance shows the important role that epistemic resources play in institutionalizing ignorance, and points to reforms necessary if citizen science is to make robust contributions to environmental protection.
{"title":"Misunderstanding Citizen Science: Hermeneutic Ignorance in U.S. Environmental Regulation","authors":"G. Ottinger","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2035710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2035710","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the United States, ‘fenceline communities' next to petrochemical facilities have been conducting and advocating for air monitoring since the 1990s, highlighting gaps in U.S. environmental regulators' monitoring programs. Citizen science is imagined to be valuable as a source of data for filling such gaps. But fenceline communities' air monitoring activities also underscore regulators' hermeneutic ignorance, namely their lack of appropriate concepts, categories, and metrics for understanding the temporality of air pollution as experienced by marginalized communities. Citizen science could play a valuable role in addressing hermeneutic ignorance, by providing more adequate epistemic resources for understanding the environmental harms. In the case of community monitoring programs, these have included epistemic resources for understanding the immediacy of air pollution and the chronic nature of unpredictable spikes in pollution. However, regulators confronted with community-led monitoring have acknowledged neither citizen scientists’ contributions to epistemic resources nor their own hermeneutic ignorance, limiting the potential for citizen science to address institutionalized ignorance. Recognizing hermeneutic ignorance shows the important role that epistemic resources play in institutionalizing ignorance, and points to reforms necessary if citizen science is to make robust contributions to environmental protection.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"504 - 529"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45009621","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 : 2022-01-28DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2025773
Gwendolyn Blue, D. Davidson, K. Myles
ABSTRACT Discourses of expectation shape technology development and uptake in subtle and profound ways. While STS research tends to view discourses of expectation in aggregate, disarticulating expectation into distinct narratives of anticipation and legitimation offers insights into the contradictory symbolic forces that inform novel technological applications. Interviews with forest science experts discussing the adoption of genomic selection as a response to climate change offers evidence of the rhetorical work performed by anticipatory and legitimatory narratives. Findings show that proclamations of novelty – consistent with discourses of anticipation – exist alongside efforts to secure legitimacy by establishing continuity between genomic selection and traditional breeding techniques, which would appear to defeat the rhetorical work done by the former. Reflective of previous public conflicts over biotechnology, legitimatory narratives also include assertions that genomic selection is distinct from genetic modification, when such distinctions are anything but clear. Ascription to these narratives, particularly legitimatory narratives that seek to distinguish genomic selection from more contentious biotechnology applications, justifies restrictions on public engagement that could offer valuable insights for management and decision-making. Other implications include restricting social scientific interventions to strategic communication intended to steer publics toward acceptance of genomic selection. Further research is warranted to examine how the dynamics of anticipation and legitimation play out across other sectors which expect benefits from novel biotechnological applications.
{"title":"Expectations of Genomic Selection for Forestry: Expert Narratives of Anticipation and Legitimation","authors":"Gwendolyn Blue, D. Davidson, K. Myles","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2025773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2025773","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Discourses of expectation shape technology development and uptake in subtle and profound ways. While STS research tends to view discourses of expectation in aggregate, disarticulating expectation into distinct narratives of anticipation and legitimation offers insights into the contradictory symbolic forces that inform novel technological applications. Interviews with forest science experts discussing the adoption of genomic selection as a response to climate change offers evidence of the rhetorical work performed by anticipatory and legitimatory narratives. Findings show that proclamations of novelty – consistent with discourses of anticipation – exist alongside efforts to secure legitimacy by establishing continuity between genomic selection and traditional breeding techniques, which would appear to defeat the rhetorical work done by the former. Reflective of previous public conflicts over biotechnology, legitimatory narratives also include assertions that genomic selection is distinct from genetic modification, when such distinctions are anything but clear. Ascription to these narratives, particularly legitimatory narratives that seek to distinguish genomic selection from more contentious biotechnology applications, justifies restrictions on public engagement that could offer valuable insights for management and decision-making. Other implications include restricting social scientific interventions to strategic communication intended to steer publics toward acceptance of genomic selection. Further research is warranted to examine how the dynamics of anticipation and legitimation play out across other sectors which expect benefits from novel biotechnological applications.","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 1","pages":"256 - 275"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45883654","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 : 2022-01-20DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2025774
Lorna Heaton
{"title":"Chains of Participation in Producing Biodiversity Infrastructures: Digital Reconfigurations of Scientific Work","authors":"Lorna Heaton","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2025774","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2025774","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43252602","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 : 2022-01-17DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2025775
F. Charvolin
{"title":"Faune France: Amateur Naturalists’ Attachment and Indebtedness in a Citizen Science Biodiversity Database","authors":"F. Charvolin","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2025775","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2025775","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46917479","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 : 2022-01-17eCollection Date: 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2028135
Sonja Erikainen
Recent years have seen a proliferation of do-it-yourself biology (DIYbio) initiatives, consisting of people undertaking a range of bioscience activities outside traditional research environments. DIYbio initiatives, while diverse, exist at the fringes of institutionalised science, which enables them to advance different promissory visions about what science, especially bioscience, could or should become in the future, including how it should be governed. These visions reconfigure conventional delineations of science in politically and normatively loaded ways that can simultaneously reaffirm, contest, and shift the traditional epistemic foundations of science. They put forth alternative science futures in ways that highlight the performative force of promissory visions in shaping not only mainstream but also fringe science activity. DIYbio offers a fruitful lens for understanding how science is currently being reconfigured by unconventional actors to encompass new meanings and domains. It offers a different angle on the wider sociology of expectations engagement with the future as an analytical object, by showing how the future of science is constructed and managed from the fringe. Yet, DIYbio initiatives' promissory visions are also embedded within neoliberal ideals of productive and entrepreneurial citizens, highlighting how the wider socio-economic context constrains the alternative futures manufactured by these initiatives.
{"title":"The Promissory Visions of DIYbio: Reimaging Science from the Fringe.","authors":"Sonja Erikainen","doi":"10.1080/09505431.2022.2028135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2028135","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent years have seen a proliferation of do-it-yourself biology (DIYbio) initiatives, consisting of people undertaking a range of bioscience activities outside traditional research environments. DIYbio initiatives, while diverse, exist at the fringes of institutionalised science, which enables them to advance different promissory visions about what science, especially bioscience, could or should become in the future, including how it should be governed. These visions reconfigure conventional delineations of science in politically and normatively loaded ways that can simultaneously reaffirm, contest, and shift the traditional epistemic foundations of science. They put forth alternative science futures in ways that highlight the performative force of promissory visions in shaping not only mainstream but also fringe science activity. DIYbio offers a fruitful lens for understanding how science is currently being reconfigured by unconventional actors to encompass new meanings and domains. It offers a different angle on the wider sociology of expectations engagement with the future as an analytical object, by showing how the future of science is constructed and managed from the fringe. Yet, DIYbio initiatives' promissory visions are also embedded within neoliberal ideals of productive and entrepreneurial citizens, highlighting how the wider socio-economic context constrains the alternative futures manufactured by these initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":47064,"journal":{"name":"Science As Culture","volume":"31 3","pages":"287-310"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9519120/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40390393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","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：