The Scientists’ Role and Medical Innovations

Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 302)

Abstract

The chapter focuses on medicine and argues against the hasty dismissal of much of the classic sociology of science by a new generation of scholars. Ben-David tied the diffusion of disciplinary thought and innovation to his concept of the scientist’s role. Bacteriology and psychoanalysis served as examples. In both cases, a ‘role-hybridization’ was said to be instrumental in the move from the original disciplinary field to the new focus. The chapter explores this diffusion process on the basis of two examples: screening for cancer; and prenatal diagnosis. In both innovations, the impetus to develop these novelties did not originate with a specific group of scholars or professionals—and specifically not in their intent to transcend a constricting ‘role’, as Ben-David might have suggested. Rather the innovations came into being as the result of an interplay of various stakeholders.

Keywords

Scientific Practice Scientific Enterprise Moral Economy Multiple Reference Frame Scientific Ethos 
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. Agamben, G. 2009. What is an appartus? And other essays. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Agar, J. 2008. What happened in the sixties. British Journal for the History of Science 41: 567–600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angell, M. 2004. The truth about the drug companies. New York: Random House. Google Scholar
  4. Aronowitz, R. 2001. Do not delay: breast cancer and time 1900–1970. The Milbank Quarterly 79: 355–386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aronowitz, R. 2007. Unnatural history: breast cancer and American Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Bayet, C. S. 1986. Pasteur et la révolution pasteurienne. Paris: Payot. Google Scholar
  7. Ben-David, J. 1960. Roles and innovations in medicine. American Journal of Sociology 65: 557–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ben-David, J. 1984. Introduction. In Ben-David (1984/1971). Google Scholar
  9. Ben-David, J. 1984/1971. The scientist’s role in society: a comparative analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  10. Ben-David, J. 1986. Academic market, ideology and the growth of scientific knowledge: physiology in mid-nineteenth century Germany. In Approaches to social theory, eds. S. Lindberg, J. S. Coleman, and S. Novak, 63–76. New York: Russsel Sage Foundation. Google Scholar
  11. Bloodgood, J. C. undated, ca. 1916. What every one should know about cancer, Technical report, AMA leaflet. Google Scholar
  12. Blume, S. 1992. Insight and industry: on the dynamics of technological change in medicine. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  13. Boltanski, L., and E. Chiapello. 2004. The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso. Google Scholar
  14. Browne, J. 1995. Charles Darwin: a biography, Vol. 1. New York: Knopf. Google Scholar
  15. Browne, J. 2002. Charles Darwin: a biography, Vol. 2. New York: Knopf. Google Scholar
  16. Cowan, R. 2008. Heredity and hope: the case for genetic screening. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Daston, L. 1995. The moral economy of science. Osiris 10: 2–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Desmond, A., and J. Moore. 2009. Darwin’s sacred cause: how a hatred of slavery shaped Darwin’s views on human evolution. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Google Scholar
  19. Fleck, L. 1929. Zur Kritik der ‘Wirklichkeit’. Die Naturwissenschaften 17: 425–430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freudenthal, G. 1987. Joseph Ben-David’s sociology of scientific knowledge. Minerva 25: 135–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gardner, K. E. 2006. Early detection: women, cancer and awareness campaigns in the twentieth century United States. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Google Scholar
  22. Gross, P. R., and N. Levitt. 1994. Higher superstition: the academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
  23. Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledge: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14: 575–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harding, S. 1996. Feminism and science. In Rethinking standpoint epistomolgy, London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  25. Harper, P. S. 2006. First years of human chromosomes: the beginnings of human cytogenetics. Banbury: Scion Publishing Ltd. Google Scholar
  26. Howard, D. H., L. C. Richardson, and K. E. Thorpe. 2009. Cancer screening and age in the United States and Europe. Health Affairs 28: 1826–1837. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller, E. F., and H. Longino, eds. 1996. Feminism and science. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Koss, Leopold G. 1989. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: a triumph and a tragedy. Journal of the American Medical Association 261: 737–743. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lane-Claypon, J. E. 1924. Cancer of the breast and its surgical treatment. Vol. 28 of Reports on public health and medical subject. London: Ministry of Health. Google Scholar
  30. Lane-Claypon, J. E. 1927. Cancer of the uterus: a statistical inquiry into the results of treatment, being the analysis of the existing literature. Vol. 40 of Reports on public health and medical subject. London: Ministry of Health. Google Scholar
  31. Löwy, I. 2007. Breast cancer and the “Materiality of risk”: the rise of morphological prediction. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 81: 241–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marks, H. 1997. The progress of experiment: science and therapeutic reform in the United States 1900–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  33. Moscucci, O. 2007. The ‘Ineffable freemasonry of sex’: feminist surgeons and the establishment of radiotherapy in early twentieth century Britain. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 81: 139–163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pestre, D. 2004. Thirty years of science studies. Knowledge, Society and the Political, History and Technology 20: 351–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pietrantonj, C. D., M. G. Debalini, A. Rivetti, and V. Demicheli. 2009. Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systemic review. British Medical Journal 338: 354–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pinell, P. (2002/1992). The fight against cancer: France 1890–1940 (Naissance d’un fleau: histoire de la lutte contre le cancer en France, 1890–1940). In Routledge Studies in the History of Science, Technology and Medicine (Collection Lecons de choses). London/Paris: Routledge/Métailié. Google Scholar
  37. Porter, T. 1995. Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  38. Ross, A., ed. 1996. Science wars. Durham: Duke University Press. Google Scholar
  39. Sokal, A., and J. Bricmont. 1997. Impostures intellectuelles. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob. Google Scholar
  40. Sokal, A., and J. Bricmont. 1998. Fashionable nonsense: postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science. London: Picador. Google Scholar
  41. Strax, P. 1989. Control of breast cancer through mass screening: from research to action. Cancer 63: 1881–1887. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tansey, E., and D. A. Christie, eds. 1998. Looking at the unborn: historical aspects of obstetric ultrasound, Vol. 5 of Wellcome witness seminar to twentieth century medicine. London: The Wellcome Trust. Google Scholar
  43. Tansey, E., and D. A. Christie. 2003. Genetic testing, Vol. 17 of Wellcome witness seminar to twentieth century medicine. London: The Wellcome Trust. Google Scholar
  44. Tönnies, F. 2005/1887. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundbegriffe der reinen Soziologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Google Scholar
  45. Traveek, S. 1996. Unity, dyads, triads, quads, and complexity: cultural choreographies of science. Social Text 46/47. Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, D. 2009. Harvard Medical School in ethics quandary. The New York Times, March 3. Google Scholar
  47. Zallen, D., E. Tansey, and D. A. Christie, eds. 2004. The rhesus factor and disease prevention, Vol. 22 of Wellcome witness seminar to twentieth century medicine. London: The Wellcome Trust. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CERMESCedex VillejuifFrance

Personalised recommendations