Are anthropologist respected as contributors to scientific inquiry? Trying to understand the Anthropology of Science

I really enjoyed this week’s reading. Coming into this class with significant background as an ethnographer, I was eager to learn about the anthropology of science. David Hess challenges the confines of “good” ethnography and how ethnography is possible in a scientific laboratory.  Hess tries to convinces his audience that although their have been strides in creating a good model for STS ethnography, more steps can be made to improve this research model.  Nevertheless, there are several non- traditional ethnographic methods that STS ethnography follows that are concerning to me. I believe that being the “lone” anthropologist, who learns from their informants, is critical to creating pure, unbiased, ethical fieldwork.  Hess argues that STS research does not adhere to the “lone anthropologist” standard and that often they may know more than their informants and/or are even employed by their informants. Hess vaguely criticizes that this creates a complicated relationship between ethnographer and informant because it may cause the research to be restricted or changed. I would postulate that this would actually make the research inauthentic and not “double blind”. Research that is affected by an exchange of funds between informant and ethnographer is risky and compromises the research. Personally, I believe that informants should not employ ethnographers or be financial connected to them as this has several ethical implications to the research and field. This criticism is similarly suggested in Max Weber’s article, “Science as Vocation”.  Weber notes the influence of capitalism, politics, and leadership on the salary, professional advancement, or recognition of the quality of work of a scientist. Weber suggests that scientist ought to have a personal connection to their work and should not just see their work as business but as their life’s passionate work. This is often compromised when financial gains interfere.

Lastly, while reading these articles, especially “Coming of Age in a Weapons Lab: Culture, Tradition, and Change in the House of the Bomb” by Hugh Gusterson, one cant help but have certain assumptions of scientist. Are they only for high pay? Do they even care about their work in an altruistic way? Do they care how their work shapes and affects society? Hess mentioned in his article that often scientist question the necessity of understanding “culture” or any social implications of their research as it is often seen as non-scientific. I felt this echoed in Gusterson’s work as he interviewed nuclear scientist. Do scientist see the ethnographers research and empirical or theoretical goals as important? Do they hold them to the same regard as the work they do in their labs? It felt as though Gusterson’s work was “fun” to the scientist he interviewed. As they analyzed and built nuclear bombs, Gusterson asked questions and watched what they did for his fieldwork…research. Often, as an aspiring medical anthropologist, I wonder if there is a legitimate space for us in science and if our work is respected and esteemed as scientific inquiry.   I hope to develop this and my understanding of the anthropology of science more throughout this semester as I begin shaping my own doctoral work.

-Chelsey Carter