KSG STP-292 Science, Power and Politics II
Faculty: Sheila Jasanoff
| Semester | Spring |  | | | | |
| Course Credit: | 1.0 | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Description
Syllabus
Sheila Jasanoff (sheila_jasanoff@harvard.edu) Taubman 401
Office: KSG, L354; Phone: 495-7902 Wed. 2:10-4:00 P.M.
Office hours: Tues. 1:30-3:00 P.M.
Assistant: Kartika Palar, 5-5636 (kartika_palar@ksg.harvard.edu)
SCIENCE, POWER AND POLITICS (II)*
STP 292 (Spring 2005)
This is the second semester of a two-semester graduate seminar. The bulk of the semester will be devoted to reading and critically analyzing papers written by the seminar participants. We will begin, however, with an in-depth look at the topic of expertise: how has expertise been theorized in science and technology studies; how should we think about the credibility of experts; and how does the institutional context of expertise affect the discourses of expertise, as well as our thinking about the social position and function of experts?
February 9: Expertise
A.M. Weinberg, “Science and Trans-Science,” Minerva 10 (1972), pp. 209-222.
E. Solingen, “Between Markets and the State: Scientists in Comparative Perspective,” Comparative Politics 26 (1993), pp. 31-51.
C. Mukerji, A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), Chs. 4, 10.
Y. Ezrahi, Descent of Icarus, Ch. 9, pp. 217-236.
B. Wynne, “Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs,” Science as Culture 10 (2001), pp. 445-481.
H.M. Collins and R. Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science 32 (2002), pp. 235-296; and commentaries by S. Jasanoff and B. Wynne, to be supplied.
S. Jasanoff, “Judgment under Siege: The Three-Body Problem of Expert Legitimacy” (posted on course website).
February 16: Credibility
S. Shapin, A Social History of Truth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 65-86.
S. Shapin, “Cordelia’s Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science,” Perspectives on Science 3 (1995), pp. 255-275.
T.F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), “Epilogue,” pp. 336-362.
S. Hilgartner, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000), pp. 3-41.
D.J. Kevles, The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character (New York: Norton, 1998), Ch. 4 (“Misconduct in America”), pp. 96-117.
M. Lynch, “The Discursive Production of Uncertainty,” Social Studies of Science 28 (1998), pp. 829-867.
February 23: Languages of Deliberation
C. Mukerji, Fragile Power, Ch. 9 (“Directing Scientific Discourse”), pp. 166-189.
D.J. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge, 1991), Ch. 10 (“The Biopolitics of Postmodern Bodies: Constitutions of Self in Immune System Discourse”), pp. 203-230.
M. Hajer, The Politics of Environmental Discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), C. 2 (“Discourse Analysis”), pp. 42-72.
M. Nanda, “The Epistemic Charity of the Social Constructivist Critics and Why the Third World Should Refuse the Offer,” in N. Koertge, ed., A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), Ch. 18, pp. 286-311.
R. Posner, Sex and Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), Ch. 7 (“Optimal Regulation of Sexuality”), pp. 181-219.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
Lawrence v. Texas, (2003), http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html...........................