Non-concerns about science and technology and within STS 
Brian Rappert (University of Exeter)
Malcolm Dando (University of Bradford)
Sam Weiss Evans (Harvard University)
Chandre Gould (Institute for Security Studies)
Brian Balmer (University College London)
Send message to Convenors
Engaging publics
C. Humanisticum AB 2.13
Wednesday 17 September, 14:00-15:45, 16:00-17:45, Thursday 18 September, 9:30-11:15, 11:30-13:15 (UTC+0)

Short Abstract:

reflexivity; absences; ignorance; marginalization; secrecy; undone science

Long Abstract

Over the past few decades, STS analysis has contributed to public and policy debate through evaluating initiatives, critiquing assumptions, providing advice, facilitating dialogue, and advocating options.

What remains outside of professional, policy, and public agendas has been identified as a matter of significant importance. In recent years, for instance, ignorance, unknowns, and 'undone science' have become significant topics for investigation in STS.

Yet STS itself is not immune from questions about what remains outside of it. Ethical, legal and social examinations of science and technology have often been "reactive" (to scandals, experiments, new technologies, etc.), in contrast to pro-actively setting out positive future agenda or addressing the most significant challenges to well-being.

A number of questions that address themes of ethical blindness, taken for granted assumptions, and the construction of reasoning will be central to this track, including:

* How, for who, between whom, and under what circumstances have implications of science and technology become rendered (non-)issues?

* How can facts, figures, concepts, and arguments be made sense of in order to assess what counts as the absence of concern?

* What are the everyday routines, practices, negotiations, social structures, and asymmetries that shape how (and if) topics receive attention?

* How have scientists and others fostered regard to or distanced themselves from concerns with their work?

* How can STS inquiry influence what is and is not identifies as of concern? How has STS itself rendered some topics unknown or unacknowledged through its presumptions and priorities?

The papers will be presented in the order shown and grouped 4-4-4-3 between sessions

Accepted papers: