<div>Though the old saying claims that man is the measure of all things, the authors of <i>Inside the Politics of Technology</i> argue that the distinction implied between autonomous humans and neutral instruments of technology is an illusion. On the contrary, the technologies humans create simultaneously shape humans themselves.<br><br>By means of case studies of technologies as diverse as video cameras, electric cars, pregnancy tests, and genetic screenings, this volume considers the implications of this co-production of technology and society for our philosophical and political ideas. Are only humans endowed with social.
In this article we discuss the development of a practice of screening, preventive treatment, and presymptomatic testing for individuals at risk of Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP), a specific hereditary predisposition for colon cancer. We describe this development as a process of co-evolution, showing how this practice has been gradually taking shape in a new network of actors, routines, rules, institutions and technologies. We further argue that, looking at the emergence and transformation of this practice, we can distinguish two different regimes: a regime of prevention and a regime of self-determination. In each of these regimes the autonomy of patients and individuals at risk is shaped in a different way, that is, through a different complex of ideals, procedures, institutions, technologies, and routines. In our view, the interference between these two regimes is an important characteristic of the emergent new genetics and is reflected in the growing debate about non-directivity in genetic counselling. However, as our argument implies, when facing the challenges of the new genetics we should not restrict the debate to the quality and ethics of counselling, but extend our view to the whole complex of elements and activities which shapes individual autonomy in the context of different regimes.
This chapter focuses on cancergenetics as a field in which the extension of options for genetic screening is clearly visible and which allows people to study the emergence and implications of the new genetics from a co-evolutionary perspective. From this perspective two points are especially important for understanding of the new genetics in society. First, co-evolution is a process in which technology and society are mutually shaped, starting with new options, initiatives and expectations on a local level. Second, the development and embedding of new technologies in society will always be conditioned by alignments and arrangements resulting from earlier processes of co-evolution of technology and society. These two points consider how in the Netherlands a screening practice has emerged for Familiar Adenomatous Polyposis, a particular hereditary predisposition for colon cancer. In the Netherlands, deoxyribose nucleic acid-diagnosis is made available only through a network of regional clinical genetics centres.
During a stay from - as research fellow at the University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands, I participated in the so-called "Mumford-program" -a project to stimulate and co-ordinate intellectual collaboration on the spot between various strands of Science and Technology Studies: from philosophy, sociology, and history of science and technology up to research policy and management studies.This volume, discussing the analytical and normative consequences of (conceiving) technology and technological artifacts as agents, is one of the project's principal results.Accordingly, the contributing authors are (or were) all engaged with the University of Twente.Earlier versions of the contributions to this volume were extensively discussed in a common workshop with Emilie Gomart and Knut Sørensen as external discussants.I would like to thank both of them for their stimulating comments and critical remarks.In addition, different chapters were reviewed seperately by experts:
Laboratory ethnographies have provided valuable insights in the workings of contemporary science and technology and about facts in the making. Nearly all these ethnographic studies have been conducted at nonprofit research institutes. In this article, the authors argue that it is time for science and technology studies (STS) ethnography to direct its gaze toward for-profit knowledge production sites. The authors do so, based on a long-standing recognition that nonprofit academic laboratories do not have a monopoly on knowledge construction. First, they historicize STS’ focus on public knowledge production, distinguishing between two roles for STS. Second, they argue that relationships between industry and society have changed, resulting in increasing corporate transparency. Third, they argue that this change enables STS ethnography to enter corporations and corporate laboratories. The authors conclude by proposing a research agenda for the social study of corporate science.
Journal Article Richness of contemporary innovation processes Get access Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness edited by Howells Jeremy and Michie Jonathan Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Lyme, 1997, 235, £49.95, 1-85898-428-9 Annemiek Nelis Annemiek Nelis Research Fellow at SATSU, Anglia University, Cambridge, CB1 1PT; e-mail: A.P.Nelis@anglia.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Science and Public Policy, Volume 26, Issue 1, February 1999, Pages 63–64, https://doi.org/10.3152/147154399781782635 Published: 01 February 1999
