“A sociology of science is crippled from the start if it
believes in the results of one science, namely sociology, to explain the others.
But it is still possible to follow how sciences are used to transform society
and redefine what it is made of and what are its aims” (Latour, 1983: 144).
In Anthropology of
Microbes, Benezra et al. provides a compelling argument about the
interdisciplinary need to join the work of human microbial ecologist to that of the anthropologist. The article also presented readers with very helpful
definitions in core topics to anthropology and their relation to biomedicine,
science and health (See Fig 1 on page 2). The article provides reasoning as to
why various schools of thought in anthropology and subfields are applicable to
microbial investigations. Additionally, the authors presented various concepts
& method that have the potential to join microbial ecology and anthropology in order to create a more collaborative study for microbes over time as population rises. I also appreciate this definition of the
function of anthropology that the authors provide: “Anthropology attempts to make up a holistic science
of humanity by studying the material history of humans and our biological
diversity, combined with analyses of the variability of cultures and cultural
practices” (1).
Karin Knoor Cetina’s chapter in Epistemic Cultures explains what a laboratory is and three realties
that can link laboratories as relational units.
Her idea of “reconfigurations in laboratories” suggests that scientist
and readers have to recognize and expect the need for different types of
laboratory processes. Laboratory
reconfigurations are salient to the kind of work done in each laboratory and
respond to natural & social orders and are not just sites that “house”
research. Knorr-Centina describes that scientist should conduct lab experiences
through “technologies of correspondence”, “technologies of treatment and
intervention” and technologies of representation”. Her article was most relevant to my work when she shaped the medical history of doctor patient interactions and the
historical changes of this dynamic. This portion of the reading has directed me
to look into the creation of “medical collectives” and the pros and cons in the
development from the bedside physician to the clinical physician (note Foucault
in this process).
I found Bruno Latour’s publication, Give Me A Laboratory and I Will Raise the World, uniquely parodical yet scholarly. Latour is arguing
against the sociology of science that originally suggested that the inside of
laboratories were irrelevant and not worth scientific inquiry. He argues
instead that the construction of the lab and “societal milieu” are worthy of
research. He writes, “It is time for sociology of science show sociologists and
social historians how societies are displaced and reformed with and through the
very contents of science”(161). Laboratories and the scientist that work in
them are actually quite “ordinary” and that network building both inside and
outside (but not limited to) of the laboratory will truly teach us more about
the significance of laboratories. Duana
Fullwiley also takes this introspective look at laboratories a step further in her
article, The Molecularization of Race:
Institutionalizing Human Difference in Pharmacogenetics Practice. Although
we’ve come to understand race as a social construction biological anthropology
still uses race quite to create categories for people and analyze various
differences and health issues. Fullwiley acknowledges that categories of race
differ inside and outside of the laboratory. The complexity of using racial categories really
forces the anthropology of science and STS studies to evaluate the nature vs.
culture model for race when used in laboratory studies. What I believe is missing from the literature is how scientist and anthropologist should grapple with this issue.
-Chelsey Carter
No comments:
Post a Comment