Social Epistemology of Stem Cell Research: Philosophy and Experiment

Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 263)

Abstract

When it comes to social aspects of our knowledge-generating practices, history and philosophy of science seem starkly opposed. I argue that this opposition stems from an assumption of normative/descriptive dualism. This dualism polarizes the study of scientific inquiry into two mutually exclusive, yet co-dependent, projects: description of our actual scientific practices and their results, or abstract examination of epistemic ideals detached from our practices. If we must choose between describing the historical unfolding of our scientific practices, or elaborating abstract epistemic ideals, an integrated history and philosophy of social epistemology of scientific inquiry is precluded. I show that this dualism can be overcome, by explicating a conception of the epistemic ideal of scientific objectivity from the social aspects of our scientific practices. This ideal of objectivity is both normative and engaged with the historical unfolding of experimental inquiry. It is thus a first step toward an integrated social epistemology of scientific inquiry, to be elaborated by further historical and philosophical study.

Keywords

Scientific Knowledge Scientific Practice Stem Cell Research Scientific Objectivity Shared Goal 
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.

References

  1. Barnes, Barry and David Bloor. 1982. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge”. In Rationality and Relativism, edited by M. Hollis and S. Lukes, 21–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, A.J., E.A. McCulloch, and J.E. Till. 1963. “Cytological Demonstration of the Clonal Nature of Spleen Colonies Derived from Transplanted Mouse Bone Marrow Cells”. Nature 197: 452–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloor, David. 2004. “Sociology of scientific knowledge”. In Handbook of Epistemology, edited by Illka Niiniluoto, Matti Sintonen, and Jan Wolenski, 919–62. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Boghossian, Peter. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bonner, W.A., H.R. Hulett, R.G. Sweet, and L.A. Herzenberg. 1972. “Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting”. Review of Scientific Instruments 43: 404–09.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bratman, Michael E. 1999. Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briggs, Charles L. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, Harry. 1975. “The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics”. Sociology 9: 205–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, Harry. 1998. “The Meaning of Data: Open and Closed Evidential Cultures in the Search for Gravitational Waves”. American Journal of Sociology 104: 293–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daston, Lorraine and Peter Galison. 1992. “The Image of Objectivity”. Representations 40: 81–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dontu, G, M. Al-Hajj, W.A. Abdallah, M.F. Clarke, and M.S. Wicha. 2003. “Stem cells in normal breast development and breast cancer”. Cell Proliferation 36: 59–72, S1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drori, Gili S., John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and Evan Schofer. 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fagan, Melinda B. 2007. “The Search for the Hematopoietic Stem Cell: Social Interaction and Epistemic Success in Immunology”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38: 217–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleck, Ludwik. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, trans. F. Bradley and T. J. Trenn; edited by T.J. Trenn and R.K. Merton. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (1st edition. published 1935, German).Google Scholar
  15. Frickel, Scott and Moore, Kelly, eds. 2006. The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, Michael. 1999. The Dynamics of Reason. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  17. Fuller, Steve. 1988. Social epistemology (2nd edition, 2002). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Giere, Ronald. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gilbert, Margaret. 1989. On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldman, Alvin I. 2002. Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Golinski, Jan. 1998. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Herzenberg, L.A. and L.A. Herzenberg. 2004. “Genetics, FACS, Immunology, and Redox”. Annual Review of Immunology 22: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herzenberg, L.A., R.G. Sweet, and L.A. Herzenberg. 1976. “Fluorescence-Activiated Cell Sorting”. Scientific American 224: 108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hollis, M. and S. Lukes, eds. 1982. Rationality and Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a Process: an Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kawamoto, H., K. Ohmura, and Y. Katsura. 1997. “Direct Evidence for the Commitment of Hematopoietic Stem Cells to T, B, and Myeloid Lineages in Murine Fetal Liver”. International Immunology 9: 1011–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keating, P., and A. Cambrosio. 2003. Biomedical Platforms: Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kellert, Stephen H., Helen E. Longino, and C. Kenneth Waters. 2006. Scientific Pluralism. Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, Volume XIX. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The Advancement of Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitcher, Philip. 2004. “The Ends of the Sciences”. In The Future for Philosophy, edited by Brian Leiter. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  34. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  35. Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kondo, M., I.L. Weissman, and K. Akashi. 1997. “Identification of Clonogenic Common Lymphoid Progenitors in Mouse Bone Marrow”. Cell 91: 661–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koretzky, G., and J. Monroe. 2002. “Introduction”. Immunological Reviews 185: 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kornblith, Hilary. 1994. “A Conservative Approach to Social Epistemology”. In Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge, edited by F.F. Schmitt, 93–110. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  39. Kuby, J. 1994. Immunology, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Freeman .Google Scholar
  40. Kusch, Martin. 2002. Knowledge by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kutz, Christopher. 2000. “Acting Together”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Labinger, J.A., and H. Collins, eds. 2001. The One Culture? A Conversation about Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Latour, B. 1983. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World”. In Science Observed, edited by E. Mulkay, and K. Knorr Cetina, 141–70. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: the Construction of Scientific Facts (2nd edition, 1986). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lemischka, I.R., D.H. Raulet, and R.C. Mulligan. 1986. “Developmental Potential and Dynamic Behavior of Hematopoietic Stem-Cells”. Cell 45: 917–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Longino, Helen. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Merton, Robert K., Marjorie Fisk, and Patricia L. Kendall. 1956. The Focused Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Miller, Seumas. 2001. Social Action: a Teleological Account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morrison, Sean J., and Irving L. Weissman. 1994. “The Long-Term Repopulating Subset of Hematopoietic Stem Cells Is Deterministic and Isolatable by Phenotype”. Immunity 1: 661–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Owen, Ray. 1945. “Immunogenetic Consequences of Vascular Anastomoses Between Bovine Twins”. Science 102: 400–01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paul, W.E. 1983. “Preface to Volume 1”. Annual Review of Immunology 1: vii.Google Scholar
  55. Paul, W.E., ed. 2003. Fundamental Immunology, 5th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  56. Pickering, A. 1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Radetsky, Peter. 1995. “The Mother of All Blood Cells”. Discover 16: 86–93.Google Scholar
  58. Rouse, Joseph. 1996. Engaging Science: How to Understand its Practices Philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Searle, John. 1990. “Collective Actions and Intentions”. In Intentions in Communication, edited by P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, 401–15. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Seidman, Irving. 1998. Interviewing as Qualitative Research, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press .Google Scholar
  61. Shapin, Steven. 1982. “History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions”. History of Science 20: 157–211.Google Scholar
  62. Shapin, Steven. 1996. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Siminovitch, L., E.A. McCulloch, and J.E. Till. 1963. “The Distribution of Colony-Forming Cells Among Spleen Colonies”. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology 62: 327–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Spangrude, G.J. 1989. “Enrichment of Murine Hematopoietic Stem-Cells: Diverging Roads”. Immunology Today 10: 344–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spangrude, G.J., S. Heimfeld, and I.L. Weissman. 1988. “Purification and Characterization of Mouse Hematopoietic Stem Cells”. Science 241: 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Till, J.E., and E.A. McCulloch. 1961. “A Direct Measurement of the Radiation Sensitivity of Normal Mouse Bone Marrow Cells”. Radiation Research 14: 213–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tuomela, Raimo. 2005. “We-Intentions Revisited”. Philosophical Studies 125: 327–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Visser, J.W.M., J.G.J. Bauman, A.H. Mulder, J.F. Eliason, and A.M. de Leeuw. 1984. “Isolation of Murine Pluripotent Hemopoietic Stem Cells”. Journal of Experimental Medicine 59: 1576–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Visser, J.W.M., and D.W. van Bekkum. 1990. “Purification of Pluripotent Hematopoietic Stem Cells – Past and Present. Experimental Hematology 18: 248–56.Google Scholar
  72. Watt, S., D.J. Gilmore, J.M. Davis, M.R. Clark, and H. Waldmann. 1987. “Cell-Surface Markers on Haemopoietic Precursors: Reagents for the Isolation and Analysis of Progenitor Cell Subpopulations”. Molecular and Cellular Probes 1: 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zammito, John H. 2004. A Nice Derangement of Epistemes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  74. Zuckerman, Harriet. 1977. Scientific Elites: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations