Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
Modelling, a scientific practice once reserved for mathematicians, epidemiologists, ecologists and economists, has assumed sudden authority in the covid-19 pandemic. The commanding presence of models in global policy has prompted questions about evidence, reliability and trust. Predictions and forecasting, grounded in formalised assumptions, have shifted the landscape of acceptable evidence in global public health. Moreover, modelling became popular: scores of armchair epidemiologists shared their newfound wisdom, the R-number and “exponential growth” became household terminology, while hashtags like #flattenthecurve entangled “science into social practices, calculations into materialisations, abstracts into affects.” (Rhodes et al 2020)
In this panel, we will survey how pandemic modelling made relations since early 2020. We will reflect on the unprecedented ways in which pandemic modelling engaged with unequal and uncertain worlds. We encourage two kinds of contributions: 1) papers which consider the impact of pandemic modelling on knowledge production, policymaking and social relations in pandemic times. Such papers might ask what models do and how they perform as evidence and how modelling has shifted, accelerated or reconfigured persisting challenges of inequality, racism and colonialism. Authors might pay attention to local, regional or national frames of reference. 2) Papers, which investigate the making of relations within models and scrutinize how practices of modelling enfold social, geographical, ecological and microbiological assumptions when forecasting the pandemic world. We invite papers focusing particularly beyond Europe and North America to ask what constitutes good relations within modelling practices, and how we might reconcile these with an ethics of care, responsibility and solidarity.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
One explanation for the fragile state of hospital sectors around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic can be assumed in the diffusion of economization efforts. The financialization of medical care created organizational weak points: work intensification, bureaucratization and increasing managerial control led to an exhausted work force and an economy of scarcity. However, different groups of hospital staff are affected differently: Physicians, clinical scientists, biomedical researchers, (study) nurses and management – among others –  are each characterized by specific professional tasks like medical treatment, research or management. We want to understand, how do they cope with the changed organizational setting and its inherent contradictions? Do new tasks, career patterns or professions emerge as a result? Furthermore, do the organizational changes of inpatient health care also affect the conditions for knowledge translation? Finally, what are the compounding effects of the external shock of the Covid-19-pandemic and economization efforts on the organization of inpatient health care? We invite empirical and theoretical papers discussing these and related research questions:
•	How is health care staff affected in its daily practice by the organizational change due to economization efforts?
•	What kind of behavior is developed to cope with altered framework conditions?
•	Does the financialization of health care change the organizational conditions for professional knowledge translation?
•	How is the financialization of health care affecting the response to the COVID-19-pandemic?
By answering these research questions, the panel contributes to ongoing STS debates on the complex interrelation of healthcare, (medical) translation and financialization.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
This panel will engage the concept of emergence in environmental infrastructures. Emergence here is considered broadly to include the becoming of practices, discourses, and relations in excess of planned, material infrastructures for the valuation and control of environmental resources be they water, land, air, or other. Emergence is a familiar concept in complex systems theory that describes self-organizing systems like flocking and more generally describes anything that results beyond a mere sum of parts. The study of infrastructure is one of STS’s longstanding concerns regarding the commonplace sociotechnical systems that support the circulation of materials, people, and knowledge (Star and Ruhleder; Chattopadhyay; Bowker; Edwards et. al.; Anand, Gupta, and Appel; Simone). Yoked together, emergence in environmental infrastructures includes unanticipated outcomes that can influence material processes, practices, interdependencies, scripts, instruments, and institutions on a variety of spatial and temporal scales. 
We welcome papers that engage with questions such as: How can the concept of emergence deepen our understanding of the effects of environmental infrastructures? What can it tell us about implicated communities and technical systems and their corresponding epistemologies, ontologies, attunements, and politics? How can emergence in turn influence how we observe, analyze, document, and publicize environmental issues? We invite intersectional approaches that engage feminist, decolonial & postcolonial science and technology studies in order to gather expansive ways to identify relations and discourses that emerge from environmental infrastructures within conditions of inequality and uncertainty.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
In the wake of the rapid development of novel genome editing technologies for manipulating DNA, most notably the CRISPR-Cas9 system, a wide variety of actors are vying for influence and access over their governance, development and use. Scientists, biohackers, patients, regulators, bioethicists, disability justice advocates, venture capitalists, biopharma and agriculture firms, among others, are contributing to and contesting the development of institutions for governing these biotechnologies. Key to these dynamics are the discourses, processes and practices through which existing scientific, social, political, economic and ethical orders are disrupted, co-produced, and stabilized to form emergent orders, and how and why some possibilities are opened while others are constrained. 
This paper session invites research that examines and explores the intertwined development of genome editing technologies and social institutions from diverse perspectives and contexts, and across different applications (e.g. agriculture; health and biomedicine; environmental management and gene drives). What discourses, processes, practices and norms are important for governing these novel biotechnologies? How is increased access to and expanded use of these biotechnologies reconfiguring existing social and institutional orders, and leading to new ones? How can we imagine and enact more democratic forms of engagement with and governance of novel biotechnologies? Overall, we are interested in developing a comparative and critical picture of the emergence of new social orders as the ability to modify DNA becomes commonplace, and in doing so, identify sites where existing inequalities or asymmetries of power are reproduced and can be addressed.
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
New encounters between Biology and Engineering are reconfiguring social and epistemic landscapes of the contemporary knowledge production and innovation in the Life Sciences. Over the last years, approaches as Systems and Synthetic Biology bring great debates to the research on Science and Technology Studies (STS), History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, and Bioethics (Calvert and Fujimura, 2011; Schyfter and Calvert, 2015; Schyfter, 2020). This literature is strongly oriented to the analysis of emerging academic agendas, discourses, practices, conventions and promises of those fields, addressing a broader understanding of its epistemological foundations and societal implications. Systems and Synthetic Biology are well-succeeded in idealizing new ways to engineering biomedical knowledge and commercializing solutions to science, industry and medicine. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of Systems and Synthetic Biology is as a great deployment of this debate and should be object of more STS-driven research. This Open Panel invites papers related to the study of practices in Systems and Synthetic Biology (in academia, policy-making, industry, medicine, etc.) and its ELSI in contemporary world. We welcome work on: new movements of engineering biological knowledge, emerging social and epistemic arenas on Systems and Synthetic Biology and its ELSI, bandwagon studies, bioethical issues in translational research, etc. We are particularly keen to encourage submissions from History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science and Technology Policy, Sociology and Anthropology of biomedicine, Bioethics, etc. The panel aims to help expand and update a network of researchers working in this field globally
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and Technology Studies has long focused on how knowledge is made and how publics are then enrolled in it. However, these past studies have often focused on successful articulations of knowledge; we argue that what is left behind, discarded or disputed is just as generative and important to research. While not exhaustive, these may include failures in policy, failures of pilot schemes or mundane failures in everyday life. Moreover, failure also occurs in relation to research processes. In research we can, for example, encounter absences in our data where perhaps we expected it to be. This can in turn make us unable to narrate and analyse the processes that enrol publics in the various failures that stand in relief to what becomes successful. What methods might exist or be developed to help discuss and analyse failure in the face of absent data, missing voices and actors for whatever reason we struggle to follow?
This panel is primarily focused on the methods involved in researching failure or doing research in the face of failure or absence. As such, we invite papers that deal with one or both of these areas. We also welcome papers with a focus on digital methods or inventive methods. Due to the subject of the panel, we also encourage papers which reflect research projects at different stages of the research process. This panel aims to start and progress conversations amongst  researchers about how conduct studies amongst failures and absences.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
Science and technology are widely regarded as guarantors for increasing welfare and solving societal problems. Especially, so-called “grand challenges” (e.g. Climate change, energy transition, mobility turn) are to be solved with scientific and technological means. STS scholars so far analyzed the aligning changes as emergence of mission-oriented research, formation of transdisciplinary research practices or the transformation of science-policy interfaces. However, multifaceted changes within science itself while absorbing these complex problem situations are taking place. These are less investigated, yet.
In order to make complex systems explorable, science resorts to specific techniques: on the one hand, increasingly advanced computer technologies such as simulations and, increasingly, machine learning methods; on the other hand, strategies of engineering de novo entities such as precedentless materials, molecules or organisms in order to reduce complexity. Thus, research cultures are going to change and fundamental questions have to be addressed anew. It is not only about understanding the changes in “epistemic cultures” (Knorr Cetina), but also to understand these changes in the light of the epistemological question of how can we understand and confirm epistemic quality?
Against this background, this open panel is dedicated to the double question: Which changes of research cultures happen while addressing these forms of complexity? How can we describe these changes of epistemic quality in terms of fundamental epistemological categories (e.g. explanation, epistemic thing)? Our basic assumption is that there is a need for reshaping STS by an interdisciplinary approach combining philosophy of science as well as STS forms of investigation.
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
 In ethnographic inquiries of urban atmospheres, biosocial relations and bodies as practiced, social science scholars situate subjective, embodied experiences in between organisms and environments (Mol 2002, Blackman 2008, Ingold/Palsson 2013, Blok/Farías 2016, Meloni et al. 2018; Seeberg et al. 2020). In doing so, they emphasize how bodily processes are permeated by environmental conditions. However, the adequacy of these approaches for the concomitant embodiment and ecological relationality of ‘mental’ experiences has hardly been addressed directly (among the exceptions are Fitzgerald et al. 2016 and Winz 2018). Relatively few ethnographic research projects attend to the mutual constitution of ‘the mental’ and ‘the environmental’ (Amin/Richaud 2020; Bister et al. 2016).
In this panel, we seek to fill this research gap through empirically grounded ethnographic inquiries into ‘mental phenomena’ as part of ‘urban’ life. Our discussion embraces the following conceptual and methodological challenges: How can we grasp elusive aspects of experiences in and of the city as dynamic co-constitutive relations between material environments, cultural practices, subjective experiences, and urban infrastructures? What concepts, methods, and research designs are suitable for combining experience-based approaches (Söderström et al. 2016) with an inquiry in ecologies of expertise (Beck 2015) that shape the urban fabric? What is left of ‘the mental’ if we problematize it ‘environmentally’? How does our research affect how we conceptualize ‘the urban’? Finally, how could our studies inform the design of cities and the crafting of urban cohabitation (Bates et al. 2017)?
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
In our unequal and uncertain world, we argue that quantification in global governance could be seen as an ‘epistemic infrastructure’. This infrastructure is ‘relational’, embedded in structures, technologies, and social arrangements learned as part of becoming a member of a global community (Star 1999). While quantification in global governance is framed to create ‘good relations’ between human and non-human actors in global networks, it simultaneously ‘infrastructuralizes’ these materialities, networks, and practices to create new global governance paradigms: an example of such an infrastructure are the Sustainable Development Goals. 
Scholarship on the role of numbers in governing societies is abundant in multiple disciplines. Prominent authors have written lucidly about the role of numbers in the making of modern states and the governing role of measurement regimes in public policy and social life (Alonso and Starr 1987; Hacking 1990; Porter 1995; Espeland and Stevens 2008). Similarly, anthropologies of numbers suggest that ‘our lives are increasingly governed by – and through – numbers, indicators, algorithms and audits’ (Shore and Wright 2015:23; see also Merry 2011; Sauder and Espeland 2009; Strathern 2000). Further, important insights and perspectives on indicators in particular come from STS (Bowker & Star 1999; Lampland & Star 2009), including actor network theory (Latour 2005). 
Drawing on these literatures, this panel invites papers that explore various dimensions of the rise of metrics in global governance. In particular, we aim to identify new empirical and theoretical approaches to quantification as the ‘epistemic infrastructure’ that holds and steers global knowledge production and governance.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Several scholars in STS (in platform and infrastructure studies, Plantin et al. 2018; see also in Internet studies, Dulong de Rosnay and Musiani 2020) have pointed to architectural features of profit-driven global digital infrastructures, e.g., GAFAM, that lead to concentrations of power, discrimination and inequalities.
Conversely, egalitarian applications such as on-line peer-to-peer production platforms tend to fail the test of scaling up small communities of participants to egalitarian dynamics in large groups, thus sometimes falling back into profit-driven, hierarchical, and discriminatory modes of operation (Tréguer et al. 2020).
The panel proposes to consider the problem of (in-)equalities and discrimination in information- (and possibly other resource-) sharing systems not as a consequence of system structure nor platform usage; rather, we encourage taking the opposite perspective: can inequalities be avoided from the outset. How can discrimination be hindered by the design of adequate architecture mechanisms for equality? What is the role of STS scholars in engaging with the design phase of systems?
The panel invites empirical contributions where equality is considered, negotiated, contested in a system’s architecture as an initial design value. The user communities of these systems need not to be large, nor their mode of function to be peer-to-peer. Contributions are invited to describe how the value of equality was designed in these projects and how it was to be integrated in, promoted by, or supported by the system’s architecture.
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
Around the world, populations await their shot at vaccination for COVID-19. A paradigmatic example of biomedical triumphalism, vaccines promise a way out of the current crisis and back to life as we knew it. Much attention has been on how limited vaccine supplies can be distributed and distributed equitably, especially in the context of perceived ‘market failures’ in low-and middle-income countries. But proposed solutions such as pooled vaccine procurement schemes and allocation frameworks, while undoubtedly important, arguably also render equity as primarily a distributional problem that arises only after the development of biomedical products. 
Seeking to draw on and further expand work in STS that highlights how questions of politics and ethics are integral to the production of scientific knowledge and products (Puig de la Bellacasa 2011, Barry 2005), this panel invites empirical and conceptual contributions that explore how concerns about equity have been addressed – and may be addressed differently – in the development of biomedical tools, whether therapeutic, diagnostic or prophylactic like vaccines. 
We invite papers that address a range of relevant questions: 
How is the problem of equity posed by those involved in R&D, including scientists, regulators and policymakers?
What are proposed solutions (e.g. governance, regulatory and financing mechanisms, IP flexibilities, market-based mechanisms, but also efforts related to the design and development of biomedical products themselves)?
How do such techniques operate in practice, when may they be considered successful and where do they risk reproducing or ‘innovating’ (Benjamin 2016) inequities?
How may STS research contribute to rethinking the problem of equity?
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
In recent decades, several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the European Commission and the World Economic Forum have stated that nation’s progress must be understood in a broader set of ideas, including not just technological innovation but also social innovation (SI). Although the term has been used in sociological discourses and other disciplines since the late 19th century, SI has gained real attention in academia and political discourses since the beginning of the 21st century. There are several conceptions about SI; the term is used differently across diverse disciplines. Conceptions go around “doing something good within or for society”, “changing social practices and/or structure”, or “contributing to rural and community development”. Likewise, there is an exponential growth of academic literature dealing with SI, so that an increase of success experiences is presumed. Like this, it is also presumed that SI is becoming the most convenient innovation paradigm to face the social, economic, political and environmental challenges of the 21st century. In response to this outlook, through this open panel we invite STS scholars to join a discussion on SI that presents empirical research results, showing evidence of specific SI processes, as well as perspectives that allow feedback on emerging practices, experiences and application. Our discussion will enrich the 4S annual meeting Toronto 2021, since SI cases usually account for different modes of social collaboration, and they are understood as processes, whereby new forms of social relations lead to societal change.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
Facing an untamed pandemic, governments have leveraged public trust and perhaps health in facilitating good relations with industry in co-producing innovative health products in record time. Established evidence-based medicine standards have been overshadowed by the deployment of new regulatory mechanisms such as Emergency Use Authorizations (in the US and UK), Interim Orders (Canada), and Conditional Marketing Authorizations (European Union) that have expedited Covid19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines to an anxious public, despite partial and uncertain clinical trial “results.” To unpack this trend, which capitalized upon pre-pandemic social alliances and regulatory modernization agendas that emphasize agility, flexibility and innovation, and its impact upon the future of health product regulatory practices, we welcome papers from science studies scholars that address one or more of the following lines of inquiry:
•	Investigating the shifts in regulatory approaches, practices, and responses that confirm or counter the perceived erosion in evidence-based appraisal of health products;
•	Offering theoretical, empirical and especially ethnographic findings that characterize the political economy or structural drivers of the changes in health product governance before and/or during the pandemic, and their implications for post-pandemic futures;
•	Attending to new modes of biopharmaceutical knowledge production, including alternative therapies, such as psychedelic-assisted therapies, that disrupt entrenched relations between regulators and ‘big pharma’ in the wake of Covid19 and evolving standards of safety and effectiveness.
Engaging with critical analyses of how knowledge and evidence is shaped by powerful vested interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry, our panel will contribute to STS scholarship on the governance of evidence.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
In this open panel we invite the participation of feminist BIPOC scholars to reflect on our varied entrée and engagement with science studies and to build a network to amplify and connect our work.  In order to grapple with our core commitments, position ourselves in relation to STS, and recognize scholarship to which we have applied indigenous, Black, women of color, post-/decolonial, transnational, dis/ability and queer/trans feminisms, we focus on building good relations and a feminist ethics of care through a network.  In this space we seek to acknowledge and connect across differing points of entry into STS, which begin with sets of questions, concerns, practices, and solutions driven as much by critical political inquiry as feminist constructivist approaches within science and technology studies. Our work tends to amplify epistemic violence, intersectionality, and normative justice concerns.  We are often interested in the ways that technology, science, and medicine have interacted with the bodies of BIPOC and projects that forward the radical liberation of BIPOC.  We seek contributions and conversation from feminist BIPOC scholars about their entry into the field, including the arts, scholarship, or types of activism that inspired you to engage with STS; what you think distinguishes the work of feminists of color within STS; and how we bring the field forward by building a feminists of color sciences studies network for mutual support, ideas generation, and to connect to others whom we suspect do work that overlaps in this area but might not see themselves as engaging STS.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
This session seeks contributions that use STS and related concepts and frameworks to study the range of efforts to align financial flows with the composition of the atmosphere and its effects on climate. This involves developing climate metrics, translating them to financial terms, and bringing them to bear on investment calculations.
We expect the many mediations between the realms of finance and climate to be sites of contention and uncertainty, providing openings for a range of STS research traditions: the study of metrics, standards, and commensuration; the construction of calculating agents through devices and calculative practices; assetization and commodification of the natural world; risk.
Here’s a partial listing of possible questions:
•	What is left outside the frame when the climate problem is translated to terms of a homogeneous medium of exchange?
•	To what extent are financial practices part of a socio-technical regime that resists change?
•	What processes and actors shape the mediations between the atmosphere’s chemistry and the language of finance?
And an equally partial listing of empirical objects that could fit comfortably within the session:
•	Renewable energy finance – techniques for mobilizing investment in renewable energy.
•	Climate risk measurement and disclosure – efforts to require firms to measure their exposure to climate risk and to disclose that risk.
•	Devaluation of fossil reserves – how fossil fuel producers devalue the volume and value of their reserves.
•	Climate finance technologies and devices – “Climate fintech” – analytic products and platforms and how they make a financial world that reflects climate impacts
•	Development, rating, verification, and valuation of carbon-free and ESG financial products.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
In its imagined and actual dimensions, the fourth industrial revolution blurs the lines between the physical, the digital and the biological. This panel explores the ways in which bodies, identities and relations exceed the confines of the digital – non-digital binary and how relations are made (im)possible in their excess. What happens when we force organic matter(s) into digital molds and models? How does the excess interact with the frame, and how can flesh and bodies – individual and collective – reactivate claims of sovereignty and rights in world that is, despite utopian claims, more-than-digital?
       We approach digitalization as a recolonization of thought and practice, and ask how might we grasp these relations at a time when the deconstruction of epistemological binaries is well underway? The digital here refers to the pervasive global and historically specific movement to reform basic societal relations and functions, such as economic transactions, healthcare, welfare services, the provision of basic physical resources (e.g. water and electricity), security, and the negotiation of social identities through AI and automation. Despite the utopian promise of better services and care for all through digitalization, these technologies seem only to amplify the gap between those who enjoy care and those who suffer neglect.
We invite papers that, through STS approaches and practices, make room for relations otherwise by taking digital logics seriously as empirical objects in which more-than-digital relations unfold in and spill over their digital confines.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
How care manifests (or not) in everyday encounters with food and practices of eating in? How to nourish relations of care while nourishing the bodies? Studies from STS, food anthropology, and sociology present a variety of accounts of food-induced socialites and socio-material relations (production challenges, security and environmental change, boundaries between the eater and the eaten, digitalisation and platformization of food, etc). This panel attends to the mundane and everyday instances of relating to, with and through eating. Mundane encounters with food manifest social class, gendered work division, colonial attitudes, socio-economic inequalities, and the moral balance between health and pleasure. Responsibilization of eating and cooking transforms the kitchen and the dining table into a boundary terrain for public health campaigns, environmental concerns, and hedonistic searches for pleasure. This panel asks what is or can be neglected as we care for what and how we eat? Especially as sanitary regimes of lockdowns, confinements, and curfews forefront eating in and intensify invisible work. We invite multidisciplinary works which tackle eating as a learned, trained, proceduralized, and performed practice shaping relations to science, governance, health, pleasure, solidarity, and care. We welcome attention to the embodied aspect of eating and cooking, including interactions with products, elements, instruments, and technology. Following food studies scholars, submissions may be analytically focused on three points and their interrelations: social occasions, food selections, and processes of body incorporation. Finally, we are curious about methodological and speculative reflections on the transformative side of research into the practices of eating.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
The term “forensics” derives from the Latin word “forensis” meaning “belonging to the forum, market (place)”. The etymology recalls that court proceedings and investigations are public affairs and so they were often conducted on the Forum in ancient Rome.
Following this line of thought, several STS works have depicted how experts present forensic findings in the courtroom, explain their evidence and put them up for evaluation. Recent papers have then turned to the epistemic foundations of forensic science. In our panel we want to take up these discussions and push them in a new direction. For while the relationship between forensics and law is already well studied, the intersections of forensics and the society/public, forensics and basic science, and forensics and the police have hardly been explored so far. We propose to take a closer look at these relations by using the example of forensic devices. By forensic devices we do not only mean machines and tools, but also databases, information technologies, and procedures guiding forensic practices. We are looking for studies dedicated to the social life of forensic devices, to their role as mediators or boundary objects between different areas and fields of practice, as well as the public debate about their trustworthiness, risks and chances. We particularly encourage contributions focussing on how these devices help their users to navigate the gap between – and the quest for loyalty to – the realm of investigation on the one hand and the realm of science on the other.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
Forensic evidence is collected, analysed and rendered meaningful by different actors using various technologies and expertise.  A powerful resource in the investigation of crime, STS scholars have paid substantial attention to the development, standardisation, enactment and use of specific forensic technologies (namely fingerprinting and forensic DNA profiling).  These accounts demonstrate the complex expertise and labour involved in producing and using forensic evidence, and the many local and national contexts that impact on how the legitimacy and value of specific types of forensic evidence are negotiated over time.
Beyond fingerprinting and DNA, there are many other types of forensic evidence.  Some have long histories, like fibre analysis.  Others, such as digital forensics, are newer and continually evolving, keeping pace and responding to the latest technological developments.  In this panel, we invite papers that examine empirically the varied actors, labour and expertise involved in the production and use of other types of forensic evidence in the investigation and prosecution of crime.  We are particularly interested in accounts that engage with how forensic evidence and expertise are negotiated in specific local, national and/or global law enforcement contexts and the related areas of overlap and convergence.  
This panel contributes to STS scholarship on the intersections between science, law and law enforcement, standardisation in scientific practice, and the negotiation of expertise across the different epistemic cultures of criminal justice systems.
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
The global food system is clearly unsustainable and the COVID-19 crisis has revealed the inequities that have resulted from the concentration of capital, land, technology and the power of a few to set the standards that everyone else must follow. In the shadow of a much politicized global food system, local and regional food systems have long been emerging where the relationships between producers, consumers and intermediaries are working to rebalance power and build solidarity in a diversity of ways. Shifts in the assigned “roles” of actors for different types of work in the food system, the emergence of hybrid actors, the reprioritization of different knowledges that are meant to drive innovation, the diversion of material and knowledge infrastructures, the co-creation of new accountability mechanisms and innovations in the institutions that govern the production, transformation and consumption of food offer important sites for understanding how global inequities and neoliberal dominance are being challenged across scales of action. We invite papers that critically address the methods, metrics and practices that maintain oppressions within food systems. We are particularly interested in understanding how insights from STS and legal theories of responsibility are being reimagined through innovation processes and social movement activism. For example, we would like to explore and confront how relations between actors are being reimagined and practiced across environmental justice, responsible innovation, diverse economies and agroecology movements. Who becomes responsible for reshaping food systems, what are they responsible for and to whom are they accountable?
There was a time not so long ago when mathematics was considered the hard case in the sociology of science, the ultimate test of social accounts of certainty, conviction, and the production of universality and self-evidence. David Bloor, with just a pinch of hyperbole, in 1976 called mathematics “the most stubborn of all obstacles to the sociology of knowledge … the holy of holies.” Notwithstanding the surge of interest in data, quantification, and algorithms in recent studies of science and technology, mathematics and mathematicians as such are hard to find in recent conference programs and research agendas in the field. The comparative waning of mathematics in the sociology of science has contrasted with a resurgent interest in social studies of practice in the philosophy of mathematics and an efflorescence of work on mathematics, identity, inequality, and social justice in education research. This Open Panel invites STS scholars with an interest in mathematics and mathematicians to rearticulate why (or whether?) mathematics continues (or ought?) to matter to the sociology of science, to explore whether recent reconsiderations of mathematics can offer new hard cases to the field, and to account for the changing meaning of mathematics in the critical study of knowledge and practice.
There was a time not so long ago when mathematics was considered the hard case in the sociology of science, the ultimate test of social accounts of certainty, conviction, and the production of universality and self-evidence. David Bloor, with just a pinch of hyperbole, in 1976 called mathematics “the most stubborn of all obstacles to the sociology of knowledge … the holy of holies.” Notwithstanding the surge of interest in data, quantification, and algorithms in recent studies of science and technology, mathematics and mathematicians as such are hard to find in recent conference programs and research agendas in the field. The comparative waning of mathematics in the sociology of science has contrasted with a resurgent interest in social studies of practice in the philosophy of mathematics and an efflorescence of work on mathematics, identity, inequality, and social justice in education research. This Open Panel invites STS scholars with an interest in mathematics and mathematicians to rearticulate why (or whether?) mathematics continues (or ought?) to matter to the sociology of science, to explore whether recent reconsiderations of mathematics can offer new hard cases to the field, and to account for the changing meaning of mathematics in the critical study of knowledge and practice.
There was a time not so long ago when mathematics was considered the hard case in the sociology of science, the ultimate test of social accounts of certainty, conviction, and the production of universality and self-evidence. David Bloor, with just a pinch of hyperbole, in 1976 called mathematics “the most stubborn of all obstacles to the sociology of knowledge … the holy of holies.” Notwithstanding the surge of interest in data, quantification, and algorithms in recent studies of science and technology, mathematics and mathematicians as such are hard to find in recent conference programs and research agendas in the field. The comparative waning of mathematics in the sociology of science has contrasted with a resurgent interest in social studies of practice in the philosophy of mathematics and an efflorescence of work on mathematics, identity, inequality, and social justice in education research. This Open Panel invites STS scholars with an interest in mathematics and mathematicians to rearticulate why (or whether?) mathematics continues (or ought?) to matter to the sociology of science, to explore whether recent reconsiderations of mathematics can offer new hard cases to the field, and to account for the changing meaning of mathematics in the critical study of knowledge and practice.
There was a time not so long ago when mathematics was considered the hard case in the sociology of science, the ultimate test of social accounts of certainty, conviction, and the production of universality and self-evidence. David Bloor, with just a pinch of hyperbole, in 1976 called mathematics “the most stubborn of all obstacles to the sociology of knowledge … the holy of holies.” Notwithstanding the surge of interest in data, quantification, and algorithms in recent studies of science and technology, mathematics and mathematicians as such are hard to find in recent conference programs and research agendas in the field. The comparative waning of mathematics in the sociology of science has contrasted with a resurgent interest in social studies of practice in the philosophy of mathematics and an efflorescence of work on mathematics, identity, inequality, and social justice in education research. This Open Panel invites STS scholars with an interest in mathematics and mathematicians to rearticulate why (or whether?) mathematics continues (or ought?) to matter to the sociology of science, to explore whether recent reconsiderations of mathematics can offer new hard cases to the field, and to account for the changing meaning of mathematics in the critical study of knowledge and practice.
There was a time not so long ago when mathematics was considered the hard case in the sociology of science, the ultimate test of social accounts of certainty, conviction, and the production of universality and self-evidence. David Bloor, with just a pinch of hyperbole, in 1976 called mathematics “the most stubborn of all obstacles to the sociology of knowledge … the holy of holies.” Notwithstanding the surge of interest in data, quantification, and algorithms in recent studies of science and technology, mathematics and mathematicians as such are hard to find in recent conference programs and research agendas in the field. The comparative waning of mathematics in the sociology of science has contrasted with a resurgent interest in social studies of practice in the philosophy of mathematics and an efflorescence of work on mathematics, identity, inequality, and social justice in education research. This Open Panel invites STS scholars with an interest in mathematics and mathematicians to rearticulate why (or whether?) mathematics continues (or ought?) to matter to the sociology of science, to explore whether recent reconsiderations of mathematics can offer new hard cases to the field, and to account for the changing meaning of mathematics in the critical study of knowledge and practice.
There was a time not so long ago when mathematics was considered the hard case in the sociology of science, the ultimate test of social accounts of certainty, conviction, and the production of universality and self-evidence. David Bloor, with just a pinch of hyperbole, in 1976 called mathematics “the most stubborn of all obstacles to the sociology of knowledge … the holy of holies.” Notwithstanding the surge of interest in data, quantification, and algorithms in recent studies of science and technology, mathematics and mathematicians as such are hard to find in recent conference programs and research agendas in the field. The comparative waning of mathematics in the sociology of science has contrasted with a resurgent interest in social studies of practice in the philosophy of mathematics and an efflorescence of work on mathematics, identity, inequality, and social justice in education research. This Open Panel invites STS scholars with an interest in mathematics and mathematicians to rearticulate why (or whether?) mathematics continues (or ought?) to matter to the sociology of science, to explore whether recent reconsiderations of mathematics can offer new hard cases to the field, and to account for the changing meaning of mathematics in the critical study of knowledge and practice.
There was a time not so long ago when mathematics was considered the hard case in the sociology of science, the ultimate test of social accounts of certainty, conviction, and the production of universality and self-evidence. David Bloor, with just a pinch of hyperbole, in 1976 called mathematics “the most stubborn of all obstacles to the sociology of knowledge … the holy of holies.” Notwithstanding the surge of interest in data, quantification, and algorithms in recent studies of science and technology, mathematics and mathematicians as such are hard to find in recent conference programs and research agendas in the field. The comparative waning of mathematics in the sociology of science has contrasted with a resurgent interest in social studies of practice in the philosophy of mathematics and an efflorescence of work on mathematics, identity, inequality, and social justice in education research. This Open Panel invites STS scholars with an interest in mathematics and mathematicians to rearticulate why (or whether?) mathematics continues (or ought?) to matter to the sociology of science, to explore whether recent reconsiderations of mathematics can offer new hard cases to the field, and to account for the changing meaning of mathematics in the critical study of knowledge and practice.
There was a time not so long ago when mathematics was considered the hard case in the sociology of science, the ultimate test of social accounts of certainty, conviction, and the production of universality and self-evidence. David Bloor, with just a pinch of hyperbole, in 1976 called mathematics “the most stubborn of all obstacles to the sociology of knowledge … the holy of holies.” Notwithstanding the surge of interest in data, quantification, and algorithms in recent studies of science and technology, mathematics and mathematicians as such are hard to find in recent conference programs and research agendas in the field. The comparative waning of mathematics in the sociology of science has contrasted with a resurgent interest in social studies of practice in the philosophy of mathematics and an efflorescence of work on mathematics, identity, inequality, and social justice in education research. This Open Panel invites STS scholars with an interest in mathematics and mathematicians to rearticulate why (or whether?) mathematics continues (or ought?) to matter to the sociology of science, to explore whether recent reconsiderations of mathematics can offer new hard cases to the field, and to account for the changing meaning of mathematics in the critical study of knowledge and practice.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
From rational actors to addicted users, Eurocentric theories of mind and society inform the design of AI/ML systems, both explicitly and through uninterrogated universalising norms and assumptions. Scholarly work has examined the societal impacts of AI systems, but less has been done to examine the assumptions of the social that inform such systems. 
This panel explores a genealogy of the human in the machine, examining AI systems as a palimpsest of conceptions of mind and society inherited from the fields that feed into AI research including cognitive science, behavioural psychology, economics, and philosophy. We seek to tease apart the models and paradigms of the human that are translated into code, used to act on, navigate, categorise and govern the world. 
Hubert Dreyfus famously drew on phenomenology to challenge the rationalist assumptions of human intelligence underlying AI research. “Facts and rules”-based theories of intelligence have given way to a neural network paradigm, responding in part to Dreyfus’ challenge. Yet the question of what notions of the human are entangled in AI systems remains–calling us to examine not only conceptions of human intelligence–but also human bodies and human social structures.
We invite papers examining how paradigms of mind and society are explicitly encoded, invisibly inscribed, and entirely omitted from AI/ML design and exploring the consequences of these encodings and erasures. 
We are particularly interested in work exploring AI systems as situated in racial capitalism and colonialism and the racialised and gendered dimension of the human as encoded in AI systems.
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?
In a world where public finances and political commitments are dwindling (a situation that is being further exacerbated by the current pandemic), states and multilateral agencies consider corporate investment necessary for global health futures. Healthcare, in turn, is seen as an investment opportunity. This has led to a diverse array of private actors in the healthcare sector: from corporate hospitals to insurance companies; from philanthrocapitalist ventures to social enterprises. Common aspirations are the transformation of the social sector through technological innovation, privatization, financialization, digitalization, or entrepreneurship. 
There are discordant scholarly views on the effects of this interplay of state and market. While some authors argue that public goods and progressive aspirations –for health for all, poverty alleviation, or social protection – have become coopted and firmly rooted in the structures and values of 21st century capitalism, other scholars focus on continuities rather than ruptures. In this panel, we aim to think through and beyond this problem space. How can we approach current developments in the health sector other than offering a critique of the neoliberal infiltration of global health (Keshavjee) or reinterpreting the process as another form of social protection?
We are particularly interested in understanding what animates these projects and programmes – beyond the profit motive. What are dominant values and visions that converge around the notion of a social good? What specific visions of the social good are produced and how do they unfold in concrete situations? And how do these visions shape social service provision and global health futures?