Beyond Scientific Truth: An Ethnographic Look at the Controversy over the First 1000 Days of Childhood Cognitive Development
No. 46 (2022-01-01)Author(s)
-
Mariana C. SmulskiUnidad de Neurobiología Aplicada, Centro de Educación Médica e Investigaciones Clínicas “Norberto Quirno” (Cemic) ‒ Conicet, Argentina
Abstract
Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in examining the dynamics of the legitimation of science in light of the debate over the public undermining of its authority as a discourse of truth. This article explores the questions raised by this debate based on the analysis of a controversy recorded in the framework of ethnographic fieldwork in a research laboratory. This controversy pits scientific facts relevant to policy decisions about children’s cognitive development against each other. From the native’s point of view, the dispute revolves around two issues: (a) the misrepresented communication of knowledge about poverty and childhood development by outreach institutions, multilateral agencies, and various health and neuroscience professionals; and (b) the political use of such statements and knowledge to guide local level government actions. What is reconstructed throughout the paper, is the way in which the set of researchers mobilizes scientific evidence to dispute factual claims presented in the media as true. This is done by considering the dynamics of legitimacy that unfold around this controversy. Following the perspective of co-production, the analysis shows that the legitimacy of scientific knowledge goes beyond the proof of its truth and involves a plurality of contested perspectives in which both the weight of evidence and the different political imaginaries that the agents sustain come into play. This plurality exposes the inseparable relationship between epistemic, social, and normative aspects, while the ethnography highlights that science cannot be separated from society and politics. Science does not only serve to inform political decision-making; it is also produced in response to and in continuity with public discussion and acts in the co-production of a sense of the political and the social.
References
Arellano Hernández, Antonio. 2000. “La guerra entre ciencias exactas y humanidades en el fin de siglo: el ‘escándalo’ Sokal y una propuesta pacificadora”. Ciencia Ergo-Sum 7 (1): 56-66. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=10401707
Balter, Michael. 2015. “Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children’s Brains”. Science, 30 de marzo. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0395
Bonneuil, Christophe, Pierre-BenoitJoly y ClaireMarris. 2008. “Disentrenching Experiment: The Construction of GM-Crop Field Trials as a Social Problem”. Science Technology and Human Values 33 (2): 201-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311263
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2012. Los usos sociales de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión.
Callon, Michel. 1984. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay”. The Sociological Review 32 (1): 196-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x
Calvo, Pablo. 2017. “Abel Albino: ‘si alimentamos bien a los chicos, en veinte años somos potencia’”. Clarín, 21 de mayo. https://www.clarin.com/viva/abel-albino-alimentamos-bien-chicos-veinte-anos-potencia_0_HyLq4onlW.html
Collins, Harry y RobertEvans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago; Londres: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001
Collins, Harry, RobertEvans y MartinWeinel. 2017. “STS as Science or Politics?”. Social Studies of Science 47 (4): 580-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312717710131
Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science. AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ferroni, Luana. 2017. “Memorias de cangrejos: etnografía de un laboratorio de neurobiólogos argentinos”. Tesis de maestría, Instituto de Altos Estudios Sociales, Universidad de San Martin.
Franklin, Sarah. 1995. “Science as Culture, Cultures of Science”. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 163-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.001115
Fuller, Steven2016. “Embrace the Inner Fox: Post-Truth as the STS Symmetry Principle Universalized”. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 25 de diciembre. https://social-epistemology.com/2016/12/25/embrace-the-inner-fox-post-truth-as-the-sts-symmetry-principle-universalized-steve-fuller/#comments
Funtowicz, Silvio y CeciliaHidalgo. 2008. “Ciencia y política con la gente en tiempos de incertidumbre, conflicto de intereses e indeterminación”. En Apropiación social de la ciencia, editado por José AntonioLópez Cerezo y Francisco JavierGómez González, 193-213. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists”. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781-795. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095325
Hess, David. 2001. “Ethnography and the Development of Science and Technology Studies”. En Handbook of Ethnography, editado por PaulAtkinson, AmandaCoffey, SaraDelamont, JohnLofland y LindLofland, 234-245. Londres: SAGE.
Hidalgo, Cecilia. 1998. “Antropología del mundo contemporáneo. El surgimiento de la antropología de la ciencia”. Relaciones de La Sociedad Argentina de Antropología 22-23: 71 81. http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/25561
Hidalgo, Cecilia, Claudia E.Natenzon y GuillermoPodestá. 2007. “Interdisciplina: construcción de conocimiento en un proyecto internacional sobre variabilidad climática y agricultura”. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia Tecnología y Sociedad 3 (9): 53-68. http://www.revistacts.net/contenido/numero-9/interdisciplina-construccion-de-conocimiento-en-un-proyecto-internacional-sobre-variabilidad-climatica-y-agricultura/
Jasanoff, Shelia. 2019. “Controversy Studies”. En The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, editado por GeorgeRitzer. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosc130.pub2
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2017. “Back from the Brink: Truth and Trust in the Public Sphere”. Issues in Science and Technology 33 (4): 25-28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44577328
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2012. Science and Public Reason. Londres: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203113820
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. “A New Climate for Society”. Theory, Culture & Society 27 (2-3): 233-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276409361497
Jasanoff, Sheila, ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “(No?) Accounting for Expertise”. Science and Public Policy 30 (3): 157-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780542
Jasanoff, Sheila y Hilton R.Simmet. 2017. “No Funeral Bells: Public Reason in a ‘Post-Truth’ Age”. Social Studies of Science 47 (5): 751-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312717731936
Kreimer, Pablo. 2011. “La evaluación de la actividad científica: desde la indagación sociológica a la burocratización. dilemas actuales”. Propuesta Educativa 2 (36): 59-77. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4030/403041707007.pdf
Kreimer, Pablo. 2005. “Estudio preliminar. El conocimiento se fabrica. ¿Cuándo? ¿Dónde? ¿Cómo?”. En La fabricación del conocimiento. Un ensayo sobre el carácter constructivista y contextual de la ciencia, escrito por Karin KnorrCetina, 11-44. Bernal: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes Editorial.
Latour, Bruno. 2012. Nunca fuimos modernos. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
Latour, Bruno. 2008. Reensamblar lo social: una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Buenos Aires: Manantial.
Latour, Bruno. 2004. “Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern”. Critical Inquiry 30 (2): 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1086/421123
Latour, Bruno. 1992. Ciencia en acción. Barcelona: Labor.
Lipina, Sebastian J. y María SoledadSegretin, 2015. “6000 días más: evidencia neurocientífica acerca del impacto de la pobreza infantil”. Psicología Educativa 21 (2): 107-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2015.08.003
Lynch, Michael. 2017. “STS, Symmetry and Post-Truth”. Social Studies of Science 47 (4): 593-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312717720308
Marcus, George E. 2001. “Etnografía En/del sistema mundo. El surgimiento de la etnografía multilocal”. Alteridades 11 (22): 111-127. https://alteridades.izt.uam.mx/index.php/Alte/article/view/388/387
Martin, Emily. 1998. “Anthropology and the Cultural Study of Science”. Science, Technology & Human Values 23 (1): 24-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016224399802300102
Martínez Medina, Santiago. 2020. “Lo que pliega la colecta: conocimientos, científicos y especímenes para otras ciencias posibles”. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 41: 31-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.7440/antipoda41.2020.02
Merton, Robert K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. Nueva York: The Free Press.
Moore, Alfred y JackStilgoe. 2009. “Experts and Anecdotes: The Role of ‘Anecdotal Evidence’ in Public Scientific Controversies”. Science Technology & Human Values 34 (5): 654-677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243908329382
Nelkin, Dorothy. 1979. Controversy: The Politics of Technical Decisions. Beverly Hills, California: SAGE.
Nowotny, Helga. 2003. “Democratising Expertise and Socially Robust Knowledge”. Science and Public Policy 30 (3): 151-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461
Reardon, Sara. 2015. “Poverty Shrinks Brains from Birth”. Nature, 30 de marzo. https://www.nature.com/news/poverty-shrinks-brains-from-birth-1.17227
Shapin, Steven. 2016. Historia social de la verdad. La hidalguía y la ciencia en la Inglaterra del siglo XVII. Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
Shapin, Steven. 2010. Nunca pura, vol 1. Acerca de la historia de la ciencia. Buenos Aires: Prometeo.
Shapin, Steven y SimonSchaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sismondo, Sergio. 2017. “Post-Truth?”. Social Studies of Science 47 (1): 3-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306312717692076
Smulski, Mariana C. 2018. “Hibridación y coproducción científica. Una mirada antropológica a la investigación en ciencias cognitivas sobre desarrollo infantil en contextos de pobreza”. Tesis doctoral, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires. https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/bitstream/handle/11336/82940/CONICET_Digital_Nro.3a259684-db0e-4a1d-a824-e90e7da1c784_A.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Spivak L’Hoste, Ana. 2016. “Cuando diez años parecen más que una década: nostalgia y orgullo en dos conmemoraciones de un instituto argentino de formación científica”. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 26: 93-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.7440/antipoda26.2016.04
Stengers, Isabelle. 2018. Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Vinck, Dominique. 2014. Ciencias y sociedad. Sociología del trabajo científico. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Waisbord, Silvio. 2018. “Truth Is What Happens to News: On Journalism, Fake News, and Post-Truth”. Journalism Studies 19 (13): 1866-1878. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1492881
Weinberg, Marina, Marcelo GonzálezGálvez y CristóbalBonelli. 2020. “Políticas de la evidencia: entre posverdad, objetividad y etnografía”. Antípoda. Revista de Antropología y Arqueología 41: 3-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.7440/antipoda41.2020.01