Flavio D'Abramo

Today, claims about the contiguity of health management and societal organization bring biopolitical concerns to the forefront. This essay offers historical-political insights on the covid-19 pandemic, which are particularly urgent, as both the temporal and the cultural-political dimensions have been insufficiently considered in current debates. After introducing our specific political-epistemological approach, we delve into the entanglements of medical expertise, economic interests, surveillance politics, and diplomatic relations in the past in order to shed light on the present. Additionally, we address the limitations of Italian theory's biopolitica, namely its idle radicalization of critical views on medical politics inspired by French épistémologie historique. We conclude with a call to scientists' responsibility in consideration of the societal embedment of their activity. Yet, the task of an emancipated science is not only in their hands but depends on our collective capacity to organically connect their work to the renewal of the body politics at large.

This article traces the historical co-evolution of microbiology, bacteriology, and virology, framed within industrial and agricultural contexts, as well as their role in colonial and national history between the end of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century. The epistemology of germ theory, coupled with the economic interests of European colonies, has shaped the understanding of human-microbial relationships in a reductionist way. We explore a brief history of the medical and biological sciences, focusing on microbes and the difficulty of implementing germ theory outside of biology laboratories. Furthermore, we highlight the work of Lynn Margulis, who conceptualized microbes within their ecological contexts. Such research shows the active role microbes play in handling life-sustaining biological and biochemical processes. We outline how the industrial and technological advancements of the last two centuries not only impacted almost all human societies, but also changed the world on microbial, biological, and geological levels. The narration of these histories is a complex task, and depends on how national, international, and intergovernmental institutions (such as the World Health Organization) conceive of the selective environmental pressures exerted by industry and biotechnological companies.

What does it take for the life sciences to reflect on themselves and their conceptual models in the era of the technosphere? In this conversation, sociologist Hannah Landecker and historian of science Flavio D’Abramo discuss the drastic shifts in our understandings of body-environment dynamics made visible by recent insights within the fields of epidemiology and epigenetics. They point to the necessity of reflecting on the limits of the organism itself, given the ways in which the social, ecological, and multi-species environments are intertwined with the biological one.

The field of epigenetics is leading to new conceptualizations of the role of environmental factors in health and genetic disease. Although more evidence is required, epigenetic mechanisms are being implicated in the link between low socioeconomic status and poor health status. Epigenetic phenomena work in a number of ways: they can be established early in development, transmitted from previous generations and/or responsive to environmental factors. Knowledge about these types of epigenetic traits might therefore allow us to move away from a genetic deterministic perspective, and provide individuals with the opportunity to change their health status. Although this could be equated with patient empowerment, it could also lead to stigmatization and discrimination where individuals are deemed responsible for their health, even if they are not in social situations where they are able to enact change that would alter their health status. In this paper, we will explore the responsibilities of different actors in the healthcare sphere in relation to epigenetics across four different contexts: (1) genetic research, (2) clinical practice, (3) prenatal care and (4) the workplace. Within this exploration of role responsibilities, we will also discuss the potential constraints that might prevent the patient, mother-to-be, research participant or employee, from enacting any necessary steps in order to increase their health status in response to epigenetic information.

Personalized medicine is a new field based on molecular biology and genomics in which targeted tumor therapies are administered to patients. Psycho-oncology is a complementary approach that considers social and psychological aspects of patients as part of the treatments for cancer patients.

The aim of this mini-review is to weigh clinical benefits for breast cancer patients of both treatments and possibily enhance benefits by modulating the use of both interventions. We have compared and evaluated on the one hand the use of anti Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and, on the other hand, psycho-oncological interventions in metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancer patients.

Both treatments did not increase survival of metastatic breast cancer patients, while in a selected study psycho-oncological interventions extended lifespan of non-metastatic breast cancer patients and ameliorate psychological and social factors of metastatic breast cancer patients. Because the two approaches address completely different aspects of cancer patients, if the comparison is limited to the extension of survival, the value of these two treatments cannot be assessed and compared.

It is likely that by comparing patients reported outcomes, possibly by using standardized Quality of Life questionnaires, both patients and health care providers can weigh the benefits of the two treatments. It is therefore important to evaluate the use of cancer patients’ quality of life measures as a mean to improve their experiences about life and treatment, and possibly to extend their survival.

L'aperto dibattito a proposito della post-verità, l'ascesa di varie forme di populismo, il consenso che viene riconosciuto a coloro che propongono alternative facts sono alcuni dei sintomi che hanno portato ad una crisi delle figure sociali e politiche degli esperti e delle istituzioni scientifiche. Se da un lato alcuni, come S. Fuller, hanno letto l'avvento della post-verità come l'istaurarsi di una democrazia epistemologica altri, come H. Collins, hanno denunciato responsabilità politiche e intellettuali degli STS per aver minato un rapporto tra scienza e società basato su fiducia e affidabilità. Epistemologia, sociologia e storia della scienza si misurano con questo fenomeno in modo interdisciplinare tentando di comprendere la crisi dell'expertise. L'epistemologia storica fornisce un framework per analizzare concetti e controversie tecnoscientifiche nei loro contesti storicamente e socialmente determinati. La social epistemology mobilita concetti come epistemic (dis)trust, epistemic (in)justice o epistemic ignorance per capire come reputazione e consenso epistemico si formano tramite processi di attribuzione di "fiducia" o "sfiducia" che generano forme di "giustizia" o "ingiustizia" epistemica". Tali approcci possono esser sintetizzati sotto la comune etichetta di Political Epistemology nel momento in cui vengono diretti a mettere in luce gli effetti politico-ideologici del sapere tecnoscientifico. L'integrazione di questi framework con quelli forniti dagli STS può avere un effetto chiarificatore nell'analisi della crisi dell'expertise. Proponiamo dunque di aprire un'arena per discutere delle possibili intersezioni fra STS, storia e filosofia della scienza. In particolar modo è nostro interesse misurare la political epistemology con la sociologia delle controversie tecnoscientifiche e con i suoi principi metodologici di "imparzialità" e "simmetria". Fra le strategie discorsive maggiormente utilizzare vi sono quelle basate sulla costruzione di opposizioni retoriche come: 1) la tensione riduzionista a polarizzare i dibattiti in cui la scienza viene opposta all'anti-scienza, oppure 2) la falsa rappresentazione a livello pubblico di ambiti o fatti scientifici come problematici, conflittuali o controversi. Queste strategie hanno sostenuto, tramite la comunicazione scientifica, la fortuna dei populismi al fine di creare egemonia culturale e relativo consenso epistemico. Dall'altro lato, un superamento di tali strategie comunicative è stato sviluppato, ad esempio, dalle comunità locali impegnate in conflitti ambientali per il diritto alla salute attraverso alleanze con esperti e attraverso la co-produzione di pratiche scientifiche politicamente informate. In questo panel vogliamo analizzare le retoriche usate nella comunicazione scientifica per sviluppare una riflessione strategica e politica sul rapporto tra scienza, tecnologia e società. Invitiamo dunque riflessioni che analizzino: 1) Le controversie relative alla formazione e trasformazione di concetti scientifici da un punto di vista storico-ad es. tramite l'epistemologia storica; 2) il rapporto tra valori sociali e valori epistemici relativamente ai processi di costruzione della (s)fiducia e (in)giustizia epistemica-ad es. tramite political epistemology e social epistemology; 3) questioni metodologiche relative agli STS e la loro collocazione politica e sociale con un focus relativo ai conflitti sociali, relative controversie tecnoscientifiche e possibili strategie risolutive.

The year 2020 has witnessed the most devastating pandemic in the past 100 years. At the time of writing more than 70 million people globally have been infected; the death toll is over one and a half million. The social, political, and economic impact of the pandemic has been tremendous, and its longer-term consequences are yet uncertain. Local governments and health international organizations dealt with and continue to deal with this unprecedented situation in various ways. Despite national differences in responses, the pandemic exposed in critical ways the intermingling of scientific and diplomatic matters. Moreover, it resulted in widespread criticism of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) handling of the crisis.

The history of science provides a unique perspective to investigate the roots of this inseparable connection between science and diplomacy in international responses to the pandemic. In this video, produced by scholars at the Max Planck Institute for History of Science (MPIWG) and with the support of an ERC Consolidator Grant (grant agreement No770548, HRP-IAEA) at the FAU Erlangen-Nuremberg, we unfold how diplomacy has become vital for global health, and how the WHO became a key player in health diplomacy.

Questo volume si pone l’obiettivo di rimettere al centro dell’attenzione una
riflessione di carattere politico sullo statuto dell’expertise nella società contemporanea. L’attuale dibattito all’interno degli studi sociali sulla scienza sembra essersi consolidato attorno a delle polarità oppositive apparentemente insormontabili: da un lato il post-modernismo relativista, risultato di un’estremizzazione del costruttivismo sociale; dall’altro il veritismo ingenuo, come adozione irriflessa delle posizioni (neo)positiviste.
In questo contesto, la figura sociale dell’esperto si trova al centro del dibattito epistemologico e politico. Cosa significa essere esperti di qualcosa? Qual è la loro funzione sociale? Come avviene il processo di attribuzione della fiducia e della sfiducia epistemologiche? Quali forme di neutralità e nonneutralità dovremmo adottare nel valutare il prodotto di una riflessione esperta? Quali metodi e prospettive abbiamo per studiare l’expertise? Per i curatori del volume è necessario aprire una tavola di discussione interdisciplinare su questi argomenti, lanciando in Italia un dibatto che all’estero è invece già largamente prolifico.

Today, claims about the contiguity of health management and societal organization bring biopolitical concerns to the forefront. This essay offers historical-political insights on the covid-19 pandemic, which are particularly urgent, as both the temporal and the cultural-political dimensions have been insufficiently considered in current debates. After introducing our specific political-epistemological approach, we delve into the entanglements of medical expertise, economic interests, surveillance politics, and diplomatic relations in the past in order to shed light on the present. Additionally, we address the limitations of Italian theory's biopolitica, namely its idle radicalization of critical views on medical politics inspired by French épistémologie historique. We conclude with a call to scientists' responsibility in consideration of the societal embedment of their activity. Yet, the task of an emancipated science is not only in their hands but depends on our collective capacity to organically connect their work to the renewal of the body politics at large.