Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Mapping Misconduct: Demarcating Legitimate Science from “Fraud” in the B-06 Lumpectomy Controversy

Mapping Misconduct: Demarcating Legitimate Science from “Fraud” in the B-06 Lumpectomy Controversy This essay analyzes how the borders between the technical and the public sphere were argumentatively demarcated in the B-06 lumpectomy controversy. Drawing from Thomas Gieryn's metaphor of “cultural cartographies of science,” it tracks the implications of four discursive maps of scientific practice that circulated in argument spheres as the controversy unfolded. Considered together, these maps preserved institutional jurisdiction over decision making and missed a critical opportunity to address stakeholder concerns about scientific practice more meaningfully. This case study suggests the need to extend our understanding of argument spheres in science-based controversy. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Argumentation and Advocacy Taylor & Francis

Mapping Misconduct: Demarcating Legitimate Science from “Fraud” in the B-06 Lumpectomy Controversy

Keränen, Lisa
Argumentation and Advocacy , Volume 42 (2): 20 – Sep 1, 2005
Download PDF

Mapping Misconduct: Demarcating Legitimate Science from “Fraud” in the B-06 Lumpectomy Controversy

Abstract

This essay analyzes how the borders between the technical and the public sphere were argumentatively demarcated in the B-06 lumpectomy controversy. Drawing from Thomas Gieryn's metaphor of “cultural cartographies of science,” it tracks the implications of four discursive maps of scientific practice that circulated in argument spheres as the controversy unfolded. Considered together, these maps preserved institutional jurisdiction over decision making and missed a critical...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/mapping-misconduct-demarcating-legitimate-science-from-fraud-in-the-b-pQyh4m9yL6
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2005 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2576-8476
eISSN
1051-1431
DOI
10.1080/00028533.2005.11821644
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This essay analyzes how the borders between the technical and the public sphere were argumentatively demarcated in the B-06 lumpectomy controversy. Drawing from Thomas Gieryn's metaphor of “cultural cartographies of science,” it tracks the implications of four discursive maps of scientific practice that circulated in argument spheres as the controversy unfolded. Considered together, these maps preserved institutional jurisdiction over decision making and missed a critical opportunity to address stakeholder concerns about scientific practice more meaningfully. This case study suggests the need to extend our understanding of argument spheres in science-based controversy.

Journal

Argumentation and Advocacy – Taylor & Francis

Published: Sep 1, 2005

Keywords: science controversy; technical and public argument spheres; demarcation; misconduct; breast cancer research

References

  • Scientific and research misconduct
  • Researcher falsified data in breast cancer study
  • Demarcating epidemiology
  • Setting the record straight in the breast-cancer trials
  • Lost in the mall with Mesmer and Wundt: Demarcations and demonstrations in the psychologies
  • Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]
  • Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]
  • Public and technical interdependence: Regulatory controversy, out-law discourse, and the messy case of Olestra
  • Reasons for studying scientific and scientific-based controversies
  • Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]
  • “Let us (not) theorize the spaces of contention.”
  • Fraud in breast cancer study: Doctor lied on data for decade
  • Introduction: Demarcation socialized: Constructing boundaries and recognizing difference
  • AIDS activism and the rejuvenation of the public sphere
  • Breast cancer research on trial
  • Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island
  • Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer
  • Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer
  • Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]
  • Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer
  • The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation
  • Science and technology controversy: A rationale for inquiry
  • Research fraud breaks chain of trust: Investigation interrupts ongoing study
  • Fraud
  • Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]
  • Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science
  • Flawed cancer study haunts many women
  • Breast cancer advice unchanged despite flawed data in key study
  • Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes
  • Dr. Roger Poisson: “I have learned my lesson the hard way.”
  • Fraud, misconduct or normal science in medical research: An empirical study of demarcation
  • Risk, controversy, and rhetoric: Response to Goodnight
  • Methods, definitions, and basic assumptions
  • Entanglements of consumption, cruelty, privacy, and fashion: The social controversy over fur
  • Contesting pornography: Terministic catharsis and definitional argument
  • The trials of Dr. Bernard Fisher: A European perspective on an American episode
  • The spaces of public dissension: Reconsidering the public sphere
  • A rhetoric of controversy
  • Beyond basic and applied
  • Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]
  • Fraud in breast-cancer trials [Letter to the editor]
  • Science and scandal: What can be done about scientific misconduct?
  • Experts try to allay cancer fraud fears
  • Feeling betrayed by science: A scandal over faked data in a breast cancer study has left patients reeling and a pioneering doctor in disgrace
  • Defining the scientific community: A rhetorical perspective on demarcation
  • Fisher accepts Pitt's apology, drops lawsuit on breast study
  • Anatomy of a scandal: Fisher describes ordeal as ‘reign of terror.’
  • Public statement incidental to termination of litigation in RE: Fisher vs. University of Pittsburgh, et al
  • The breast cancer research scandal: Addressing the issues
  • What is truth?
  • The rhetoric of fraud in breast cancer trials: Manifestations in medical journals and the mass media-and missed opportunities