1st Edition

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

Edited By Susan S. Silbey Copyright 2008
    1136 Pages
    by Routledge

    The conditions of contemporary life have been shaped in large part by science and technology extending human life, shrinking the globe, traveling into space. To effect human life and nature, for good or ill, enhancing safety or risk, science must be transformed by legal procedures from hypotheses and laboratory experiments into property and products. Both the legal processes and scientific practices derive legitimacy from being publicly observable and rational. Through their defining methods, both law and science attempt to constrain the use of unregulated force. Yet, despite their purportedly open and available processes, both science and legality are experienced as arcane, impenetrable, and often uninterpretable. Neither law nor science achieves the transparency to which it aspires. These two volumes collect exemplary law and society scholarship to look beneath the surface connections and antagonisms between these two powerful modern institutions. The first volume collects together articles on science as it enters legal domains, primarily as evidence and legitimation for political authority and the second explores how law acts within the domains of science, primarily as resources and regulations channeling both the practices of scientists and the consequences of scientific production.

    Volume I: Epistemological, Evidentiary and Relational Engagements


    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


    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.


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