Paper short abstract:

Experts involved in classifying disease make important moral decisions about inclusion and progress. Drawing on ethnographic work among classifiers, I reflect on the opportunities for social scientists to cultivate potent epistemic spaces and meaningfully contribute to classification projects.

Paper long abstract:

Experts involved in classifying disease make important decisions about the necessary use of technology, the addition of novel disease entities, and the affective registers of disease nomenclature. In doing so, they make moral arguments about access, inclusion, communication, and progress, often drawing on examples to bolster their cases. And yet, the empirical detail of these examples is often slim and what might be called the evidence of their claims is far less scrutinised than what is expected for more “scientific” claims. Many experts are aware of this and lament having to rely on personal and anecdotal evidence. Foregrounding these dimensions of classification work creates a mandate for the social sciences to fill in the detail and raise the bar of evidence. The question, then, is how to assume this mandate in ways that can meaningfully impact disease classification and its integration. Drawing on ethnographic work with experts classifying cancer at an increasingly molecular level, I reflect on the opportunities for the social sciences to cultivate potent epistemic spaces and repackage experts’ concerns in ways that are relevant and meaningful for them. In particular, I will discuss the importance of emphasising shared histories, delineating expertise, finding entry-points, reframing concerns, and imagining collaboration.