HudsonComments1and3Anna


 * __Alison's Comments for Anna-Memo 1 revised:__**

Ok, so for your first project, your topical area would be nanotechnology standards? What do you mean by open spaces? Do you mean the public sphere, or something more narrow?

Why Europe? Ok, you are an EU citizen and you have access, but speak to the project topic too. Why is Europe a good place to study nanotechnology, green chemistry, policy making, and the public sphere? You should be able to justify your project in this way too: why is Europe the best place to do this project. Convince me, and I'll give you money...

I would push on you a bit when you say, “participation has nothing to offer”. I would disagree and encourage you to explore this more. It must offer something, but what and for who? How can this be changed?

“How will standards for novel technoscientific fields be developed?” What is the historical component of your project? Surely nanotechnology is not the first technoscientific field.

I’m not sure I understand your third project articulation. What about frameworks where green chemistry flourishes? Are you asking what frameworks do?

Overall, there were many times when i wanted to see a deeper explanation or articulation. I wanted more from you. Perhaps in later memos.

I think your project articulations were tight and logical. They were not "spilling over the sides". Very focused.

__**Alison's Comments for Anna-Memo 3:**__

What does it mean to be an interdisciplinary person?

Why is chemistry more of a “hardcore” discipline than STS?

What made you feel like more of a “social” scientist? What’s the difference between the two, for you?

Words are key, why do you title your book, “the story of an [in]formal scientific language”? What are you signaling here? Who is your audience?