Search

The European Research Council (ERC) receives many high-quality applications, but funds only a few. We analyze how members of ERC review panels assess applications in the first, highly competitive step of evaluations for ERC Starting and Consolidator Grants. Drawing on interviews with ERC panel members in different fields, we show that they adopt a set of "evaluation devices" that offer pragmatic and standardized ways of evaluating in a time-constrained and highly competitive setting. Through the use of evaluation devices, panel reviewers enact and generate a distinct "reviewing expertise" that encompasses subject-specific knowledge and knowledge about how to accomplish evaluation within a situated setting. We find that ERC panel reviewers employ four evaluation devices during the first step of ERC reviews: first, reviewers base judgments on applicants' prior achievements ("delegation devices"); second, they adjust their evaluations of individual applications to the quality of a given set of applications ("calibration devices"); third, they combine multiple elements to assess the feasibility of proposals ("articulation devices"); and finally, they consider the impact of the proposed research on science and society ("contribution devices"). We show that the current use of these devices generates what we have termed "evaluative pragmatism": a mode of reviewing that is shaped by and accommodated to the need to review many high-quality proposals in a short time period with possibly limited expert knowledge. In conclusion, we discuss how the prevalence of evaluative pragmatism in the first step of ERC panel reviews shapes candidate selection, particularly regarding human and epistemic diversity in European research.

AI-enabled chatbots intended to build social relations with humans are becoming increasingly common in the marketplace, with millions of registered users using these chatbots as virtual companions or therapists. These chatbots make use of what is often called the "Eliza effect"—the tendency of human users to attribute human-like knowledge and understanding to a computer program. A common interpretation of this phenomenon is to consider this form of relating in terms of delusion, error, or deception, where the user misunderstands or forgets they are talking to a computer. As an alternative, we draw on the work of feminist Science and Technology Studies scholars as providing a robust and capacious tradition of thinking and engaging with human–nonhuman relationships in non-reductive ways. We closely analyze two different stories about encounters with chatbots, taking up the feminist STS challenge to attend to the agency of significant otherness in the encounter. The first is Joseph Weizenbaum's story about rejecting the ELIZA chatbot technology he designed to mimic a therapist as a monstrosity, based on his experiences watching others engage with it. The second is a story about Julie, who experiences a mental health crisis, and her chatbot Navi, as told through her descriptions of her experiences with Navi in the recent podcast Radiotopia presents: Bot Love. We argue that a reactionary humanist narrative, as presented by Weizenbaum, is incapable of attending to the possibilities of pleasure, play, or even healing that might occur in human–chatbot relatings. Other forms of engaging with, understanding, and making sense of this new technology and its potentialities are needed both in research and mental health practice, particularly as more and more patients will begin to use these technologies alongside engaging in traditional human-led psychotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare is being discussed as an increasingly important application domain for new digital, artificial intelligence–enabled, and robotic technologies. This area has garnered interest from policymakers who seek to harness technological advancements in their quest for providing adequate healthcare to aging populations and modernizing healthcare jobs. In this article, we analyze the sociotechnical imaginary of healthcare technology constructed in German public policy. We analyze 22 pertinent German policy documents from the years 2018–22, drawing on a conceptual frame of sociotechnical imaginaries and dramaturgical studies of futuring. Our analysis shows how healthcare is imagined as a sector in crisis, how technology is promoted as a solution, and how anticipated resistances to technological solutions are being met with the narratives of "technological assistance," the provision of "good care," and the facilitation of "good work" within the healthcare sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interdisciplinarity is often framed as crucial for addressing the complex problems of contemporary society and for achieving new levels of innovation. But while science policy and institutions have provided a variety of incentives for stimulating interdisciplinary work throughout Europe, there is also growing evidence that some aspects of the academic system do not necessarily reward interdisciplinary work. In this study, we explore how mid-career researchers in an environmental science research center in Sweden relate to and handle the distinct forms of uncertainty that arise from conflicting institutional and policy impulses. Our material suggests that interdisciplinary academics are often confronted with and at times themselves operate with a surprisingly dichotomous, value-laden view of their research practice. Disciplinarity is primarily associated with the ideals of scientific rigor, while interdisciplinarity becomes conflated with application-oriented work and a lack of 'theory.' We also draw attention to the underlying practical dynamics that reproduce this tension and entangle it with the very process of academic socialization. Specifically, we analyze the ambivalent consequences of the various work-arounds that researchers rely on to carve out opportunities for ongoing interdisciplinary research within heterogeneous funding landscapes. These tactics turn out to be undermined by the overriding normative power of formal career incentives at universities, which continue to emphasize the ideals of the individual high-performing academic who publishes in disciplinary journals and attracts the most selective grants. Under such circumstances, the work-arounds themselves become an insidious mechanism that allows researchers to stay in academia but systematically marginalizes their voices and epistemic ambitions in the process.

The common house mosquito (Culex pipiens) is a native vector for West Nile virus (WNV). Invasive species like the tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) and Asian bush mosquito (Aedes japonicus) are rapidly spreading through Europe, posing a major threat as vectors for dengue, chikungunya (CHIKV), and Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV). These mosquitoes share a similar ecological niche as larvae, but the carry-over effects of aquatic larval interactions to the terrestrial adult stage remain largely unknown and their medical relevance requires further investigation. This study examines the context dependency of larval interactions among Aedes albopictus, Aedes japonicus, and Culex pipiens. The survival, development time, growth, and energetic storage were measured in different European populations within density-response (intraspecific) experiments and replacement (interspecific) experiments at 20 °C and 26 °C. Overall, Ae. japonicus was the weakest competitor, while competition between Ae. albopictus and Cx. pipiens varied with temperature. Adults emerging from this larval competition were infected as follows: Culex pipiens with WNV, Ae. albopictus with CHIKV, and Ae. japonicus with JEV. While no JEV infection was observed, mosquitoes experiencing interspecific interactions during their larval stages exhibited higher infection rates and viral RNA titers for CHIKV and WNV. This increased susceptibility to viral infection after larval competition suggests a higher risk of arbovirus transmission in co-occurring populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Punctuated by joy, disappointments, and conflicts, research evaluation constitutes an intense, emotional moment in scientific life. Yet reviewers and research institutions often expect evaluations to be conducted objectively and dispassionately. Inspired by the scholarship describing the role of emotions in scientific practices, we argue instead, that reviewers actively define, display and manage their emotions in response to the structural organization of research evaluation. Our article examines reviewing practices used in the European Research Council's (ERC) Starting and Consolidator grants and in the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action's (MSCA) Individual Fellowships. These two European funding mechanisms offer different perspectives on the organization of grant evaluation. We conducted interviews with review panel members and analyzed various institutional documents. By drawing on the sociological concepts of feeling rules and emotional work, we demonstrate that reviewers define rules concerning how emotions should be experienced and expressed to ensure the proper functioning of evaluation, and that reviewers experience the need to actively regulate their emotions to comply with these rules. We present four feeling rules concerning the experience and expression of: (1) excitement for novelty during individual evaluation; (2) respect for others' opinions and the absence of anger in review panels; (3) attentiveness and interest, which are seen as missing in online evaluations. Reviewers also expect ERC candidates to (4) avoid pride and manifest modesty during interviews. These rules demonstrate that proposal peer review is governed by emotional norms, and show the influence of organizational settings and moral requirements on research evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The invasive mosquito species Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1894) is rapidly spreading in Europe, posing an increasing threat because of its high vector competence for chikungunya and dengue virus. An integrative and eco-friendly control of these populations is required to prevent mosquito-borne disease outbreaks. Traditionally-used insecticides or other chemical control agents are often expensive, harmful to the environment, strictly controlled or completely banned in several countries. Additionally, insecticide resistance is a potential threat. One possibility for biological control agents is the use of native aquatic beetles as natural predators of mosquitoes to boost Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) interventions. Thirty predatory aquatic beetle taxa were caught in Belgium and kept at the Institute of Tropical Medicine's insectary to test predation rate and prey choice on Aedes albopictus and Culex pipiens Linnaeus, 1758. Predation rates suggest at least four efficient dytiscid predators that are known to inhabit small, temporary habitats in Europe. Further experiments on prey choice reveal a clear preference for Aedes albopictus over alternative larval prey (Culex pipiens, Daphnia sp., Chaoboridae). We found a strong ecological overlap of the feeding niche of A. albopictus and the hunting zone of dytiscid predators in the benthic layer of small waterbodies. Our findings on the efficacy are very encouraging to further assess the potential of native predacious diving beetles as a biological control agent against the invasive A. albopictus in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]