It is a commonplace of the critical innovation literature that experiment has replaced mass production as the driving force of accumulation. But while many theorists have explored the politics and dynamics of such economies of experiment under the rubric of ‘immaterial’, cognitive or affective labour, few have examined the intersection of labour, experiment and the speculative in the clinic. Taking the clinic as representative of contemporary transformations in the commodity-form, labour and innovation, this article will look at recent attempts to (...) reform the clinical trial, arguing that these developments represent a far-reaching shift in our understanding of medicine. First, I investigate recent efforts (associated with the discourse of ‘translational medicine’) to rethink the interface between experimental lab-based science and the clinic. I also look at closely associated efforts to reintroduce an element of experimental surprise into the clinical trial process itself, through the adoption of novel trial designs. If the randomized controlled trial was conceived essentially along the lines of a product testing procedure, recent efforts have attempted to reintroduce surprise into the testing process itself – in other words, to invent a trial process capable of producing unexpected events as leads for further innovation. I then move from the experimental clinic to what I call the distributed experiment. Here I focus on efforts to outsource pharmacological innovation to a distributed public of patients through the use of social networking software. These platforms allow drug developers to escape the limits of the conventional clinical trial by tracking the experimental practices taking place in the distributed clinic of unregulated drug consumption. (shrink)

The 19th century saw the development of an eclectic medical marketplace in both the United Kingdom and the United States, with mesmerists, herbalists and hydrotherapists amongst the plethora of medical ‘sectarians’ offering mainstream (or ‘allopathic’) medicine stiff competition. Foremost amongst these competitors were homoeopaths, a group of practitioners who followed Samuel Hahnemann (1982[1810]) in prescribing highly dilute doses of single-drug substances at infrequent intervals according to the ‘law of similars’ (like cures like). The theoretical sophistication of homoeopathy, compared to other (...) medical sectarian systems, alongside its institutional growth after the mid-19th-century cholera epidemics, led to homoeopathy presenting a challenge to allopathy that the latter could not ignore. Whilst the subsequent decline of homoeopathy at the beginning of the 20th century was the result of multiple factors, including developments within medical education, the Progressive movement, and wider socio-economic changes, this article focuses on allopathy’s response to homoeopathy’s conceptual challenge. Using the theoretical framework of Berger and Luckmann (1991[1966]) and taking a Tory historiographical approach (Fuller, 2002) to recover more fully 19th-century homoeopathic knowledge, this article demonstrates how increasingly sophisticated ‘nihilative’ strategies were ultimately successful in neutralising homoeopathy and that homoeopaths were defeated by allopaths (rather than disproven) at the conceptual level. In this process, the therapeutic use of ‘nosodes’ (live disease products) and the language of bacteriology were pivotal. For their part, homoeopaths failed to mount a counter-attack against allopaths with an explanatory framework available to them. (shrink)