Helen: Questions and Reflections on The Construction of Science

I'm excited to discuss these readings about the rearing of physicists, the morals of a nuclear weapons specialist and the symbolic formation of a doctor's mind. Off the bat, I feel a sense of reassurance in knowing that science is like any other aspect of our lives - it is a field in which humans insert meaning, construct symbols and significance. Fields of science are different realities, in which there are proper frames of thought, rituals, norms and ways of understanding relationships with fellow scientists and with outsiders.

Here are some questions I have for discussion:

• As an anthropologist, and when we begin our own research in labs, is it helpful or harmful (or in no way significant) to insert our own biases into the discussion in the way that Gusterson wrote about his research with Sylvia? What purpose does this serve and who does this style of writing benefit?
• Who rights our textbooks? What political purpose of framing physicists as epic, masculine heroes in a romantic epic? Can we talk more about gender in "hard" sciences - and the term "hard" sciences itself? 
• In both the Traweek and Good, we see discussion of a training "novices" and shaping them into professionals in their respective fields. We see that they are trained to think in different ways, see the world and the people in it in different ways and are even conditioned to experience anxiety in very specific ways. What opinions do we have on an insulated community creating a bulk of knowledge, which we then transform into "truth" in our wider society? How and why is scientific knowledge held as an objective truth, when we see that there is a constant process of symbolic construction taking place?

I will post my longer weekly reflection later today! - Helen