Suchergebnisse

The reform movement in science is seemingly constructing a new moral economy of science around process and bureaucracy, in which a new scientific etiquette is emerging that prescribes the performance of reformed science as civilised, efficient and objective. Bureaucratic innovations were borne out of the reform movement that seek to prescribe specific research processes, including but not limited to preregistration and registered reports. This moral economy emerges in the form of a bureaucracy and its epistemic uniformity actively suppresses scientific plurality. This paper argues that Eliasian drivers such as distinction, shame and disgust, act to pressure scientists into adopting this new etiquette. Even though the etiquette's appearance is quite new, it can be traced back to existing moral economies of science and their pursuit of efficiency and objectivity.

The Marches for Science this April celebrated the unique role of science as well as nerd culture. But their portrayal of science's exceptionalism and elitism did little to convince citizens wary of how science affects politics and their lives.

This article presents the making of a safe innovation: the application of ice structuring protein (ISP) in edible ices. It argues that safety is not the absence of risk but is an active accomplishment; innovations are not made safe afterward but safe innovations are made. Furthermore, there are multiple safeties to be accomplished in the innovation process. These are financial, public, scientific, and regulatory safety. The negotiations between these safeties determine the material and labeling characteristics of what ISP has become. Not just laboratory researchers but experts from various parts of Unilever, the corporation that produces ISP, participate in accomplishing safety. The safeties they make, interact, overlap, are occasionally in conflict with one another, and continuously connect to outside actors.

Durch den Anstieg sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschungsprogramme wird eine kohärente Darstellung ihrer Ergebnisse immer schwieriger. Obwohl der Sammelband von Andrew WEBSTER nicht nur eine Fülle an sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung präsentiert, sondern auch aus vielen weiteren Gründen lesenswert ist, finden die berechtigten Anliegen ihre Grenze alleine bereits in der enormen Breite des Bandes. Im folgenden Artikel werden wir das Buch an sich besprechen, aber auch der Frage nachgehen, was es heißt, groß angelegte sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungsprogramme zu bewerten. Wir schlagen hierzu ein alternatives Vorgehen vor: die Ergografie. Die Ergografie lenkt den Blick nicht so sehr auf die Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprogramms, sondern vielmehr auf die Arbeit, die in dessen Rahmen geleistet wurde. Die Ergografie ermöglicht den Lesenden eine eigene Einschätzung vorzunehmen und zielt zugleich darauf ab, ihnen einen direkten Einblick in die beteiligenden Labors, Arztzimmer und Krankenhäuser zu geben. [Übersetzung durch Dr. Arno Müller, Maastricht Universität, Niederlande.]

Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- List of Contributors -- Acknowledgements -- PART I INTRODUCTION -- 1 When Scientists, Scholars, Clinicians, Physicians and Patients Meet -- 2 The Evolution of Collaborations in Health Sciences Measured by Co-authorship -- PART II COLLABORATION IN HEALTH RESEARCH -- 3 From Virus to Vaccine: Projectification of Science in the VIRGO Consortium -- 4 Who Wants to Collaborate with Social Scientists? Biomedical and Clinical Scientists' Perceptions of Social Science -- 5 Credible to Collaborators Themselves: How Corporations and Trade Associations Made Trans Fats into a Problem -- PART III COLLABORATIVE HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURES -- 6 The Compound Collaborations of Clinical Registries -- 7 Scripted Collaboration: Digitalisation of Care for Children -- PART IV COLLABORATION IN HEALTH CARE -- 8 Shifting Collaborations and the Quest for Legitimacy: Observation of Regenerative Medicine Research in Japan -- 9 Boundary-Spanning Engagements on a Neonatal Ward: Reflections on a Collaborative Entanglement between Clinicians and a Researcher -- 10 Health Care Collaboration Between Patients and Physicians -- PART V CONCLUSION -- 11 The Health of Collaborations: A Reflection

Incessant food safety scandals in China have given rise to a loss of public trust in food safety, stimulating a series of studies focussing on food safety governance, accountability, and trust restoration. Against this backdrop, Chinese scholars are keen to reflect on different strategies for ensuring food safety public accountability and credibility, presenting different perspectives on issues like responsibility, trust, risk communication, and transparency. In this paper, we aim to get more in-depth insight into how Chinese scholarly debates co-construct public accountability for food safety as a public issue. We selected 51 articles from 10,790 candidates drawn from four Chinese academic databases for content analysis. Drawing from political theories on public accountability as well as science and technology studies, the analysis shows that arguments for a specific public accountability model (more or less centralised, more or less stakeholder participation) are intertwined with the specific role of scientific expertise (more or less authoritative, more or less democratising). As such, the analysis shows how scholarly debates on public accountability for food safety in China co-construct a public forum for discussing supervision and accountability, risk assessment, and transparency.

A series of vaccine incidents have stimulated vaccine hesitance in China over the last decade. Many scholars have studied the institutional management of these incidents, but a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives on vaccine hesitancy in China is missing. To address this lacuna, we conducted in-depth interviews and collected online data to explore diverse stakeholders' narratives on vaccine hesitance. Our analysis shows the different perspectives of medical experts, journalists, parents, and self-defined vaccination victims on vaccination and vaccination hesitance. Medical experts generally consider vaccines, despite some flaws, as safe, and they consider most vaccine safety incidents to be related to coupling symptoms, not to vaccinations. Some parents agree with medical experts, but most do not trust vaccine safety and do not want to put their children at risk. Media professionals, online medical experts, and doctors who do not need to align with the political goal of maintaining a high vaccination rate are less positive about vaccination and consider vaccine hesitance a failure of expert-lay communication in China. Our analysis exhibits the tensions of medical expert and lay perspectives on vaccine hesitance, and suggests that vaccination experts 'see like a state', which is a finding consistent with other studies that have identified the over-politicization of expert-lay communication in Chinese public discourse. Chinese parents need space to express their concerns so that vaccination programs can attune to them.

Despite the well-developed Chinese National Immunization Program, vaccine hesitancy in China is rising. As part of the response, Chinese scholars have studied determinants and proposed solutions to vaccination hesitancy. We performed a scoping review of Chinese literature (2007-2019), drawn from four Chinese databases. We mapped relevant information and presented a systemic account of the proposed determinants and responses to vaccine hesitancy in China. We identified 77 relevant studies that reveal four approaches to vaccine hesitancy. Most Chinese studies define vaccine hesitancy as a problem of vaccine safety and vaccine incident response and place accountability on the level of governance, such as regulation deficits and inappropriate crisis management. A first minority of studies tied vaccination hesitancy to unprofessional medical conduct and called for additional resources and enhanced physician qualifications. A second minority of studies positioned vaccination hesitancy as a problem of parental belief and pointed to the role of media, proposing enhanced communication and education. Chinese literature ties vaccine hesitancy primarily to vaccine safety and medical conduct. Compared to international research, parental concerns are underrepresented. The Chinese context of vaccination scandals notably frames the discussion of vaccination hesitancy and potential solutions, which stresses the importance of considering vaccination hesitancy in specific social and political contexts.

A series of vaccine incidents have stimulated vaccine hesitance in China over the last decade. Many scholars have studied the institutional management of these incidents, but a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives on vaccine hesitancy in China is missing. To address this lacuna, we conducted in-depth interviews and collected online data to explore diverse stakeholders' narratives on vaccine hesitance. Our analysis shows the different perspectives of medical experts, journalists, parents, and self-defined vaccination victims on vaccination and vaccination hesitance. Medical experts generally consider vaccines, despite some flaws, as safe, and they consider most vaccine safety incidents to be related to coupling symptoms, not to vaccinations. Some parents agree with medical experts, but most do not trust vaccine safety and do not want to put their children at risk. Media professionals, online medical experts, and doctors who do not need to align with the political goal of maintaining a high vaccination rate are less positive about vaccination and consider vaccine hesitance a failure of expert–lay communication in China. Our analysis exhibits the tensions of medical expert and lay perspectives on vaccine hesitance, and suggests that vaccination experts 'see like a state', which is a finding consistent with other studies that have identified the over-politicization of expert–lay communication in Chinese public discourse. Chinese parents need space to express their concerns so that vaccination programs can attune to them.