Search

The roles digital media-technologies play in raising public issues relating to emerging technologies and their potential for engaging publics with science and policy assessments is a lively field of inquiry in Science and Technology Studies (STS). This paper presents an analysis of controversies over proposals for the large-scale removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CDR). The study combines a digital method (web-querying) with document analysis to map debates about two CDR approaches: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation. In the first step, we locate actors using the web to engage with BECCS and afforestation and map their alignments in relation to competing framings of CDR. In a second step, we examine the devices deployed by UK-based actors to evidence and contest the feasibility of BECCS and afforestation. Our analysis shows that policy distinctions between “natural” and “engineered” CDR are used flexibly in practice and do not map neatly onto actor engagement with BECCS and afforestation. We highlight the predominance of cross-cutting techno-economic expertise and argue that framings of CDR as a solution to governing climate change may contribute to public disengagement from climate policy processes. The paper reflects on methods for studying controversies, publics, and issues emerging around processes of technoscientific assessment.

This is a preprint (un-proofed) version of a paper accepted for publication in Science, Technology & Human Values. For citation purposes, please see the published version in this journal. AbstractSince mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT) were developed and clinically introduced in the UK, there has been much discussion of whether these lead to children borne of three parents. In the UK, regulation of MRT has dealt with this by stipulating that egg donors for the purposes of MRT are not genetic parents even though they contribute mitochondrial DNA to offspring. In this paper, I examine the way that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in the UK manages the question of parentage. I argue that the Act breaks the link typically made between genetic causation and genetic parenthood by redefining genetic causation solely in terms of nuclear genetics. Along with this, mitochondrial DNA is construed as a kind of supplement to the nuclear family. Drawing on the account of the supplement developed by Jacques Derrida, I argue that mitochondrial DNA, and the women who donate it, are seen as both essential to establishing the nuclear family, but also exterior to and insignificant for it

Recently, high media visibility was reached by an experiment that involved “hoaxlike deception” of journals within humanities and social sciences. Its aim was to provide evidence of “inadequate” quality standards especially within gender studies. The article discusses the project in the context of both previous systematic studies of peer reviewing and scientific hoaxes and analyzes its possible empirical outcomes. Despite claims to the contrary, the highly political, both ethically and methodologically flawed “experiment” failed to provide the evidence it sought. The experiences can be summed up as follows: (1) journals with higher impact factors were more likely to reject papers submitted as part of the project; (2) the chances were better, if the manuscript was allegedly based on empirical data; (3) peer reviews can be an important asset in the process of revising a manuscript; and (4) when the project authors, with academic education from neighboring disciplines, closely followed the reviewers’ advice, they were able to learn relatively quickly what is needed for writing an acceptable article. The boundary between a seriously written paper and a “hoax” gradually became blurred. Finally (5), the way the project ended showed that in the long run, the scientific community will uncover fraudulent practices.

Information security governance has become an elusive goal and a murky concept. This paper problematizes both information security governance and the broader concept of governance. What does it mean to govern information security, or for that matter, anything? Why have information technologies proven difficult to govern? And what assurances can governance provide for the billions of people who rely on information technologies every day? Drawing together several distinct bodies of literature—including multiple strands of governance theory, actor–network theory, and scholarship on sociotechnical regimes—this paper conceptualizes networked action on a spectrum from uncertain governance to governing uncertainty. I advance a twofold argument. First, I argue that networks can better govern uncertainty as they become more able not only to enroll actors in a collective agenda, but also to cut ties with those who seek to undermine that agenda. And second, I argue that the dominant conception of information security governance, which emphasizes governing uncertainty through risk management, in practice devolves to uncertain governance. This is largely because information technologies have evolved toward greater connectedness—and with it, greater vulnerability—creating a regime of insecurity. This evolution is illustrated using the history of the US government’s efforts to govern information security.

Drawing on sixty-one in-depth interviews conducted with commercial and noncommercial scientists at four universities in the United States, this paper examines why academic scientists embrace commercially oriented career paths in higher education. A central goal of this paper is to expand our descriptive and conceptual understanding of socialization in the academic profession by examining the explanatory power of differential association theory. Differential association theory emphasizes how patterns of behavior are learned through a process of interaction with different types of individuals with varying ideas about the acceptability of a particular course of action. The results demonstrate that socialization to commercialism is an interactive learning process in which scientists learn definitions that are favorable to commercial career trajectories. Such learning is often necessary because prior socialization can either lead to unfavorable views of commercialization or shelter doctoral students from techniques of and rationales for commercialization.

The importance of physical place for interdisciplinary research collaborations is often taken for granted by scientists and policy makers. One result of this is a trend of funding interdisciplinary research centers where scientists are colocated in the same building. Previous research findings on the matter are, however, ambiguous and show that though geographical proximity clearly matters, proximity is insufficient to foster interdisciplinary collaboration. This paper is based on an ethnographic study of a multi-sited Norwegian biotechnology research center—the Centre for Digital Life Norway (DLN), funded in 2015 to stimulate a transition in biotechnology research toward inter- and transdisciplinarity and digitalization. The multi-sited character makes DLN different from the much-studied trend of colocation of research groups in research centers. The paper asks: how are scientists socialized into an interdisciplinary mentality in a multi-sited research center? The analysis focus on three aspects: place, socialization, and the role of affective features and experiences. The paper’s main contribution is to demonstrate the role of placemaking in motivating for inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, in particular by allowing for development of affective relations among the participating scientists.

This paper explores a colonial controversy: the imposition of state rules to limit salmon fishing in a Scandinavian subarctic river. These rules reflect biological fish population models intended to preserve salmon populations, but this river has also been fished for centuries by indigenous Sámi people who have their own different practices and knowledges of the river and salmon. In theory, the Norwegian state recognizes traditional ecological knowledge and includes this in its biological assessments, but in practice this does not happen, so Sámi fishing practices and the realities that they enact are disappearing. This paper explores how to conceptualize colonial differences in knowing. Drawing on recent anthropology, it asks how (scientific) “settler” and (Sámi) “nomadic” enact worlds and their realities, suggesting that, unlike the latter, the former create a single reality intolerant of alternatives. The focus is thus on a “politics of how” and the ways in which colonial realities and knowledges might intersect less destructively.

Based on an ethnographic project in a public high school in a low-income neighborhood in South Los Angeles, this paper argues that access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) cannot be taken as helpful or empowering on its own terms; instead, concerns about justice must be accounted for by the local communities technology is meant to benefit. This paper juxtaposes the concept of technological access with recent work in feminist science and technology studies (STS) on infrastructure, maintenance, and ethics. In contrast to popular descriptions of ICTs as emancipatory and transformative, in the setting of an urban school, access produced extensive demands for attention, time, and information. This paper focuses on the labor of a group of student workers, Student Technology Leaders (STLs), and how they became responsible for the significant amount of repair and maintenance work involved in keeping hundreds of new computing devices available for use. An expanded process of accounting can more realistically frame issues of justice and its relationship to ICTs. I use a town hall meeting held with these students as an example of a processual vision of justice, one that encourages the beneficiaries of technological access to evaluate costs, benefits, and ethical concerns together.

Crediting scientific discovery for prolonging life is pervasive in biomedical histories of the genetic blood disorder, sickle cell disease. This includes the preventive strategies, such as newborn screening, that have underwritten the success of its life-extending interventions. Newborn screening is a technology that relies not only upon intact health infrastructures but also expertise and enhanced vigilance on the part of caregivers to anticipate complications while they are still open to circumvention. This paper posits that even after overcoming institutional barriers to make newborn screening equitably available, care and vigilance are resources that are themselves subject to what I term anticipatory politics, where structural conditions also stratify expectations for the future, including the affective appeal of medical innovations. This paper elaborates the paradigm of anticipatory politics through an ethnographic examination of newborn screening to connect the comprehensive care practices that have improved survival for sickle cell disease, and as the burden of mortality shifts to young adulthood, to expose how those who are resourced to care for these futures preferentially stand to benefit from preventive interventions.

The principles of the 3Rs—replacement, refinement, and reduction—strongly shape discussion of methods for performing more humane animal research and the regulation of this contested area of technoscience. This special issue looks back to the origins of the 3Rs principles through five papers that explore how it is enacted and challenged in practice and that develop critical considerations about its future. Three themes connect the papers in this special issue. These are (1) the multiplicity of roles enacted by those who use and care for animals in research, (2) the distribution of “feelings that matter” across species and spaces of laboratory animal practice, and (3) the growing importance of “cultures of care” in animal research.

Participatory forms of policy-making have often been criticized for insufficiently theorizing the coproduction of publics and matters of concern. This paper seeks to investigate this relationship further by analyzing how the concept of civic epistemologies (CEs) can provide insights for understanding how political contexts shape both publics and contestable debates. Presenting fieldwork on cyclone governance in Odisha, India, based on the analysis of interviews with vulnerable fishing communities and state actors, the article shows how CEs influence the interdependent formation of vulnerable fisher and state subjectivities on one hand with representations of risk located in external biophysical atmospheric gases on the other, thereby sustaining reductive roles and futures. At the same time, the paper develops the concept of CEs by examining them as performative acts carried out by marginalized communities and state actors at the subnational level of a nonindustrialized country, thereby indicating sites at which epistemic agency can be increased and governed. Participatory knowledge production needs to understand how it is affected by CEs if it is to generate effective expertise for transformative futures in the face of increasing climatic risks.

The platform is emerging as a key organizational form and operational logic of contemporary capitalism, intimately tied to financialization and assetization. However, discussions to date have focused on platforms and platformization in the context of the private, corporate, and technology sectors. In this paper, we develop an analysis of how platformization operates in the context of public policy. Using the UK’s National Health Service as a case study, we explore how platformization is altering the form and function of the state. The platformization of the NHS has its roots in the UK government’s strategic interest in the development of the bioeconomy. This led to the creation of a research infrastructure within the health service. Subsequently, the NHS has leveraged various assets into a range of data- and technology-focused initiatives. We argue that platformization has been a major form of neoliberalization within the NHS. The paper concludes with a discussion of what an analysis of public platformization can teach us about ongoing transformations of the state.

This paper explores how a particular form of regulation—prior ethical review of research—developed over time in a specific context, testing the claims of standard explanations for such change (which center on the role of exogenous shocks in the form of research scandals) against more recent theoretical approaches to institutional changes, which emphasize the role of gradual change. To makes its case, this paper draws on archival and interview material focusing on the research ethics review system in the UK National Health Service. Key insights center on the minimal role scandals play in shaping changes in this regulatory setting and how these depend upon the absence of a single coherent profession (and accompanying social contract) associated with biomedical research.