In April 2017, scientists and science sympathizers held marches in the United Kingdom as part of a coordinated international March for Science movement that was held in over 600 cities worldwide. This article reports from participant-observation studies of the marches that took place in London and Cardiff. Supplemented with data from 37 interviews from marchers at the London event, the article reports on an analysis of the placards, focusing on marchers’ concerns and the language and images through which they expressed (...) those concerns. How did the protesters articulate their concerns and objectives, and how were these articulations used to build a community? The placards did not represent a clear, focused, and unifying message; they instead illustrated disparate concerns ranging from human-induced climate change, Trump and “alternative facts,” and local UK specific political issues concerning the country’s exit from the European Union. Our analysis shows that placards gave a playful and whimsical character to the march, with slogans displaying significant amounts of humor, often formulated through insider jokes, scientific puns, or self-deprecating appropriation of negative stereotypes about scientists. We analyze the march through the social movement literature and as a collective identity-building exercise for an community of scientists and sympathizers with long-term aims of establishing a louder voice for scientists, and experts, in public discourse. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a discourse analysis of 40 semi-structured interviews with scientists on their views of Occam's razor and simplicity. It finds that there are many different interpretations and thoughts about the precise meaning of the principle as well as many scientists who reject it outright, or only a very limited version. In light of the variation of scientists' opinions, the paper looks at the discursive uses of simplicity in scientists' thinking and how scientists' interpretations of Occam's razor impact (...) on philosophy's representation of the principle and affects the communication between philosophy and science. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a discourse analysis of 40 semi-structured interviews with scientists on their views of Occam's razor and simplicity. It finds that there are many different interpretations and thoughts about the precise meaning of the principle as well as many scientists who reject it outright, or only a very limited version. In light of the variation of scientists' opinions, the paper looks at the discursive uses of simplicity in scientists' thinking and how scientists' interpretations of Occam's razor impact (...) on philosophy's representation of the principle and affects the communication between philosophy and science. (shrink)

The study of bioethics has always been conducted by multiple disciplines. However the interaction between these disciplines has sometimes been marked by division, discord and disagreement, especially so between philosophically and sociologically minded contributors. This has been particularly true in recent years, and post the ‘empirical turn’ in bioethics. In our introduction we trace these disagreements and then take a wider look at the nature of disciplines and of interdisciplinary relations. These considerations are then brought back to the disciplines that (...) contribute work to bioethics as an explanation of why relationships within the field are difficult, and how we can start to address these divides. (shrink)

In the introduction to this volume we have argued that being an interdisciplinary scholar involves managing a complex interplay of disciplinary identities, as well as the ontologies and ways of knowing and understanding that are associated with the subject matter. We argued that trying to force a bioethical interdiscipline without a special regard to the individual epistemological, ontological and social aspects of the disciplines is unlikely to bear fruit in the long-term. Although bioethics has always been a multidisciplinary activity, the (...) relations between the various disciplines involved have traditionally been fraught, particularly so at the intersection between sociological and philosophical bioethics. We therefore proposed approaching bioethical interdisciplinarity in a manner that is careful and measured. This does not involve abandoning disciplines or disciplinarity, rather we are advocating for an increased level of cross-fertilisation between established disciplines or the way in which research is done, in the broadest sense. (shrink)

The “Open Air Laboratories” (OPAL) is a large, England-wide environmental public engagement (PE) project based on the “citizen science” model. It is designed to involve people of all backgrounds and abilities in the production of environmental science and in the process to educate and raise awareness and enthusiasm about nature and its importance. This article draws on a series of interviews with scientists and science communicators involved in the project to explore their motivations and aims for the project and what (...) they see as the goals of public engagement generally. We find a varied and nuanced array of motivations and aims that interviewees cite for taking part in the project, pointing toward a reevaluation of traditional ways of understanding the value of public engagement, policy relevance, and dialogue within public engagement. Especially relevant in relation to thinking about the policy relevance of PE is our conclusion that there are many different ways of thinking about the value of PE, characterized in this article as “the neglected middle.”. (shrink)

This book is an interdisciplinary contribution to bioethics, bringing together philosophers, sociologists and Science and Technology Studies researchers as a way of bridging the disciplinary divides that have opened up in the study of bioethics. Each discipline approaches the topic through its own lens providing either normative statements or empirical studies, and the distance between the disciplines is heightened not only by differences in approach, but also disagreements over the values, interpretations and problematics within bioethical research. In order to converse (...) across these divides, this volume includes contributions from several disciplines. The volume examines the sociological issues faced by interdisciplinary research in bioethics, the role of expertise, moral generalisations, distributed agency, and the importance of examining what is not being talked about. Other contributions try to take an interdisciplinary look at a range of specific situations, fetal alcohol syndrome in the media, citizen science, electronic cigarettes and bioethical issues in human geography. (shrink)