Law and Science, Volumes I and II Volume I: Epistemological, Evidentiary, and Relational Engagements Volume II: Regulation of Property, Practices and Products

Volume I: Epistemological, Evidentiary and Relational Engagements

Introduction

Part 1: Epistemological Engagements

1. Howard Schweber (1999), ‘Law and the Natural Sciences in Nineteenth-Century American Universities’, Science in Context, 12, pp. 101−21. 3

2. Hanina Ben-Menahem and Yemima Ben-Menahem (1999), ‘Law and Science – Reflections’, Science in Context, 12, pp. 227−43. 25

3. Bruno Latour (2004), ‘Scientific Objects and Legal Objectivity’, trans. Alain Pottage in Alain Pottage and Martha Mondy (eds), Law, Anthropology and the Constitution of the Social: Making Persons and Things, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73−114. 43

Part 2: Science in Court

4. Laurens Walker and John Monahan (1987), ‘Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law’, Virginia Law Review, 73, pp. 559−98. 87

5. Jessica Riskin (1999), ‘The Lawyer and the Lightning Rod’, Science in Context, 12, pp. 61−99. 127

6. Tal Golan (1999), ‘The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in the English Courtroom’, Science in Context, 12, pp. 7−32. 167

7. Julie Johnson-McGrath (1995), ‘Speaking for the Dead: Forensic Pathologists and Criminal Justice in the United States’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 20, pp. 438−59. 193

8. Jennifer L. Mnookin (1998), ‘The Image of Truth: Photographic Evidence and the Power of Analogy’, Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 10, pp. 1−74. 215

9. Simon Cole (1999), ‘What Counts for Identity? The Historical Origins of the Methodology of Latent Fingerprint Identification’, Science in Context, 12, pp. 139−72. 289

10. Nicole Rafter (2001), ‘Seeing and Believing: Images of Heredity in Biological Theories of Crime’, Brooklyn Law Review, 67, pp. 71−99. 323

11. Michael Lynch and Ruth McNally (1999), ‘Science, Common Sense and the Common Law: Courtroom Inquiries and the Public Understanding of Science’, Social Epistemology, 13, pp. 183−96. 3

12. Arthur Daemmrich (1998), ‘The Evidence Does Not Speak for Itself: Expert Witnesses and the Organization of DNA-Typing Companies’, Social Studies of Science, 28 (Special Issue on Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice), pp. 741−72. 367

13. Joseph Dumit (1999), ‘Objective Brains, Prejudicial Images’, Science in Context, 12, pp. 173−201. 399

14. Gary Edmond (2000), ‘Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence’, Modern Law Review, 63, pp. 216−51. 429

PART 3: Doctrinal Struggles with Scientifically Generated Social Relations

15. Mathieu Deflem (1998), ‘The Boundaries of Abortion Law: Systems Theory from Parsons to Luhmann and Habermas’, Social Forces, 76, pp. 775−818. 467

16. Julian Dibbell (1993), ‘A Rape in Cyberspace: How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database into a Society’, Village Voice, 38, pp. 1−14.

Volume II: Regulation of Property, Practices, and Products

Introduction

Part 1: State Institutionalization of Science

1. Larry Owens (1990), ‘MIT and the Federal “Angel”: Academic R & D and the Federal-Private Cooperation before World War II’, Isis, 81, pp. 188−213. 3

2. Daniel Lee Kleinman (1994), ‘Layers of Interest, Layers of Influence: Business and the Genesis of the National Science Foundation’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 19, pp. 259−82. 29

3. Kelly Moore (1996), ‘Organizing Integrity: American Science and the Creation of Public Interest Organizations, 1955−1975’, American Journal of Sociology, 101, pp. 1592−627. 53

4. David H. Guston (1999), ‘Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: The Rôle of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization’, Social Studies of Science, 29, pp. 87−111. 89

Part 2: Making Markets of/in Science

5. James R. Voelkel (1999), ‘Publish or Perish: Legal Contingencies and the Publication of Kepler’s Astronomia nova’, Science in Context, 12, pp. 33−59. 117

6. Sally Smith Hughes (2001), ‘Making Dollars out of DNA: The First Major Patent in Biotechnology and the Commercialization of Molecular Biology, 1974–1980’, Isis, 92, pp. 541−75. 145

7. Hannah Landecker (1999), ‘Between Beneficence and Chattel: The Human Biological in Law and Science’, Science in Context, 12, pp. 203−25. 181

8. Jason Owen-Smith (2005), ‘Dockets, Deals, and Sagas: Commensuration and the Rationalization of Experience in University Licensing’, Social Studies of Science, 35, pp. 69−97. 205

Part 3: Governing Science: Law in the Lab

9. Barrie Thorne (1980), ‘“You Still Takin’ Notes?” Fieldwork and Problems of Informed Consent’, Social Problems, 27, pp. 284−97.

10. Philip L. Bereano (1984), ‘Institutional Biosafety Committees and the Inadequacies of Risk Regulation’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 9, pp. 16−34. 251

11. Susan S. Silbey and Patricia Ewick (2003), ‘The Architecture of Authority: The Place of Law in the Space of Science’, in Austin Sarat, Lawrence Douglas and Martha Umphrey (eds), The Place of Law, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 75−108. 271

12. Cyrus C.M. Mody (2001), ‘A Little Dirt Never Hurt Anyone: Knowledge-Making and Contamination in Materials Science’, Social Studies of Science, 31, pp. 7−36. 305

13. Benjamin Sims (2005), ‘Safe Science: Material and Social Order in Laboratory Work’, Social Studies of Science, 35, pp. 333−66. 335

Part 4: Governing Scientists: Social Control and Scientific Misconduct

14. Nachman Ben-Yehuda (1986), ‘Deviance in Science: Towards the Criminology of Science’, British Journal of Criminology, 26, pp. 1−27. 371

15. Edward J. Hackett (1994), ‘A Social Control Perspective on Scientific Misconduct’, Journal of Higher Education, 65, pp. 242−60. 399

16. Marcel C. LaFollette (1994), ‘The Politics of Research Misconduct: Congressional Oversight, Universities, and Science’, Journal of Higher Education, 65, pp. 261−85. 419

Part 5: Governing the Products of Science

17 Sheila S. Jasanoff (1987), ‘Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science’, Social Studies of Science, 17, pp. 195−230. 447

18. Les Levidow (2001), ‘Precautionary Uncertainty: Regulating GM Crops in Europe’, Social Studies of Science, 31, pp. 842−74. 483

19. Hugh Gusterson (2000), ‘How Not to Construct a Radioactive Waste Incinerator’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25, pp. 332−51.

Biography

Susan S. Silbey is Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.