LamprouMemo12

The articles that are published in this journal are studies that explore scientific groups, regulatory scientists, policy makers, as cultures. The articles may have comparative studies of scientific, regulatory and policy cultures between different countries. The arguments that are made are based in differences that occur in the cultural groups and their organizations and they presented through the exploration of a case study. The arguments are supported through empirical data and most of the times contribute in literature. I think that the journal requests at list empirical contribution. I find this journal the one publishing on my research interests. For example, in their paper Kleinman, Daniel Lee and Abby J. Kinchy. 2003. “Why Ban Bovine Growth Hormone?: Science, Social Welfare, and the Divergent Biotech Policy Landscapes in Europe and the United States.” Science as Culture 12 (3): 375-414. the authors explore the differences of regulation in US and EU through the concepts of // technological progressivism, // Social welfareism, Scientism, and free marketism. Another example from the same journal is the paper of Daemmrich, A. and Krucken, G. (2000) ‘Risk versus risk: decision-making dilemmas of drug regulation in the US and Germany’, // Science as Culture //, 9: 505–534. where d ifferences concerning decision and risk taking in comparative studies between United States and Germany show that these differences occurring among institutional structures characterizing those structures ‘pluralist’ for US in contrast to ‘neo-corporalist for Germany. Abraham, J. (2002) ‘Regulatory science as culture: contested two-dimensional values at US FDA’, // Science as Culture //, 11: 309–335. Arpad, P. (2002) ‘GM Food Safety: Scientific and Institutional Issues’, // Science as Culture //, 11 (1): 69-92. Elliott, D. (2001) ‘Risk Governance: Is Consensus a Con?’, // Science as Culture, // 10 (2): 265-271. Les, L. (2002) Ignorance-Based Risk Assessment? Scientific Controversy over GM Food Safety’, // Science as Culture //, 11 (1): 61-67 Varma, R. (1999) ‘Professional autonomy vs industrial control?’, // Science as Culture //, 8: 23–45. Drawing on almost the same lines this journal publishes articles addressing social issues concerning scientific products and policy making. The papers are exploring case studies and support their arguments through empirical data. The papers published here may have historical, sociological, policy orientation. Most of the times the papers contribute to mainstream literature by expanding it. For example the article by Gillespie, B., Eva, P. and Johnston, R. (1979) ‘Carcinogenic risk assessment in the United States and Great Britain: the case of aldrin/deildrin’, // Social Studies of // // Science //, 9: 265–301. explores the case of different chemicals having completely different regulatory lack in different countries (in one approved and in an other not). Or another example, Abraham, J. (1993) ‘Scientific standards and institutional interests: carcinogenic risk assessment of benoxaprofen in the UK and US’, // Social Studies of Science //, 23: 387–444. where commonly agreed technical standards in science are used differently in different international contexts while at the same time different institutions shape different interest biases in different countries. Kirejczyk, M. (1999) ‘Parliamentary Cultures and Human Embryos: The Dutch and British Debates Compared’, //Social Studies of Science,// 29 (6): 889-912 Levidow, L. (2001) ‘Precautionary Uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe’, //Social Studies of Science//, 31 (6): 842-874 Oudshoorn, N. (1997) ‘From Population Control Politics to Chemicals: The WHO as an Intermediary Organization in Contraceptive Development’, //Social Studies of Science,// 27 (1): 41-72 Parthasarathy, S. (2005) ‘Architectures of Genetic Medicine: Comparing Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer in the USA and the UK’, //Social Studies of Science,// 35 (1): 5-40 van der Sluijs, J., van Eijndhoven, J., Shackley, S., Wynne, B. (1998), Anchoring Devices in ‘Science for Policy: The Case of Consensus around Climate Sensitivity’, 28 (2): 291-323 I know the journal is a little boring the journal of the sts scholars. The papers are various from sociology, to history, to policy, and anthropology. The way papers are built is not much different than the other two journals I describe above. The two examples I can give are totally different and an indicator for the variety of papers that can be found in this journal. The role of boundary organizations by Guston, David (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. 26/4: 399-408 explores the activities of organizations that function as boundary objects while in the paper by Busch, L., Tanaka, K. (1996). “Rites of Passage: Constructing Quality in a Commodity Subsector.” //Science, Technology, & Human Values**.**// 21 (1): 3-27, analyze the connections of standards with markets and the economy, what they argue is that the development of universal monetary systems, measurements, etc. made possible the development of universal standards that apply to the global markets. Not my first choice but anyway. Carey, W. (1985) ‘Science and Public Policy’, //Science, Technology, & Human Values,// 10 (1): 7-16. Kelly, S. (2003) ‘Public Bioethics and Publics: Consensus, Boundaries, and Participation in Biomedical Science Policy’, //Science, Technology, & Human Values//, 28 (3): 339-364 Lockhart, C. (2001) ‘Controversy in Environmental Policy Decisions: Conflicting Policy Means or Rival Ends?’, //Science, Technology, & Human Values,// 26 (3): 259-277 Prewitt, P. (1982) ‘The Public and Science Policy’, //Science, Technology, & Human Values,// 7 (39): 5-14 Ruscio, K. (1994) ‘Policy Cultures: The Case of Science Policy in the United States’, //Science, Technology, & Human Values,// 19 (2): 205-222
 * Science as Culture **
 * Social Studies of Science **
 * Science, Technology, and Human Values **