This brief Response to the Replies by Vicky Singleton and Brian Wynne enables me to take a second look at the issue of the politics of STS. I will base what I have to say on the original papers and my Response to them, take account of the Replies by Singleton and Wynne, and summarize my main conclusions from the exchange. The two Replies to my original Response to the Special Issue of Social Studies of Science on 'The Politics of SSK' carry on the debate in rather different ways.' Hence I will discuss them separately. I start with Vicky Singleton's contribution. Generally speaking, I think that her Reply has clarified the issues under discussion, even if certain disagreements remain. As a preliminary point, let me say that my comments did not primarily bear upon Singleton's account of her particular case, the UK Cervical Screening Programme. For instance, her criticism of the absolutist normative approach by the British government sounds quite plausible.2 Instead, my Response focused on the theoretical approach taken by Singleton and on a number of general claims she made on the basis of her case study. Basically, the following questions are at issue. The first is that Singleton sees 'should discourse' as essentially inflexible and absolute. In my Response I opposed this view by arguing that normative discourse can be, and often is, as subtle and differentiated as descriptive discourse. In her Reply, Singleton appears to concede the point. Still, she designates my suggested differentiation of her normative question as extremely 'slippery', and prefers to avoid 'should' discourse entirely.3 In contrast, I take it to be no more than prudent to refuse simpleminded absolutist questions and to argue for a more differentiated discourse. Apart from this, there is the question of whether normative
Read full abstract