Materials

Agre, Philip E. 2001. "Legitimacy and Reason in the Florida Election Controversy." Social Studies of Science 31:419-422.

Brante, Thomas, and Margareta Hallberg. 1991. "Brain or Heart? The Controversy over the Concept of Death." Social Studies of Science 21:389-413.

Extended controversies over a new definition of death have occurred in most Western countries, providing good examples of the kind of 'science-based' disputes that increasingly characterize the policy of contemporary welfare states. In this paper, with the aim of introducing and testing a conceptual framework capable of capturing the more general features of such controversies. we reconstruct and examine the death-concept dispute in Sweden. The controversy is approached from both a diachronic and synchronic perspective. First concepts are proposed for characterizing its origin, crystallization and termination. Then. we categorize and outline its 'argumentative structure' and typically 'mixed' character. Finally, we discuss some key concepts for understanding the sources of rival contentions, and apply them in more detail. In conclusion, we suggest that science-based controversies constitute an important research site for turning extant sociology and philosophy of science into a more politically relevant research field.

Dolman, Han, and Henk Bodewitz. 1985. "Sedimentation of a Scientific Concept: The Use of Citation Data." Social Studies of Science 15:507-523.

The sedimentation of aknowledge claim is studied by context-analysis of a key paper by the neuropharmacologist De Wied. This paper formulated the neuropeptide concept, which relates neuropeptide production within the central nervous system to there gulatory function of thesepeptides forlearning and memory processes. Different citation classifications are introduced, which make it possible to interpret the analysis within the framework of 'sedimentation: as outlined by Ludwik Fleck. It is shown that, in agreement with Fleck, these dimentation is easier in applied scientific and popular circles, distant from the inner circle of the neuropeptides research field in which De Wiedworks. However, accounts of neuropeptide research in handbooks did not show the stronger sedimentation, as claimed by Fleck; instead, the evidence for the concept is built up again and again, indicating that the concept is not fully accepted in the inner circle of the research field. The main conclusions are affirmed by the analysis ofa controversy on De Wied's work which arose recently in the literature.

Jasanoff, Sheila. 1996. "Beyond Epistemology: Relativism and Engagement in the Politics of Science." Social Studies of Science 26:393-418.

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that work in the social studies of science and technology can be appropriated, or consciously deployed, to serve political ends. Correspondingly, pressure has risen on scholars in this field to choose sides in controversies involving science and technology. This paper argues that 'co-production' -the simultaneous production of knowledge and social order -provides a more satisfying conceptual framework than 'controversy' for understanding the relationship between science and society, and the scholar's r6le in that relationship. Political engagement is better achieved through reflexive, critical scholarship than through identification with apparent 'winners' or 'losers' in well-defined but contingent controversies. Reflexivity is especially desirable when selecting sites for research, styles of explanation, and methods of articulating normative positions.

Jasanoff, Sheila S. 1987. "Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science." Social Studies of Science 17:195-230.

In the United States, as in other industrialized nations, regulatory decisions to protect the environment and public health depend heavily on scientific information. Yet the process of decision-making places unusual strains on science. Knowledge claims are deconstructed during the rule-making process, exposing areas of weakness or uncertainty and threatening the cognitive authority of science. At the same time, the legitimacy of the final regulatory decision depends upon the regulator's ability to reconstruct a plausible scientific rationale for the proposed action. The processes of deconstructing and reconstructing knowledge claims give rise to competition among scientists, public officials and political interest groups, all of whom have a stake in determining how policy-relevant science should be interpreted and by whom. All of these actors use boundary-defining language in order to distinguish between science and policy, and to allocate the right to interpret science in ways that further their own interests. This paper explores the contours of such boundary disputes in the context of controversies over carcinogen regulation. It focuses on the contested definitions and strategic implications of three groups of concepts: trans-science or science policy, risk assessment and risk management, and peer review.

Kennefick, Daniel. 2000. "Star Crushing:: Theoretical Practice and the Theoreticians' Regress." Social Studies of Science 30:5-40.

This paper presents a case study of a recent controversy among theoretical physicists modelled on case studies of experimental science conducted in recent times by sociologists and historians. The principal source is a series of interviews with leading participants in the controversy. I have also read published papers pertaining to the debate and the study is informed by my own experience as a researcher in the relevant field of theoretical physics during the earliest period of the controversy. I argue, on the basis of this study, that the work of theorists can be very like the work of experimentalists. Concepts such as 'tacit knowledge', and problems of replicability, may be just as relevant to the study of theorists as they are to experimenters. In analogy with Collins' 'Experimenters' Regress', I propose the existence of a 'Theoreticians' Regress' which expresses the difficulty theorists have in judging the correctness of rival calculations when the best or only test of their validity is their own result, which is itself in dispute.
Keywords: computing controversy physics replication tacit knowledge

Latour, Bruno, Philippe Mauguin, and Genevieve Teil. 1992. "A Note on Socio-Technical Graphs." Social Studies of Science 22:33-57.

This paper reports on an attempt to create a new research tool, to follow the dynamics of science and technology. 'Socio-TechnicalAnalysis' develops new quantitative indicators and graphic representationswith which to map the development of a scientific controversy,or a technical innovation. The aim of the paper is to describe this approach, to stimulate reflexion and criticism, and to launch what can only be a collective project.

Turner, R. Steven. 2001. "On Telling Regulatory Tales: rBST Comes to Canada." Social Studies of Science 31:475-506.

The analysis of technoscientific regulatory controversies is now an established genre within science studies, with a small but important methodological and meta-literature. That literature has only rarely noted how published accounts of particular controversies inevitably employ narrational strategies, including decisions about emplotment, time-frames, character-motivation, and the use of tropes, to endow these stories with political and epistemological meaning. In an exercise designed to recover these narrational elements and promote narrative consciousness, this paper presents two separate accounts of a single important controversy: Canada's recent regulatory experience with the Monsanto Corporation's recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). The discussion points out the different narrational strategies employed in each account, and analyses how these strategies interact with explicit or theory-based interpretive approaches to determine how the accounts contribute to 'public moral argument' about regulatory affairs. It concludes with broader speculations on the advantages that a greater reliance on narrative form has to offer the field of controversy-analysis and science studies in general.
Keywords: agriculture, biotechnology, controversy, narrative, recombinant bovine somatotropin, rhetoric