I sometimes wonder what the value(s) of critical sociological engagement with science for scientists themselves might be. As discussed in the critique of the so-called deficit model, no system of knowledge production, scientific or not, is inherently superior to others (e.g., Wynne 1992). Hence, we—social scientists of science—celebrate plurality of knowledge. Scientists may well develop an interest in communicating to and engaging with the nonscientist public by recognizing that science has its limitations, as many other systems of knowledge production do, and also by realizing the significance of lay expertise. But can and should scientists learn to engage with their own system as critically as we would? Isn't the unpacking or deconstructing of scientific knowledge too disturbing for them to remain active in the system? This book—Body as Risk—suggests that it may not be as counterproductive as one...
Risuku Ka Sareru Shintai—gendai Igaku to Touchi No Tekunorojī リスク化される身体 —現代医学と統治のテクノロジ [Body as Risk—modern Medicine and the Technology of Governance]
Koichi Mikami is a research fellow on the Wellcome Trust–funded research project Making Genomic Medicine, headed by Professor Steve Sturdy of Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh. This historical project aims to investigate the scientific and social factors that led to the emergence of genomic medicine in the twenty-first century. He is responsible for its research strand addressing the rise of rare diseases as an agenda both of medical science and of health policy.
Koichi Mikami; Risuku Ka Sareru Shintai—gendai Igaku to Touchi No Tekunorojī リスク化される身体 —現代医学と統治のテクノロジ [Body as Risk—modern Medicine and the Technology of Governance]. East Asian Science, Technology and Society 1 March 2017; 11 (1): 113–117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3483207
Download citation file: