In 1984, a group of Argentine students, trained by US academics, formed the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team to apply the latest scientific techniques to the excavation of mass graves and identification of the dead, and to work toward transitional justice. This inaugurated a new era in global forensic science, as groups of scientists in the Global South worked outside of and often against local governments to document war crimes in post-conflict settings. After 2001, however, with the inauguration of the war on terror following the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, global forensic science was again remade through US and European investment to increase preparedness in the face of potential terrorist attacks. In this paper, I trace this shift from human rights to humanitarian forensics through a focus on three moments in the history of post-conflict identification science. Through a close attention to the material semiotic networks of forensic science in post-conflict settings, I examine the shifting ground between non-governmental human rights forensics and an emerging security- and disaster-focused identification grounded in global law enforcement. I argue that these transformations are aligned with a scientific shift towards mechanized, routinized, and corporate-owned DNA identification and a legal privileging of the right to truth circumscribed by narrow articulations of kinship and the body.

This article explores the sensory dimensions of scientific field research in the only region in the world where free-ranging bonobos ( Pan paniscus) can be studied in their natural environment; the equatorial rainforest of the Democratic Republic of Congo. If, as sensory anthropologists have argued, the senses are developed, grown and honed in a given cultural and environmental milieu, how is it that field scientists come to dwell among familiarity in a world which is, at first, unfamiliar? This article builds upon previous anthropological and philosophical engagements with habituation that have critically examined primatologists' attempts to become 'neutral objects in the environment' in order to habituate wild apes to their presence. It does so by tracing the somatic modes of attention developed by European and North American researchers as they follow bonobos in these forests. The argument is that as environments, beings and their elements become familiar, they do not become 'neutral', but rather, suffused with meaning.

The 'psy' sciences emerged from the tangled roots of philosophy, physiology, biology and medicine, and these origins have produced heterogeneous fields. Scientists in these areas work in a complex, overlapping ecology of fields that results in the constant co-presence of dissonant theories, methods and research objects. This raises questions regarding how conceptual clarity is maintained. Using the optical metaphor 'depth of field', I show how researchers in all fields marginalize potential threats to routine scientific work by framing them as either too broad and imprecise or too narrow and technical. The appearance of this defocusing and devaluing across sites suggests a general aspect of scientific cognition, rather than a by-product of any specific scientific dispute.

One of the lasting legacies of the financial crisis of 2008, and the legislative energies that followed from it, is the growing reliance on econometrics as part of the rulemaking process. Financial regulators are increasingly expected to rationalize proposed rules using available econometric techniques, and the courts have vacated several key rules emanating from Dodd-Frank on the grounds of alleged deficiencies in this evidentiary effort. The turn toward such econometric tools is seen as a significant constraint on and challenge to regulators as they endeavor to engage with such essential policy questions as the impact of financial speculation on food security. Yet, outside of the specialized practitioner community, very little is known about these techniques. This article examines one such econometric test, Granger causality, and its role in a pivotal Dodd-Frank rulemaking. Through an examination of the test for Granger causality and its attempts to distill the causal connections between financial speculation and commodities prices, the article argues that econometrics is a blunt but useful tool, limited in its ability to provide decisive insights into commodities markets and yet yielding useful returns for those who are able to wield it.

Shapin S (2016) A taste of science: Making the subjective objective in the California wine world. Social Studies of Science 46(3): 436-460. doi: 10.1177/0306312716651346.

This article takes an historical perspective on current attempts to 'open up' established, centralized systems of urban infrastructure to alternative technologies designed to minimize resource use and environmental pollution. The process of introducing alternative technologies into, or alongside, centralized urban infrastructures is not a novel phenomenon, as is often assumed. The physical and institutional entrenchment of large technical systems for urban energy, water or sanitation services in industrialized countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not close the door completely on alternatives. I investigate a number of alternative technologies used in Berlin in the interwar period (1920-1939), in order to reveal the rationales developed around each technology and the ways in which each emerged, disappeared and re-emerged or survived across highly diverse political regimes. The selection of cases is guided by the desire to illustrate three different phenomena of alternative technology diffusion (and exclusion) experienced in Berlin: (1) technologies promoted by early pioneers and discarded by their successors (waste-to-energy), (2) technologies modifying traditional practices that were at odds with modernized systems (wastewater reuse for agriculture) and (3) technologies co-existing alongside the dominant centralized system throughout the 20th century (cogeneration). The empirical findings are interpreted with reference to their contribution to scholarship on urban socio-technical transitions.

Collaboration is central to modern scientific inquiry, and increasingly important to the professional experiences of academic scientists. While the effects of collaboration have been widely studied, much less is understood about the motivations to collaborate and collaboration dynamics that generate scientific outcomes. A particular interest of this study is to understand how collaboration experiences differ between women and men, and the attributions used to explain these differences. We use a multi-method study of university Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics faculty research collaborators. We employ 177 anonymous open-ended responses to a web-based survey, and 60 semi-structured interviews of academic scientists in US research universities. We find similarities and differences in collaborative activity between men and women. Open-ended qualitative textual analysis suggests that some of these differences are attributed to power dynamics - both general ones related to differences in organizational status, and in power dynamics related specifically to gender. In analysis of semi-structured interviews, we find that both status and gender were used as interpretive frames for collaborative behavior, with more emphasis placed on status than gender differences. Overall, the findings support that gender structures some part of the collaborative experience, but that status hierarchy exerts more clear effects.

This article explores how different visions and values of science translate into different architectural shapes. I bring Peter Sloterdijk's 'spherology' to bear on my ethnographic fieldwork at the NEEM ice core base in Greenland, a significant node in the global infrastructure of climate science. I argue that the visual form of the geodesic dome of the camp materializes specific values and visions of this branch of paleoclimate science, which I elaborate vis-a-vis the pragmatic claims of the scientists/designers and the particular architectural history of Danish ice core drilling in Greenland. I argue that this aesthetic history articulates with Buckminster Fuller's ideas of a 'new nature' and 'scalar connections' encapsulated in his geodesic form. Second, I argue that the aesthetic production of space in the camp replicates the modern distinction between science and society, in so far as the lab space is rectangular and the recreational space is spherical. Third, I argue that NEEM scientists and Sloterdijk are essentially engaged in a common project: the scientists work hard to align air bubbles in the cores with atmospheric fluctuations in the hemisphere on the evidentiary terrain of ice, and Sloterdijk attempts to connect micro-uteri with macro-uteri in an attempt to fundamentally rethink space. Fuller's notion of 'Spaceship Earth', appropriated by Sloterdijk in his thinking about anthropogenic climate change, lends itself well to capturing the scalar alignments and the isolated NEEM base - on a mission to save planet Earth. In conclusion, I argue that Sloterdijk's spherology may serve as a point of departure for rethinking the aesthetic grammar of the architecture of science.

Scientific authorship has been increasingly complemented with contributorship statements. While such statements are said to ensure more equitable credit and responsibility attribution, they also provide an opportunity to examine the roles and functions that authors play in the construction of knowledge and the relationship between these roles and authorship order. Drawing on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset of 87,002 documents in which contributorship statements are found, this article examines the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors' seniority. It shows that scientific work is more highly divided in medical disciplines than in mathematics, physics, and disciplines of the social sciences, and that, with the exception of medicine, the writing of the paper is the task most often associated with authorship. The results suggest a clear distinction between contributions that could be labeled as 'technical' and those that could be considered 'conceptual': While conceptual tasks are typically associated with authors with higher seniority, technical tasks are more often performed by younger scholars. Finally, results provide evidence of a U-shaped relationship between extent of contribution and author order: In all disciplines, first and last authors typically contribute to more tasks than middle authors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for the reward system of science.

In this article, I reflect on the Radiation Effects Research Foundation and its ongoing studies of long-term radiation risk. Originally called the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (1947-1975), the Radiation Effects Research Foundation has carried out epidemiological research tracking the biomedical effects of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki for almost 70 years. Radiation Effects Research Foundation scientists also played a key role in the assessment of populations exposed at Chernobyl and are now embarking on studies of workers at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. I examine the role of estimating dosimetry in post-disaster epidemiology, highlight how national identity and citizenship have mattered in radiation risk networks, and track how participants interpreted the relationships between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Industrial interests in Japan and the United States sought to draw a sharp line between the risks of nuclear war and the risks of nuclear power, but the work of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (which became the basis of worker protection standards for the industry) and the activism of atomic bomb survivors have drawn these two nuclear domains together. This is so particularly in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, Japan's 'third atomic bombing'. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation is therefore a critical node in a complex global network of scientific institutions that adjudicate radiation risk and proclaim when it is present and when absent. Its history, I suggest, can illuminate some properties of modern disasters and the many sciences that engage with them.