Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 119–143 | Cite as

Historical scientometrics? Mapping over 70 years of biological safety research with coword analysis

  • A. Cambrosio
  • C. Limoges
  • J. P. Courtial
  • F. Laville
Article

Abstract

This paper relates the results of a co-word analysis of over 70 years of biological safety literature. The database used in this project is theSonger Safety Bibliography (SSB) which lists around 17 000 references. The results show biological safety to be a very fragmented field, characterized by the existence of several relatively independent foci of interest, none of which has been able to structure the field into a tight network. Early periods of activity were marked by the construction of the basic tools of biological safety practices. Those tools became a “robust package” which, in more recent periods, was used routinely. While the safety problems related to recombinant DNA research have received much attention in the general press, they do not seem to occupy a prominent place within the biological safety literature, at least the one compiled in SSB.

Keywords

Early Period Recent Period Basic Tool General Press Safety Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Callon, M., J.-P. Courtial, F. Laville Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry,Scientometrics, 22 (1991) 155–205.Google Scholar
  2. Cambrosio, A., C. Limoges, E. Hoffman, Experitise as a network: A case study of the controversies over the environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. In:The Culture and Power of Knowledge. Inquiries into Contemporary Societies,N. Stehr,R. V. Ericson (Eds), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, C. H.,Safety in Clinical and Biomedical Laboratories, London, Chapman and Hall, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. Courtial, J.-P., M. Callon, Indicators for the identification of strategic themes within a research programme,Scientometrics, 21 (1991) 447–458.Google Scholar
  5. Courtial, J.-P., M. Callon, M. Sigogneau, Is indexing trustworthy? Classification of articles through co-word analysis.Journal of Information Science, 9 (1984) 47–56.Google Scholar
  6. Edmonds, O. P., The role of the safety officer, In:Safety in Biological Laboratories,E. Hartee,V. Booth (Eds), London, The Biochemical Society, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Hacking, I., The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences, In:Science as Practice and Cultura,A. Pickering (Ed.), Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. Jensen, M. T., J. R. Songer, D. T. Braymen,The Songer Safety Bibliography: A Status Report, paper presented at the 31st Biological Safety Conference, Bethesda, Maryland, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. Rip, A., P. Groenewegen, Les faits scientifiques à l'épreuve de la politique, In:La science et ses réseaux. Genèse et circulation des faits scientifiques,M. Callon (Ed.), Paris, Editions la découverte, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. Wedium, A. G., History of Microbiological Safety, paper presented at the 18th Biological Safety Conference, Lexington, Kentucky, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Cambrosio
    • 1
  • C. Limoges
    • 2
  • J. P. Courtial
    • 3
  • F. Laville
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Social Studies of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontreal(Canada)
  2. 2.Centre de Recherche en Évaluation Sociale des Technologies (CREST)Université du Québec à MontréalMontréal(Canada)
  3. 3.Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation (CSI)École Nationale Supérieure des MinesParis(France)
  4. 4.Observatoire des Sciences et des TechniquesParis(France)

Personalised recommendations