science communication studiesseminarssocial criticism

What is science communication for in a postindustrial society?

Just saw the early spring Monday seminar program at UCL’s STS department. I like the nice British analytical touch to it. Much more interesting than the usual fashionable Latouresque ANTsemiotics and other STS’ese sociolects. For example: Jeremy Howick, ‘When can we trust the experts? Defending the Evidence Based Medicine stance’, 25 January David Healy, ‘They used to […]

Just saw the early spring Monday seminar program at UCL’s STS department. I like the nice British analytical touch to it. Much more interesting than the usual fashionable Latouresque ANTsemiotics and other STS’ese sociolects. For example:

  • Jeremy Howick, ‘When can we trust the experts? Defending the Evidence Based Medicine stance’, 25 January
  • David Healy, ‘They used to call it Medicine’, 1 February
  • Sam Schweber, ‘Writing the Biography of Hans Bethe’, 8 February
  • Jane Gregory, ‘Producing the post-Fordist public, or: What is Science Communication for in a post-industrial society?’, 22 February
  • Helena Sheehan, ‘What (if anything) has Marxism to contribute to science studies?’, 8 March
  • Jeff Hughes, ‘Before the bomb: on writing the history of unclear physics’, 22 March

Wish I were in London more often, would love to discuss production of a post-Fordic public or hear Jeff unfold his ideas about ‘unclear physics’ (no typo, it’s an intended joke, says Jon Agar, who sent the programme around).