Abstract
This paper draws on literature from the sociology of expectations to explore accounts of experts in cancer research and clinical practice. The cancer specialists’ accounts presented in this article are taken from interviews undertaken as part of a project that aimed to develop a research agenda for the next ten to thirty years that will achieve early detection and prevention in the four main cancers: (i) bowel and colorectal, (ii) prostate, (iii) lung and (iv) breast. Drawing on secondary analysis of the interviews, this article provides a sociological exploration of both the experts’ versions of the future and the interactions between the interviewer and research participant to show expectation in the making: the competing stories of what is and what ought to be the focus of cancer research now and in the (near) future. The building of a cancer research agenda is shown to be a contested future, represented by a dominant and resistant view of the cancer problem, in which cancer specialists must engage in performative strategies and boundary work to frame the present problem: what cancer is and how it can be detected and, subsequently, to claim credibility for a future pathway.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Gieryn (1999) uses the concept of cartography to describe the mapping of epistemic authority on the basis of credible methods or reliable facts, with borders that locate useful science, that are surrounded by less useful terrain. This idea helps to describe the spatial, material and ontological demarcation that occurs in the accounts and interactions of cancer research experts.
Aligned to the concern over pussycats and tigers, although not fully explored in this expert’s description, is the problem of ‘lead time biases’. This refers to the length of time a ‘cancer’ has been detected but causes no harm, with earlier detection potentially creating years of anxiety (Etzioni et al, 2002).
Futures not represented in these accounts include the potential human impact of over-diagnoses (Etzioni et al, 2002) that fail to provide useful categories for clinical intervention (Welch, 2006; Black, 2000; Folkman and Kalluri, 2004). Such futures may have provided greater credibility to the resistant view and further challenged the paradigm of early detection and prevention.
References
Adam, B. and Groves, C. (2007) Future Matters: Action, Knowledge Ethics. Leiden: Brill.
Akrich, M. (1992) The description of technological objects. In: Bijker, W. and Law, J. (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 205–224.
Armstrong, D. (2009) Origins of the problem of health-related behaviours: A genealogical study. Social Studies of Science 39(6): 909–926.
Arribas-Ayllon, M., Bartlett, A. and Featherstone, K. (2010) Complexity and accountability: The witches’ brew of genetic psychiatry. Social Studies of Science 40(4): 499–524.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Black, W. (2000) Overdiagnosis: An underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92(16): 1280–1282.
Borup, M., Brown, N., Kondrad, K. and Van Lente, H. (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3): 285–298.
Brown, N. Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (2000) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Brown, N. (2000) Organising/disorganising the breakthrough motif: Dolly the cloned ewe meets Astrid the hybrid pig. In: Brown, N., Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (eds) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 87–108.
Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2003) A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15: 3–18.
Bruun, H. (2012) Science, Values and Politics in Max Weber’s Methodology: New Expanded Edition. London: Ashgate.
Calvert, J. and Fujimura, J. (2009) Calculating life: A sociological perspective on systems biology. EMBO Reports 10: 46–49.
Calvert, J. (2006) What’s special about basic research. Science, Technology and Human Values 31(2): 199–220.
Charlton, B. and Andras, P. (2005) Medical research funding may have over-expanded and be due for collapse. Q J Med 98(1): 53–55.
Cicourel, A. (1982) Interviews, survery, and the problem of ecological validity. The American Sociologist 17: 11–20.
Collins, H. (1999) Tantalus and the aliens: Publications, audiences and the search for gravitational waves. Social Studies of Science 29(2): 163–197.
Collins, H. (1997) Expertise: Between the scylla of certainty and the new age of charybdis. Accountability in Research, Policies and Quality Assurance 5: 127–135.
Etzioni, R., Penson, D., Legler, J., diTommaso, D., Boer, R., Gann, P. and Feuer, E. (2002) Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: Lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94: 981–990.
Fairclough, N. (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Routledge.
Fitzgerald, D. (2014) The trouble with brain imaging: Hope, uncertainty and ambivalence in the neuroscience of autism. BioSocieties 9(3): 241–261.
Folkman, J. and Kalluri, R. (2004) Cancer without disease. Nature 427: 787.
Fujimura, J. (1987) Do-Able problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science 17(2): 257–293.
Galison, P. and Hevly, B. (1992) Big Science: The Growth of Large Scale Research. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gieryn, T. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science. London: University of Chicago Press Ltd.
Gieryn, T. (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Social Studies of Science 48(6): 781–795.
Goldstein, I. Madar, S. and Rotter, V. (2012) Cancer research, a field on the verge of a paradigm shift? Science & Society 18(6): 299–303.
Groves, C. (2013) Road-maps and revelations: on the somatic ethics of genetic susceptibility. New Genetics & Society 32(3): 264–284.
Hacking, I. (1992) Statistical language, statistical truth and statistical reason: The self-authentication of a style of scientific reasoning. In: McMullin, E. (ed.) The Social Dimensions of Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Re-Invention of Women. London: Routledge.
Hedgecoe, A. (2006) Pharmacogenetics as alien science: Alzheimer’s disease, core sets and expectations. Social Studies of Science 36(5):723–752.
Hedgecoe, A. and Martin, P. (2003) The drugs don’t work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science 33(3): 327–364.
Hilgartner S (2013) Constituting Large-Scale Biology: Building a Regime of Governance in the Early Years of the Human Genome Project. BioSocieties 8: 397–416.
Horst, M. (2007) Public expectations of gene therapy: Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science, Technology and Human Values 32(2): 150–171.
Kazimierczak, K. and Skea, Z. (2015) I’ve used the word Cancer but It’s actually good news: Discursive performativity of cancer and the identity of urological cancer services. Sociology of Health and Illness 37(3): 340–354.
Keating, P. and Cambrosio, A. (2013) The art of medicine. 21st-century oncology: a tangled web. The Lancet 382: e45-e46.
Kerr, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Tutton, R. (2007) Exploring Ambivalence about genetic research and its social context. Social Theory & Health 5: 53–69.
Khory, M., Gwinnn, M., Yoon, P., Dowling, N., Moore, C. and Bradley, L. (2007) The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate intergration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genetics in Medicine 9(10): 665–674.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Law, J. (1973) The development of specialties in science: The case of x-ray protein crystallography. Social Studies of Science 3(3): 275–303.
Lewis, J. and Bartlett, A. (2013). Inscribing a discipline: Tensions in the field of bioinformatics. New Genetics and Society 32(3): 243–263.
Lewis, J. and Bartlett, A. (2015) How UK psychiatric geneticists understand and talk about public engagement. New Genetics and Society 34(1): 89–111.
Lewis, J. Hughes, J. and Atkinson, P. (2014) Relocation, realignment and standardisation: circuits of translation in Huntington’s disease. Social Theory and Health 12(4): 396–415.
Lowry, I. and Gaudielliere, J. (2008) Localizing the global: Testing for hereditary risks of breast cancer. Science, Technology & Human Values 33(3): 299–325.
Lowry, I. (2007) Breast cancer and the materiality of risk: The rise of morphological prediction. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 81(1): 241–266.
Lynch, M. (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action. Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacKenzie, D. (1998) The trough of certainty. In: Williams R Faulkner, W. and Fleck, J. (eds.) Exploring Expertise: Issues and Perspectives. Basingstoke: Mackmillan, pp. 325–329.
MacKenzie, D. (1990) Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Boston: The MIT Press.
Moreira, T. and Palladino, P. (2005) Between truth and hope: On Parkinson’s disease, neurotransplantation and the production of self. History of the Human Sciences 18(3): 55–82.
Morrison M. (2012) Promissory futures and possible pasts: The dynamics of contemporary expectations in regenerative medicine. BioSocieties 7(1): 3–22.
Maienschein, J., Sunderland, M., Ankeny, R. and Robert, A. (2008) The ethos and ethics of translational research. The American Journal of Bioethics 3: 43–51.
Martin, P. (2015) Commercialising neurofutures: Promissory economies, value creation and the making of a new industry in BioSocieties 10(4): 422–43. doi:10.1057/biosoc.2014.40.
Mason, M. (2009) Management of prostate cancer: Future treatment approaches. Future Prescriber 10(3): 9–12.
McCarthy, T. (1990) Private irony and public decency: Richard Rorty’s new pragmatism. Critical Inquiry 16(2): 355–370.
Merton, R. (1948) The Self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review 8: 193–210.
Michael, M. (2000) Futures of the present: Form performativity to prehension. In: Brown, N., Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (eds.) Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 21–37.
Mitta, J. (2013) Repairing the ‘broken middle’ of health innovation pathway: Exploring diverse practitioner perspectives on the emergence and role of ‘translational medicine’. Science & Technology Studies 26(3): 103–123.
Morange, M. (2007) The field of cancer research: An indicator of present transformations in biology. Oncogene 26: 7607–7610.
Nelson, N., Keating, P., Cambrosio, A. and Aguilar-Mahecha, A. (2014) Testing devices or experimental systems? Cancer clinical trials take the genomic turn. Social Science & Medicine 111(2014): 74–83.
Novas, C. (2006) Political economy of hope: Patients’ organizations, science and biovalue. BioSocieties 1(3): 289–305.
Pickersgill, M. (2011) ‘Promising therapies: Neuroscience, clinical practice, and the treatment of psychopathy. Sociology of Health and Illness 33(3): 448–464.
Potter, J. (1997) Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In: Silverman, D. (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 144–160.
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Re-framing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tutton, R. (2011) Promising pessimism: Reading the futures to be avoided in biotech. Social Studies of Science 41(3): 411–429.
Van Lente, H. (1993) Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. PhD Thesis. ISSN 0925-0131; p. 17.
Welch, H. (2006) Should I be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why. California: University of California Press.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the experts, who not only gave their time to be interviewed for the original project, but also gave their permission for their accounts to be transcribed and analysed for the purpose of this article. We would also like to thank the original project team for sharing the interview data and supporting the secondary analysis, particularly Dr. Omnia Allam.
Funding
The interviews presented in this article were undertaken as part of a project supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Grant Number EP/F058640/1. The cost of transcription was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council’s Centre for the Social and Ethical Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen), based at Cardiff University’s school of social sciences. The secondary analysis and writing of this article has been undertaken as part of a Wellcome Trust Society and Ethics Postdoctoral Fellowship award, WT091772.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hillman, A., Lewis, J. & Elwyn, G. Pathways and prospects in cancer research: Securing futures and negotiating boundaries. BioSocieties 12, 321–342 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-017-0036-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-017-0036-5