The aim of the panel is to revisit concerns raised by Warwick Anderson (2009) about what he perceived to be the “minor postcolonial agenda in STS” becoming subsumed “as scholars choose now to fetishize ‘globalisation’.” At the time, as Maureen McNeil (2005: 106, 111) observed, the term “postcolonial” was “a rather ambiguous term” touching on “both the impact and legacies of formally deposed imperial regimes and to new forms of exploitative global relations,” noting that “colonial legacies are never simply ‘leftover’ from the past, they are reanimated, recast and reappropriated in new forms and new ways, with new resistances.” Anderson (2009: 389-390), in turn, described two overlapping directions within postcolonial STS: one was concerned with “subjugated knowledges” and the other with “conjugated subjects.” The critical study of subjugated knowledges placed emphasis on understandings of power, history, identity, and epistemology that have been marginalised or made invisible within Western society (e.g., Palladino and Worboys, 1993; Visvanathan, 1997; Harding, 1998). Conjugated subjects, on the other hand, “hint[ed] at postcolonial hybridity and heterogeneity, suggesting a more complicated and entangled state of affairs, one requiring intimate engagement with various theoretical stances popular in the humanities at the turn of the last century.” This raised doubt about the comprehensiveness and efficacy of prevailing narratives in which social, cultural, and political formations of technoscientific imperialism are depicted as one-way relationships of “sending” colonisers and “receiving” colonial subjects (e.g., Watson-Verran and Turnbull, 1995; Abraham, 2006; Seth, 2009). Moreover, it established grounds for a challenge to what Anderson (2009: 392, 397) described as global claims about patterns of local transactions that seem “quite abstract, strangely depopulated, and depleted of historical and social content” brought into being by a “[r]eluctance to recognise and engage directly with the postcolonial spectre haunting globalisation.” Studying what have since been called, variously, “connected,” “shared,” and “entangled” histories of technoscientific co-production permit, we believe, a foretaste of what can be achieved by untangling and reconnecting local histories of technoscience in ways that stress processes of mutual influencing across borders (cf. Philip, Irani, and Dourish, 2012; Kowal, Radin, and Reardon, 2013; Brandt, 2014). Accordingly, we solicit papers that include (but are not limited to) studies of “connected,” “shared,” and “entangled” relationships of technoscience that:
 have occurred between colonial powers and colonized peoples
 have occurred under (pre- or post-1989) first-second-third world international relationships
 have occurred in so-called developing/developed nation relationships
 have occurred as a result of collaborations in international technoscientific projects (e.g., Human Genome Projects, Millennium Seed Bank Partnership)
References
Abraham, I. (2006) The contradictory spaces of postcolonial techno-science. Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (3): 210–217.
Anderson, W. (2009) From subjugated knowledge to conjugated subjects: Science and globalisation, or postcolonial studies of science? Postcolonial Studies, 12 (4): 389-400.
Brandt, M. (2014) Zapatista corn: A case study in biocultural innovation. Social Studies of Science 44 (6): 874-900.
Harding, S. (1998) Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kowal, E., J. Radin, and J. Reardon (2013) Indigenous body parts, mutating temporalities, and the half-lives of postcolonial technoscience. Social Studies of Science, 43 (4): 465-483.
Philip, K., L. Irani, and P. Dourish (2012), ‘Postcolonial computing: A tactical survey.’ Science, Technology, & Human Values, 37 (1): 3-29.
McNeil, M. (2005) Introduction: Postcolonial Technoscience. Science as Culture, 14 (2): 105-112.
Palladino, P., and M. l. Worboys (1993) Science and Imperialism. Isis, 84 (1): 91-102.
Seth, S. (2009) Putting knowledge in its place: Science, colonialism, and the postcolonial. Postcolonial Studies, 12 (4): 373-388.
Visvanathan, S. (1997) A Carnival for Science: Essays on Science, Technology, and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Watson-Verran, H., and D. Turnbull (1995) Science and other indigenous knowledge systems. Pp. 115–139 in S. Jasonoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.