SC0049
Introduction to Science Studies
Instructor: Sherine Hamdy
Email: sherine_hamdy@brown.edu
Office: 303 in Giddings Hall (128 Hope St.)
Office Phone: 3-7461
Office Hours: TBA
Course Times: MWF 11:00AM – 11:50 AM (D
hour)
COURSE
DESCRIPTION:
This course is designed to introduce students to
the interdisciplinary field known as ÒScience StudiesÓ. Science Studies takes
the nature of science as its object. It recognizes that science in the
twenty-first century is not merely a set of conclusions about the nature of the
world around us, but a complex bundle of practices, norms, and values that both
reflect and shape our deepest convictions about what it is to be a person who
knows.
Interwoven with our views of science are
assumptions about the character of ideas that can be thought and not thought,
diseases that can be treated and not treated, lives that can be lived and not
lived. These aspects of science are so deeply embedded in twenty-first century
American culture that they may be all but invisible; their centrality to our
whole view of ourselves and our world means that fundamental scientific
constructs like Òexperience,Ó Òobjectivity,Ó or ÒcertaintyÓ can be very
resistant to analysis. Nonetheless, many people—including philosophers,
historians, anthropologists, sociologists and scientists—have made the
effort and in so doing have suggested ways for us to approach questions like:
á
What
is science? A thing? A method? An ideology? Truth?
á
How
is scientific knowledge built, tested, validated, legitimized, promulgated and
used? To what ends?
á
What
is the authority of science? Who can claim that authority? How? In what
contexts? Who cannot?
á
What
power can and should science wield? When? How? Why?
á
In
what ways is science political? Is it ever non-political?
á
What
is objectivity? What are its benefits and limitations? Can scientists be
objective?
á
What
roles do gender, race, class and power play in scientific knowledge?
In the past four decades, these kinds of questions
have piqued the interest of people from virtually every corner of the academic
world. Science Studies then is a huge and ever changing area without clear
boundaries or a single, clear disciplinary structure. As is to be expected from
a body of material written by scientists, philosophers, historians,
anthropologists, literary theorists and many others, conclusions vary widely,
and arguments can be fierce. This may also be the case in SC 49, because the
course will ask you to interrogate some of your most fundamental assumptions
about knowledge and about science. As it does so, you should expect controversy
and there will be few clear answers.
PREREQUISITES:
There are no prerequisites for this course. My
expectation is that students will come into this course with very different
knowledge bases and skills. Some of you will be well grounded in social thought
and social theory. Some of you may be well informed of current debates and
questions about science and society. It will be our collective task to share
these interests and skills with each other in order to develop a dialogue that
questions, challenges and complements the readings and each other both inside
and outside the classroom.
COURSE
GOALS:
á
One
of the main objectives in this course is for you to decide which questions and
approaches are most useful for analyzing contemporary issues and debates in
science and society.
á
We
will study the ways in which scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds
– history, sociology, philosophy, anthropology – have approached
questions about science, power, and knowledge-making. This means that we will learn
about the different ways in which people weigh the value of different types of
data.
á
We
will learn how to apply approaches that we have learned from the assigned
readings to analyses of current events about scientific developments, as presented
to us in different types of media.
á
We
will learn to process data in various forms (reading assignments, visual media,
current events, class discussion, group presentations).
á
We
will learn to articulate our positions verbally, by using evidence, in class
discussions, and in response to group presentations.
á
We
will develop our skills in writing clear prose, in which we will present an
original argument and use convincing evidence (from the readings) to support
our case.
READINGS:
Many of the readings for this course are to be
found on WEBCT e-reserves. In addition, we will be reading Thomas Kuhn, The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Sandra
Harding, Science and Social Inequality, and Londa Schiebinger, NatureÕs Body:
Gender in the Making of Modern Science, which are on reserve at the
Rockefeller Library and are also available for purchase at the Brown Bookstore.
COURSE
REQUIREMENTS:
Course Grading
á
Prepared
and engaged class participation –
10%
á
Media
Log (6
entries) –
30%
á
Group
Presentations –
10%
á
Midterm
(10/20) –
20%
á
Final
(12/18) –
30%
CLASS
PARTICIPATION:
Class
participation (10% of your final grade) will be assessed not simply on the
volume of your participation in seminar discussions but on the quality and
thoughtfulness of your contribution. This is invariably a subjective measure,
but it is important for students to consider whether they have a particular
question that they want to address and how that relates to the readings. What I
particularly want to see is that students demonstrate close reading skills by
drawing on the texts themselves and offering analysis of an authorÕs argument.
Attendance.
Regular,
prepared class attendance is required—The grade of anyone who misses
three or more classes without prior notice or excuse will be dropped by one
letter.
MEDIA
LOG -- OVERVIEW:
Analysis,
debate, and application of new material will be learned and assessed both in
group settings and through individual work. I will ask groups of students to
select a contemporary topic or debate in science that they will follow in the
media throughout the semester. Each student will keep a Òmedia logÓ in which he
or she will record his or her responses, comments, and analyses about how this
topic might be approached by the authors that we will read in class. Topics
could include, for example: stem-cell research, genetically modified food,
biotech patenting of organisms, mad cow disease, avian flu, pharmaceutical
testing in developing countries, bioprospecting, artificial intelligence,
artificial life, xenotransplantation, hormone replacement therapy, nuclear
energy.
Our
goal will be to apply the sets of arguments and methods of reasoning that we
learn through reading assignments by philosophers, historians, and sociologists
of science to the types of questions that we encounter in the daily news. Looking
at these contemporary media debates will help us to develop a tool kit with
which to parse out the different delineations drawn between the ÔsocialÕ and
the Ôscientific.Õ While each assigned group will in some ways come to know
their selected topic well over the course of the semester, students will also
be expected to learn about their peersÕ topics through group presentations.
Responses to your peersÕ presentations will also be part of your own Ômedia
log.Õ While you will be presenting and discussing your topics in small groups,
each student will turn in his or her own media log in individually as part of
the course requirement.
The
media log will begin with your responses (250-500 words) in the second week of
class to the film The Future of Food and how you see the reading assignment (on
Mertonian norms) relating to the filmÕs focus on the debate on genetically
modified food and the bio-patenting of live organisms. By the fourth week, you
will be assigned groups, and each group will pick its own media topic that they
will present to the class. Each week, a group will present their media topic, suggest
a way that it might be thought of in terms of that weekÕs readings, and
facilitate group discussion in light of their selected issue.
Your
media log entry (seven total -- I will drop the lowest grade) will be a
response to that selected topic and its relations, as you see it, to the
reading and to class discussions. You will write your own (250-500 word) response in your own
log. I will ask to see the first entry of your log (due Friday 9/15). After
that time, you will be responsible for keeping up with the entries; the final
log is due on Monday, November 20th.
GROUP
PRESENTATIONS:
Throughout
the semester, assigned groups will facilitate discussions of the reading and
present on their media topic and how it relates to the readings of that week.
Presentations should be clear and concise. Your peers will depend on your clear
presentation of your media topic for their entries in their media logs.
MIDTERM
EXAM:
The
midterm exam will be held on Monday, October 23rd.. The midterm will
consist of essay questions that you will answer during class time. More
information on the midterm will be given closer to that time.
COURSE
FINAL EXAM:
The final will take the form of three two to three
page papers due at noon on Monday, December 18. These papers are designed to be
an opportunity for you to make some decisions about the kinds of questions and
approaches you find most useful in approaching science studies.
The first challenge of the final is to find three
essential questions:
(1)
one
from among those at the opening of this syllabus
(2)
one
from a list that we will generate as the class moves along
(3)
one
of your own, in which you will demonstrate your ability to formulate your own
essential question
Then you will be asked to write three essays; one
for each of the questions you selected. For each essay you will be asked to
explain how two authors we have read productively address one of your essential
questions; at the end of the essay you will then present your own answer to the
question and explain how the readings have helped you to articulate your
position. With your final essay, you should also write an introduction (one
page maximum) explaining why you chose the questions that you did.
Successful final essays will address the question
completely and concisely using textual evidence to defend your claims. I want
to see that you understood the authors we read in class, and that you were able
to engage with their arguments thoughtfully.
Final
Papers: I
will use the following criteria for grading papers:
An A means that I understand the paper and think it is
coherent. An A paper
negotiates the issues it discusses with clarity and precision and demonstrates
thoughtfulness. It has a strong consistent sense of the reader which is
manifested in structure, transitions and tone. It is well-defended with
citations and clear use of quotations.
A B means that while I understood the paper over-all,
in spots I was lost or confused, or unconvinced of your argument because of
weakness in logic or lack of support for statements; this usually makes the
paper seem less thoughtful. A B paper is less clear than an A paper. It addresses
the assignment and has some sense of the reader in terms of structure,
transitions and tone, but it may in a few places be inconsistent or imprecise.
A C paper is difficult for me to follow. It may address
the assignment generally but doesnÕt seem to have a specific focus, thesis or
purpose. There are many inconsistencies of tone, organization or logic, which
stand in the way of the readerÕs attempt to make sense of the argument.
An NC means I didnÕt understand the paper at all. This
usually happens because it does not address the assignment or the texts in a
precise, clear and/or coherent way.
Note:
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Any incidents of dishonest work will be
reported to your academic advisor and the appropriate dean. I take all these
matters seriously. If you feel that you are headed in this direction, see me
immediately and we can solve this together, before it leads down the road of
disciplinary action.
COURSE
FORMAT:
This
course meets for three sessions each week. I will expect you to have read the
readings by Monday of each week. On Monday I will begin with a general lecture
of the reading, and this will be your opportunity to ask questions about
passages that you did not understand, so that you can go back and re-read any
difficult passage in preparation for the discussion sessions that will take
place on Wednesdays and Fridays. On Wednesdays, after the fourth week we will
begin to introduce current topics in science studies and discuss their
relations to the readings. On Fridays, we will conclude our discussions, and I
will introduce some background information to help you prepare for the next
weekÕs readings.
SHOPPING
PERIOD POLICY:
Whether
or not you are certain that you will remain in the class, you will be expected
to keep up with the work from the first week. During our second class session
(Friday, September 8) we will be discussing a selection from Sandra HardingÕs Science
and Social Inequality.
Note that this selection, as well as what we establish in week 2 (Merton and Future
of Food)
will comprise one of the bases upon which we will build throughout the course
of the semester. You may not join the class if you miss more than two
lecture/discussion classes (after 9/13). If you decide to join the class late,
you will be expected to make up the work that you missed.
CLASS SESSIONS –
Topics, Readings and Assignments:
Week
1: Preliminaries:
What is Science Studies?
Wednesday
9/6: Course Introduction: please read through syllabus carefully
Readings:
Sandra Harding, Science and Social
Inequality, pp. x-xi, 1-13
Friday
9/8: Discussion of Sandra HardingÕs ÒControversial IssuesÓ
Week
2: Robert Merton and the Normative Structure of Science
Readings:
Robert Merton (1938),
ÒScience and the Social OrderÓ from The Sociology of Science, Norman W. Storer, ed. (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1974) 254-266.
Merton (1943), ÒThe Normative Structure of
ScienceÓ from Ibid. 267-278
Film: The Future of Food
Monday
9/11: Discussion of Mertonian Norms
Wednesday
9/13: Discussion of film The Future of Food
How are different players in the film defining
the term ÒscienceÓ?
Media log (due Friday 9/15):
Think of the Mertonian norms for science.
Who in the film would claim that these norms are being followed? Who would
claim that they are not? What evidence could be used to support either side?
Friday
9/15: Discussion of media log
entries for Merton and film
Week
3: C.P. Snow – The Two Cultures
Readings:
C. P. Snow (1959), ÒThe
Two CulturesÓ and ÒThe Scientific RevolutionÓ Rede Lecture in The Two
Cultures (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1993), pp. 1-51
Helmreich, Stefan 2001 ÒAfter Culture: Reflections on the Apparition of Anthropology in Artificial Life, a Science of Simulation.Ó Cultural Anthropology 16(4):613-628. Harding, Sandra, Science and Social Inequality, Ch. 6, pp. 98-109
Monday
9/18: Discussion of SnowÕs ÒThe Two CulturesÓ and Helmreich ÒAfter CultureÓ
Wednesday
9/20: Discussion of SnowÕs ÒThe Scientific RevolutionÓ and Harding ÒFeminist
Science and Technology Studies at the Periphery of the EnlightenmentÓ
Friday
9/22: Discussion in Groups: are there Òtwo culturesÓ among Brown undergraduate
students? Among the faculty? How can we think of debates in The Future of
Food in
light of SnowÕs and HardingÕs analyses of structural inequality? How does the
ÒgeneticÓ revolution change SnowÕs arguments about technology, progress, and
feeding the world?
Week 4: Karl
Popper: The Scientist as Critical Thinker
Readings:
Popper, Karl 1965. ÒScience: Conjectures and RefutationsÓ
from
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth
of Scientific Knowledge (New York: Basic Books) 33-59.
Harding, Sandra, Science and Social
Inequality, Chapters 7, 8, pp. 113-144
Monday
9/25: Discussion of Popper and Harding
Wednesday
9/27: Group presentation and discussion
Friday
9/29: Discussion of media logs
Week
5: Thomas Kuhn: The Scientist as Normal
Readings:
Thomas Kuhn (1966), The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions. 2nd
edition.(Chicago: University of Chicago Press)
Monday
10/2: Discussion of Kuhn
Wednesday
10/4: Group presentation: compare and contrast Kuhn/Popper
Friday
10/6: Discussion
Week
6: ÒScienceÓ and ÒSocietyÓ: Constructivist Approaches
Readings:
David Bloor (1976 [1991]), Knowledge and
Social Imagery (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press) ix-x; 3-23;163-185.
Bruno Latour, ÒGive me a
Laboratory and I will Raise the World,Óin The Science Studies Reader pp.
258-275
Bruno Latour, ÒOne More
Turn After the Social Turn,Ó in The Science Studies Reader pp. 276-289
Monday
10/9: HOLIDAY
Wednesday
10/11: Discussion of Bloor and Latour
Friday
10/13: Group presentation and discussion
Week 7: Science
Wars?
Readings:
Bruno Latour (1999), ÒDo you believe in
reality? News from the Trenches of the Science WarsÓ from PandoraÕs Hope:
Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press) 1-23.
Hacking, Ian (1999) The social
construction of what? (Preface, Ch.1 ÒWhy Ask What?Ó and Ch.3 ÒWhat about
the Natural SciencesÓ) pp. xxii-35, 63-99
Monday
10/16: Discussion of Latour and Hacking
Wednesday
10/18: Review session for midterm
Friday
10/20: Midterm (In-class)
Week
8: Expertise: Power and Objectivity
Readings:
Michael Foucault (1980), ÒTruth and PowerÓ
in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, Colin Gordon
ed. (Harvester Press) 109-133.
Donna Haraway, (1988) ÒSituated Knowleges:
The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial PerspectiveÓ in The
Science Studies Reader, pp. 172-188
Harding, Sandra, Science and Social
Inequality, Ch. 4-5, pp.66-97
Monday
10/23: Discussion of Foucault
Wednesday
10/25: Group Presentation, Compare Haraway and Harding
Friday
10/27: Discussion of media logs
Week 9: Gender in the Making of Modern Science
Readings:
Londa Schiebinger NatureÕs
Body (first half)
Harding Sandra, Science and Social
Inequality, ch. 1-2, pp. 17-49
Monday
10/30: Discussion of Schiebinger
Wednesday
11/1: Group Presentation: Compare Schiebinger and Harding
Friday
11/3: Discussion
Week
10: Gender in the Racialization of Science
Readings:
Londa Schiebinger: NatureÕs Body
(second half)
Sandra Harding, Science and Social
Inequality, ch 3, pp. 50-65
11/6:
Discussion of Schiebinger and Harding
11/8:
Group Presentation and discussion
11/10:
Discussion: how do Schiebinger and Harding differently see the problems and
solutions to issues of racial inequality in science?
Week
11: Science and Metaphor
Readings:
Emily Martin (1990),
ÒToward an Anthropology of Immunology: The Body as Nation StateÓ from Mario
Biagioli, Science Studies Reader (New
York: Routledge) 358-371.
Emily Martin, 1991 ÒThe egg and the sperm:
How Science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female rolesÓ
Signs Vol 16, No. 3 (Spring 1991), pp. 485-501
Sarah Franklin, ÒStem Cells R Us: Emergent
Life Forms and the Global BiologicalÓ in Global Assemblages, pp. 59-78
11/13:
Discussion of Martin
11/15:
Discussion of Franklin
11/17:
Film: Death by Design
(remainder of film to be viewed on your own time at
the Sciences Library)
While
watching the film, make note of the following:
-
Who
are the agents
(according to the cell biologists) involved in cell signaling, cell division
and cell death?
-
How
do the cell biologists use metaphors to describe cellular activity?
-
What
social events/ideas (a) encouraged and (b) impeded the study of cellular death?
Week
12:
Film assignment:
Death by Design (on reserve at Sciences
Library)
Monday
11/20: Final Media Logs Due.
Discussion
of previous readings and of film Death by Design
Can
science work without metaphors?
Wednesday
11/22: Holiday
Friday
11/24: Thanksgiving break. Enjoy!
Week
13: Whose agency? Humans or Objects? Inside or Outside the Laboratory? Who is
making the science?
Readings:
Ian Hacking (1986), ÒMaking Up PeopleÓ in The
Science Studies Reader, pp. 161-171
Andrew Pickering (1993), ÒThe Mangle of
Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of ScienceÓ
Sherry Turkle (1995, 1998) ÒWhat are we
thinking about when we are thinking about computers?Ó in The Science Studies
Reader, pp. 543-552
Steven Shapin, (1988) ÒThe House of
Experimentation in Seventeenth-Century EnglandÓ
Monday
11/27: Discussion of readings
Wednesday
11/29: Group Presentation
Friday
12/1: Discussion
Week
14: Conclusions
Readings:
Sandra
Harding, Science and Social Inequality, chapter 9 (ÒDoes the threat of
relativism deserve a panic?Ó), pp. 145-156
Monday
12/4: Discussion of previous readings and Harding Ch. 9
Wednesday
12/6: Group Presentation and discussion
Friday
12/8: Review Session
Week
15: Finals Week: Final exam papers due at noon on December 18.