Epilogue: Work and Practice in Social Studies of Science, Medicine, and Technology

As the introduction to this special issue points out, the bridges between science, technology, and medicine are understudied. The reasons are partly historical and partly conceptual. There are a number of institutional gaps, some within our own science and technology studies (STS) field. I first encountered one in graduate school when I submitted a historical, partly theoretical piece on sociology of medical work to a journal in the history of medicine. The piece examined links between practice and knowledge in clinical and basic research. I received a short, swift, negative reply; one reviewer said, Words like robust are indicative of the jargon of sociology and have no place in the history of medicine audience. There are also gaps in institutional support for the STS approach to medicine; in the United States and Britain, the national social science research organizations categorically cannot support medical research, but resources from the traditional medical funding sources are slim. Medical anthropology and sociology are often categorized as ethics or policy (important in their own rights, but only partially overlapping with basic STS research). People have found niches and workarounds to do this research, but the structures are not well fleshed out. This issue of Science, Technology, & Human Values marks a major bridge-building effort between social studies of science, medicine, and technology, and it is hoped that structural changes may follow.