Events for March 9, 2010

March 9, 2010

Alberto Cambrosio, CHF Cain Conference Fellow, McGill University

Protocols, Networks and Conventions:  New Forms of Objectivity and New Biomedical Practices in the (Post)genomic Era

Chemical Heritage Foundation | Visit site »

Time: 12:00 - 1:00 p.m.
Place: 6th Floor Conference Room, Chemical Heritage Foundation
Information: 215-873-8289 or bbl@chemheritage.org

Free and open to the public.

The evolution of Western medicine since World War II may be described as a realignment of biology and medicine that has in turn been accompanied by the emergence of a new type of objectivity—regulatory objectivity—based on the systematic recourse to the collective production of evidence. Collaborative forms of work, such as extended networks, expert groups, and consortia, increasingly frame the structure of biomedical activities. This collective turn is especially visible in two domains: genomics—where the production of knowledge relies not only on very large-scale collaborative projects, such as the Human Genome Project, but also on a motley collection of cooperative groups specializing in a given pathology or specific genes—and, more traditionally, clinical trials, in particular in the field of oncology, where new protocols and therapies emerge from large-scale, multicenter clinical trials performed by long-established cooperative groups, such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group in the United States and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment in Cancer. In this talk Cambrosio will focus on a new kind of large collaborative clinical trial that emerges at the intersection of these two domains. These kinds of clinical trials raise issues about the redefinition of national and international collaborative links between clinicians and researchers from different disciplines and between public research organizations and biotechnology start-ups.

Alberto Cambrosio has been a professor at McGill University’s Department of Social Studies of Medicine since 1990. His area of expertise lies at the crossroads of medical sociology and the sociology of science and technology. His work focuses on biomedical innovation (in particular, on the application of molecular biology and genomics to the diagnosis and the therapy of cancer) and on the social and historical dynamics of biomedical regulation, objectification, and standardization. His publications include Exquisite Specificity: The Monoclonal Antibody Revolution (Oxford University Press, 1995) and Biomedical Platforms: Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine (MIT Press, 2003), both coauthored with Peter Keating. He was one of the guest editors of a recent special issue of Social Studies of Science on “Biomedical Conventions and Regulatory Objectivity” (October 2009). He has recently submitted a book manuscript (also in collaboration with Peter Keating) titled Cancer on Trial: The Rise of Oncology as a New Style of Practice. 

March 9, 2010

Evelyn Fox Keller, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Climate Science, Truth, and Democracy

Center for Cultural Analysis, Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ | Visit site »

Time:  4:30 p.m.
Place: Alexander Library Pane Room, 169 College Avenue, College Avenue Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Information: info@cca.rutgers.edu or 732-932-8426

Evidence and Explanation in the Arts and Sciences:  Distinguished Lecture Series

An impasse of credibility currently prevails in the US around the issues of climate change that threatens to paralyze citizens and experts alike. Much of the internet, radio talk shows, and popular television is flooded with challenges to the credibility and trustworthiness of climate scientists, and even the prestige press (e.g., NY Times and NYRB) has, in an effort to adhere to their traditional ethic of “balance,” has contributed to the widespread misimpression that climate scientists are deeply divided about both the extent of the dangers we face and the relevance of human activity. Not knowing who or what to believe, not knowing how to assess the costs of inaction, the natural response for most people is to do nothing. Meanwhile, the evidence of the seriousness of the problem continues to mount. Most climate scientists, even though extremely concerned, have been reluctant to weigh in on these (often acrimonious) public debates, instead seeking recourse in the particular authority granted them by “peer review,” and fearing that going outside, beyond the reach of peer review, might undermine their credibility. The effect is that the debate that rages in the public domain remains unchecked for intellectual or scientific reliability. The situation is dire, for, given that we live in a democratic state, the possibility of any effective action depends absolutely on the consent of a properly informed public. The questions I want to pose are therefore of two kinds: The first concerns the role of expertise in a democratic society, the ways in which lay citizens can responsibly participate in policy decisions, and the question of how a lay reader is to decide who and what to believe. The second concerns the nature and limits of the climate scientist’s particular responsibility in this political and social situation.