Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - Startseite

SCIENCE WORKS

Der Podcast des Robert K. Merton Zentrums für Wissenschaftsforschung

SCIENCEworks_3000px Kopie.png

 

 


#3 SCIENCE WORKS/ Jour Fixe:

Reproducibility reforms in American biomedicine and the diffusion of the "regulatory ethos"

Nicole Nelson (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Link zur Folge: https://blogs.hu-berlin.de/scienceworks/2024/12/10/3-science-works-jour-fixe-reproducibility-reforms-in-american-biomedicine-and-the-diffusion-of-the-regulatory-ethos/

Recent scholarship has described the “reproducibility crisis” and its associated reform movement as a social movement or a scientific-intellectual movement. This talk will argue for an alternative framing of these events which de-emphasizes high-status intellectual actors and their agendas for change, and emphasizes instead structural aspects and how they shape which reforms come to be seen as possible and desirable.

Taking this alternative lens, we could see the reproducibility movement not as a successful network of methodologists stitched together by Twitter and investment from private foundations, but as one instantiation of a broader diffusion of a “regulatory ethos” from highly regulated contexts into academic settings. Together with Lara Keuck, we describe the regulatory ethos as a specific type of scientific ethos (following Merton) that relies on documentation practices and favors plans over situated actions, uniformity over heterogeneity, and validation over external validity.

Through a detailed history of the emergence of the reproducibility crisis in American biomedicine, I will show how pharmaceutical drug development and clinical medicine – two highly regulated spheres of practice – were key to providing the evidence and solutions that first generated support from key figures at the National Institutes of Health for reproducibility reform. From this I argue that this reform movement should be understood analytically as not merely an expression of the open science ideals of its most charismatic leaders, but as part of ongoing efforts to ensure the interoperability of experimental systems across distributed research spaces.

Vortrag am 10.07.2024


#2 SCIENCE WORKS/ Jour Fixe:

From the Researcher to the Integrity of Knowledge Production

Sven Arend Ulpts (Aarhus University, Denmark)

Link zur Folge: https://blogs.hu-berlin.de/scienceworks/2024/12/05/2-science-works-jour-fixe-from-the-researcher-to-the-integrity-of-knowledge-production/

Research guidelines and the scientific literature in general are full of ideas and recommendations of how proper science should look like. However, it remains an open question how the actual reality of research in the sciences relates to notions of proper or responsible science in, for instance, European research integrity guidelines? To answer this question, I conducted an ethnography of cognitive sciences in five cognitive science labs in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK. The aim is to understand how and under what conditions knowledge is produced and whether ideas of proper conduct that can be found in guidelines and the literature actually have a place in research reality. Hence, it is about capturing the perspectives of the researchers who are supposed to live in compliance with such guidelines and recommendations. To this end I further inquired what researchers think about how and whether current recommendations for the improvement of science fit into their everyday lives as researchers by conducting semi-structured interviews. Put shortly, I observed a complex mixture of alignment and mismatch between notions of good science and the research realities.

Vortrag am 13.11.2024


#1 SCIENCE WORKS/ Jour Fixe:

Re-imagining humanness. Popular science narratives of AI futures

Thomas Wahl (Mälardalens Universitet, Sweden)

Link zur Folge: 
https://blogs.hu-berlin.de/scienceworks/2024/10/29/1-thomas-wahl-maelardalens-universitet-sweden-2/#blog

In the case of artificial intelligence, hyperbolic predictions of the emergence of intelligent machines, even ‘super intelligences’, consist of both dystopian fears of human suppression and extinction, and utopian hopes of human flourishing through freedom from labor and illness as well as unparalleled economic growth and prosperity. At the heart of the controversies between these two, we argue, are emergent and conflicting assumptions about what it means to be human, or rather, what defines humanness.

To address this topic, of how the understanding of humanness is constructed in relation to AI and how the (future) agency of AI and Humans are imagined,  we turn to the genre of popular science and the imaginaries of the possibilities and effects of a future in which intelligent machines have bypassed many human capacities.  Popular science as a genre is interesting in its ambition to translate inter-academic knowledge production about AI development while at the same time dramatizing it and making it relevant for business, politics, and the public.

First, the chapter deconstructs the imaginaries of a future shaped by super intelligent AIs and discusses how this imagined future builds on particular and narrow definitions of humanness - as essentially biological cognitive processors, but also as distinguishable as creative/non-creative and neuro-typical and neuro-diverse/passive and active. Secondly, we turn to the construction of AI as a “floating signifier” an object, a thing, that is devoid of meaning.

(Vortrag am 16.10.2024)