4.4 Article

How scientists become experts-or don't: Social organization of research and engagement in scientific advice in a toxicology laboratory

Journal

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/03063127231204578

Keywords

expertise; regulatory science; scientific advice; moral economy; social organization; toxicology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Certain fields of research are influenced by their proximity with policy-makers and administrations. Scientists' engagement with policy-making varies from one individual to another. The contact between scientists and policy realm may lead to changes in the social organization of research work.
Certain fields of research are deeply shaped by their proximity with policy-makers and administrations. The so-called 'regulatory sciences' and their corresponding expert communities emerge from this intermediary space between science and policy. Social studies of expertise and scientific experts show, however, that modes of engagement with policy-making vary greatly from one scientist to another. Two scientists that are part of the same research group or laboratory may engage the policy realm differently. How then does the social organization of research influence scientists' participation in scientific advice and the production of regulatory sciences? The paper looks at toxicology, a field in which knowledge production is centrally motivated by risk assessment, but one that has also seen the emergence of different knowledge-making motives, including advancement of fundamental knowledge and frontier research. A toxicology laboratory may thus harbor a diversity of moral economies of scientific advice. The paper argues that scientists' engagements with policy, through scientific advice and regulatory risk assessment, create organizational tensions and force changes to the standard, team-based social organization of research work.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available