Suchergebnisse

Much research in social studies of science addresses scientists' interpretative flexibility in the construction of scientific knowledge. This flexibility is readily visible among different scientists' competing knowledge-claims as well as in their accounts across different social settings. This article illustrates this process and discusses some of its implications through a case study of descriptions of acid rain in published scientific papers and Congressional testimony. As acid rain was flexibly reconstructed in Congressional testimony, its meanings and implications for control legislation became more contested. Some descriptions of acid rain that were intended to usefully clarify the phenomenon actually contributed to an impression of scientific uncertainty, and thereby further polarized debate.

Les études societies traitant les controverses et problèmes de l'environnement concentrent davantage leur attention sur les activités d'entrepreneur des hommes de science. Cet exposé sur le problème de la pluie acide aux États‐Unis analyse des activités 'réclamatrices' et de 'traduction' des premiers chercheurs‐universitaires concernant la pluie acide. Il explique aussi comment ceci permit aux hommes de science et chercheurs scientifiques de se situer au coeur de la controverse. L'article se concentre sur plusieurs points de la controverse concernant les pluies acides aux États‐Unis: la compréhension au cours des années 70 que les pluies acides étaient un problème scientifique et aussi un problème d'environnement, la création du National Atmospheric Deposition Program et le National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, et la construction des limites entre la science de la pluie acide et la vie politique. La position centrale de la recherche scientifique dans la controverse américaine sur les pluies acides sera ensuite comparée avec le rôle de la science dans le contexte canadien. Bien que la recherche scientifique soit placée au coeur dans les deux contextes, la politique en matière de la recherche scientifique concernant les pluies acides a étéélaborée par des institutions différentes, et pour des buts et des intérêts tout aussi différents.Social studies of environmental problems and controversies are focusing more attention on the entrepreneurial activities of scientists. This case study of the U.S. acid rain problem analyses the 'claimsmaking' and 'translation' activities of early, university‐affiliated, acid rain scientists and how they enabled scientists and scientific research to be situated in a central position in the controversy. The paper focuses on several areas of the U.S. acid rain controversy: the construction of acid rain as a scientific and environmental problem in the 1970s, the formation of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program and the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, and the construction of boundaries between acid rain science and politics. The centrality of science in the U.S. acid rain controversy is then compared with the role of science in the Canadian context. Even though science was centrally placed in each context, acid rain science policies were shaped by different institutional actors and for different goals and interests.

AbstractLarge-scale interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social sciences has been advocated by funding agencies for enhancing communication between science and society. However, the actual infrastructure design and operation remain challenging, particularly for social-science-led interdisciplinary centers, which normally do not have core scientific facilities or centralized laboratories to coordinate collaborations among disciplines. Drawing upon ethnographic and interview data, this paper examines how the notion of interdisciplinarity was practiced in two federally-funded Centers for Nanotechnology in Society. We show how federal policies, university cultures, and local organizational structures significantly impacted forms of interdisciplinary practice and identity. In addition, we show that individuals' interdisciplinary rhetoric, epistemic claims, and daily operation of interdisciplinarity require strong infrastructural support in terms of spatial and human resource arrangements to nurture cross-disciplinary coordination and trust as well as softening collaborative tensions while developing complementary projects.

"Climate, Science and Society: A Primer makes cutting edge research on climate change accessible to student readers. The Primer consists of 37 short chapters organized within 11 Parts written by science and technology studies (STS) and other social science scholars. It covers a range of key topics including communication, justice and inequality, climate policy and energy transitions, situating each one within the context of STS studies. Each reading translates a focused area of climate change research into short, accessible, and lively prose. Chapter authors open debates where relevant, consider policy implications, critique existing areas of research, and otherwise situate their reading within a larger body of research relevant to climate change courses. Designed as a jumping-off point for further exploration, this innovative book will be an essential reading for students studying climate change, STS, environmental sociology, and environmental sciences"--