Social Studies of Science最新文献

The 2012 Menlo Report was an effort in which a group of computer scientists, US government funders, and lawyers produced ethics guidelines for research in information and communications technology (ICT). Here we study Menlo as a case of what we call ethics governance in the making, finding that this process examines past controversies and enrols existing networks to connect the everyday practice of ethics with ethics as a form of governance. To create the Menlo Report, authors and funders relied on bricolage work with existing, available resources, which significantly shaped both the report's contents and impacts. Report authors were motivated by both forward- and backward-looking goals: enabling new data-sharing as well as addressing past controversies and their implications for the field's body of research. Authors also grappled with uncertainty about which ethical frameworks were appropriate and made the decision to classify much network data as human subjects data. Finally, the Menlo Report authors attempted to enrol multiple existing networks in governance through appeals to local research communities as well as taking steps towards federal rulemaking. The Menlo Report serves as a case study in how to study ethics governance in the making: with attention to resources, adaptation, and bricolage, and with a focus on both the uncertainties the process tries to repair, as well as the new uncertainties the process uncovers, which will become the site of future ethics work.

In genomics, the clinical application of Next Generation Sequencing technologies (such as Whole Genome or Exome Sequencing) has attracted considerable attention from UK policymakers, interested in the benefits such technologies could bring the National Health Service. However, this boosterism plays little attention to the challenges raised by a kind of result known as a Variant of Uncertain Significance, or VUS, which require clinical geneticists and related colleagues to classify ambiguous genomic variants as 'benign' or 'pathogenic'. With a rigorous analysis based on data gathered at 290 clinical meetings over a two-year period, this paper presents the first ethnographic account of decision-making around NGS technology in a NHS clinical genomics service, broadening our understanding of the role formal criteria play in the classification of VUS. Drawing on Stefan Timmermans' concept of 'reflexive standardisation' to explore the way in which clinical genetics staff classify such variants this paper explores the application of a set of criteria drafted by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, highlighting the flexible way in which various resources - variant databases, computer programmes, the research literature - are drawn on to reach a decision. A crucial insight is how professionals' perception of, and trust in, the clinical practice at other genomics centres in the NHS, shapes their own application of criteria and the classification of a VUS as either benign or pathogenic.

'Biopolitics' is a much-used concept in recent academic literature. One of its main fields of application is in the analysis of public health projects. This article analyses the national Explicit Health Guarantees project in Chile from that perspective. However, we criticize the standard invocation of 'biopolitics' by observing that such public health projects require technoscientific operations that establish truths and regimes of obligation for the groups involved -understanding regime both as a set of imposed orders and a set of regulated processes. Specifically, the Explicit Health Guarantees project defines what we call 'speculative objects'. These have two characteristics: (a) They relate highly diverse entities into integrated wholes that are and involve objects of knowledge and uncertainty, and (b) this integration creates regimes of obligation considered as scientific truths on many different groups. We conclude by proposing new questions about the notion of biopolitics and its relationship with uncertainty and speculation.

The article attends to everyday practices in a laboratory of neural genetics that studies olfaction, with the fruit fly as its model organism. Practices in neural genetics exhibit one of the 'post' aspects in post-genomic science - a turn to the environment. To get at how laboratory members engage body-environment continuities, I pay attention to an occasion of designing experimental chambers for an optogenetics study. As practitioners deal with the body's continuities with the world by engaging the spatial character of olfaction, their accounts exhibit qualities of feelings of immediate experience, relatable to C.S. Peirce's phenomenological category of Firstness. While these traces of Firstness inevitably manifest themselves in mixtures with the other two of Peirce's categories - namely, Secondness and Thirdness - noticing them allows for an engagement of the environment that goes beyond action and meaning. I reflect on that environment by considering the involvement of scientists' bodies in life with flies, while not forgetting my inhabitation of the laboratory space. Rather than relying on a cross-mapping of attributes known from the human sphere (intentional states or features of the human body) while managing a measurable space observed from the outside, this is an environment lived from within and with others. I conclude the article by proposing its noticing as an orientation toward ecological preoccupations.

Looking at scientists (in the life sciences), we focus on the sense of meaninglessness associated with bureaucratization. We define the sense of meaninglessness as a perception of meaning deficit or meaning conflict in particular situations that can be associated with frustration, irritation, and/or boredom. We show that it can be caused by identity disturbance - particularly the incongruence between the ideal self as a researcher and the imposed self as a bureaucrat. We claim that the sense of meaninglessness is more likely to emerge in those activities that are further from an individual's core identity, and more identity work is needed to make them meaningful. We also claim that processes of rationalization imposed by external agendas, particularly transitions from substantive to formal rationality (predictability, control and calculability, efficiency) contribute to the proliferation of meaninglessness in academia. The sense of meaninglessness is, therefore, ignited by the external forces colonizing academic life and constitutes an instance of the 'irrationality of rationality'. It is an outcome or side effect of the collision between two incompatible logics of practice: bureaucratic and scientific. To show the incongruence of those competing logics, we analyze the data derived from a mixed-method study conducted between 2013 and 2014 among beneficiaries of an international research grant project. As a supplementary source of reference, we use our research on academic boredom and laboratory scientists' work and careers.

Why do scholars pay attention to some works, but not others? This article explores a theoretical model in which scholars search the literature to make sure that their findings are new to their immediate audience. Within the present model, individuals easily disregard literatures of which their audiences are probably unaware. Institutionally organized audiences thus serve as enforcers of the information search. Their members may tacitly collaborate in maintaining unawareness of intellectual developments outside of their common attention space. This model allows us to explain phenomena on which earlier models fail - for example why academics sometimes ignore apparently relevant sources of information or how groups of scholars turn into bubbles, censoring information about findings made in the outside world.