Skip to main content
Monthly Archives

May 2007

Workshop on science, museums and trust

By Biomedicine in museums

Trust is a key concept in science studies (cf. Ted Porter’s excellent book Trust in Numbers, 1995, just to take one example). Now the Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science are organising a workshop on “Trust in Science” to take place at Toronto’s CBC Conference Centre 15-16 October. What’s interesting with this meeting is that the organisers are focusing on trust in public understanding of science (journalism, broadcasting and museums).

Sessions thus include: Clinical Trials and the Pharmaceutical Industry; Publicizing Science, and its Effects; Public Controversies and the Distribution of Expertise; Who to Trust on Climate Change; and Museums and the Public Trust. To register for the workshop, email bessie@yorku.ca before 20 September. For more info,see this pdf-file.

Why has history of science/medicine and STS largely eschewed proteomics?

By Biomedicine in museums

Today’s big news in the Copenhagen health and life science community is the £55 mill. (600 mill. DKK) grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation to create a brand new center for protein research (proteomics, bioinformatics etc.) at the university’s Faculty of Health Sciences. The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, as it will be called, is planned to open in the autumn of 2008 with a total staff of around 100.

This is great news for Danish health and life sciences. The new center — which will be among the larger ones in the world — will boost research in postgenomics, proteomics and systems biology.

They forgot one important thing, however. When NIH and DOE launched the Human Genome Project in the 1990s, about 3 % of the budget was set aside to the study of the ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) raised by the HGP.

Read More

What images tell of scientific work — and display practices?

By Biomedicine in museums

… and I also wish I could be in Oxford on Wednesday at 5pm to attend the Museum of History of Science’s seminar and listen to David Gooding from the Science Studies Centre @ University of Bath when he talks about “Visual Theories: Materials, Models and Methods”. Here’s his abstract which brings up some interesting problems of relevance for the “Biomedicine on Display” project:

Alongside the study of texts, instruments and other artefacts, images have much to tell us about scientific work. Scientists in different domains use images and other non-linguistic objects in very similar ways. Common features of the manipulation of these objects indicate that general strategies for interpretation, simplification, modelling, elaboration and argumentation are at work. Some of these imaging methods are shared with the visual arts. Whereas social and cultural studies of science emphasise the diversity of local contexts of practice, the existence of common strategies shows that this diversity masks an important repertoire of cognitive strategies. I will show that scientists use this repertoire to adapt their representations to meet the demands that arise in different contexts of practice and will consider the implications of this finding for our understanding of scientists as agents in knowledge-producing systems.

My point is that what David Gooding says about cognitive research strategies could perhaps be applied to the domain of image-use in exhibitions and the public engagement with science. For example (to paraphrase Gooding), shall museums primarily been seen as more or less bewildering arrays of localised contexts of practice, or do curators rather use a repertoire of display strategies to adapt their exhibitions to meet the demands that arise in different museum contexts?

Hype cycles in biomedicine and biotech

By Biomedicine in museums

Some ten years ago analysts at Gartner, an information and technology research and advisory company, suggested that the acceptance of new information technologies tend to follow a ‘hype cycle’. First comes a trigger phase with intitial curiosity, then a peak with wide-spread publicity and inflated expectations (the hype), followed by a phase of disillusionment when the new technology fails to meet the expectations. Then comes a slow recovery phase; the press has forgotten all about it, but some business begin to see the value in it. And, finally, the new technology (eventually) becomes main-stream and accepted (no hype this time).

Gartner’s hype cycle thesis has mainly been discusssed in relation to marketing strategies for new information and communication technologies.  I haven’t seen it applied graphically to medical technologies (my favourite med&tech site, medgadget, hasn’t mentioned it) until yesterday when I found Pedro Beltrao’s playful graph on Public Rambling:

Read More