Abstract
We are very grateful to Daniel Lee Kleinman for providing us with an opportunity to clarify some key issues.' Like several of our colleagues, our critic seems to think that the 'new' sociology of science2 is either irrelevant to an understanding of the 'social' issues that matter, such as the issues about 'power', or that it ought to be redeemed by grafting its (social) constructionist approach on to the traditional analytic discourse dominated by such entities as social groups, social classes, vested interests, and the like. Not so. In his critique of our text,3 Kleinman displays a paradigmatic blindness to what we were up to. The opening sentence of his text appears in this regard exquisitely revealing: 'I read with interest the paper by Alberto Cambrosio and his colleagues on the politics of biotechnology policy-making in Quebec'.4 On the politics of biotechnology policy-making? But we never wrote such a piece! As its title made clear, we authored a paper on the ethnography of science policy-making. This is more than a mere terminological twist. Rather, it points to Kleinman's lack of interest in reading our text for what it is and, more importantly, to his redefining, in his own terms, of the very object of our study.' Having so redefined our endeavour, Kleinman can safely point to what he perceives as our
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
