Cover Letter/ Reflection of my controversy paper

I really dived into this paper during dead week and was able to produce something I'm satisfied with turning in. By far the hardest part of the paper was translating the development of iPS cells from the speech given by Shinya Yamanaka at the Gairdner Awards. When I reference the general public and esoteric language I was the general public that was trying to understand how iPS cells were first developed. Having to rely on a video for Yamanaka's speech instead of correspondence I had to keep a finger on the pause and replay button to translate what was being said into the language of my paper. After I got done with the narrative of Yamanaka's speech I could finally refer to the course materials and readings to build up and provide support for the iPS controversy. I knew in selecting this paper topic it would be impossible to leave out embryonic stem cell research while characterizing the controversy of iPS cells. So what I did was try to discuss Science-in-the-Making in iPS cell discovery and then frame it into the context of stem cell research as a whole. Building on Latour's Janus dictum I tried to frame the two different types of stem cell technology as "ethical" and "unethical" science technology in order to characterize the debate (or course putting them in scare quotes to try and remain neutral). The events chosen in the timeline section of the paper were chosen to fit a storyline I was framing in the paper. The actors I chose to discuss highlights the complex web of political, scientific, and nonhuman actors involved in stem cell research.
Overall I feel this was a rewarding project, I learned more about iPS cells and biotechnology than I would have without an opportunity to write this paper. I actually had never heard of iPS cells before I picked this topic. As I investigated the small differences in government policy among presidential administrations over stem cell research it becomes almost comical now to hear an "anti-science" stance taken by President Bush. The reality of a politico-scientific world is pretty daunting to think about its implications for the future. Similar to the B of the Bang's summary of their controversy I provided further questions to keep in mind while tracking the controversy post-paper. So much is built up around Shinya Yamanaka it will be interesting to see if he will keep carrying the iPS cell torch to a more ethical future in stem cell research. Because of this paper I think I will be much more interested in stumbling across iPS related articles as this technology continues to develop.

Response to Science in Action Part C

Latour draws interesting analogies to bring about an understanding of his concept "Writing texts that withstand the assaults of a hostile environment." Latour says scientists need to write prose in a fashion that they are protecting their argument against the reader's strength of critical analysis. Writing in technical detail is shielding their position from being sacked by others like how a castle builds walls and moats to protect what's inside. Latour makes it feel like a battle is being raged in which an unprepared challenger will surely fail. It's "scientific David fighting against the rhetorical Goliath." Latour sees a specific structure in which a argument has the best chance to become "black-boxed." Stratification as a key element in that vision, and the more layers the better. Using visual aids in your argument allows the reader to see the evidence with their own eyes in order to come to the same conclusion. If they doubt the meaning of what they are seeing they can simply read the explanation in the legend. Latour also uses the analogy of firing a musket compared with firing a machine-gun when they are referencing other scientists. Latour compares Hall's and Packer's text as Hall being a lone wolf as one of the first baboon watchers while Packer several decades later is in a pack of scientists who not only watches baboons--but also watch each other. I think that's an important point Latour brings up. As a new field develops the first scientists are in "uncharted" territory and don't have the asset of other scientists to lean on or who are as knowledgeable about the subject as they are.

Response to "When Scientists Politicize Science"

I took several things from this article that I believe will help me in understanding further readings for the rest of the class. Pielke creates this aura around Bjorn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist and uses it as his main example to relate the linear model. The linear model which Pielke describes in the article as getting the science right before any policymaking. It's important for me to remember that through the linear model mounds of governmental policy have been made on the basis of perceived "sound science" in the past so it's become a very established path for future policy's to be made in the future. Critics such as those debating the theory of climate change know this and know the power of a resolution on a scientific issue. What critics of climate change such as Bjorn Lomborg are trying to do is push the scientific issue "upstream" and away from a resolution. The battle over climate change will likely end with the scientific resolution on it which will coincide with policy action or inaction.
I thought is was interesting when Pielke writes "one great irony of the debate over The Skeptical Environmentalist is that its fame owes more to its critics than to any fundamental insights of the book." I think that this passage will be important to remember as the course progresses. Certain instances within controversial issues don't have to provide something profound or groundbreaking as long as it strikes the right/wrong chords with the right people to be effective and/or significant.
Lastly I noted the importance of the criticism of the Cambridge University Press for publishing the book. Publishers take great risk in a book like The Skeptical Environmentalist because they are held as responsible if not more than the author's pen. I read that the book was published by the Social Sciences division of Cambridge University Press and Pielke notes that much of the debate over the book occurred in the popular media and on the internet instead of in technical journals. I wonder if the reason for criticism of the book coming from other outlets questioning the scientific legitimacy of the claims had to do with the book being social science piece instead of under another title.