Paper short abstract:

What could we learn by following antimicrobials as objects that might not otherwise be considered in the core knowledge-collectives emerging around antimicrobial resistance (AMR)? Social scientists can help make collective sense of the challenge of AMR by anticipating potential future controversies.

Paper long abstract:

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is increasingly described as a grand social challenge and social scientists are called upon to apply their particular skills to help societies figure out how to address it. At one level, the rise of AMR can be understood as a natural outcome of micro-organisms evolving resistance to various antimicrobial agents that humans have used to inhibit or destroy them. But a central part of this narrative is the role of human behaviour in squandering a precious technology through patterns of systemic misuse. Assuming that social scientists are willing to engage in the task allocated to them of understanding behaviour, how far and how deep could we go in this enterprise? We might stick with the problem of AMR as it has been defined by the dominant knowledge-collective as one associated with antibiotic use, transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and their clinical implications. Or, we might also follow lines of inquiry that are emerging at some distance from this core collective, examining the unruly relationship between clinical antibiotics and a broader variety of antimicrobial agents within multiple environments of concern. We might even discover domains of antibiotic and other antimicrobial use (current and future) that are yet to be subjected to much scrutiny. Building on the concept of anticipation which has so far been applied mainly to emerging technologies, I explore the implications of attempts to follow antimicrobial objects for the future of AMR as a social-material challenge.