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. (shrink)

Definition of the problem: To a considerable extent the current debate on brain death is dominated by historical arguments. The first crucial question is whether the introduction of the brain death criterion constituted a break with the past or not. The second subject at issue is whether brain death was introduced for the purpose of organ procurement or not.Arguments: However, these historical issues are not being approached with adequate historical tools.Conclusion: The case of the debate on brain death demonstrates the (...) ubiquity of historical arguments in the discussion on ethical problems and the significance of a quality standard concerning such statements about the past. (shrink)