Political Science Science and Social Movements
by
Naveen Thayyil
  • LAST MODIFIED: 27 June 2018
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756223-0244

Introduction

There is a long tradition of contestations about social meanings of science and its relationship to social movements. In a dominant paradigm, science is seen as the institution that has the sole authority to certify and validate knowledge in modern societies. In this classical picture, science leads the production of knowledge, and society is a passive recipient. Also, science is seen here as devoid of social and political values. Social movements are generally seen as representing the “other,” a space that drives social and political changes that some sections of the society find desirable, changes that the State may generally avoid. The focus in this intersection broadly pertains to the manner and implications of the interaction of actors between these two spaces in challenging this dominant picture of science—be it in the production of knowledge or change in political relationship or social situations, where actors from either space are initiators/collaborators. Scholarship in this intersection falls broadly within the thematic of science and democracy; see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in the political science article Science and Democracy. This is generally seen as a significant area within the interdiscipline of science and technology studies (STS), even as there are significant contributions from sociologists, philosophers, anthropologists, and political scientists whose work is usually not considered as falling within the ambit of STS. “Social movement” is recognized as an important category in both sociology and political studies, as it is seen as one of the main pathways toward increased democratic participation and representation; see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in political science article Social Movements. Further, there is a large field of scholarship attending to the institutions of science and technology as a major theater of democracy and politics; see the separate Oxford Bibliographies in political science article Politics of Science and Technology. Scholarship could be broadly viewed as intersecting in three prominent (and overlapping) trajectories. First pertains to attention on a long tradition of ideologically motivated scientists’ advocacy, including through formation of public interest scientific institutions for a host of general goals like peace, sustainability, and opposition to general policies of the State like militarism, corporatization, and privatization of public resources, often in alliance with the political goals of various social movements. A second trajectory pertains to the research by dissident (networks of) scientists who voice their opposition to dominant research agendas and politics of contemporary scientific establishments and align their everyday scientific research with the goals of broader social movements, for instance, the promotion of organic agriculture or green chemistry as their fields of scientific research. The third trajectory relates to the multiple ways of engagement/ collaboration by social movements and civil society organizations with the techno-scientific enterprise—be it through opposition of specific technologies like genetically modified organism and large hydro-electric dams, critique of specific technological pathways, attempts to influence research agendas including questions of risk assessment and regulation—often seen as democratizing science movements.

General Overviews

The academic focus in this intersection is unsurprisingly interdisciplinary. Science and technology studies (STS) is an arena where attention on the social institutions of science and technology coalesce from a number of disciplines, be it the sociology of science, philosophy of technology, history of science, regulation of technology, and their respective intellectual and other histories. Social movements as an analytical category also have been examined, quite prominently, from the disciplinary vantage points of sociology and political studies. Hence, the selection in this general overview is intended to give a flavor of the different vantage points of looking at the two analytical categories. Dedicated synopses of the intersection are scarce given the intensity of interdisciplinarity. Fortun 2017 provides a carefully considered overview of the theoretical work that shape social study of science. Hess, et al. 2008 offers an excellent analytical window into the literature from an explicit STS vantage point. Harding 2000 brings together the philosophical issues at stake in the challenge to science as a monopolistic institution of knowledge production. Though social movements are usually conceptualized as not including advocacy groups, campaigns networks or nongovernmental organizations in specific disciplinary frames, these groups are not excluded in this intersection since it is germane to the attention on the impact of science and technology on democratization. Callon 1999 provides an excellent overview into the sociological literature pertaining to the different conceptualizations of laypeople’s role in the production of scientific knowledge. Martin 2006 provides an accessible introduction to how different strategies for alternate science can involve different models of collaboration between the scientist and non-scientist. Wynne 1996 is a seminal essay that reflexively engages with the expert–lay divide in knowledge production. Bucchi and Neresini 2008 focuses on the hybridity of spaces of knowledge production, offering a useful overview of STS literature that emphasize the inexorability of public participation in the production of scientific knowledge. McCormick 2009 offers a conceptual category, namely, democratic science movements, even as the author offers a detailed comparative study of collaborations in scientific production by popular movements. Woodhouse, et al. 2002, employs rich case studies to advocate a reconstructivist position in STS, while exploring a second-order problem about studying the political commitments of scientist and STS scholars that studies it. Frickel and Gross 2005 is a prominent contribution that gives an overview about studying the similarities of scientific and social movements, even as the authors propose a general theory where scientific/intellectual movements are likely to emerge strongly. Their synthesis of the literatures on sociology of ideas, social studies of science, and literature on social movements is only indicative of the interdisciplinarity of the literature in this intersection.

  • Breyman, Steve, Nancy Campbell, Virginia Eubanks, and Abby Kinchy. “STS and Social Movements: Pasts and Futures.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th ed. Edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 289–318. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »

    A recent introduction to the engagement of STS scholarship with social movements in contemporary societies. Maintain that the intersection is a core formative idea in the field of STS. Trace interconnections among social movements and intellectual currents in STS, reform efforts in scientific and technical field, the study of scientific controversies, and the shaping of technology via lay and expert knowledge.

    Find this resource:

    • Bucchi, Massimiano, and Federico Neresini. “Science and Public Participation.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3d ed. Edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 449–472. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »

      This chapter provides a useful overview of the theme of public participation in science, with a particular attention to hybrid forum of coproduction of scientific knowledge. Also surveys literature on the formal initiatives promoting public participation in science, through terms likes citizen involvement, public awareness of science, science communication, dialogue between science and society or science in society, public consultation, and technology assessment.

      Find this resource:

      • Callon, Michel. “The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge.” Science, Technology and Society 4.1 (1999): 81–94.

        DOI: 10.1177/097172189900400106Save Citation »Export Citation »

        A description of the boundary between specialists and non-specialist, or science and society, and the diversity of possible modes of participation by non-specialists in scientific and technological debates. By distinguishing three models—public education model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge model—the author seeks to offer a broad review of the debates regarding the role of laypeople in the production of knowledge. Useful introduction for undergraduates.

        Find this resource:

        • Fortun, Michael. “Science Studies.” In Oxford Bibliographies in Anthropology. Edited by Sandy Maisel. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

          Save Citation »Export Citation »

          See for an accessible and thoughtful introduction to science studies. It provides a broad overview of the field and offers a window to keenly analyze further contributions on the science–society relationship, including the necessary social aspect to the production of technical knowledge. Available online by subscription.

          Find this resource:

          • Frickel, Scott, and Neil Gross. “A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements.” American Sociological Review 70.2 (2005): 204–232.

            DOI: 10.1177/000312240507000202Save Citation »Export Citation »

            An important intervention that theorizes the contexts and conditions where scientific and intellectual movements thrive, from the disciplinary vantage point of sociology of science. Using a number of diverse empirical cases from across natural, social, and administrative sciences, and the humanities, authors seek to elucidate on the convergences and divergences between scientific/intellectual movements and social movements and includes a helpful and broad review of literature on the parallels between the two.

            Find this resource:

            • Harding, Sandra. “Democratizing Philosophy of Science for Local Knowledge Movements: Issues and Challenges.” Gender, Technology and Development 4.1 (2000): 1–23.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »

              Surveys three sites of local knowledge movements—that is, indigenous knowledge projects, post-positivist science studies and standpoint epistemologies—to historically situate the character of contemporary production of scientific knowledge. A relatively accessible text of an eminent philosopher of science known for her contribution to standpoint epistemology theory, it also identifies prominent positions of opponents and offers a defense for standpoint theory regarding these respective positions.

              Find this resource:

              • Hess, David, Steve Breyman, Nancy Campbell, and Brian Martin. “Science, Technology and Social Movement.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3d ed. Edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 473–488. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

                Save Citation »Export Citation »

                A nuanced and thoughtful introduction to the intersection as a field in STS. Gives a background on social movement theory and maps the intersection of science, technology, and social movements. It focuses on three major contemporary social movements—namely, health, environmental, and information movements—to bring out the various important attendant dynamics in an analytical intersection.

                Find this resource:

                • Martin, Brian. “Strategies for Alternate Science.” In The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. Edited by Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 272–298. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

                  Save Citation »Export Citation »

                  A short overview of the various visions of alternate science, which is built around the ideas of “science for the people” and “science by the people,” and discusses four possible strategies to move these visions forward. Also focuses on areas where social movements, activists, and scholars can collaborate. An accessible text with little jargon, useful for both undergraduate students and more advanced researchers.

                  Find this resource:

                  • McCormick, Sabrina. Mobilizing Science: Movements, Participation, and the Remaking of Knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2009.

                    Save Citation »Export Citation »

                    The author discusses the increasing scientization of key policy decision-making and public debate and how popular movements have sought to democratize science in this interplay between science and politics. Through various case studies McCormick focuses on scientific controversies to examine a range of deliberative and participatory activities that seeks to unlock the “iron triangle” of bureaucracy, corporations, and techno-scientific establishments for “citizens to participate in political decision making.” Employs the term “democratizing science movements.”

                    Find this resource:

                    • Woodhouse, Edward, David Hess, Steve Breyman, and Brian Martin. “Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems for Reconstructivist Agendas.” Social Studies of Science 32.2 (2002): 297–319.

                      DOI: 10.1177/0306312702032002004Save Citation »Export Citation »

                      Takes a reflexive approach to the issue of social nature of science and technology, asking how STS scholars can take their own ideological commitments more seriously in their research. A useful introduction to a second-order problem of how political commitments of scientists and STS scholars can affect agendas for science and technology. Useful overview of the attendant conceptual challenges, while employing three case studies regarding green chemistry, organic agriculture, and peace movements.

                      Find this resource:

                      • Wynne, Brian. “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide.” In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. Edited by Scott M. Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Brian Wynne, 44–83. London: SAGE, 1996.

                        Save Citation »Export Citation »

                        An influential essay that lays out the democratic and epistemic challenges in the production of regulatory knowledge arising from the interaction between techno-bureaucratic institutions of science, and “lay knowledges.” Remarkable weaving of various case studies, including the famous study of Cumbrian sheep farmers, to theorize the centrality of trust and engagement in the construction of scientific knowledge and the important role of laypeople in it.

                        Find this resource:

                        Anthologies

                        The contributions in Felt, et al. 2017 and Hackett, et al. 2008 provide state-of-the art essays that define the boundaries of the interdiscipline of science and technology studies (STS). A number of essays deal with the role of non-scientific actors like social movements, civil society organizations, and public interest collectives in the production of scientific and technical knowledge. Harding 2011 provides further contributions in STS that offers a postcolonial prism to important STS concerns, including essays on indigenous knowledge and reframing the roles of experts and citizens in environmental governance. Kleinman 2000 offers a broad collection of useful case studies for undergraduate students about democracy, expertise, and lay participation in the deployment of technologies. Frickel and Moore 2006 brings together analyses of science policies and practices to sociological and science studies scholarship in a collection of accessible essays. Nowotny and Rose 1979 is an important contribution from prominent sociologists of science looking at countermovements in the science. Blume, et al. 1987 is another early collection of sociological enquiry that focuses on the conditions of collaboration between scientists and non-scientists. Eglash, et al. 2004 brings together more recent literature on the contribution about lay publics in the production of technology and science. Zinn 2008 is an excellent beginning point for graduate students and more advanced scholars for a detailed discussion on the prominent theorists on risk, an important arena where non-scientific groups have engaged, contested, and shaped production of knowledge.

                        • Blume, Stuart, Joske Bunders, Loet Leydesdorff, and Richard Whitley, eds. The Social Direction of the Public Sciences Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1987.

                          Save Citation »Export Citation »

                          This is a collection of thirteen essays that explores the conditions under which collaboration between non-scientists and scientists can affect scientific change. A combination of theoretical explorations and case studies, it asks questions like under what conditions do cooperation occur, how is collaboration achieved, and through what forms? This is an early contribution by a host of sociologists to the development of the intersection between science and social movements.

                          Find this resource:

                          • Eglash, Ron, Jennifer Croissant, Giovanna Di Chiro, and Rayvon Fouche, eds. Appropriating Technology: Vernacular Science and Social Power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004.

                            Save Citation »Export Citation »

                            A collection dedicated to contributions about lay publics producing technology and science, emphasizing the point that groups outside the centers of scientific power persistently defy the notion that they are merely passive recipients of technological products and scientific knowledge. The section on the environment has a sharp focus on local actions and remaking of environmental expertise and on science by the people through grass roots environmental monitoring.

                            Find this resource:

                            • Felt, Ulrike, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, eds. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.

                              Save Citation »Export Citation »

                              The latest edition of the Handbook of Science and Technology Studies offers a comprehensive and authoritative overview of the field by reviewing current research and major theoretical and methodological approaches. In many ways, the Handbook series has defined the flourishing interdisciplinary field of STS. The current edition has thirty-six chapters, seeking to capture the state of the art, and includes methods and participatory practices in STS research.

                              Find this resource:

                              • Frickel, Scott, and Kelly Moore, eds. The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions Networks, and Power. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

                                Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                A collection of sixteen essays that was explicitly conceived as an attempt to infuse sociological and science studies scholarship with analyses of science policies and practices, the political and economic decisions behind them, and the ecological and social impacts that science continues to create. Useful collection for both beginners and advanced scholars of political sociology of science, Part 2, titled “Science and Social Movement,” comprises five case studies.

                                Find this resource:

                                • Hackett, Edward J., Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, eds. The New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3d ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                  The previous edition of the Handbook series, which is also produced under the aegis of the Society for the Social Studies of Science. This edition has almost seventy essays and provides an encompassing view of the growth of the field. A number of essays deal with the issue of how non-scientific spaces contribute to the production of scientific knowledge.

                                  Find this resource:

                                  • Harding, Sandra G., ed. The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011.

                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                    A collection of twenty (state-of-the-art) STS contributions that seeks to change the boundaries of postcolonial theory. Represents a more historically inclined collection in contemporary STS and has dedicated contributions on indigenous knowledge, encounters with other civilizational knowledges, reframing the roles of experts, policymakers and citizens in environmental governance and attendant production of knowledge, and conceptualizing alternative pathways to knowledge production in science in an era of globalization.

                                    Find this resource:

                                    • Kleinman, Daniel Lee, ed. Science, Technology, and Democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000.

                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                      This is an excellent introduction to the area for undergraduate students and continues to be a useful resource for scholars due to its breadth of coverage. Various theoretical, historical, and institutional dimensions about expertise and concerns of democracy are focused upon. There are case studies on lay participation in a number of fields including sustainable agriculture, siting of a nuclear facility, and AIDS research, which are useful. Also works well as an undergraduate teaching resource.

                                      Find this resource:

                                      • Nowotny, Helga, and Hilary Rose, eds. Counter-Movements in the Sciences: The Sociology of the Alternatives to Big Science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1979.

                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                        A collection of thirteen important essays that traces the phenomenological diversity of movements that counter organized science, including romantic traditions in certain countermovements, early critical voices within science, and various positions in between these two. An important collection of theoretical essays from a host of prominent scholars of the time, which influenced subsequent scholarship. Of definite interest to scholars interested in the intellectual history of the field.

                                        Find this resource:

                                        • Zinn, Howard, ed. Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008.

                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                          Risk is an important conceptual trope where work on science and social movements have intersected. This is a first-rate collection of commentaries on prominent sociological and other social theories of risk, specifically, Beck’s risk society thesis, governmentality scholarship, Luhmann and systems theory, Edgework and voluntary risk-taking, the cultural turn through Douglas, and critical realist positions on risk. Provides rigorous overview for graduate students, promising commensurate rewards for scholars.

                                          Find this resource:

                                          Politicized Scientists and Ideas of Social Responsibility

                                          A long tradition of scientists has explicitly entered the political arena, often in collaboration with social movements, within an understanding that scientists have a special responsibility as citizens to engage in political work. Bernal 1939 provides an eloquent and formative articulation of the idea of social responsibility of scientists. Dickson 1971 offers an early review of the debates in this idea between the “reformists” and “radicals.” Various prominent examples of public interest science organizations, including radical science movements in the United States, Union of Concerned Scientists, the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, Scientists’ Institute for Public Information, and Science for the People have sought to further social responsibility of scientists, challenging policies that they see as either serving elite interests, masculine, ecologically destructive, or discriminatory to marginalized social groups. There is an explicit political emphasis in most of the statements and actions of these organizations that seek to organize scientists to directly serve marginalized groups and participate in struggles that achieve transformative social change and liberation for all. Beckwith 1986 provides an insider account of the emergence and growth of radical science movements in the United States. Ravetz 1979 is a sociological exploration into the production of shared radical commitments of counter-establishment scientist through an examination of two scientific journals in the 1970s. Frickel 2004 offers an institutional analysis of scientists engaged in movements as expert activists. Moore 1996 focuses on the emphasis in the work of many of these organizations that “permitted the preservation of organizational representations of pure, unified science, while simultaneously assuming responsibilities to serve the public good.” Such positions excluded important epistemic challenges to the idea of unitary science, posed by the activism of scientists through many of these organizations, a recognition that research agendas and sometimes even methodologies of contemporary science are dominated by corporate and bureaucratic establishments. Moore 2008 focuses on political contribution of such committed scientists/organizations through an account and analysis of the stated goals and activities of these organizations. Large public interest activist scientific organizations occasionally also featured programs that exposed claims of scientific unity, which treated scientific knowledge as distinct from power relations that produced it, a legacy that is seen to be related to two distinctive features—localism and loose-knit organizational structure and its emphases on direct action and intellectual critique.

                                          • Beckwith, Jon. “The Radical Science Movement in the United States.” Monthly Review 38.1 (1986): 118–128.

                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                            An early contribution by a prominent scientist-activist identifying various intellectual and other social factors that contributed to the origins of the radical science movement in the United States. It traces how various foci of the movement altered the course of debate over public issues like weapons development, and other manifestations “of the fundamental problem of control of science under capitalism” including occupational health hazards like asbestos and equality for women.

                                            Find this resource:

                                            • Bernal, John Desmond. The Social Function of Science. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 1939.

                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                              An early and eloquent expression of the radical vision of social responsibility of science and scientists as at the service of society, where scientists and governments direct scientific research into areas of greatest benefit to society. In this vision, scientists have a responsibility to ensure that science is used as a critical tool to democratize society. His articulations continue to be an influential model of interpretation and conceptualization of social responsibility of science.

                                              Find this resource:

                                              • Dickson, D. “The Social Responsibilities of the Scientist.” Reviews of Physics in Technology 2.2 (1971): 116–122.

                                                DOI: 10.1088/0034-6683/2/2/303Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                An accessible treatment of the democratic implications of “social responsibility of scientists” and traces early internal debates between reformists: that scientists should be given a greater voice in public affairs, especially regarding policies about science, while willing to accept existing social structures, and radicals: one of the scientist’s main responsibilities is to work toward a socialist society, since it is only where he or she can make the fullest discoveries by the most humane of scientists.

                                                Find this resource:

                                                • Frickel, Scott. “Organizing Scientist Activism in the US Environmental Justice Movement.” Science as Culture 13.4 (2004): 449–463.

                                                  DOI: 10.1080/0950543042000311814Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                  Employs an institutional analysis of the political and economic relationships within scientific establishment to focus on ecological and environmental health scientists deeply engaged in movements as “expert activists.” Suggests that the asymmetrical convergence of university and industry research cultures connects environmental knowledge workers in different fields and occupational sectors increase the capacity for marginalized activist scientists for a collective challenge, even as it produces more profitable research domains away from environmental knowledge production.

                                                  Find this resource:

                                                  • Moore, Kelly. “Organizing Integrity: American Science and the Creation of Public Interest Organizations, 1955–1975.” American Journal of Sociology 101.6 (1996): 1592–1627.

                                                    DOI: 10.1086/230868Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                    Seeks to understand how bases of science’s political authority was dealt with while seeking ways to make science more socially responsible through an examination of the activities of three public interest organizations—Scientists’ Institute for Public Information, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Science for the People—over two decades. An important contribution that is both accessible for undergraduate students and useful for advanced researchers.

                                                    Find this resource:

                                                    • Moore, Kelly. Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                      The book engages with three broad questions: why and how did scientists engage in activism, variations in their forms of activism, and how their actions affect the epistemic authority of science. Chapter 6 offers a lively account of the activities of Science for the People, the variety of approaches adopted by its different local chapters, and an argument about its successful legacy despite its collapse as a formal organization.

                                                      Find this resource:

                                                      • Ravetz, Jerome. “Anti-Establishment Science in Some British Journals.” In Counter-Movements in the Sciences: The Sociology of the Alternatives to Big Science. Edited by Helga Nowotny and Hilary Rose. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1979.

                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                        An insightful treatment of rationality and publics formation of anti-establishment scientists with its tracking of two counter establishment journals, Undercurrents and Science for the People, representing the libertarian and socialist left, respectively. A fascinating delineation of the production of collectives of shared radical commitment, talking about publics formation in the 1970s that brings together political accounts about knowledge creation by dissident and politically charged scientists in their journals.

                                                        Find this resource:

                                                        Dissident Scientists and Scientific Change

                                                        There are a number of examples where scientific change is influenced by (groups of) scientists working toward such change—be it in the realm of creation of knowledge that destabilizes existing scientific consensus in specific disciplines or through the institutional and disciplinary emphasis in particular research fields that transforms existing scientific consensus. The activism of these scientific movements, groups, or individual dissidents in many cases can be seen as being in alignment with the goals of wider social movements or collectives outside of scientific institutions. Hess 2011 identifies pathways that are viewed as challenging contemporary scientific establishment and research agendas, which are controlled by the increasing influence of military and industrial research priorities. Hess also discusses the establishment of loose networks or coalitions of activist scientists are often seen as being in alignment with wider social movements or nongovernmental organizations outside of the academy, arguing for minority scientific opinions that go against the scientific consensus on specific research issues, like in risk analysis of controversial technologies like genetically modified organisms and nanotechnology. Further, new subdisciplines have also emerged from concerted actions of dissident scientists, including green chemistry, organic agriculture, and sustainable energy whose goals are in alignment with social movements like organic movements, renewable energy advocacy groups, and anti-pollution movements. Woodhouse 2006 discusses the privileged position of science, while comparing two case studies, one of them being green chemistry. Academic interest in the emergence in these disciplines is in the backdrop of the recognition in science studies that the success/failure of specific research fields are often connected to power dynamics between networks of actors within scientific communities, time and again in alliance with actors outside these communities. Woodhouse, et al. 2002 offers methodological reflections for science and technology studies (STS) researchers arguing for thoughtful partisanship by STS scholars, while explaining scientist’s activism. Peters 1979 brings a rich account of the strategies employed by early advocates of organic agriculture to claim a legitimate space for organic within the sciences. Frickel 2006 uses a case study of the Environmental Mutagen Society to make an unconventional argument that successful boundary-making between science and politics and scientific activism can be intertwined. Prasad 2014 offers an insider account of strategies of dissident agricultural scientists from the Global South in validating their scientific research. In what ways have such activism of these scientific researchers and networks impact the politics and episteme of science and technology, and its regulation, is brought to sharp focus in the literature here.

                                                        • Frickel, Scott. “When Convention Becomes Contentious: Organizing Science Activism in Genetic Toxicology.” In The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions Networks, and Power. Edited by Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 185–214. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 2006.

                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                          A case study of the Environmental Mutagen Society, a professional organization created in 1969 by a small group of geneticists worried about regulatory inadequacies regarding the possible long-term deleterious genetic consequences of synthetic chemicals on humans. Seeks to demonstrate that successful boundary-making (of science and politics) and science activism can be intertwined, as in the case of the Environmental Mutagen Society. Differs with conventional notions that institutionalization of scientist activism destabilizes boundary-making.

                                                          Find this resource:

                                                          • Hess, David. “Science in an Era of Globalization: Alternate Pathways.” In The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Edited by Sandra G. Harding, 419–428. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011.

                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                            Examines how changes from globalization and liberalization since 1970s have opened/closed opportunities for scientific research to be more responsive to the world’s poor and the environment. See the relevant section on dissident scientists who directly incorporate the goals of social change associated with movement into their research programs and repertoires of action available within the scientific field. Discusses the formation of three alternative research fields: renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and green chemistry.

                                                            Find this resource:

                                                            • Peters, Suzanne. “Organic Farmers Celebrate Organic Research: A Sociology of Popular Science.” In Counter-Movements in the Sciences: The Sociology of the Alternatives to Big Science. Edited by Helga Nowotny and Hilary Rose. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1979.

                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                              An insightful study of the strategies, challenges, and dilemmas employed by early advocates of organic agriculture in their interactions with the scientific establishment. Examine the work of early influential figures, including their attempts to craft a new agricultural science and to claim a scientific basis for organic farming movement. Useful for its historical details and focus on the contradictions between being critical of scientific establishment, ambivalence to existing scientific methods, and strategies to develop a separate scientific field.

                                                              Find this resource:

                                                              • Prasad, Shambhu. “Creative Dissent: Linking Vulnerability and Knowledge in India.” In Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance. Edited by Anique Hommels, Jessica Mesman, Wiebe E. Bijker, 135–154. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014.

                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                A study of the contemporary development of the agri-scientific domain of structural rice intensification and the strategies of dissident agricultural scientists in emphasizing norms of vulnerability and sustainability to further production and legitimation of knowledge-making in domains frowned upon by the global agricultural science establishment. See for a close account of the collaboration of social movements, vulnerable communities, and civil society organizations outside of the Global North that aid dissidents in defending their research domain.

                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                • Woodhouse, Edward. “Nanoscience, Green Chemistry and the Privileged Position of Science.” In The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions Networks, and Power. Edited by Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 148–181. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                  This is a comparison of two cases of forefront science: nanoscience and green chemistry. What reasons drive the former to be a classic hot research arena and the latter, its polar opposite? Analyzes the implications of this contrast, furthers the picture of scientist implicated as participants in a system of power, and suggests their relative power in the wider political arena is transposed into the success/failure of scientific disciplines.

                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                  • Woodhouse, Edward, David Hess, Steve Breyman, and Brian Martin. “Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems for Reconstructivist Agendas.” Social Studies of Science 32.2 (2002): 297–319.

                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                    Discusses the question: “How might historians, philosophers, sociologists, and others who study chemistry and chemical engineering, modify their scholarly foci if they adopted activist-oriented postures?” It examines three areas—green chemistry, alternative health, and peace movements—while arguing for thoughtful partisanship for STS scholars. Seeks to use the reflexive turn in the sociology of knowledge to pose a second order explanation on scientists’ activism and argues for a reconstructivist agenda for STS.

                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                    Collaboration between Scientists and Non-Scientists

                                                                    Moving beyond the straight-jacketed models of science–society divide in the production and consumption of scientific knowledge, contemporary literature has taken the myriad kinds of collaborations of the scientific and the lay communities in the production of knowledge more seriously. Irwin and Michael 2003 offers an engaged theory of science and society, underlining collaborations where knowledge can be recognized as co-constructed. Hård and Jamison 2013 presents a skilled historical account of the emergence of the military–industrial complex and its appropriation of public science. However, there are ample examples of other social groups who have sought to resist its dominance in the production of scientific knowledge. In such acts of resistance, the engine of scientific change can be located within the actions of social movements, citizen groups, and public interest organizations like health collectives, consumer forums, and environmental nongovernmental organizations. Epstein 1996 offers an early examination of the production of new scientific knowledge due to the politicization of AIDs research by lay patient communities. Mathews 2009 offers a first-rate ethnography regarding how a coalition of indigenous beliefs in nature spirits, environmental groups, and urban audiences supplanted knowledge produced by state industrial forestry institutions. The engagements of social movements, and allied publics, also pertain to scientific debates about risk to environment, public health, and even working to influence agenda setting in the scientific fields toward goals aligned with these movements and groups. Morello-Frosch, et al. 2006 traces the impact of embodied health movements on scientific research and medical practice as a useful illustration. Different terms have been used to characterize these movements that seek to make science more accountable or representative to the general public. McCormick 2007 offers a prominent term “democratic science movements” to characterize the collaborations between various social groups outside of scientific spaces seeking to drive scientific change. Irwin 1995 offers the category of “citizen science” to recognize the validity of the production of contextual knowledges that are created outside of formal scientific institutions. There are also other characterizations of the collaborations in platforms like “science shops” and “people’s science movements,” which are traced in separate subsections here (see Science Shops: Social-Scientific Collaboration in Knowledge Production and People’s Science Movements).

                                                                    • Epstein, Steven. Impure Science: AIDs, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                      Emphasizes the active role of laypeople in the production of biomedical knowledge by tracing the vicissitudes of grass roots activist interventions in AIDS research. A detailed account of the rise of the movement, growing distrust of established experts, and how ideas of scientific autonomy were discredited. Describes the politicization of research whereby an impure science is arrived at, through pressure from the movement, guiding biomedicine to cater to patients’ needs.

                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                      • Hård, Mikael, and Andrew Jamison. Hubris and Hybrids: A Cultural History of Technology and Science. New York: Routledge, 2013.

                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                        A useful historical account that connects the broader politics of science and technology to the more circumscribed world of science and technology policy in the United States from 1940s to 2000s. Chapters 10 and 11 focus on the emergence of the military–industrial complex and the active incorporation of universities and other public research institutions into this constellation, respectively. Examines how protests and movements have sought to resist this appropriation of science, opening up existing research priorities and agenda to public scrutiny.

                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                        • Irwin, Alan. Citizen Science: Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge, 1995.

                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                          The author draws upon three domains: the sociology of scientific knowledge, theories of “risk society,” and empirical account of science and its public. This is a carefully considered argument for the conceptual category of citizen science to explain practices that evoke a science that assists the needs and concerns of citizens and of a form of science developed and enacted by citizens themselves. Influential and accessible work.

                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                          • Irwin, Alan, and Mike Michael. Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003.

                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                            A sociological attempt to think through and establish a more productive relationship between science and wider society. It also describes how concerned citizens, policymakers, social scientists, and campaign groups have attempted to do this. This is a useful and accessible overview for both undergraduate students and more advanced scholars, engaging with sociology, social theory, and science policy.

                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                            • Mathews, Andrew S. “Unlikely Alliances Encounters between State Science, Nature Spirits and Indigenous Industrial Forestry in Mexico.” Current Anthropology 50.1 (2009): 75–101.

                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                              A first-rate ethnography on how non-scientific alliances bypassed dominant techno-scientific institutions in getting to recognize their knowledge claims. Describes the modes through which “dissecation theory”—a belief that deforestation causes streams to dry and threatens rainfall—got to be recognized as valid in Mexico through creating political and epistemic alliances that bypassed industrial forestry institutions by finding sympathetic urban audiences and environmental allies for indigenous beliefs in nature spirits.

                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                              • McCormick, Sabrina. “Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Mobilization and Contestation.” Social Studies of Science 37.4 (2007): 609–623.

                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                McCormick describes how movements have sought to make science a more democratic forum for development, debate, and policymaking by influencing political and scientific discourse; using scientific processes, methods, language, and objects to inform public protest, education, and discourse; and forming alliances with sympathetic experts. Through various well-developed case studies she offers “democratizing science movements” as a framework to explain social movement interventions critiquing science, technology, and expert knowledge.

                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                • Morello-Frosch, Rachel, Stephen Zavestoski, Phil Brown, et al. “Embodied Health Movements: Responses to a ‘Scientized’ World.” In The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. Edited by Scott Frickel and Kelly Moore, 244–271. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                  Examines the contextual and temporal factors that explain the rise of embodied health movements in the 1990s and analyzes their impact on scientific research, medical practice, and democratization of the production of scientific knowledge and its use in policymaking. Uses two case studies related to environmental breast cancer movement and asthma activism. The study is more proximate to social movement theory than other entries in this section.

                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                  Science Shops: Social-Scientific Collaboration in Knowledge Production

                                                                                  “Science shops” is a prominent platform of collaboration where scientific groups and non-scientific groups beyond the dominant industrial–military complex have come together to produce technological and scientific knowledge. These are institutional innovations that were originally developed in the Netherlands, where small desks were set up within universities by committed faculty members, to research scientific questions requested by the public. Farkas 1999 offers a quick historical account of its institution in the Netherlands and examines the various rationales for its existence. These include equitable distribution of public expertise, fostering a more invigorated citizenry and to mitigate the disproportionate power of business interests with university research and development environment. Leydesdorff and Ward 2005 reviews the decades-old practice of science shops employed in other parts of Europe and identify different traditions and rationales among them. Wachelder 2003 connects the institution of science shop to the emergence of a new social contract between science and society, public understanding of science, and aiding newer frames of science communication. Wachelder underscores the models of science communication that understand itself as a dynamic process where the lay public is not assumed to be a scientifically ignorant space that needs scientific literacy and education through such communication. These spaces have also been considered important for their role as a professional broker that can enlarge civic participation and articulate underexposed points of research. Nakamura 2010 extends the discussion on science shops to the specificities in Japan and analyzes its role in science communication.

                                                                                  • Farkas, Nicole. “Dutch Science Shops: Matching Community Needs with University R&D.” Science Studies 12.2 (1999): 33–47.

                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                    Provides a quick historical account of the tradition of science shops in the Netherlands, a pioneering and a broad review of justifications for its institution. Through interviews and fieldwork, Farkas unpacks the ways of working in these shops, including a description of clients, the uses they make of the research they request for, what makes the shops tick, and how the client’s question is reformulated as a “scientific research question.”

                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                    • Leydesdorff, Loet, and Janelle Ward. “Science Shops: A Kaleidoscope of Science–Society Collaborations in Europe.” Public Understanding of Science 14.4 (2005): 353–372.

                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                      Describes the functioning of science shops in various parts of Europe and includes a temporal characterization of science shop practices into four waves. Also useful to access details of various science shop initiatives all over Europe and point to how disciplinary affiliations affect science shop practices and institutional structures. Emphasizes the competing rationales for setting science shops including institutional reform, mediation of knowledge production practices, and science communication.

                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                      • Nakamura, M. “STS in Japan in Light of the Science Cafe Movement.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society 4.1 (2010): 145–151.

                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                        See for an account of science cafes in action in Japan and how they popularized specific types of science communication, within the contemporary STS understanding of science communication as interactive practice of two-way communication between “science” and “society.” Also include a discussion on the challenges faced by the STS community from studying such practices.

                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                        • Wachelder, Joseph. “Democratizing Science: Various Routes and Visions of Dutch Science Shops.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 28.2 (2003): 244–273.

                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                          Identifies the significant challenges faced by science shops in the Netherlands and the various approaches they have adopted to respond to these challenges—some more successful than the others. Points to the divergent approaches to democratize science and technology in the various science shops in the Netherlands and the different strategies they have employed to cope with the significant challenges of the 1990s higher education policy landscape in the country.

                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                          People’s Science Movements

                                                                                          The focus on people’s science movement (PSM) is prominent for understanding the nature of the arena where scientific groups and citizen groups and social movements have coalesced to script a kind of science that is both for the people and by the people. Beckwith 1987 discusses the idea of “people’s science” as an arena where radical science movements have attempted to turn science on its head whereby, a collaboration of various groups, including scientists, develop a science that is no longer intended to serve the rich, but to “benefit the needy.” However, in the Global South, and prominently in India, the idea of people’s science has gone beyond radical scientist collectives and connotes a broader arena that is forged by peoples groups, even as they are in active collaborations with radical scientists. Parameswaran 1996 is an insider account of a prominent PSM Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP), a platform that fosters collaboration of different social groups, including scientists, toward raising questions about the elitist nature of contemporary science. KSSP sought to direct the thrust of scientific research to benefit marginal social groups, including the poor and working-class people, regarding occupational health and safety hazards, industrial pollutions, and other hazards to workers. Abrol 2014 argues that these multiple meanings are an asset in the mobilization of science for democratization. Jaffry, et al. 1983 is an early insider articulation of the objectives and programs of action of the network of peoples science movement in India. Considered unique among social movements, PSM has been a source of attention among political scientists, sociologists, and others in science and technology studies (STS) for a number of themes in the science–society relationship. These include science communication, scientific literacy, science popularization, remaking progressive agendas of funding and research in techno-scientific enterprise to citizens, activists, and social movements seeking a more progressive agenda for the scientific enterprise. Sahoo and Pattnaik 2012 offers a long commentary on the role and activities of PSMs in India, focusing on four important areas: science communication and science education, policy critiques, grass-root interventions in development, and development of alternative technology. Phadke 2005 focuses on the role of PSM as a knowledge broker creating hybrid knowledge involving local knowledge and bureaucratic expertise. Varma 2001 employs the category of “two cultures” to emphasize the importance of PSMs vis-a-vis the appropriate brokerage of knowledge production and the representation of “people’s” interests in the production of technology and science.

                                                                                          • Abrol, Dinesh. “Mobilising for Democratisation of Science in India: Learning from the PSM Experience.” Journal of Scientific Temper 2.1–2 (2014): 10–32.

                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                            Discusses the layers of meanings in science popularization programs undertaken by PSMs in India and the diverse purposes served—from popularization of science, critiquing science policies and environmentally harmful projects, to broadening access to literacy, education, health and self-help programs for sustainable livelihoods. Abrol points out the dilemmas and challenges in movement building toward democratization of science and technology, while in ideological competition with neo-liberalism, cultural nationalism, and neo-traditionalism.

                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                            • Beckwith, Jon. “Radical Science Movements in the U.S.” Monthly Review 38.1 (1987): 118–128.

                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                              An early contribution by a prominent scientist-activist identifying various intellectual and other social factors that contributed to the origins of the radical science movement in the United States. It traces how various foci of the movement altered the course of debate over public issues like weapons development and other manifestations “of the fundamental problem of control of science under capitalism” including occupational health hazards like asbestos and equality for women.

                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                              • Jaffry, Anwar, B. Ekbal, K. P. Kannan, and Mahesh Rangarajan. “Towards a People’s Science Movement.” Economic and Political Weekly 18.11 (1983): 372–376.

                                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                This is an early articulation of the objectives, experience, and definitions of PSM by sympathetic commentators. Discusses four major areas in the program of action at the All India People’s Science movement convention: health, education, environment, and art as a medium of communication to bring out the difficulties in conceptualizing “people” as also the nature of “science” in a people’s science.

                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                • Parameswaran, Madangarly P. “Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.” In Les Sciences Hors D’occident Au Xx Siècle. Vol. 5, Sciences et développement. Edited by Roland Waast and M. Barrère, 281–298. Paris: ORSTOM, 1996.

                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                  This is an insider account of fifty years of a highly visible PSM, KSSP, widely recognized as a movement that have been successful in setting scientific agendas as also in science communication and science education. Apart from bringing out the breadth of activities that a PSM can engage in the science–society interphase, it focuses on the attendant challenges and dilemmas from the broad-basing and institutionalization of PSMs.

                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                  • Phadke, Roopali. “People’s Science in Action: The Politics of Protest and Knowledge Brokering in India.” Society & Natural Resources 18.4 (2005): 363–375.

                                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                    Focuses on the practices of knowledge brokerage and creation of hybrid knowledge—of local knowledge and bureaucratic expertise—in farmer protests and a movement of communities affected by a large dam in western India. The detailed ethnography focuses on the alternative dam design produced by the movement, with the partnership of nongovernmental engineers, which provided for the same quantity of water storage without the need for village submergence, compelling the irrigation agency to redesign the dam.

                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                    • Sahoo, Subashis, and Binay Kumar Pattnaik. “Understanding People’s Science Movement in India: From the Vantage of Social Movement Perspective.” Sociology of Science and Technology 3.4 (2012): 8–72.

                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                      A long commentary on the genesis of PSM by locating it in its socio-historical contexts. It describes the activities of various PSMs in India, classifying them into four broad categories: science communication and science education, policy critiques especially in science and technology, grassroots level development interventions, and alternative technology and development.

                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                      • Varma, Roli. “People’s Science Movements and Science Wars?” Economic and Political Weekly 36.52 (2001): 4796–4802.

                                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                        Varma provides a critique of the characterization of the epistemologies of people’s science movements in terms of two opposite cultures: taking the scientist’s science and technology to the people and opposing the scientist’s science and technology for the people. This article seeks a middle ground here, arguing to understand the frame akin to that of a “science war.”

                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                        Influential Social Movements

                                                                                                        Various social movements that have worked toward rights and justice in diverse sites have engaged with science and technology through their political and social activism in myriad ways. Even as the focus of literature on these specific social movements cross-cuts a number of themes that are already engaged with in the earlier sections, literature that focus on the work of three prominent movements within the intersection is discussed here—namely, environmental justice movements, women’s health movements, and movements for sustainable and organic agriculture—movements that have relied on science, even as they have sought to transform it. See also Frickel and Moore 2006 and Kleinman 2000 (both cited under Anthologies) and Peters 1979 (cited under Dissident Scientists and Scientific Change).

                                                                                                        Environmental Justice

                                                                                                        A host of movements across the world have sought to address situations of disproportionate distribution of environmental risks and burdens on groups, which are structurally marginalized through institutions like race, class, caste, indigeneity, rurality, nationality, and/or gender, even as these structural factors limit or restrict their ability to access benefits that accrue from the “developmental” activities leading to the production of these environmental burdens. Ottinger, et al. 2017 provides a sophisticated introduction to the various thematic foci in the scholarship on environmental justice (EJ) movements. Harrison 2011 analyzes the inadequacies of the notions of justice in mainstream environmental politics and provides a helpful overview of the EJ framework. A focus on combating structural racism in the US environmental governance through the accounts of EJ movements dominated early literature. Cole and Foster 2001 discusses the potential in these movements to transform science and environmental decision-making and provides an account of early EJ movements in the United States. Sze 2006 focuses on the EJ movement in 1980s and 1990s New York and argues that the articulation of the causal linkage between the incidence of asthma among local communities and siting of waste-treatment facilities was central to movement building. Guha and Martinez-Alier 1997 broadens the focus to EJ movements outside the United States by retrieving early histories of collectivization of marginalized communities regarding environmental conflicts in the Global South, repudiating Inglehart’s influential post-materialist understanding of environmentalism. Carruthers 2008 focuses on locating environmental issues within race, industrial development, and international trade politics in Latin America, a prominent area of focus in EJ scholarship outside of the United States. Martinez-Alier, et al. 2016 contends the existence of a global EJ movement, even as all conflicts in the EJ atlas are generally seen as targeting local grievances. Carter 2016 merges the two territorial foci predominant in the literature (on the United States and Latin America) through an ethnography of EJ organization among Latino communities of Los Angeles. It notes a shift in the focus of contemporary EJ organizations that is less dependent on the regulatory route, toward an emphasis on the production of nature in the city with a distinctive environmental ethics. Ottinger and Cohen 2011 is significant for bringing together various case studies to demonstrate that EJ activism has made significant transformation in contemporary science and engineering possible. See also Eglash, et al. 2004 (cited under Anthologies).

                                                                                                        • Carruthers, David V., ed. Environmental Justice in Latin America: Problems, Promise, and Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

                                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                          A collection of twelve essays that analyzes EJ research and activism in Latin America. This is a useful collection of case studies that locates issues of race, industrial development, and international trade politics, as well as water, eco-parks, agriculture, and waste politics within the EJ discourse. A number of essays focus on the theme of framing of environmental issues by movements and grass root activists in Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, and Mexico.

                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                          • Carter, Eric D. “Environmental Justice 2.0: New Latino Environmentalism in Los Angeles.” Local Environment 21.1 (2016): 3–23.

                                                                                                            DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2014.912622Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                            An ethnography of EJ organizations among Latino communities of Los Angeles, California, that contends a qualitative deviation in EJ politics from the traditional EJ politics that revolves around research and advocacy to reduce discriminatory environmental exposures and impacts. Argues a shift in focus that is less dependent on the regulatory route toward production of nature in the city with a distinctive environmental ethics. An insightful essay.

                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                            • Cole, Luke W., and Sheila R. Foster. Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York: New York University Press, 2001.

                                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                              An early contribution that brings together accounts of transformative politics and potential to transform science and environmental decision-making through EJ movements. See chapter 1 for a short account of the early EJ movement in the United States. The book moves beyond the distributive paradigm in environmental racism to a broader frame of EJ. Chapters 3 and 5 focus on causal analysis and environmental decision-making and the transformative capacities in EJ activism, respectively.

                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                              • Guha, Ramachandra, and Juan Martinez-Alier. Varieties of Environmentalisms: Essays North and South. London: Earthscan, 1997.

                                                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                A comparative history that delineates environmental movements in diverse locations in the Global South to argue that to be poor is very often an excellent reason to be green, in theory and in practice. An early collaboration between an environmental sociologist and ecological economist, which broadens the EJ discourse with newer categories like “environmentalism of the poor,” “empty belly environmentalism,” “liberation ecology,” and “livelihood ecology.” Insightful and accessible for undergraduates.

                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                • Harrison, Jill Lindsey. Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.

                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015981.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                  Examines the political and technical conflicts over pesticide drift in California and the shift of the burden of pollution to the bodies of California’s most marginalized and vulnerable residents. See chapter 1 for a useful substantiation of the EJ framework. In contrast to the familiar position that mainstream environmental politics is devoid of justice, Harrison specifies the notions of justice that is in mainstream environmental politics and its inadequacies.

                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                  • Martinez-Alier, Joan, Leah Temper, Daniela Del Bene, and Arnim Scheide. “Is There a Global Environmental Justice Movement?” Journal of Peasant Studies 43.3 (2016): 731–755.

                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2016.1141198Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                    See for an argument from two ecological economists that there is a global EJ movement, even as almost all conflicts in the EJ atlas are generally seen as targeting specific local grievances. Using a political ecology framework, the authors argue for taking the networks and interconnectedness of the local struggles seriously. Includes an enumeration of a range of concepts used by the EJ movement in its advocacy.

                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                    • Ottinger, Gwen, Javiera Barandiaran, and Aya H. Kimura. “Environmental Justice: Knowledge, Technology and Expertise.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th ed. Edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 1029–1057. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.

                                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                      An appropriately broad overview of contemporary science and technology studies (STS) contributions on EJ. Include sections on the epistemic dimensions in EJ, the unevenness in knowledge production around environmental, health and quality of life issues, and global dimensions of EJ. Also highlight two emergent areas of STS: the role of sociotechnical systems in creating, reinforcing, and potentially undermining environmental inequities and roles and responsibilities of scientists/engineers in seeking EJ.

                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                      • Ottinger, Gwen, and Benjamin Cohen, eds. Technoscience and Environmental Justice: Expert Cultures in a Grassroots movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.

                                                                                                                        Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                        An important collection of case studies interrogating the ways in which EJ movement has transformed contemporary science and engineering. The chapters analyze the transformative potential of encounters between technical experts and activists: the nature and extent to which scientists/engineers were able to forge new scientific practices and identities through these encounters and the changes in practices and identities of scientists within scientific institutions due to pressure from EJ movements.

                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                        • Sze, Julie. Noxious New York: The Racial Politics of Urban Health and Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.

                                                                                                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                          Examines the complex mix of local and global issues that fuel EJ activism in 1980s New York through focusing on how residents created a shared sense of place and identity as victims of environmental racism and agents of EJ. Disentangles facets of urban planning, public health, privatization, and deregulation of garbage management and energy systems by examining the siting of noxious waste-treatment facilities and incidence of asthma among local communities.

                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                          Women’s Health

                                                                                                                          Women’s health movements (WHM) have been credited with engaging and transforming medical research and health institutions in ways that make them more accessible to women and less centered on the masculine. Boston Women’s Health Book Collective 1973 is an early intervention that is generally seen as a historically important referral point for much of subsequent activism and scholarship on WHM. WHM activism traverses a breadth of interventions ranging from addressing inequality and disparities in health systems, issues of women’s access to medicines, medical care and medical research, and seeking health systems to be more responsive to the experience of disease, illness, and disability through embodied health movements. Turshen 2007 offers an overview of the contribution of WHM in confronting women’s health issues related to sexuality, violence, reproduction, and disability in different parts of the world. Nelson 2015 offers a history of feminist WHM in the United States from the 1960s. Jamieson 2012 locates the history of WHM in Australia within its general political and social context, focusing on the changes sought by the movement in medical research and public policy. Literature have also emphasized the role of WHM in bringing together the various themes delineated in the previous sections in this entry, including movements directing the development of scientific knowledge, movements using existing medical knowledge for specific political purposes, and movements producing new knowledge, in collaboration with medical researchers and practitioners. Murphy 2012 seeks to capture the productive relationships between feminist movements and development of technoscience in the domain of reproductive health. Critiques of patriarchal structures in medicine as seeking to control women’s body also extend through conceptualization of gendered medicine, challenging the assumption that drugs and medical substances and practices affect human bodies in a gender-neutral way and calling out how the uncritical/deliberate extrapolation of men’s conditions on women’s bodies. Bueter 2017 discusses the progression of the notion of gender medicine in combating sexism in medicine and offers an account of how WHM made pluralism in health research possible. Such insistence on attention on conditions peculiar to women’s body for medical research also contributed to arriving at a new common sense in medical care and medical research. Epstein 2007 focuses on the success of WHM in shifting the common sense in medical research by placing identity and difference at the heart of biomedical research. See also Hess, et al. 2008 (cited under General Overviews) and Morello-Frosch, et al. 2006 (cited under Collaboration between Scientists and Non-Scientists).

                                                                                                                          • Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Our Bodies, Ourselves: A Book by and for Women. 2d rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.

                                                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                            A book of historical importance, as it is widely attributed as a beginning point for WHM and calls for research on issues of female health. Its political critique of abortion laws and contemporary practices in healthcare catalyzed the subsequent WHM challenge of standard medical interpretations of female nature as sexist. Its emphasis on “people’s medicine,” autonomy and lay expertise fostered the subsequent development of feminist alternatives in health care.

                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                            • Bueter, Anke. “Androcentrism, Feminism, and Pluralism in Medicine.” Topoi 36 (2017): 521–530.

                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1007/s11245-015-9339-ySave Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                              A short essay that discusses the role of “gender medicine” in the progression of WHM to women’s health research. Emphasizes the importance of focusing on pluralism and diversity (by WHM) in understanding science as value laden and in successfully unveiling sexism in medicine, discovering gaps in medical knowledge, disclosing biases in earlier research, and generating new results. Identifies various examples where prejudice against women had trumped empirical evidence.

                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                              • Epstein, Steven. Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226213118.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                Focuses on a significant success of WHM—“sex-based biology” (or “gender-specific medicine”)—in the “shift of the common sense in medical research” that placed group identity and group difference at the heart of the biomedical research and the role of movements and other collaborations in this shift. A carefully crafted work that makes the reader engaged with how particular ways of thinking about medical research improved research by making it more inclusive.

                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                • Jamieson, Gwendolyn Gray. Reaching for Health: The Australian Women’s Health Movement and Public Policy. Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press, 2012.

                                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.26530/OAPEN_459488Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                  Provides an account of the history and politics of the Australian WHM, while locating events in the context of general political and social forces. Australian jurisdiction is particularly important for being the only country to have enacted two national women’s health policies. The account brings together the openings for women’s health rights in the endeavor for seeking changes in medical research and public policy.

                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                  • Murphy, Michelle. Seizing the Means of Reproduction: Entanglements of Feminism, Health and Technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012.

                                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1215/9780822395805Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                    An insightful attempt to capture the productive relationships between feminist movements and technoscience in the domain of reproductive health. Historicizes the attempts at doing “feminist technoscience” by the radical feminist self-help movement of California to fashion feminist biopolitics, by focusing on their use of plastic speculum, Pap smear, and manual suction abortion to “seize the means of reproduction.” An insightful work accessible for graduate students.

                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                    • Nelson, Jennifer. More than Medicine. New York: New York University Press, 2015.

                                                                                                                                      DOI: 10.18574/nyu/9780814762776.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                      Offers a history of the feminist WHM in the United States and describes how ideas about health and healthcare helped transform the women’s liberation movement of the late 1960s. It traces how ideas of revolutionary healthcare that flourished in the 1960s were developed by women’s liberation feminists and women of color feminists through the 1990s. An important and accessible contribution and includes chapters on local movements in Seattle and Atlanta.

                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                      • Turshen, Meredeth. Women’s Health Movements: A Global Force for Change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1057/9780230607125Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                        Offers an overview of the contributions of “the movements that women created” to confront women’s health issues related to sexuality, violence, reproduction, and disability. Useful for its broad brush in examining concerns articulated by movements from various parts of the world including India, Egypt, Peru, and the United States. Chapter 6 focuses on women’s reproductive issues articulated by WHM and the attendant challenges in seeking to democratize science and medicine.

                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                        Sustainable and Organic Agriculture

                                                                                                                                        Beginning as a small protest to the industrialization of agriculture in the 1920s, the organic movement leads contemporary attempts toward development of a truly sustainable, healthy, and socially just food system. Movements that seek to mainstream organic agriculture (termed “biological-agriculture” in the Francophone world and “biodynamic-agriculture” in the German world) as the dominant trajectory of food production and consumption have brought together focus on a number of issues that this entry on science and social movements has delineated in the other sections. Lockertez 2007 offers a global history of the emergence of organic agricultural knowledge by bringing together various insider accounts regarding the development of new organic production techniques, standards, markets, associations, and other institutions in various parts of the world. Though organic movements are generally associated with progressive politics, linking itself firmly with concerns of social justice, equality, and ecological sustainability, they also have a complicated and uncomfortable legacy from relations with fascist regimes. Staudenmaier 2013 offers a sophisticated reading of the complex and ambiguous relationship between proponents of biodynamic agriculture and competing groups of Nazi officials in the Third Reich. With the apparent failures of the Green Revolution, techniques espoused by the movement are often taken seriously by farmers, scientists, food processors, consumers, and regulators in many parts of the world, in contrast to their earlier dismissal as unscientific and counterproductive. Reed 2010 explores the formative ideas and networks through which the global organic food and farming movement operates to offer a window to the course of organic gaining a prominent footing in the global conversation. Iles, et al. 2017 provides a sophisticated review of literature on the idiom of coproduction of knowledge and food around prominent science and technology studies (STS) themes to help locate the significance of social movements in asserting sustainability and agency of farmers. Obach 2015 explores the future of the organic movement in the United States by historicizing the distinct strategies and pathways of the diverse constituencies that constitute the movement. Kinchy 2012 focuses on the main strategies of engagement of the antibiotech movement to the scientization in agribiotechnology politics, while delineating the consequences of reducing political conflicts to scientific and risk-oriented questions. Harrison 2011 examines the political and technical conflicts over pesticide drift in California to offer a window to the major trends in the alternative agrifood movement to bring critical attention to the failures of industry and regulators and to reform the agricultural practices and technologies. See also Kleinman 2000 and Eglash, et al. 2004 (both cited under Anthologies).

                                                                                                                                        • Harrison, Jill Lindsey. Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.

                                                                                                                                          DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262015981.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                          Examines the political and technical conflicts over pesticide drift in California and a critical evaluation of the major trends of activism to counter the drift. Chapter 5 focuses on endeavors of the alternative agrifood movement toward constructive reform of the agrifood system and bringing critical attention to the array of social inequalities and environmental problems in the mainstream agrifood practices and technologies, and attendant failures of the industry and state.

                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                          • Iles, Alastair, Garret Graddy-Lovelace, Maywa Montenegro, and Ryan Galt. “Agricultural Systems: Coproducing Knowledge and Food.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th ed. Edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 943–972. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.

                                                                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                            A review of literature on the idiom of coproduction of knowledge and food, focusing on theoretically significant themes to help understand the significance of social movements, farmers, and lay groups in the coproduction of agricultural systems, through the emerging themes of agrobiodiversity, farmer knowledge politics, and organic agriculture. Identifies existing research pathways in STS literature that reclaim agency of movements and farmers in the coproduction of agricultural knowledge.

                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                            • Kinchy, Abigail. Seeds, Science, and Struggle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.

                                                                                                                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                              Focuses on the main strategies of engagement to the scientization of biotechnology politics of the “antibiotech movement.” Uses two high-profile cases of contamination—of traditional Mexican maize and intermixing of genetically engineered and other varieties of canola in Canada—to examine tactics of movements’ engagements through civil society research, scrutiny of science through litigation, market-based tactics, and externalization of their struggle to international experts. Accessible for undergraduates and advanced researchers.

                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                              • Lockertez, William, ed. Organic Farming: An International History. Wallingform, UK: CABI, 2007.

                                                                                                                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                Collection of seventeen essays on the emergence of organic agriculture through the development of new organic production techniques, standards, markets, associations, and other institutions across the world. A useful overview of the insider accounts. Chapters 4 and 8 (science of organic farming and development of standards for organic farming, respectively) and Part 3 (accounts on various organic institutions like the UK Soil Association and Argentinian MAPO) are particularly relevant to the intersection.

                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                • Obach, Brian K. Organic Struggle: The Movement for Sustainable Agriculture in the United States. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.

                                                                                                                                                  DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262029094.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                  Explores the present and future of the organic movement in the United States by examining the broader political, economic, and social conditions of its development. Focuses on the evolution of various constituent organizations, ways in which organic advocacy groups are formed and developed, the diverse coalition of interests that compose the organic movement, as well as the ideologies, strategies, and pathways of the diverse constituencies that constitute the movement in the United States.

                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                  • Reed, Matthew. Rebels for the Soil: The Rise of Global Organic Food and Farming Movement. London: Earthscan, 2010.

                                                                                                                                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                    A useful window into the operation of global organic food and farming movement through a history of the ideas and networks by which the movement grew. The various chapters explore how the organic movement has made a prominent case for organic food and farming in the global conversation. Formulates four waves in the organic movement, including specific focus around genetically modified plants (chapter 7) and peak food (chapter 8).

                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                    • Staudenmaier, Peter. “Organic Farming in Nazi Germany: The Politics of Biodynamic Agriculture, 1933–1945.” Environmental History 18.2 (2013): 383–411.

                                                                                                                                                      DOI: 10.1093/envhis/ems154Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                      An illuminating case study of the vagaries of early organic politics using German archives and little-known contemporary publications to indicate ambiguous interactions between biodynamic proponents and competing groups of Nazi officials. Seeks to intricately untangle this history by focusing on the green sides of Nazism and the motivations of environmentally inclined farmers and proponents of sustainability. A balanced historical enquiry helpful to approach an equivocal and perplexing relationship.

                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                      Public Participation in Science, Technology and Policy

                                                                                                                                                      By the turn of this century, public participation in public decisions about science and technology (S&T) was increasingly advocated as leading to policies that are better informed and more widely accepted in society. Through the heuristics of public participation, social movements, and associated groups could engage with regulation/policymaking of S&T, including through institutional spaces like technology assessment boards, consensus conferences, public hearings on environmental impact assessments, and public consultation through public bioethics committees, citizen juries, and people’s tribunals. Bucchi and Neresini 2008 provides a useful overview of the emergence of the theme of public participation in S&T. Arguments to deviate from the traditional triple helix (government–industry–university) model in public decision-making in S&T through public participation has established itself as a new orthodoxy in the literature on governance of S&T. Delgado, et al. 2011 offers a sharp conceptual map of the gaps between theoretical ideals of public participation and the realities of their implementation, and its implications for democratization. Irwin 2006 offers an influential and critical engagement with the contours of this orthodoxy, an orthodoxy that is now commonplace in various allied domains like urban planning, architecture, art, the environment, public health, public policy, and law. Born and Barry 2010 focuses on the heterogeneous nature of art–science intersections to argue for a model of public participation as experimentation in knowledge production in art-science projects. Such ways of seeing lay publics/artists doing science seek to go beyond the conventional frame where art makes scientific and technical knowledge more publicly accessible and accountable. Bogner 2012 focuses on the practice of citizen conferences to elicit paradoxes in the recent trend in technology policy to advocate participation, where lay participation is framed within controlled conditions by professional experts in a way that fundamental disagreements get obscured. Thayyil 2014 examines the regulation of genetically modified crops through European Union law on the protection of public health and the environment to bring out the difficulties in engagements of formal legal architectures with “public participation.” Ottinger 2012 argues for a model of procedural justice that requires iterative opportunities for communities to grant informed consent, requiring proactive knowledge production to address knowledge gaps. Voß and Amelung 2016 reconstructs the interwoven histories of formal instruments of participation to point out a central irony that while anti-technocratic engagements with governance gave birth to participatory initiatives, such efforts have subsequently lead to establishing techno-scientific control over question of political procedure about S&T. Lezaun, et al. 2017 reviews recent science and technology studies (STS) literature that moves beyond the rhetoric and dissonances in public participation to questions of experimentation as a frame to approach “public participation.”

                                                                                                                                                      • Born, Georgina, and Andrew Barry. “Art-Science: From Public Understanding to Public Experiment.” Journal of Cultural Economy 3.1 (2010): 103–119.

                                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1080/17530351003617610Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                        An ethnographic study of art-science practitioners and institutions in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia that emphasizes the heterogeneity of forms and genealogies in art-science. Underlines the limitations in the characterization of art as merely providing the means to assemble and mobilize publics for science. Examine the relations between science, art, and the public to conceptualize art-science practices as public experiments in knowledge production, including mutual transformations of art and science.

                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                        • Bogner, Alexander. “The Paradox of Participation Experiments.” Science Technology & Human Values 37.5 (2012): 506–527.

                                                                                                                                                          DOI: 10.1177/0162243911430398Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                          Connects practices of citizens’ conferences, technology assessment, and other enactments of technocratic participation to focus on the dissonances in the claim of participation in technology policy. Scrutinizes the professed insistence on lay participation within specific citizen conferences and argues that in practice these conferences are lab experiments in participation. Focuses on the paradoxical effects in such lab experiments, given the dissonance due to its distinction from public participation as protest.

                                                                                                                                                          Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                          • Bucchi, Massimiano, and Federico Neresini. “Science and Public Participation.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 3d ed. Edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 449–472. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.

                                                                                                                                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                            This chapter provides a useful overview of the emergence of the phenomenon of public participation in science. It also offers a general interpretative framework with which to map the various forms of engagements in “public participation.” Placing itself within the domain of STS scholarship, it focuses on the hybridity of forums where scientific knowledge is produced including knowledge relevant for regulation of technology and scientific evidence in court rooms.

                                                                                                                                                            Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                            • Delgado, Ana, Kamilla Lein Kjølberg, and Fern Wickson. “Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science 20.6 (2011): 826–845.

                                                                                                                                                              DOI: 10.1177/0963662510363054Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                              Focuses on the gaps between theory and practice of public engagement by scrutinizing various STS perspectives on public engagement through the paradigmatic case of nanotechnology. Offers a conceptual map of this gap by engaging with five identified topics of tension: “Why should we do public engagement?” “Who should be involved?” “How should it be organized?” “When should it be done?” and “Where should it be grounded?”

                                                                                                                                                              Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                              • Irwin, Alan. “The Politics of Talks: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance.” Social Studies of Science 36.2 (2006): 299–320.

                                                                                                                                                                DOI: 10.1177/0306312706053350Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                An analytically skeptical (but not dismissive) engagement with the orthodoxy of public participation as an essential feature of the new mode of scientific governance. Focuses on the uneasy blend of old and new assumptions in the new mode by drawing from official reports and formal public debates in the United Kingdom. An influential essay that explores the relationship between social construction of public talk, talk and trust, and the pursuit of social consensus.

                                                                                                                                                                Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                • Lezaun, Javier, Noortje Marres, and Manuel Tironi. “Experiments in Participation.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. 4th ed. Edited by Ulrike Felt, Rayvon Fouché, Clark A. Miller, and Laurel Smith-Doerr, 195–221. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.

                                                                                                                                                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                  Reviews a growing body of STS literature that frames participation within an explicitly experimental orientation: conceiving participatory initiatives as experiments in redistributing expertise and constituting new publics. Also discusses the constitutive role of experiments as a general theme within social and political sciences literature. Reviews recent work on three broad areas: object-centered practices and forms of engagement; design, digital, and inventive method; and public experimentation as prototyping. Helpful for graduate researchers.

                                                                                                                                                                  Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                  • Ottinger, Gwen. “Changing Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and Knowledge Gaps: STS insights into Procedural Justice.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 38.2 (2012): 250–270.

                                                                                                                                                                    DOI: 10.1177/0162243912469669Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                    Discusses models of procedural justice in the context of local community participation and consent in public decisions regarding the institution of industrial facilities. Argues for a model that obliges iterative opportunities for communities to grant consent since scientific understandings evolve and for an obligation to continuously produce and refine knowledge relevant for residents’ decisions. Usefully summarize various challenges in existing notions of meaningful participation and informed consent during siting technological facilities.

                                                                                                                                                                    Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                    • Thayyil, Naveen. Law, Technology and Public Contestations in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2014.

                                                                                                                                                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                      Examines the conceptual challenges in the gap between a stated commitment to public participation and its implementation in law. Traverses the legal fields of World Trade Organization law, European Union law, and international environmental law to discuss the limitations of public participation in taking contestations about S&T seriously, even when legal and policy documents reflect an explicit commitment. Chapters 4 (precautionary principle) and 6 (public bioethics committees) sharply bring out the conceptual challenges.

                                                                                                                                                                      Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                      • Voß, Jan-Peter, and Nina Amelung. “Innovating Public Participation Methods: Techno Scientization and Reflexive Engagement.” Social Studies of Science 46.5 (2016): 749–772.

                                                                                                                                                                        DOI: 10.1177/0306312716641350Save Citation »Export Citation »

                                                                                                                                                                        Reconstructs the interwoven histories of “a family of participation methods, over four decades and across different sites” including citizens’ jury, planning cell, and consensus conference. Insightful in highlighting a central irony that even as anti-technocratic engagements with governance underpinned the emergence of formal forums of public deliberation, they have led to establishing techno-scientific control over question of political procedure about S&T. Includes a useful account of the aggregation of local practices of designing participatory procedures.

                                                                                                                                                                        Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                        back to top

                                                                                                                                                                        Article

                                                                                                                                                                        Up

                                                                                                                                                                        Down