Social Studies of Science最新文献

People are increasingly able to generate their own health data through new technologies such as wearables and online symptom checkers. However, generating data is one thing, interpreting them another. General practitioners (GPs) are likely to be the first to help with interpretations. Policymakers in the European Union are investing heavily in infrastructures to provide GPs access to patient measurements. But there may be a disconnect between policy ambitions and the everyday practices of GPs. To investigate this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 Danish GPs. According to the GPs, patients relatively rarely bring data to them. GPs mostly remember three types of patient-generated data that patients bring to them for interpretation: heart and sleep measurements from wearables and results from online symptom checkers. However, they also spoke extensively about data work with patient queries concerning measurements from the GPs' own online Patient Reported Outcome system and online access to laboratory results. We juxtapose GP reflections on these five data types and between policy ambitions and everyday practices. These data require substantial recontextualization work before the GPs ascribe them evidential value and act on them. Even when they perceived as actionable, patient-provided data are not approached as measurements, as suggested by policy frameworks. Rather, GPs treat them as analogous to symptoms-that is to say, GPs treat patient-provided data as subjective evidence rather than authoritative measures. Drawing on Science and Technology Studies (STS) literature,we suggest that GPs must be part of the conversation with policy makers and digital entrepreneurs around when and how to integrate patient-generated data into healthcare infrastructures.

While transnational research infrastructure projects long preceded the formal integration process that created the European Union, their advancement is an increasingly central part of EU research policy and of European integration in general. This paper analyses the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure-European Research Infrastructure Consortium (BBMRI-ERIC) as a recent example of institutionalized scientific collaboration in Europe that has formally been established as part of EU science policy. BBMRI-ERIC, a network of European biobanks, is expected to contribute to both European science and European integration. Yet its achievements in these domains are interpreted differently by various actors involved. This paper draws on STS conceptualizations of infrastructures as relational, experimental, and promissory assemblages. These support the formulation of a working definition of research infrastructures that in turn helps to explore the heterogeneous meanings attributed to BBMRI-ERIC. The paper describes the creation of this distributed European research infrastructure, and divergent understandings of what it means for BBMRI-ERIC to be distributed, to be European and to be a research infrastructure. This analysis demonstrates how building a research infrastructure is also an effort to define what it means to be European-a process in which what is European about science and what science can do for Europe is continuously (re-)imagined, contested and negotiated.

This article unpacks the logic of the equivalence invoked by the Government of Canada between Indigenous consent and the inclusion of Indigenous peoples and knowledges in impact assessment. We situate the logic within the politics of recognition in Canada-a politics that aims to shore up national unity in the face of regular challenges to it. We use the Canadian results from a recent scoping review on conceptions of environmental justice in impact assessment to highlight the challenges of invoking recognition, and we provide a theoretical analysis of these challenges. To do this, we highlight the ways in which 'we-making' is 'knowledge-making' and 'knowledge-making' is 'we-making'. In this sense, recognizing Indigenous knowledges is part of Canada's answer to the challenge of constructing and stabilizing a political 'we': a community of political subjects with shared connection to a nation state via the institutional, social, and cultural apparatuses that generate the kind of publicly visible legal and technical knowledge upon which the state's authority depends. We show how this project relies on actively obscuring the relationship between 'we-making' and 'knowledge-making' by treating 'knowledge-making' as neutral and un-situated, putting into practice a universalist logic. This logic shores up power because obscuring the situatedness of dominant knowledges also obscures the situatedness of the dominant political orders with which they are intertwined. We ultimately argue that Canada's approach to recognizing Indigenous knowledges helps consolidate power by sidestepping ongoing jurisdictional struggles with Indigenous peoples.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 2013 decision to lower recommended Ambien dosing for women has been widely cited as a hallmark example of the importance of sex differences in biomedicine. Using regulatory documents, scientific publications, and media coverage, this article analyzes the making of this highly influential and mobile 'sex-difference fact'. As we show, the FDA's decision was a contingent outcome of the drug approval process. Attending to how a contested sex-difference fact came to anchor elite women's health advocacy, this article excavates the role of regulatory processes, advocacy groups, and the media in producing perceptions of scientific agreement while foreclosing ongoing debate, ultimately enabling the stabilization of a binary, biological sex-difference fact and the distancing of this fact from its conditions of construction.

Postphenomenological studies have explored technological mediation between the human body and the world by analysing the bodily experience of the world. Applying this analytical perspective to predictive technology requires some expansions because humans cannot directly experience the future world. I conceptualize pre-spectival focus, which refers to how human attention is directed to the making-future-present process, and which features or aspects of its process are foregrounded or backgrounded. Through the concept of pre-spectival focus and actor-network theory (ANT), this article examines the case of System for the Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI), a Japanese technology used to simulate the atmospheric dispersion of radionuclides released from nuclear reactors. SPEEDI provides prediction maps representing radiological consequences and was expected to support evacuation decisions during nuclear emergencies. However, this was not the case with the Fukushima disaster, which led to a socio-technical controversy regarding SPEEDI's usage. Based on bibliographic surveys and several interviews, I encapsulate four multistable uses of SPEEDI: prediction as supporting advice, prediction as a tool for evacuation drills, prediction as self-protection, and prediction as a source of misunderstanding. Relevant actors perceive the predictions of a nuclear disaster in each stability depending on the diversity of their pre-spectival foci, which is also related to the forms of life nourished through their professional and daily lives. A distinct rivalry can be observed between the two actor-networks around nuclear emergency management in which SPEEDI is differently enrolled: the social control network and self-determination network. In the former, the residents are constituted as passive selves who obediently follow governmental instructions; in the latter, residents are included as autonomous subjects who can actively decide protective actions. Moreover, I discuss future postphenomenology-ANT studies on predictive technologies based on these analyses.

Since the 1970s social analysts have seen communication between scientists not solely as information exchange (the algorithmical model), but as a process of socialization into overlapping and mutually embedded scientific domains (the enculturational model). Under the algorithmical model, the impact of the Covid-19 shutdown on travel would be easily remedied by replacing face-to-face communication with online platforms. Conferences and similar gatherings are costly, elitist, and environmentally damaging, but under the enculturational model abandoning them could be disastrous for science, which depends on the development of cross-national trust and mutual agreements through face-to-face interaction and, in turn, disastrous for science's role in democracy. We explore the problem theoretically and empirically, arguing against recent proposals from some scientists for the wholesale and permanent replacement of conferences with remote communication.

This article explores a case of mistrust in global health research and community engagement. It uses ethnographic material collected in 2014 and 2016 in Kenya, concerning community engagement by a HIV vaccine research group working with men who have sex with men and transgender women. In 2010, the research group was attacked by members of the wider community. Following the attack, the research group set up an engagement program to reduce mistrust and re-build relationships. Analysis focusing on mistrust shows the dynamics underlying the conflict: Norms around gender and sexuality, political support for LGBTIQ+ rights, and resources disparities were all at stake for those embroiled in the conflict, including researchers, study participants, religious leaders, and LGBTIQ+ activists in the region. Rather than a normative good with liberatory potential, community engagement in this paper is discussed as a relational tool with which mistrust was managed, highlighting the fragility of participation.

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a UK policy tool for distributing government funding and an important indicator of the academic status of a UK university. The legitimacy of the policy comes from peers' consensus on what academic quality is. We are interested in how the REF enables this funding distribution by determining the academic quality of a broad array of different forms of research through a single peer-review process. As they search for academic quality that is contingent to a specific epistemology and requires more time than the REF allows, how do academics agree to agree, and within constraints of a given timeframe? Interviews with REF panellists and their accounts of the process lead us to suggest that the consensus is enacted by setting up a situation: the mechanics of the REF with its practices of benchmarking, scoring, calibrating, and normalizing. This situation sets the boundaries of reviewing and, in doing so, propels peers to shift from assessment contingent on epistemic commitments to evaluation on a single scale. We argue that this shift renders academic quality distinct from scientific or epistemic quality.

Scientific institutions have increasingly embraced formalized research data management strategies, which involve complex social practices of codifying the tacit dimensions of data practices. Several guidelines to facilitate these practices have been introduced in recent years, for example, the FAIR guiding principles. The aim of these practices is to foster transparency and reproducibility through 'data sharing,' the public release of data for unbounded reuse. However, a closer look suggests that many scientists' practices of data release might be better described as what I call data handovers. These practices are not rooted in the lofty ideals of good scientific practice and global data reuse but in the more mundane necessities of research continuity, which have become more urgent in light of increasing academic mobility. The Austrian scientists interviewed for this study reinterpreted defining features of research data management - such as ensuring findability - as techniques for managing the effects of researcher mobility. This suggests that the adoption of Open Science practices might be dissociated from its stated epistemic goals, and explains why many Open Science initiatives at present are administratively strong but normatively weak.

Academic training, especially at the undergraduate level, is a marginal topic in science studies today. Scientific practices have commonly been approached through studies of research contexts-most visibly, the lab-and only sporadically through studies of the classroom or other teaching contexts. In this article, we draw attention to the pivotal role that academic training plays in the formation and reproduction of thought collectives. Such training, in shaping what students think about their field and what they understand as proper ways of doing science, is an important site of what we call epistemological enculturation. Based on a comprehensive literature review, we make several suggestions on how epistemological enculturation can be studied at the level of training scenes, a concept we develop in the article. This includes a discussion of the methodological as well as theoretical difficulties that occur when analysing academic training in action.