Social Studies of Science最新文献

Biodiversity is a multidimensional concept that can be understood and measured in many different ways. However, the next generation of digital technologies for biodiversity monitoring currently being funded and developed fail to engage its multidimensional and relational aspects. Based on empirical data from interviews, a conference visit, online meetings, webinars, and project reports, this study articulates four digital logics that structure how biodiversity becomes monitored and understood within recent technological developments. The four digital logics illustrate how intensified practices of capturing, connecting, simulating, and computing produce particular techno-scientific formats for creating biodiversity knowledge. While ongoing projects advance technological development in areas of automation, prediction, and the creation of large-scale species databases, their developmental processes structurally limit the future of biodiversity technology. To better address the complex challenges of the global biodiversity crisis, it is crucial to develop digital technologies and practices that can engage with a wider range of perspectives and understandings of relational and multidimensional approaches to biodiversity.

Data are versatile objects that can travel across contexts. While data's travels have been widely discussed, little attention has been paid to the sites from where and to which data flow. Drawing upon ethnographic fieldwork in two connected data-intensive laboratories and the concept of domestication, we explore what it takes to bring data 'home' into the laboratory. As data come and dwell in the home, they are made to follow rituals, and as a result, data are reshaped and form ties with the laboratory and its practitioners. We identify four main ways of domesticating data. First, through storytelling about the data's origins, data practitioners draw the boundaries of their laboratory. Second, through standardization, staff transform samples into digital data that can travel well while ruling what data can be let into the home. Third, through formatting, data practitioners become familiar with their data and at the same time imprint the data, thus making them belong to their home. Finally, through cultivation, staff turn data into a resource for knowledge production. Through the lens of domestication, we see the data economy as a collection of homes connected by flows, and it is because data are tamed and attached to homes that they become valuable knowledge tools. Such domestication practices also have broad implications for staff, who in the process of 'homing' data, come to belong to the laboratory. To conclude, we reflect on what these domestication processes-which silence unusual behaviours in the data-mean for the knowledge produced in data-intensive research.

Certain fields of research are deeply shaped by their proximity with policy-makers and administrations. The so-called 'regulatory sciences' and their corresponding expert communities emerge from this intermediary space between science and policy. Social studies of expertise and scientific experts show, however, that modes of engagement with policy-making vary greatly from one scientist to another. Two scientists that are part of the same research group or laboratory may engage the policy realm differently. How then does the social organization of research influence scientists' participation in scientific advice and the production of regulatory sciences? The paper looks at toxicology, a field in which knowledge production is centrally motivated by risk assessment, but one that has also seen the emergence of different knowledge-making motives, including advancement of fundamental knowledge and frontier research. A toxicology laboratory may thus harbor a diversity of moral economies of scientific advice. The paper argues that scientists' engagements with policy, through scientific advice and regulatory risk assessment, create organizational tensions and force changes to the standard, team-based social organization of research work.

This article explores how innovation logics infiltrate problem and value definitions in maintenance and repair, and how innovation itself depends on considerable, often invisible care work beyond the seemingly smooth entrepreneurial narratives. We build on a growing body of work in STS that investigates the relationship between innovation and maintenance and repair. This literature argues that the obsession with innovation crowds out attention to maintenance, that innovation creates future obligations of maintenance that are often not factored into technological promises, and that ordinary maintenance and repair practices are often innovative in their own right. Empirically, we explore a case where maintenance and repair become the explicit target of high-level, high-tech innovation initiatives and how, as a result, innovation logics colonize maintenance practices. Conceptually, we explore how repair and maintenance sensitivities can be applied to innovation practices to reveal the invisible work needed to align innovation instruments with socio-material and institutional configurations. Drawing on an in-depth case study of sewer inspection robots in Barcelona, we find that attempts to innovate maintenance require a symmetric effort to maintain innovation. In our case study, innovation processes as deployed by the European Commission, research consortia, and companies required substantial repair work to function reliably in specific settings. Our study shows how divergent understandings of the public good in innovation and maintenance contexts may lead to significant tensions, and that much can be gained analytically from not treating innovation and maintenance as opposites.

If an apparently extinct bird calls in a forest, and there are people there to hear it-to record it, even-is it still extinct? The Ivory-billed Woodpecker was last 'officially' seen in the United States in 1944, but its extinction continues to be a subject of intense debate between conservation authorities, scientists, and grassroots activists. Tensions peaked around 2005, when scientists from the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology announced their rediscovery of the species. However, their evidence received significant challenge from other ornithologists, and this apparent rediscovery has since been generally dismissed. In 2021, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recommended the ivorybill be declared officially extinct. Still, many people continue to trawl the Southeastern forests in search of ivorybills. In this article, I investigate the methods, debates, and results of efforts to locate this species, with a focus on sound. In doing so, I explore the interconnected roles of sound and space in the making of extinction knowledge. Sonic search methods of listening, sounding, and translating are core ways that searchers attempt to attune to, communicate with, and establish evidence of ivorybills. Additionally, sonic search practices are critical spaces of negotiation and contestation between different searchers, between searchers and ivorybills, and between searchers and skeptics. Ultimately, this article argues that sonic geographies affect the production of extinction knowledge, and vice versa-extinction knowledge making practices produce distinct sonic geographies.

This article analyses how a recent idiom of innovation governance, 'responsible innovation', is enacted in practice, how this shapes innovation processes, and what aspects of innovation are left untouched. Within this idiom, funders typically focus on one point in an innovation system: researchers in projects. However, the more transformational aspirations of responsible innovation are circumscribed by this context. Adopting a mode of critique that assembles, this article considers some alternative approaches to governing the shared trajectories of science, technology, and society. Using the idea of institutional invention to focus innovation governance on four inflection points-agendas, calls, spaces, evaluation-would allow funding organizations and researchers to look 'beyond the project', developing new methods to unpack and reflect on assumed purposes of science, technology, and innovation, and to potentially reconfigure the institutions that condition scientific practice.

Health policies and the problems they constitute are deeply shaped by multiple publics. In this article we conceptualize health policy counterpublics: temporally bounded socio-political forms that aim to cultivate particular modes of conduct, generally to resist trajectories set by arms of the state. These counterpublics often emerge from existing social movements and involve varied forms of activism and advocacy. We examine a health policy counterpublic that has arisen in response to new forms of HIV public health surveillance by drawing on public documents and interview data from 2021 with 26 stakeholders who were critical of key policy developments. Since 2018, the national rollout of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs in the United States has produced sustained controversies among HIV stakeholders, including among organized networks of people living with HIV. This article focuses on how a health policy counterpublic formed around MHS/CDR and how constituents problematized the policy agenda set in motion by federal health agencies, including in relation to data ethics, the meaningful involvement of affected communities, informed consent, the digitization of health systems, and HIV criminalization. Although familiar problems in HIV policymaking, concerns about these issues have been reconfigured in response to the new sociotechnical milieu proffered by MHS/CDR, generating new critical positions aiming to remake public health. Critical attention to the scenes within which health policy controversies play out ought to consider how (counter)publics are made, how problems are constituted, and the broader social movement dynamics and activist resources drawn upon to contest and reimagine policymaking in public life.

What makes one dataset powerful for civic advocacy, and another fall flat? Drawing from a citizen science project on environmental health, I argue that there is an underacknowledged quality of datasets-their topology-that shapes the social, cultural, and political possibilities they can sustain or subvert. Data topologies are formal qualities of a dataset that connect data collectors' intentions with the types of calculations that can and cannot be performed. This configures how numerical arguments are made, and the sociotechnical imaginaries those arguments sustain or subvert. The citizen science project's data topology made any easy notion of shared exposure to pollutants, or singular health effects, unravel. The data appeared to tell a story of atypicality at scale, where each person suffers differently from different exposure. Lacking a central tendency, or pockets of tendency disproportionately carried by different subgroups, it became it harder, not easier, for citizen scientists to use data in regulatory contexts, where dominant sociotechnical imaginaries conceive of difference in epidemiological and toxicological terms.