IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v38y1994i8p1017-1036.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dissent in science: Styles of scientific practice and the controversy over the cause of AIDS

Author

Listed:
  • Fujimura, Joan H.
  • Chou, Danny Y.

Abstract

In this paper, we use a scientific controversy, and the efforts to legitimize and undermine a theory, to examine the co-production of facts and the rules for verifying facts over time. We discuss these processes in terms of what we call 'styles of scientific practice.' In contrast to the focus of idealist philosophers on theory production and validation as forms of logic or ways of thinking, our styles of practice also include the activities of hands and eyes and the discourses between multiple actors in diverse situations. We discuss aspects of the different styles of practice deployed by opponents in a current controversy surrounding the etiology of AIDS to understand how the same data are interpreted in different ways to support diametrically opposed views. Our study describes and examines rules of confirmation used by supporters of the theory that HIV causes AIDS. For example, we introduce an 'epidemiological' style of practice used by AIDS researchers to synthesize information to understand this disease. Styles of practice stress the historically located collective efforts of scientists, technicians, administrators, institutions, and various 'public' as they build and sustain ways of knowing. Yet, we also show that the 'history' is also a contested construction, not a given in dusty archives. We describe the different versions of history constructed by various participants in the debate to validate their current constructions and definitions of the disease AIDS. Finally, we discuss the politics behind disease definitions and the consequences of different definitions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fujimura, Joan H. & Chou, Danny Y., 1994. "Dissent in science: Styles of scientific practice and the controversy over the cause of AIDS," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1017-1036, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:38:y:1994:i:8:p:1017-1036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(94)90219-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hedgecoe, Adam, 2005. "'At the point at which you can do something about it, then it becomes more relevant': Informed consent in the pharmacogenetic clinic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1201-1210, September.
    2. Jamie Beverstock & Martyn Pickersgill, 2022. "Producing knowledge in a pandemic: Accounts from UK-based postdoctoral biomedical scientists of undertaking research during the COVID-19 pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. A Irwin & P Simmons & G Walker, 1999. "Faulty Environments and Risk Reasoning: The Local Understanding of Industrial Hazards," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 31(7), pages 1311-1326, July.
    4. Ryan Light & jimi adams, 2016. "Knowledge in motion: the evolution of HIV/AIDS research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1227-1248, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:38:y:1994:i:8:p:1017-1036. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.