callon_otimo

8/12/2019 callon_otimo

1/12

Technology in Society 25 (2003) 193204

www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

Research in the wild and the shaping of newsocial identities

M. Callon , V. Rabeharisoa

Ecole nationale superieure des mines de Paris, CSI, 60 Bd. Saint-Michel, 75272 Paris, cedex 06,France

Abstract

This article examines new forms of techno-science-society interactions, in which non-scien-tists work with scientists to produce and disseminate knowledge. The term research in thewild is coined to name a special version of this new phenomenon. The primary illustrationfor this new form of research is connected with the Association Francaise contra les Myop-athies (AFM), the history of which is particularly suitable for exploring certain mechanismsat work in the co-production of scientific knowledge and social identities. The article firstcompares laboratory research with research in the wild, emphasizing patient interest in main-taining control over cooperation. It then notes the intimate interrelations between the construc-tion of patient identities and the collective form of research in which they participate. Finally,it examines the role of genetics, both as it is integrated into the construction of the collective,and also into the production of mechanisms of exclusionthe reverse side of the constitutionof a collective identity. 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In recent history, science studies investigations into the production of knowledgehave focused on a number of noteworthy sites such as the laboratory, core issuesand their controversies, and the instrumentation and interpretation of experiments.Even if tools have been designed to analyze relations between these sites and theirenvironment, such as the boundary objects [1] or networks of translation [2], wecannot completely dismiss criticisms that such work is rather internal to science.

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Callon).

0160-791X/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(03)00021-6


2/12

194 M. Callon, V. Rabeharisoa / Technology in Society 25 (2003) 193204

Questions concerning relations between scientists and non-scientists, experts and lay

peopleespecially in the production and dissemination of knowledgehavereceived little attention from the empirical or theoretical viewpoints, at least until

quite recently.Yet this has become a central subject outside the science and technology studies

community because of two major developments. The first concerns economic mar-kets. Briefly, even if there are multiple markets and they are organized in differentways, all now share a common feature: users or consumers who take an ever greater

role in defining demand, that is, in the conception of the products being offered tothem[3].This movement is reflected primarily in the continual growth of the servicesector in overall economic activity [4]. The services sector now accounts for more

than 70% of all employment and a similar proportion of the GDP in all developed

countries. Using a distinction proposed by Hirschman, we could say that markets

function more and more according to the principle of the voice rather than thatofthe exit [5].

This does not imply that all users participate equally. First, only some are engaged

or consulted. Second, because of technological lock-in and network externalities,

consumerstoday are often prisoners of choices made before them by other economic

agents [6]. Yet it is not wrong to say that consumers and their spokespersons are

more and more active in the process of product consumption and consequently more

and more present, even indirectly, in research and development activities. This co-

production so often described by economics and economic sociology implies, among

other things, that the consumer is considered to be a source of knowledge and ideas,an expert in experiences. To make this cooperation and its implications intelligible,

new theories comparing the firm to a knowledge processor have been put forward.These theories see consumers as actors in their own right in this collective process

of the production and circulation of knowledge [7].

The second development relates also to the ways in which political decisions are

made, particularly when concerned with questions involving the mobilization oftechno-science. Consultation, participation, and public debate are some of the key-

words enabling us roughly to describe this trend that has slowly been taking shape

over the past two decades [8]. This trend is now clearly visible even in countries

such as France where science and technology have always been considered non-debatable subjects. In the procedures that are being explored, the idea is not just to

expand and enhance traditional mechanisms of representation and participation. As

stressed by Sheila Jasanoff, what is at play is not a logic of representation but one

of intervention, which enables groups simultaneously to discuss their identity andtheir expectations and to feed the research process with their own experience [9].

Groups that are concerned by particular techno-scientific developments are offeredopportunities to express themselves and to progressively become stakeholders. The

now widely used term co-production of science and society conveniently capturesthis phenomenon.

Thus, whether we consider the market or politics, the same question seems to beraised: what are the forms, modalities, and consequences of engaging lay people whether they are concerned or notin the process of knowledge production that is


3/12

195M. Callon, V. Rabeharisoa / Technology in Society 25 (2003) 193204

mobilized in the design of new economic goods or in the political decision-mak-

ing process.

Studies aimed at better understandingthe mechanisms and reality of this co-pro-

duction are becoming available[1013].In this article, we hope to contribute to thisnew field of inquiry. More precisely, our objective is to suggest that it might befruitful to consider concerned groups as (potentially) genuine researchers, capable

of working cooperatively with professional scientists. In so doing, they invent a new

form of research, which we propose to call research in the wild. We will outlinesome of the main characteristics of this new form of investigation and stress itscontribution to the emergence of hybrid collectives, mixing humans and non-humans.

2. The French Muscular Dystrophy Association as a partner organization

The illustrations to be used in this article are drawn from a study on the Associ-

ation Francaise contre les Myopathies (AFM) or French association of muscular

dystrophy (MD) patients[14].To show the originality and interest of this organiza-

tion for our purpose, we need first to say a few words about the different types ofpatient organizations.

In our work, we have found that one of the main issues for patient organizations

rests with the nature of their relations with specialists, be they medical professionals

or scientific researchers. Different organizations have found a variety of answers to

this issue, which we have termed auxiliary organizations, opponent organiza-tions, and partner organizations[15,16].Auxiliary organizations base their action on the recognition of a difference

between expert know-how and lay experience. Some encourage cooperation between

professionals and patients, the latter becoming auxiliaries of the medico-social milieu

as they take care of technical interventions defined by the experts (injections, physio-therapy, dialysis, etc.). They also provide moral and social support. Others, moresuspicious of the medical world, try to acquire expertise comparable to that of

specialists in their disease. In both cases, although with different strategies, they

participate in the recognition and maintenance of this divide [17].

In the case of opponent organizations, patients reject any defining of their stateby the scientific and medical community. From their point of view, their very identityas patients is at stake. One of the most extensively studied examples is the case of

deaf people who refuse to use cochlear implants. They value their identity and reject

a technology that would deny it [18].The third type of organization, the partner organization, tries to establish parity

between specialists and patients. This type of association helps to highlight the subtle

links of cooperation between patients and specialists on the one hand, and mech-

anisms that construct social identities on the other.

AFM provides a clear example of what we call a partner organization. Established

in the late 1950s, it brings together people with muscular dystrophy and their families[19].There are numerous forms of this disease, but the common denominator is the

fact that in all cases the neuromuscular transmission between peripheral nerve and


4/12


muscle is affected. Some forms are extremely serious and can be fatal, others less

so because they affect non-vital muscles. Some affect adults, others children. Some

are found in women and others exclusively in men. Finally, while some are monogen-

etic others are plurigenetic. This diversity provides abundant material for particularlyinteresting comparative analyses.

The AFM is an especially interesting case because when it was founded the medi-

cal and scientific world showed no interest whatsoever in this disease. Moreover,the most serious cases were seen as defects that the families tried to hide. Thus from

the beginning the AFM decided to pursue two courses of action: one oriented towardthe development of research, the other toward daily support for patients and better

social integration.

The AFM and its history are therefore particularly suitable for exploring certain

mechanisms at work in this co-production of scientific knowledge and social ident-ities. We will begin by comparing laboratory research and research in the wild,

emphasizing patient capacity to maintain control over this cooperation. Then we

delve into the entangled constructions of patient identities and the collective research

in which they participate. Finally, we consider the role of genes as they are integrated

into the construction of the collective, but also in the production of mechanisms of

exclusion, which is the reverse side of the constitution of this collective.

3. A new form of collaborative research: researcher in the wild

When considering the nature of the relations between professional scientists and

lay people, two pitfalls must be avoided. The first would be simply to postulate theignorance of lay peopleignorance that can be overcome only through educationor popularization. By contrast, the second pitfall would be to affirm the superiorityof lay expertise in the name of its greater realism. On the one hand, it is claimed

that objective and universal scientific knowledge is necessarily produced in labora-tories within the community of specialists; on the other, it is asserted that truth and

effectiveness are local and contextual. As Harry Collins put it in a recent review, it

is a mistake to jump froma critique of Western science to arguing for the abolition

of the notion of expertise [20]. We would add that it is also a mistake to deny theexistence of lay knowledge.

The AFM experience takes us even further in the adoption of a symmetrical point

of view. It shows, first, that these types of knowledge are not contradictory butcomplementary, for when science is applied without taking local knowledge intoaccount, it is often the poorer for it, and vice versa [20, p. 290]. We can thereforetalk of mutual enrichment, but obviously not of competition or substitution. Second,

it demonstrates that these two forms of knowledge are not intrinsically different. It

would, for example, be wrong to say that the former are explicit and codified whilethe latter are tacit, or that the former are formalized while the latter are informal.

Everything depends on the equipment used on both sides and, more broadly, theconditions in which the expertise is produced. This explains why some collaborative

research is possible.


5/12


The AFM case enables us to be more specific on this point. Throughout its history,patients and their spokespersons have imagined and stubbornly developed what could

be called research in the wild, while continuing to strongly support laboratory

research. Neither of these is more important than the other; for the patients, both

research in the wild and laboratory research are necessary and complementary.

Because their diseases are orphans, patients have from the outset had to dealwith being abandoned by the medical and scientific profession. Consequently theAFM promoted a series of actions to gather information on the diseases, that is, to

undertake what could rightly be called a primitive accumulation of knowledge. In this

perspective, one of the most original contributions of the AFM is the mobilization of

proto-instruments by patients and their families who put themselves in a position

to create formal, transportable, cumulative, and debatable knowledge. These proto-

instruments include cameras, camcorders for taking films and photos, accounts writ-ten by patients or their parents in the form of books for the general public, requestedtestimonies, spontaneous letters, and lectures given by patients or their relatives. All

these widely and easily available proto-instruments are means for formalizing and

publicizing knowledge, which was formerly confined to the intimacy of private life.Photos are an effective tool for producing knowledge on the intermediate form of

spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in children. Defined in a residual way as beingneither fatal in the short term nor non-progressive in the long term, its degree of

gravity can be qualified only by comparison, with each parent trying to situate hisor her childs development in relation to that of other children suffering from the

same disease. Photos play a special role in this comparative evaluation because theyact as tools for visualization, which make it possible to compare children s abilitiesto act. The patients and their parents are never without their photo albums, which

they exchange and comment on at every opportunity, often trying to interpret the

other parents (sometimes) silent reactions. These discussions and evaluations arecomparable to those of researchers around the inscriptions produced by their labora-

tory instruments [21]. What is important is the qualification of the childs state andhis or her trajectory.

Apart from films, photo albums, and accounts, patients also use more classicalmethods such as surveys. These consist of long questionnaires (generally about ten

pages with over 50 highly detailed items) that are sent out regularly. Their formu-

lation and the processing of the answers serve to review the disease, including its

development, symptoms, treatment, and the effects of treatment. They play an

important part in building up and sharing patient knowledge and know-how. Drafting

these questionnaires involves discussions on information to be gathered and the way

it will be used and possibly transmitted to specialists in the form of syntheses or

questions. Reviews comparable to manuals are written, sometimes including data

from established laboratories. This research in the wild is an organized, instrumen-

talized, and reflexive research.

Much more could be said, but these comments are sufficient to show that, at leastin this case, there is no fundamental difference of status between knowledge pro-

duced by patients and that produced by researchers or clinicians. On both sides we


6/12


find experiments, instruments, and procedures of visualization, formalization, evalu-ation, accumulation, and writing.

But researchers in the wild go further. They do not want to remain isolated. They

launch funding programs aimed at developing laboratory research. They fight toestablish structures for exchange between researchers, clinicians, and patients. For

example, patients suffering from MD are not merely content to produce useful and

original knowledge of their own disease. From the start they have tried to establish

contacts with specialists in order to work with them on an equal footing. The sym-

metry and complementarity between research in the wild and laboratory research ispromoted and maintained. The resulting cooperation, while not free of conflict, hastaken diverse forms: organization of sampling in close collaboration with clinicians

and biologists; constitution of cell and DNA banks; creation of the Genethon (which

is controlled by the AFM), a very innovative technical platform primarily responsible

for drawing up relevant maps of the human genome. (On the role and importance

of technical platforms in biomedicine, see Keating and Cambrosio [22,23].) Apart

from this research infrastructure managed jointly by the association and the scientists

concerned, the AFM funds numerous research teams. All of these represent opport-

unities for those running the organization to monitor the evolution of laboratory

research and to promote certain research topics rather than others. The number of

mixed working groups that take stock of particular diseases, raises questions, and

exchange expertise gives a fair idea of the importance and complexity of the system

that has progressively been established.

The system has undoubtedly enhanced interaction between research in the wild andlaboratory research. Specialists and patients meet not only for pleasant discussions or

mere information sessions, they also engage in new forms of collaborative research.

Translations and cross-fertilization between the different forms of knowledge take

place. It is their content and implications that we turn to now.

4. From collaborative research to new collective identities

It is not enough to talk of the hybridization of knowledge or information exchange.

Collaboration between patients, clinicians, and researchersbetween specialists inthefield and laboratory specialistsis organized around three issues: (a) constructingthe identity of the actors involved; (b) setting up strategic space; and (c) developing

new hybrid collectives[24].

Thefirst component is that of identity. Expertise in the wild and laboratory expert-ise are constantly shifting. Through collaboration and exchanges arranged by organi-

zations such as the AFM, the aim is to improve knowledge of the disease and its

different forms. But the picture is becoming increasingly complex, because as the

description of originating or genetic mechanisms becomes more precise, so do the

symptoms and clinical diagnoses. Patients enhance and clarify the characterization

of their disease. They know more about its possible evolution and learn to linkindividual behavior or social relations to biological data in a constantly revisable

way. This discourse combines the biological and the social to produce what Paul


7/12


Rabinow has suggested calling bio-sociality [25]. The patients identity and thatof the group of patients, of which he or she becomes a member, are simultaneously

shaped. Symmetrically, specialists who engage in this collaboration are forced to

consider the disease from the bench to the patients bed, to borrow a phrase from[26].This manifests itself in new professional identities and careers: some specialists

circulate back and forth between clinics and laboratories, or between previously sep-

arate fields such as genetics and psychiatry.The second component is a strategic one. The more knowledge about the originat-

ing or genetic mechanisms of the disease advances, the more complex the picture

becomes. The number of actants involved (all kinds of proteins, antibodies, enzymes,

etc.) multiplies and causal links proliferate. As a result, differences between individ-

ual patients intensify, and the number of specialists that can be mobilized increases.

This opens the way for strategic options. One researcher will accompany the dis-covery of a gene by creating an animal model and then testing gene therapy; a second

will continue the gene hunt by studying other diseases; a third will concentrate on

proteins and their functions; and so on. Each choice can be part of a different set

of alliances. For example, a clinician, on behalf of the immediate interests of a

specific patient, might refuse to launch a costly project to study the function of aprotein, arguing that the patient should not have to wait for treatment until it is

discovered what molecules trigger the production of certain proteins. By contrast, a

biologist, also on behalf of the long-term interests of MD patients in general, might

take the opposite stance. Conversely, given the uninterrupted development of

research investigations, the disease constantly shifts between different medical reper-toires. As a consequence, for each patient the range of possible therapeutic options

become broader and more diversified. Genetics simplifies nothing; it carries with itmore and more complexity, more and different alliances and trajectories.

Reductionism is the infantile disorder of genetics. (Feminists have coined the term

strategic essentialism to designate this new form of identity struggle.)The third component is investigation. When clinicians or researchers engage in

conversation and interaction with patients, they have to be extremely careful. They

must recognize the diversity of situations, the complexity of possible causal links.

They must be aware of the importance of what they call the social context. They

must perceive the professional repercussions of the disease and must realize that

patients living with many prostheses depend heavily on those around them and on

the way they are cared for[27].Thus, in the researchers or clinicians eyes, patientsbecome personalized while gaining depth and complexity. They are constituted as

individuals caught up in a peculiar network of social relations.

Patients, in turn, witness the appearance and proliferation of more and more non-

human entities that they learn to think of as being part of themselves. They see the

creation of links between themselves and, for example, an obscure worm whose

genome serves as a model and about which they regularly ask the researcher for

news. They see a host of specialists come to study their diseasespecialists in popu-lation genetics, genetic counseling, heart diseases, and so on. Their own understand-

ing of the disease is thus enriched with an array of new human and non-human


8/12


entities that they learn to describe and with which they become accustomed to sharing

their existence.

The collaboration that builds up between researchers in the wild and laboratory

specialists allows this exploration and joint construction of the hybrid collective. AsRabinow puts it, one could say that these constantly reconfigured collectives sharegenes and proteins. They also have medical specialists, laboratories, narratives, tra-ditions, and a heavy panoply of pastoral keepers to help them experience, share,

intervene and understand their fate [25].

5. An outcome: genes as operators of entanglement and exclusion

What has been said so far demonstrates the centrality of genetics and genes, now

the pivotal aspect of MD research. It is the gene that today makes possible this

configuration in which laboratory expertise and expertise in the wild enrich andfertilize one another. It is also the gene that allows the construction of discourse,

which simultaneously controls identities, strategic alliances, and exploration of the

collective. It is therefore the gene that, in its own way, produces interdependency,

which weaves the social link. Two examples illustrate this point.

In the first, the AFM was confronted early on with a problem of legitimacy andequity. The funds that enabled it to finance research and support patients were almostentirely derived from the Telethon, an extremely successful TV fundraising activity.

In France this program (considerably different from its American counterpart) hasbecome a huge, popular, festive event, a manifestation of national solidarity.

With this success, the risk is that the AFM could be accused of collecting substan-

tial amounts of money (in 2000 it raised approximately 500 million francs) for a

small group of patients who, although severely ill, are a tiny minority. The AFM

anticipated such criticism, however, by launching a mapping program that was not

exclusively focused on muscular dystrophy and made certain equipment available toteams working on other diseases. The AFM thus carried out what Boltanski and

Thevenot have called a montee en generalitelinking specific concerns and positionsto collective issues[28]. Byfinancing the AFM, French television viewers thus sup-

port work that benefits not only MD but also other more common diseases thataffect or could affect large numbers of people. This impressive translation betweenindividual and general interests is made possible by the genes themselves, which

constitute a powerful operator of translation [29]. Everything that advances the

identification of genes and the analysis of their functioning is profitable for all thepotential patients that we are (on the subject of biomedicine as a new disciplinary

arrangement that dismisses the traditional opposition between normality and pathol-

ogy, see Keating and Cambrosio [23].)

But the action of the gene goes further than this. By showing that a defect is in

fact a small genetic accident, the AFM demonstrates that we are all just one or two

genes away from being MD patients. Genes are not content just to make particularand general interests compatible; they also produce solidarity and compassion. When

circulating through various spheres (scientific, political, medical, and economic), they


9/12


no longer divide; they connect, create interdependency, and produce a common

humanity that includes those who tended to be excluded.

In a second example, the work of collective integration is also performed by the

gene on a smaller scale. Cooperation between research in the wild and laboratoryresearch creates a sort of trading zone [30], an area for the circulation of geneswhich, in different forms, go from the patient to the cell bank and from there to the

laboratory where they are analyzed. This circulating gene entangles patients and

researchers as it goes along. As a young girl with spinal muscular atrophy said to

a biologist who, after having helped to identify the gene of the disease, was workingon the protein:Im with you in your laboratory since youre working on my genes.Or, as another researcher admitted: Ive always got a sample file open, and I knowI can go back to the patient whenever I want to. If we add the pedigrees that, onthe space of a sheet of paper, conflate different times and places, draw links, visualizegene trajectories, and perform families, we get a rich web of entanglement.

In both cases we see that the gene is domesticated, tamed, and integrated into a

collective that holds it and is held by it. It is a civilized and civilizing gene, per-

forming the collective and performed by it. And this integration into the society of the

gene, or insertion into the genetics of society, would have been impossible without a

starting point: the parity, the symmetry, between the complementary forms of knowl-

edge that constitutes the foundations of this collective.

The creation of this collective, which is a perfect illustration of the biosociality

described by Rabinow, is not free of exclusion, a point that must also be recognized.

Genes, as presented by the AFM, are operators of entanglement and hence of soli-darity. To understand the moral and political consequences of this action of genes,

Francois Julliens work offers a unique source of inspiration[31]. He compares theways in which moral behaviors are accounted for in Western and Chinese philosophy

and shows how Mencius work offers an interesting alternative to the multiple sol-utions conceived of in the West. Being human, says Mencius, means being

entangledif I can be affected and moved by other beings it is because I amentangled, involved with them. The modalities of this entanglement are multiple.

The importance of Merleau-Pontys last writings [32] likewise lies precisely in hisanalysis of the body not as a being in the world (he highlights the limits of this

classic phenomenological position), but as articulation, entanglementif I am movedit is because I am caught in a web of links of which my body is one of the mostpowerful operators. We can see the importance of the circulating gene and its vis-

ualization. Genes (and we are not talking about those of eugenicists but the civilizing

genes of the AFM) produce these entanglements and make them visible. They createlinks and are therefore a source of moral questioning.

Once the gene has been received in the collective, a whole series of actions and

behaviors become inevitable for whoever does not want to be excluded from it. One

example would be making a diagnosis. Another is entering into the public space of

disease, into the collective described by Rabinow, which, apart from genes, includes

medical specialists, the family, laboratories, narratives. One must also decide whetheror not to follow the treatment recommended by the patient organization and special-

ists, and whether or not to adopt the available prostheses.


10/12


As we have shown elsewhere, this collective imposes certain forms of agency. In

general an individual who takes care of him or herself struggles against the disease

and agrees to enter into this unusual collective[27].We have begun to identify and

study all those who refuse to be included in the collective. Clearly, they are not justfighting against genetic reductionism or a form of medicalization that they considerexcessive. Here again Mencius is highly valuable. These recalcitrant patients opt

for other collectives where genes are absent, but which leave open other forms of

entanglement and humanity, other agencies. This refusal is reflected in the rejectionof knowledge produced by collaborative research. Basically, these outsiders do notwant to hear what other patients or specialists are saying to them. They do everything

they can not to understand genetics and the strange solidarity it suggests. This does

not mean they are mentally retarded or amoral. They are simply opting for another

kind of humanity, other forms of knowledge, solidarity, and morality [33].

6. Concluding remarks

Laboratory knowledge cannot absorb all the complexities of the world. This point

has often been made [34]. Consequently, given the framing required by the labora-

tory, some externalities will always exist, a point Callon [35]made previously with

regard to economic calculations but which applies equally to science. For example,

as we argue here, professional scientists do not on their own readily take into account

demands and problems raised by orphan groups, in this case patients sufferingfrom MD.

Faced with this failure of laboratory research, two strategies are open to patients.

Either they endorse exclusion and turn it back against a science considered to be

distant, normalizing, and reductive, or they decide to develop their own capacities

and to set up collaborative research with scientists and clinicians. Reasons for choos-

ing one option over the other are contingent. Inthe case of sickle cell anemia sufferedby African-Americans, for example, Fullwiley[36]has shown that in order to avoid

increases in stigmatization, they choose to exclude themselves and not to collaborate

with research. In the case of muscular dystrophy, however, this risk of stigmatization

did not exist. Patients simply wanted to move out of the shadows. They did so byactively participating in establishing collectives that include genes but also a whole

series of prosthesis. Yet this political choice, based on a certain organization in the

production of knowledge has, in turn, produced its own exclusion. To understand

this never-ending movement in the reconfiguration of identities, inclusion andexclusion, we have to accept the symmetry between expertise in the wild and labora-

tory expertise.

Onefinal point: beyond the similarities between research in the wild and confinedresearch delegated to professionals (both cases involve genuine research), some dif-

ferences remain. Research in the wild has several remarkable properties:

1. Researchers in the wild are directly concerned with the knowledge they produce

because they are both the objects and the subjects of their research.


11/12


2. Production and appropriation overlap to a large extent, since it is one group that

in the same movement elaborates and uses the knowledge.

3. Incentives are of a different nature, for what is at issue in the case of research

in the wild is fate and the survival of the group whose members wish to savetheir lives.

4. Largely as a consequence of the preceding points, we cannot separate the elabor-

ation of knowledge from the construction of an identity because this identity is

also common and shared before being individual.

5. Research in the wild makes a strong contribution to the formulation of problemsand questions that become intelligible for confined researchers, some of whomhave participated in their elaboration. The concerned groups, owing to their invest-

ment in research, are no longer the only ones concerned.

By contributing to a better understanding of these new and complicated collective

dynamics, science studies will enrich debate on, and the performance of, these collec-

tives.

References

[1] Star SL, Griesemer J. Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: amateurs and pro-

fessionals in Berkeleys Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 19071939. Social Studies of Science

1989;19:387420.[2] Callon M. Reseaux technico-economiques et irreversibilites. In: Boyer R, Chavance B, Godard O,

editors. Les figures de lirreversibilite en economie. Paris: Editions de lEHESS, 1991, p. 195-230.

[3] Callon M, Meadel C, Rabeharisoa V. Leconomie des qualites. Politix 2000;13(52):21139.

[4] Gadrey J, DeBandt J, editors. Relations de services, marches des services. Paris: Editions du

CNRS, 1994.

[5] Hirschman A. Exit, voice, and loyalty. Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.

[6] David P. Understanding the economics of QWERTY: The necessity of history. In: Parker WN,

editor. Economist history and the modern economist. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 1986. p. 3045.

[7] Cohendet P, Llerena P. La conception de la firme comme processeur de connaissances. Revue

dEconomie Industrielle 1999;88:21136.

[8] Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y. Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la democratie technique.Paris: Le Seuil, 2001.

[9] Jasanoff S. From participation to intervention. Presidential address, Society for the Social Studies

of Science annual meeting. Nova Scotia: Halifax, 1999.

[10] Brown P. Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: lay and professional ways of know-

ing. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 1992;33:26781.

[11] Epstein S. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: Univer-

sity of California Press, 1996.

[12] Wynne B. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expertlay knowledge divide. In:

Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B, editors. Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology.

London: Sage; 1996.

[13] Dodier N. Lespace public de la recherche medicale: Autour de laffaire de la ciclosporine. Reseaux

1999;17(95):10754.

[14] Rabeharisoa V, Callon M. Le pouvoir des malades: lAssociation francaise contre les myopathies

et la recherche. Paris: Presses de lEcole des Mines de Paris, 1999.


12/12


[15] Rabeharisoa V, Callon M. Les associations de malades et la recherche (I): Des self help groups aux

associations de malades. Medical Science 2000;16:9459.

[16] Rabeharisoa V, Callon M. Les associations de malades et la recherche (II): Les formes dengagement

des associations de malades dans la recherche en France. Medical Science 2000;16:1225 31.[17] Carricaburu D. Lhemophilie au risque de la medecine: De la maladie individuelle ala contamination

collective par le virus du SIDA. Paris: Anthropos, 2000.

[18] Blume S. The rhetorics and counter rhetorics of a bionic technology. Science, Technology and

Human Values 1997;32:516.

[19] Paterson F, Barral C. LAssociation francaise contre les myopathies: Trajectoire dune association

dusagers et construction associative de la maladie. Sciences Sociales et Sante 1994;2:79111.

[20] Collins HM. Untitled review of A House Built On Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About

Science. Social Studies of Science 1999;29(2):28794.

[21] Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 1986.

[22] Keating P, Cambrosio A. Biomedical platforms. Configurations 2000;8:33787.

[23] Keating P, Cambrosio A. Biomedical platforms: (Re)producing the normal and the pathological inlate twentieth century medicine (Forthcoming).

[24] Callon M, Law J. Agency and the HybridCollectif. South Atlantic Quarterly 1995;94(2):481508.

[25] Rabinow P. French DNA. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

[26] Lowy I. Between bench and bedside: Science, healing and interleukin-2 in a cancer ward. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.

[27] Callon, M., Rabeharisoa, V., Articulating bodies: the case of muscular dystrophies. In: Akrich C,

Berg M, editors. Bodies on trial: Performance and politics in medicine and biology. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press, forthcoming.

[28] Boltanski L, Thevenot L. De la justification. Les economies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard, 1991.

[29] Callon M. Some elements for a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the

fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law J, editor. Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowl-

edge? Routledge and Kegan, Sociological Review Monograph; 1986. p. 196229.[30] Galison P. Image and Logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press, 1997.

[31] Jullien F. Fonder la morale: Dialogue de Mencius avec un philosophe des Lumieres. Paris: Gras-

set, 1995.

[32] Merleau-Ponty M. Le visible et linvisible. Paris: Gallimard, 1964.

[33] Callon M, Rabeharisoa V. La lecon dhumanitede Gino. Reseaux 1999;17(95):197234.

[34] Roqueplo P. Entre savoir et decision, lexpertise scientifique. Paris: INRA, 1997.

[35] Callon M, editor. The laws of the markets. London: Blackwell, 1998.

[36] Fullwiley D. Race, biologie et maladie: La difficile organisation des patients atteints de drepanocy-

tose aux Etats-Unis. Sciences Sociales et Sante 1998;16(3):12958.

Michel Callonwas educated as an engineer and sociologist, and is now a professor of sociology at the Ecoledes Mines, Paris. He also served as director of the Centre de Sociologie de lInnovation from 1982 to 1994.He was president of the Society for the Social Studies of Science from 19981999. His books in Englishinclude Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World (1986),edited with John Law and Arie Rip, and The Laws of Markets (1998).

Vololona Rabeharisoa, a colleague also at the Ecole des Mines, has collaborated with Callon on a numberof research projects, especially in the fields of medical science and technology.

callon_otimo

Documents