Engaging Science, Technology, and Society https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests Open Access Journal Society for Social Studies of Science en-US <p>Authors of all content published in <em>ESTS</em> retain the copyright to their work, and agree to license them under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)</a> license. Please read our <a href="https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/open_access_policy">open access policy</a> for more information.</p> inquiry@estsjournal.org (ESTS Editors) inquiry@estsjournal.org (ESTS Editors) Thu, 02 Jun 2022 14:23:54 -0700 OJS 3.1.2.4 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Building Community with ESTS https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1671 <p>This editorial describes the crucial role of building transnationally diverse STS communities that our Editorial Collective (EC) has imagined and sought to implement for <em>Engaging Science, Technology, and Society (ESTS)</em>. Community-building as an ethic characterizes all aspects of our EC’s work: from editorial practices to infrastructural development, and from content publication to the broader initiatives that we undertake. In a context where the role of scholarly journals is increasingly instrumentalized through corporate-led valuation systems that effectively also render them largely inaccessible, we see this as an especially important value to affirm in and through strengthening open access publication.</p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">&nbsp;</span></p> Aalok Khandekar; Noela Invernizzi, Duygu Kaşdoğan, Ali Kenner, Angela Okune, Grant Jun Otsuki, Sujatha Raman, Amanda Windle, Emily York, ESTS Editorial Collective Copyright (c) 2022 Aalok Khandekar; Noela Invernizzi, Duygu Kaşdoğan, Ali Kenner, Angela Okune, Grant Jun Otsuki, Sujatha Raman, Amanda Windle, Emily York http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1671 Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 -0700 The Unique and the Universal: Analyzing the Interplay Between Regulatory Frameworks, Researchers and Research Participants in Data Making https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/929 <p>Contemporary health research is becoming increasingly data intensive with a dependency on more data, of different types, and on more people. Multiple measures are therefore taken to ensure a variety of data, for example by re-appropriating data collected for purposes other than research. In genetic research, there is a general aim of more personalized diagnostics and treatments. Personalization in many ways depends on access to a universal data pool to gain statistical strength when identifying rare variants affecting unique individuals. If the aim of identifying the unique depends on access to the universal, how are we then to understand the dialectic between these two concepts? Further, if data-intensive research thrives on repurposing data, how does the repurposing affect the interests of the people from whom the data derive? In this article, we explore these questions by comparing two Danish initiatives aimed at making more data available for research through repurposing: one from a screening program of newborns at the beginning of life; and the other through an educational program collecting bodies after death. They both involve reinventing the original collection practices and they illustrate how regulatory frameworks, researchers and research participants reason differently about what can be considered as unique and as universal, as well as the risks and benefits involved in participating in data-intensive research.</p> Francisca Nordfalk, Maria Olejaz, Klaus Høyer Copyright (c) 2022 Francisca Nordfalk, Maria Olejaz, Klaus Høyer https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/929 Sun, 29 May 2022 09:53:28 -0700 The Empowering Virtues of Citizen Science: Claiming Clean Air in Brussels https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/795 <p>The governance and monitoring of environmental hazards—and of air pollution in particular—is often dominated by technical expertise and scientific knowledge. Approaches of this kind remove the issue from the public debate and democratic deliberation: citizens are de facto excluded from related decision-making and their knowledge about the problem is barely taken into account. This article explores the potential and limits of citizen science to challenge unfair frameworks of environmental monitoring and governance, inasmuch as it empowers citizens, by enabling three critical processes: gaining knowledge, gaining epistemic recognition, and building transdisciplinary coalitions. Empirically, this study is based on AirCasting Brussels, a Citizen Science project that unrolled in Brussels in the context of a mobilization for cleaner air to which it contributed. The analysis shows that citizen science has increased the ability of participating communities to scrutinize air pollution policy and to contribute to and influence public discussion about it, albeit with certain limits. Overall, as a counterpart to their fundamental right to participate in democracy, Citizen Science proves effective to strengthen citizens’ capabilities to do so in a meaningful manner.</p> Nicola da Schio Copyright (c) 2022 Nicola da Schio https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/795 Sun, 29 May 2022 10:23:59 -0700 Science & Dissent: Alternative Temporalities, Geographies, Epistemologies https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/489 <p>The analysis of dissent, or the mobilization of scientific claims to challenge existing political arrangements, has a long history in STS and was central to the formation of the field of STS itself and its current contours. Based on a conference that sought to bring together analysts and activists from around the world and from varied disciplines, this collection illuminates new temporal, geographic, and epistemological lenses through which scientists and other people have creatively challenged relationships of power. First, by attending to long-past practices and to the long-term development of styles and forms of dissent and resistance in Latin America, South Asia, Africa, Europe, and the USA, contributors show how geography and situated forms of politics are mobilized in scientific dissent. Second, contributors also examine how political arrangements shape the ways that the movement of bodies, as well as their sensory qualities, is central to many forms of technoscientific dissent. A third focus, on epistemic politics, demonstrates how building parallel or alternative structures and systems of knowledge pose challenges to power arrangements, even when those systems are not mobilized to make formal legal or administrative challenges.</p> Kelly Moore, Bruno Strasser Copyright (c) 2022 Kelly Moore, Bruno Strasser https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/489 Mon, 30 May 2022 16:03:14 -0700 Collaborative Dissent: Noses as Shared Instruments in the Nineteenth-Century Fight for Public Health https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/481 <p>In the decades after the United States’ Civil War, city and state governments began to institutionalize organized public health, a process that gave physicians and chemists limited political power as officials. The emergence of boards of health as scientific-political institutions fostered but also undermined productive collaborations between chemists, physicians, and urban residents—collaborations of the sort that our contemporary citizen science hope to create, wherein experts and local lay persons shared authority. This paper interrogates the first phases of organized public health in Boston, Chicago, and New York City to reveal the forces that enabled productive collaborations between chemists and citizens, and to pinpoint how the demands of government and the law shifted the balance of power from local, embodied knowledge to quantitative measurement. For modern movements, these historic moments raise the question of how bodies can be mobilized as dissent—and of where scientists need to be physically located in urban environments and communities. Identifying and understanding the social and cultural factors that enabled collaborative dissent holds promise for contemporary urban environmental and health crises.</p> Melanie A. Kiechle Copyright (c) 2022 Melanie A. Kiechle https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/481 Mon, 30 May 2022 06:44:54 -0700 Creative Dissent in India: Knowledge Swaraj and the People’s Health Movement https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/471 <p>There is an increasing interest among STS scholars to go beyond public understanding of science to look at the role of social movements in shaping alternate science and exploring the role of scientific dissent and the reconfiguration of the relations between scientists and citizens. The increasing popularity of citizen science that seeks to reengage the public in science needs to be situated within broader social movements that have argued for more conversations on science and democracy. This paper explores the idea of scientific dissent in India within a rich and vibrant tradition of People’s Science Movement(s). We suggest that the dominance of the technoscientific elite has been countered in part through creative dissent by citizens and scientists working together in envisioning knowledge futures. Specifically, a citizen’s manifesto—<em>Knowledge Swaraj,</em> is examined for its potential to present a frame for science in civil society rooted around the principles of plurality, sustainability, and justice that could reclaim the citizen’s autonomy or ‘self-rule’. Through the case study of the knowledge created by the People’s Health Movement (PHM) in India from 1976–1990, we show how creative dissent has enabled multiple conversations about science, medicine, and democracy that both critique dominant state and market narratives and presents an alternative through dissenting scientists.</p> Shambu C. Prasad, Mathieu Quet Copyright (c) 2022 Shambu C. Prasad, Mathieu Quet https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/471 Tue, 31 May 2022 00:00:00 -0700 The Shapes of Dissent: Protest, Masculinities, and Nuclear Expertise https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/939 <p>Scholars have paid significant attention to the role of gender in social movements, especially in the women’s health and other feminist protest organizations. Gender issues have been less studied in other social movements, such as the anti-nuclear movement, and when they have, then almost always with a focus on the role of women. This paper explores the role of men and the performance of masculinities in protests against civilian nuclear energy. During the 1970s–1990s, activists performed three distinct forms of protest (sabotage, counter-information, and counter-expertise) in dissent against Superphénix, an experimental nuclear reactor built in Creys-Malville, France. This paper looks at how these different forms of protest were grounded in traditional Western views of masculinity, especially virility and paternalism. By comparing and contrasting counter-expertise in the anti-nuclear and the women’s health movement, the paper argues that anti-nuclear counter-expertise was less about providing an alternative view of nature, than personally discrediting official experts in a fight of “man against man” (<a href="#Lewontin1968REF">Lewontin 1968, 2</a>). Finally, it reflects on the consequences of these types of confrontational masculinity on the possibility of science-based dissent.</p> Bruno J. Strasser Copyright (c) 2022 Bruno J. Strasser https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/939 Mon, 30 May 2022 09:38:14 -0700 From Resistance to Co-Management?: Rethinking Scientization in the Contestation of the Technosciences https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/473 <p>Since the critique of science movements emerged in the 1970s, knowledge-power relationships in the technosciences have changed significantly. The mobilizations both of scientists to produce <em>science for the people</em> and of lay producers of knowledge and expertise have helped to remedy the perceived deficits of official science. STS research to date has abundantly and rather enthusiastically examined the forms and conditions of production of this critical, dissident, alternative knowledge, but few studies have looked at how scientific and political elites react to and engage with such knowledge-based mobilizations. Focusing on ways of governing techno-criticism, this article aims to contribute to filling this gap. It investigates the innovative capacity of social movements and public authorities as well as their capacity for renewal and ability to shift power relations in their favor, including in the inevitable crisis and scandal situations. Drawing on empirical evidence from a long-term sociohistorical study of the contestations over French nuclear complexes, I propose an analytical framework that distinguishes four historically situated modes of managing scientifically informed contestations of the technosciences. I conclude that scientized or expert activism can be most effective, including within top-down participatory settings, if it is accompanied by oppositional protest and even radical criticism.</p> Sezin Topçu Copyright (c) 2022 Sezin Topçu https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/473 Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 -0700 Knowledge Co-Production in Scientific and Activist Alliances: Unsettling Coloniality https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/479 <p>This paper examines alliances between scientists and local groups in the context of environmental justice conflicts. We analyze the trajectories of two white male scientific experts collaborating with activist groups in mining and nuclear conflicts around the world. We posit the knowledge co-production processes that take place in these collaborations can challenge (internal and external) power relations and hegemonic discourses around pollution. These collaborations can entail three types of co-production: (i) co-production of knowledge where new technical knowledge is co-created; (ii) co-production of interpretation through which knowledge is contextualized technically and politically; and (iii) the co-production of the mobilization of knowledge where different expertise collaborate in the elaboration of strategies based on their (scientific, local, Indigenous, traditional or experiential) knowledges and networks. Whilst knowledge co-production provides legitimacy and confidence to local groups; knowledge interpretation and its mobilization provide public legitimacy, visibility, and political leverage. This paper unsettles seemingly colonial processes pointing to the importance of locally driven alliances, the collaborative dynamics at play merging local and scientific expertise as well as the motivations and trajectories of scientists and local groups. Our approach makes visible how these alliances are the result of supra-local networks of support that connect scientists with local groups struggling against extractive activities.</p> Marta Conde, Mariana Walter Copyright (c) 2022 Marta Conde, Mariana Walter https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/479 Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 -0700 Seed Schools in Colombia and the Generative Character of Sociotechnical Dissent https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/487 <p>In STS, dissent has typically been understood as resistance, a way of saying “no” that is intended to generate change in discourses, material systems, and forms of law and rule that would then govern those who are aggrieved. Using the case of La Red de Semillas Libres de Colombia (RSL) [Network of Free Seeds of Colombia], this paper builds on another approach most visible in feminist, decolonial, and indigenous STS that examines rebuilding rather than direct resistance. Drawing from interviews and participant observation, we show that RSL’s practices of “generative dissent” are temporally distinctive in three ways. Firstly, RSL’s emphasize knowledge-making in the present, they address bio- and social tempos situated in understandings of both the past and the future. Secondly, RSL re-form the bios revitalizing emotional and social capacities. And finally, they reshape human and more-than-human worlds by invigorating biosocial kinships and university-community epistemic ties.</p> Nathalia Hernandez Vidal, Kelly Moore Copyright (c) 2022 Kelly Moore, Nathalia Hernandez Vidal https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/487 Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 -0700 How to Deal with Cosmoecological Perplexities: Artscience, Critical Zones, Pluriversal Politics https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1461 <p>In this review essay, I discuss the relations between Clarissa Lee’s (2021) <em>Artscience: A Curious Education</em>, Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel’s (2020) edition <em>Critical Zones: The Science and Politics of Landing on Earth</em>, and Arturo Escobar’s (2020) <em>Pluriversal Politics: The Real and the Possible</em> from the point of view of their contribution to cosmoecology and the need to think and inhabit the earth differently.</p> Casper Bruun Jensen Copyright (c) 2022 Casper Bruun Jensen http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1461 Mon, 30 May 2022 15:35:59 -0700 The Shapes of Dissent: Protest, Masculinities, and Nuclear Expertise https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1735 <p>The author has identified the following error in the published article:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Errata for Strasser, Bruno J. 2022. “The Shapes of Dissent: Masculinities, Protest, and Nuclear Expertise.” <em>Engaging Science, Technology, and Society</em> 8(1): 105–127. <a href="https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.939">https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.939</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li class="show">On page 109, in the main copy it should read “Creys-Malville was different from all other existing commercial reactors and was envisioned as a public demonstration that this technology was the way to the future (<a href="#Renard2018REF">Le Renard 2018</a>)” rather than Superphénix.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li class="show">On page 112, in the main copy it should read “Public protests against Superphénix began as early as 1976, both around the construction site and in nearby cities.” rather than Creys-Malville.</li> </ul> Bruno Strasser, Editorial Collective Copyright (c) 2022 A N Windle http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1735 Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:24:29 -0700 Science & Dissent: Alternative Temporalities, Geographies, Epistemologies https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1737 <p>The authors have identified the following error in the published article:</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>This Erratum relates to the following article: Moore, Kelly, and Bruno J. Strasser. 2022. “Science &amp; Dissent: Alternative Temporalities, Geographies, Epistemologies.” <em>Engaging Science, Technology, and Society</em> 8(1): 53–71. <a href="https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.489">https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.489</a>.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li class="show">On page 59, in the main copy it should read: “Instead of focusing on “types” of dissent or static rules that shape the outcome of dissent, like Delborne (<a href="#Delborne2008REF">2008</a>), traces dissent and resistance as longer-term projects with varied cultural meanings, undercutting the focus on “wins” or “losses,” since changes in law, economy and personnel can easily modify a given outcome.” Rather than, “Instead of focusing on “types” of dissent or static rules that shape the outcome of dissent, like Delborne (<a href="#Delborne2008REF">2008</a>), the variety of approaches trace dissent and resistance as longer-term projects with varied cultural meanings, undercutting the focus on “wins” or “losses,” since changes in law, economy and personnel can easily modify a given outcome.”</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li class="show">On page 63, in the main copy the reference to (<a href="#Topçu2022REF">Topçu 2022</a>) has been added when the author’s work has been referenced.</li> </ul> <p>&nbsp;</p> <ul> <li class="show">On page 65, in the acknowledgements the following addition has been made: “as well as the Swiss National Science Foundation for generous funding through a Consolidator Grant BSCGIO_158887 (BJ Strasser).” The acknowledgment now reads: “We thank Nathalia Hernández Vidal, and the reviewers and editors of <em>Engaging Science, Technology and Society</em> for their guidance and comments, as well as the Swiss National Science Foundation for generous funding through a Consolidator Grant BSCGIO_158887 (BJ Strasser).”</li> </ul> Kelly Moore, Bruno Strasser, Editorial Collective Copyright (c) 2022 Editorial Collective, Kelly Moore, Bruno Strasser http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1737 Fri, 24 Jun 2022 16:03:02 -0700