Collaboration as a Research Method? Navigating Social Scientific Involvement in Synthetic Biology

Philosophy of Engineering and Technology

Volumn 16, Issue , 2013, Pages 175-194

  Calvert, Jane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Conference Programme; Human Practice; Stem Cell Research; Synthetic Biologist; Synthetic Biology

Indexed keywords

EID: 85101627713     PISSN: 18797202     EISSN: 18797210     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_9     Document Type: Chapter

References (41)

1. Bijker, W. E. (1993). Do not despair: There is life after constructivism. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18(1), 113–138.
2. Buergi, B. R. (2010, September 2nd–4th). How do we collaborate? Scrutinizing the relationship between STS and biomedicine. European Association for the Studies of Science and Technology, Trento.
3. Calvert, J., & Martin, P. (2009). The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports, 10(3), 201–204.
4. Croissant, J. (1999). The view from the basement: The ethics and politics of teaching engineers while studying them. Anthropology of Work Review, XX(1), 22–27.
5. Doubleday, R., & Viseu, A. (2009). Questioning interdisciplinarity: What roles for laboratory based social science? In K. Kjolberg & F. Wickson (Eds.), Nano meets macro: Social perspectives on nano sciences and technologies (pp. 51–75). Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing.
6. Dyson, F. (2007, July 19). Our biotech future. The New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks. com/articles/20370/. Accessed 21 June 2012.
7. Edge, D. (1995). Reinventing the wheel. In S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 3–24). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
8. Fischer, M. (2011, January 6th–8th). Biopolis: Model organism? Biopolis enters its third five years. Asian Biopoleis: Biotechnology & biomedicine as emergent forms of life & practice, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
9. Fisher, E. (2005). Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications programme (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Programme. Technology in Society, 27, 321–328.
10. Forsythe, D. E. (1999). Ethics and politics of studying up in technoscience. Anthropology of Work Review, XX, 6–11.
11. Fortun, M. (2005). For an ethics of promising. New Genetics and Society, 24(2), 157–173.
12. Frow, E., & Calvert, J. (2013). “Can simple biological systems be built from standardized interchangeable parts?” Negotiating biology and engineering in a synthetic biology competition. Engineering Studies, 5(1), 42–58.
13. Guston, D. H. (2006). Toward centres for responsible innovation in the commercialized university. In J. M. Porter & P. W. B. Phillips (Eds.), Public science in liberal democracy: The challenge to science and democracy (pp. 295–312). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
14. Hamlin, C. (1992). Reflexivity in technology studies: Toward a technology of technology (and science)? Social Studies of Science, 22, 511–544.
15. Haraway, D. (1991). The actors are cyborg, nature is coyote and the geography is elsewhere. Postscript to “Cyborgs at large”. In C. Penley & A. Ross (Eds.), Technoculture (pp. 21–26). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
16. Holmes, D. R., & Marcus, G. E. (2008). Collaboration today and the re-imagination of the classic scene of fieldwork encounter. Collaborative Anthropologies, 1, 81–101.
17. Illes, J., & Bird, S. (2006). Neuroethics: A modern context for ethics in neuroscience. Trends in Neuroscience, 29 (9), 511–517.
18. Johnson, D., & Wetmore, J. (2007). STS and ethics: Implications for engineering ethics. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 567–581). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Kevles, D. J., & Hood, L. (1992). The code of codes: Scientific and social issues in the human genome project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Law, J., & Callon, M. (1988). Engineering and sociology in a military aircraft project. Social Problems, 35, 284–297.
21. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M. B., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication, 27(2), 268–287.
22. Marcus, G. E. (1997). The uses of complicity in the changing mise-en-scene of anthropological field work. Representations, 59(13), 85–108.
23. Marcus, G. E. (2005, June 27–28). Multi-sited ethnography: Five or six things I know about it now problems and possibilities. Multi-sited Ethnography workshop, University of Sussex. Online at: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/64/1/georgemarcus.pdf/. Accessed 21 June 2012.
24. Marcus, G. E. (2008). The end(s) of ethnography: Social/cultural anthropologys signature form of producing knowledge in transition. Cultural Anthropology, 23 (1), 1–14.
25. Marris, C., & Rose, N. (2010). Open engagement: Exploring public participation in the biosciences. PLoS Biology, 8(11), e1000549. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000549.
26. McGregor, J., & Wetmore, J. (2009). Research and teaching the ethics and social implications of emerging technologies in the laboratory. Nanoethics, 3(1), 17–30.
27. Paul, L., & Van den Belt, H. (2006). The institutionalisation of ethics in science policy; Practices and impact. Work Package 5: Ethics in food technologies. Online at: http://library.wur.nl/ebooks/1885868.pdf
28. Rabinow, P. (2002). French DNA: Trouble in purgatory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29. Rip, A. (2005, June 29). There is mainstreaming, loss of critical distance: Are STS scholars finally growing up? Paper presented at workshop Does STS Mean Business Too?, Said Business School, Oxford.
30. Rip, A. (2006). Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as Culture, 15(4), 349–365.
31. Robertson, J. A. (2001). Human embryonic stem cell research: Ethical and legal issues. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2, 74–78.
32. Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology, 41(5), 885–899.
33. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251–268.
34. Schuurbiers, D. (2008). Ethics in action. Winning essay of the Mekelprize 2008 for PhD students. Platform for ethics. Online at: http://www.cspo.org/library/other/?action=getfile&file=183&se ction=lib/. Accessed 21 June 2012.
35. Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(2), 1–25.
36. Smolke, C. D. (2009). Building outside of the box: iGEM and the BioBricks Foundation. Nature Biotechnology, 27(12), 1099–1102.
37. Stirling, A. (2005). Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In M. Leach, I. Scoones, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens. Globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 218–231). London: Zed.
38. Turnbull, D. (2000). Masons, Tricksters and Cartographers: Comparative studies in the sociology of scientific and indigenous knowledge. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
39. Vikkelsø, S. (2007). Description as intervention: Engagement and resistance in actor-network analyses. Science as Culture, 16(3), 297–309.
40. Webster, A. (2007). Crossing boundaries: Social science in the policy room. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32 (4), 458–478.
41. Zhang, J. Y, Marris, C., & Rose, N. (2011). The transnational governance of synthetic biology: Scientifi c uncertainty, cross-borderness and the art of governance (BIOS Working Paper No. 4). Online at: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294977685.pdf