Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||This presentation reports on social science research undertaken for a Flagship Project at the Centre for Economics & Social Aspects of Genomics (CESAGen), funded by the UK Economic & Social Research Council (ESRC).  We are studying proteomics from the field of science & technology studies (STS), a field interested in how scientific facts and knowledge are made. Historically, the field has used laboratory studies as a research method, whereby the social scientist spends time in a laboratory, observing and sometimes participating in the daily practices of the scientific “tribe” under study. Latour and Woolgar’s Laboratory Life, one of the seminal works in our field, is based on the 2 years that Latour spent in Guillemin’s protein laboratory at the Salk Institute in the mid 1970s. So why does our field need another study on protein science? Because since then protein science has gone Big. Proteomics experiments transcend the walls of the laboratory. Proteomics is “technology-driven and technology-limited”—it is a discovery Technoscience rather than a science. This means that commercial vendors are closely involved in the practices that make proteomics knowledge. It is also e-science; the practices of proteomics have co-developed with, and are dependent on, the internet, digitalised databases and search engines. Our research is an interpretation of what it means to do “laboratory” studies today. It is a response to the challenges that the “omicisation,” instrumentalisation, globalisation and digitalisation of the biosciences poses to our own field. In this poster we describe our sociomic methods for following, observing and participating with proteomics actors, and give a social science perspective on the making of proteomics|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Ruth McNally, Sociomics! Using the “IssueCrawler” to Map, Monitor and Engage with the Global Proteomics Research Network.
Ruth McNally, ”Sociomics” : Cesagen Multidisciplinary Workshop on the Transformation of Knowledge Production in the Biosciences, and its Consequences.
E. Seguin (2000). Bloor, Latour, and the Field. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (3):503-508.
Ruth McNally & Peter Glasner, Proteins Don't Have a Social Life : Proteomics Past, Present and Future.
Sandra Orchard, Rolf Apweiler, Robert Barkovich, Dawn Field, John S. Garavelli, David Horn, Andy Jones, Philip Jones, Randall Julian, Ruth McNally, Jason Nerothin, Norman Paton, Angel Pizarro, Sean Seymour, Chris Taylor, Stefan Wiemann & Henning Hermjakob, Proteomics and Beyond : A Report on the 3rd Annual Spring Workshop of the HUPO-PSI 21-23 April 2006, San Francisco, CA, USA. [REVIEW]
Steven Yearley (2005). Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science. Sage Publications.
Sheila Jasanoff (ed.) (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Routledge.
Wenda K. Bauchspies (2006). Science, Technology, and Society: A Sociological Approach. Blackwell Pub..
Mathieu Albert, Suzanne Laberge & Brian Hodges (2009). Boundary-Work in the Health Research Field: Biomedical and Clinician Scientists' Perceptions of Social Science Research. [REVIEW] Minerva 47 (2):171-194.
Virginia Black (1955). Laboratory Versus Field Research in Psychology and the Social Sciences. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5 (20):319-330.
Andrew Pickering (ed.) (1992). Science as Practice and Culture. University of Chicago Press.
Brian Fisher, Tera Marie Green & Richard Arias-Hernández (2011). Visual Analytics as a Translational Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (3):609-625.
Added to index2011-01-29
Total downloads2 ( #246,361 of 739,404 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 739,404 )
How can I increase my downloads?