Abstract

In this article, I am using the example of the introduction of osteosynthesis into surgical routine practice to analyze the use of the notions of art and science in medical innovation. The examination of the renegotiations of power and responsibility associated with the introduction of this new technique shows that proponents and critics actively linked their arguments to more fundamental epistemological and social issues. The proponents claimed to manage the uncertainties of innovation through making surgery more scientific, drawing on the ideals of control, rationality, objectivity, and predictability. The critics mobilized another discursive pattern. They considered surgery an art and emphasized the individuality, contingency, and situatedness of medical practice. I investigate the discursive function of these argumentative patterns and how they played out in the concrete example of this surgical technique.