Editorial

It is rather typical, in my experience, for academic conference plenaries to look forward by looking back, and to do so through the eyes of the respective fields’ senior grand masters. One might fear that this strategy would result in zombie visions for a science based on stagnantly undead ideas. However, even though this year’s 4S conference plenary, held the night before Halloween, followed the traditional strategy of looking forward by looking back , and even though panelist and now-past president Michael Lynch attended the banquet later that evening as a zombie[1], the future views presented were quite fresh and inspiring.

Lynch exhorted us to raise the spirit of symmetry back amongst the living [2]. It seems to have become something of a mythical house god figure, something we ritually bow to in our methods sections, then turn our backs on as we face the world of our data and analyses. Perhaps it is time to go back and reread Bloor, if no further back than his own reflexive rereading in ST&HV (1997).

Judy Wajcman cheered us with stories of STS successes (e.g. Steve Epstein’s book award from the American Sociology Association), then sobered us by pointing out that technology determinism remains that “thundering herd of elephants” (Wyatt 2008) we need to continue to confront in area after expanding area.

Somewhere between the celebratory and the sobering, Sheila Jasanoff urged us to be patient. Our words, she said, will find their market if they are worthy; we just need to keep refining them.

Opting for somewhat less extrapolation, Karin Knorr-Cetina chose instead to dream an unlikely dream. What would she do, she speculated out loud, if she were offered a research fund of $10 million per year for the next 10 years? Her dream was to build an STS laboratory, preferably in California’s Silicon Valley. Not an impossible dream if the money were offered: Property prices have fallen there recently, yet the social and meteorological climates remain inviting — at least so far. In her dream, the lab would have five core activities. There would be research on explanatory cultures (i.e. studies of epistemologies and ontologies in the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and the public sphere), on interdisciplinary fields (e.g. biochemistry, psycho-immunology, neuro-just-about-anything, nano-ditto, and so on), on field mechanisms (such as authorship conventions, integration mechanisms, laboratorizations, and other organizational patterns), and on evaluative cultures (including cultures of evaluative negligence such as we have seen in finance of late). There would also be a science and technology studies media lab where creativity would reign, exhibits and media applications would be produced, policy advice would be developed, and observation studies on science in society would be conducted.

The prospect, however imaginary, of such lavish funding and the rich (double entendre intended) environment it might enable seemed a particularly fruitful image for triggering discussion after the panel presentations. The list of virtual project proposals and job applications grew with each hand raised. Perhaps that is a discussion we can continue in the Review. If you were invited to participate in Knorr-Cetina’s imaginary new STS lab, if you were invited to write your own project ticket with no holds barred and no belt-tightening budgets imposed, what would your proposal be? Perhaps from such a discussion new research networks will arise. Perhaps they will even write up their proposals; and perhaps, just perhaps even get them funded :D

The EASST Review Discussion Forums have been in hibernation of late. Due to constant spamming, I had to close down the sign-up function. Sign-ups can still be carried out, however, by sending me an email: annrs “at” svt.ntnu.no. I will open up a forum for virtual applications to Karin Knorr-Cetina’s dream lab. Anyone is welcome to read; registered forum participants are welcome to post. Let’s see how productively we can dream together. To participate in the collective dream, request forum membership from: annrs “at” svt.ntnu.no. Then go to: http://www1.svt.ntnu.no/forum/easst/viewforum.php?f=16

Notes:

1. A zombie banker, that is.
2. All references here to the plenary panel presentations are based on my hand-written and therefore somewhat skeletal notes.

References:

Bloor, D (1997) “Remember the Strong Program?” Science, Technology & Human Values, 22 (3): 373-385. http://www.jstor.org/stable/689894?seq=1

Wyatt, S (2008) “Technological Determinism Is Dead; Long Live Technological Determinism” in Hackett, Amsterdamska, Lynch & Wajcman (eds.) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3d edition, Cambridge MA: MIT Press: 165-180.