This book examines how pacemakers and defibrillators (ICD) participate in transforming life and death in high-tech societies. These implants represent an important case for STS research because they challenge a longstanding tradition of theorizing human-technology relations. Many theoretical approaches conceptualize the interactions between humans and technologies merely as finite and limited, temporal events and focus on devices that are more or less under the control of humans. However, technologies implanted in bodies often involve continuous interactions that may last a whole life time and their design does not delicate agency to its ‘users’. Because of the persistent and widespread presence of technologies implanted in bodies, understanding the agency, vulnerabilities and resilience of people having these devices has become an urgent concern. Based on a detailed field work of how people live and die with pacemakers and defibrillators, the book describes how keeping hybrid bodies alive requires the active involvement of ‘wired heart cyborgs’, their close relatives, technicians, nurses and cardiologists, governance and medical infrastructures, and the devices themselves. Importantly, building resilience also includes the phase of dying and the reuse of pacemakers removed from deceased bodies. The concluding chapter develops a new sociology of what it takes to become a resilient cyborg. Inspired by the work of Donna Haraway on cyborgs and companion species, the book argues that implanted technologies can best be considered as body-companion technologies. This concept invites us to approach technologies inside bodies as devices that act as life-long companions requiring extensive work to sustain the multiple, often mutual, relationships between humans and technologies. First of all, the interactions and interdependencies between cyborgs and body companion technologies involve a mutual guarding. Pacemakers and defibrillators have been introduced to keep watch over possibly life-threatening heart-rhythm disturbances to ensure more regular heartbeats. Conversely, people living with these technologies have to watch over the proper functioning of their implants by ensuring that external physical objects, digital devices, (grand)children or intimate partners don’t disrupt their devices. Guarding over their implants to protect them from external harm involves extensive anticipation and disentanglement work in which wired heart cyborgs develop different techniques to build resilience. A second interaction that emerges in this book concerns a reciprocal process of disciplining. During the first months after the implantation, internal heart devices must be disciplined by tuning and re-adjusting their agencies to the agencies of the heart. Conversely, internal heart devices try to discipline cyborgs as well. Despite this guarding and disciplining, body companion technologies may run wild and even hurt you, as exemplified by fractured leads and inappropriate shocks, even during dying. A third interaction and interdependency between body-companion technologies and wired heart cyborgs therefore concerns domesticating, which, in contrast to guarding and disciplining, only involves work by wired heart cyborgs and technicians. Other important heuristic tools developed in the book include conceptualizing the active engagement of cyborgs in building resilience as work; accounting for their expertise by including sensory experiences and resilience techniques; following the whole life cycle of hybrid bodies, including dying and death; and a sensitivity to difference.
In the past twenty years, STS has produced important insights into bioscientific and biomedical innovations and the epistemological and structural reconfigurations they brought about in the study of life in the second half of the 20th century. The analysis of the impact of molecular biology and biotechnologies such as organ transplantation, cloning, tissue engineering and assisted reproduction has attracted substantial interest among scholars. However, cryopreservation practices, which constitute the material basis for many of these technologies, have hardly been addressed (for notable exceptions see Parry 2004; Landecker 2007; Radin 2017).
Over the next five years, the research project »Suspended Life: Exploring Cryopreservation Practices in Contemporary Societies« (CRYOSOCIETIES) will investigate the collection, storage and usage of human and non-human organic material by technologies of cooling and freezing, what are known as cryotechnologies. The project is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) within the Advanced Grant scheme and is based at Goethe University Frankfurt. The project team consists of Thomas Lemke (PI), Veit Braun, Sara Lafuente-Funes and Ruzana Liburkina.
CRYOSOCIETIES will investigate empirically the dynamics and complexities of cryopreservation practices, which until now have hardly been recognised in their profound implications for the government of life in contemporary societies. Employing a set of qualitative research methodologies, the team will explore distinctive fields of investigation and sites of cryobanking. The three case studies (each of them led by one of the postdoctoral researchers) cover the fields of regenerative medicine, reproductive technologies, and conservation biology. They include human as well as non-human cryobanks and medical as well as non-medical applications, scientifically and medically sound, but also speculative or utopian practices of cryopreservation:
cord blood storage to prepare for possible regenerative therapies in the future (site of fieldwork: Germany / Ruzana Liburkina)
oocyte freezing to extend fertility and rearrange reproductive futures (site of fieldwork: Spain / Sara Lafuente-Funes)
the cryopreservation of endangered or extinct species with the prospect of “bringing them back to life” by employing reproductive and genetic technologies (site of fieldwork: UK / Veit Braun)
CRYOSOCIETIES is based on the observation that cryopreservation has opened up the perspective of modifying and modulating temporal pathways and developmental cycles (Landecker 2007). The ability to arrest biological processes in order to reanimate them at some point in the future has profoundly transformed the terms of life. Cryobiology establishes a new regime of time that replaces linear by plastic temporalities, altering our understanding and experience of life (and death). Given the technological prospect of stopping and resetting cellular activities, it defines a liminal state in which a biological substance is neither fully alive nor dead (Radin 2013; Hoeyer 2017). Ultimately, cryopreservation practices bring into existence a new »form of life« (Helmreich, Roosth 2010) characterised by a permanent deferral of death: »suspended life« (Le Conte 1901). They allow vital processes to be kept in a state of »latency« (Radin 2013) for future revival and generate »a sense of moral, social, and political suspense« (Hoeyer 2017: 211), producing conceptual ambiguity and eroding existing categories of personhood, kinship and property.
Frozen life is also characterised by a double temporal suspension. Firstly, it refers to the prospect of interrupting and restarting biological processes, bringing the growth and death of cells and tissues to a temporary halt – a »pause« – in order to allow storage for an indefinite period of time (at least in principle). Cryopreservation puts bodies – or rather bits of bodies – »on hold«. The technological force at work does not draw from the »the plasticity of living matter« (Landecker 2007: 13) by transforming cells and the body; somewhat paradoxically, cryobiological plasticity rather means that temporal change is blocked and put »on ice«, remaining inert and unmoving. Cryopreservation alters the meaning of biology by halting »natural cycles«, by interrupting the »normal« course of development and decay. Secondly, »suspended life« is an integral part of a more comprehensive »regime of anticipation« (Adams, Murphy, Clarke 2009: 250) that guides contemporary technoscientific and biomedical practices. This regime involves a temporal orientation that conceives of the future as open and contingent but at the same time as malleable and dependent on actions in the present. These modes of anticipation are informed by rationalities of prevention and preparedness, and are characterised by entanglements of fear and hope linking epistemic orientations to moral imperatives. Within this anticipatory logic, the future is shaped and formed in the present by the cryopreservation of organic material credited with a huge potential for knowledge production and hitherto unknown technological applications. Thus, »suspended life« represents a horizon of possibilities and a form of »promissory capital« (Thompson 2005) that materialises in the present to sustain, improve, foster or control processes of life.
Towards a New Regime of Cryopolitics?
Contemporary studies in STS, anthropology and sociology on the political and social impact of the life sciences and biomedical practices draw on the concept of biopolitics introduced by Michel Foucault and widely discussed in the contemporary social sciences and humanities (Foucault 2003). However, the analytic focus has been on “molecular biopolitics” (Rose 2007: 11), while cryobiological and cryopreservation practices have only occasionally been taken into account.
To capture the profound socio-material changes introduced by cryotechnological practices, some scholars have recently proposed the term “cryopolitics” as a way of correcting or complementing the analytic focus on processes of molecularisation in contemporary studies in STS, anthropology and sociology. While the notion originates in debates on the geostrategic significance of the Arctic region in the light of global warming and the dwindling of natural resources in other climatic areas (Bravo and Rees 2006), its current usage addresses the complex strategies of generating, regulating and processing “suspended life”. While “biopower” is characterised by technologies that foster life or let die, as opposed to sovereignty that takes life or lets live (Foucault 2003: 241), cryopolitics operates by the principle making live and not letting die (Friedrich and Höhne 2014; Kowal and Radin 2015). Thus, cryopolitics is characterised by arresting processes of decay and dying, enabling the establishment of a form of life beyond life (as we know it) by exposing living matter to a new onto-political regime, rendering it neither fully alive nor dead.
CRYOSOCIETIES seeks to explore and advance this theoretical proposition further. It conceives of cryopreserved organic material as “suspended life” which points to the multifold intersections of contemporary biopolitics with forms of “thanatopolitics” or “necropolitics” (Agamben 1998; Mbembe 2003; Esposito 2008). However, it is important to contrast “suspended life” with Agamben’s notion of “bare life”. The latter designates a human being who can be killed with impunity after being banned from the politico-legal community and reduced to the status of mere physical existence (Agamben 1998). “Suspended life” radicalises the “nakedness” of life forms, addressing them as disembodied and decontextualised organic matter, dissociated from the network of biological, ecological and social interactions it originated from. But “suspended life” also differs from “bare life” in that it defines a form of life that is not exposed to death at all; rather, it is not allowed to die, being kept in limbo between life and death. Therefore, death no longer signifies the ultimate limit of biopolitical interventions and strategies, but is itself rendered plastic by cryobiological practices to preserve, promote and extend life.
CRYOSOCIETIES seeks to achieve two central objectives. First, the project aims to advance the academic debate on “suspended life”. It will draw on and further promote insights from STS, sociology, anthropology and environmental humanities to grasp the multifold dimensions of artificial cold. CRYOSOCIETIES will provide practice-based knowledge about the ways in which “suspended life” is assembled, mobilised and negotiated in distinctive sites and settings. An empirical examination of how “cryogenic life” is shaped as a set of relations between the biological, the social and the technical, it carves out novel routes for future research. By including different fields and materials of cryobanking, the project will offer a comprehensive account that opens up new empirical venues for studying and interrogating the complexity of “suspended life” in science and society.
Secondly, CRYOSOCIETIES seeks to foster public engagement with and within the field of cryopreservation and cryobanking. It tackles a series of pressing questions of scientific and social relevance. With the increasing importance of the life sciences, biological material has become a matter of growing concern, raising issues of privacy, data protection and possible misuse, but also the prospect of patenting and commercialisation. In addition to sensitising the cryobiological community to the complexities of the social and cultural issues at stake, the project also aims to make a substantial contribution to the public discourse on cryopreservation and cryobanking. We hope it will develop a new conceptual vocabulary grounded in comprehensive empirical research to address the vital question of how freezing technologies shape and possibly transform both biological processes and social practices as well as notions of health, fertility and conservation.
For more information please visit the project site: www.cryosocieties.eu
 The word »cryos« derives from Ancient Greek (κρύος krýos) and means »ice« or »cold«.
 Grant Agreement number: 788196. The project team consists of the PI and three postdocs (Veit Braun, Sara Lafuente, Ruzana Liburkina) who are each responsible for one of the three subprojects described below (for further information see the project site http://cryosocieties.eu).
Adams, Vincanne, Michelle Murphy, and Adele E. Clarke. “Anticipation: Technoscience, Life, Affect, Temporality.” Subjectivity: International Journal of Critical Psychology 28, no. 1 (2009): 246-65.
Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Bravo, Michael, and Gareth Rees. “Cryo-Politics: Environmental Security and the Future of Arctic Navigation.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 13, no. 1 (2006): 205-15.
Esposito, Roberto. Bios. Biopolitics and Philosophy. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège De France, 1975-76. Edited by Alessandro Fontana, David Macey, Mauro Bertani and François Ewald. New York: Picador, 2003.
Friedrich, Alexander, and Stefan Höhne. “Frischeregime: Biopolitik Im Zeitalter Der Kryogenen Kultur.” Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics and Innovation 1-2 (2014): 1-44.
Helmreich, Stefan, and Sophia Roosth. “Life Forms: A Keyword Entry.” Representations 112, no. 1 (2010): 27-53.
Hoeyer, Klaus. “Suspense. Reflections on the Crypolitcs of the Body.” In Cryopolitics. Frozen Life in a Melting World, edited by Emma Kowal and Joanna Radin, 207-14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.
Kowal, Emma, and Joanna Radin. “Indigenous Biospecimen Collections and the Cryopolitics of Frozen Life.” Journal of Sociology 51, no. 1 (2015): 63-80.
Landecker, Hannah. Culturing Life. How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2007.
Radin, Joanna. Life on Ice: A History of New Uses for Cold Blood. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
Rose, Nikolas. The Politics of Life Itself. Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton and Oxford, 2007, 2007.
Parry, Bronwyn. “Technologies of Immortality: The Brain on Ice.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35, no. 2 (2004): 391-413.
Thompson, Charis. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005.
August 18-24, 2019, National Astronomy Observatory “Rozhen”, Bulgaria
Anthropologists have always been interested in space exploration. Soon after the launch of Sputnik, on October 4, 1957, Margaret Mead headed a workshop to discuss the cultural significance of the human presence beyond Earth (Mead and Métraux 1957). The last several decades have brought a new perspective to the Anthropology of Outer Space. Thanks to the works of Lisa Messeri, David Valentine, Janet Vertesi, Sean T. Mitchell, Valerie Olson, and some others, outer space is now part of the very core of anthropology as fieldwork.
The Summer School aims at bringing the experience and inspiration of our American colleagues to the ‘Old World‘ anthropology, especially to the young generation anthropologists and social scientists. During the week long program the participants will work through master classes and workshops on the following subjects:
Theoretical frameworks for the study of outer space in anthropology, STS, and other social sciences;
The key challenges of New Space economy;
Identification of promising research problems and design of own research project
Course leaders (confirmed)
Lisa Messeri (Yale University, USA), Sean T. Mitchell (Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA), Ivan Tchalakov (University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria), two space entrepreneurs sharing their experience (to be announced)
Greeting from Lancaster, UK. We are looking forward to welcoming you to Lancaster at the EASST
2018 Conference on 25th-28th July. https://easst2018.easst.net/ We are currently finalising the
conference programme and we are very excited about it. The array of papers, events, activities and
plenaries are impressive. Registration is open and early-bird rates are available until May 16
Everyone wishing to attend the conference must register online and in advance. You do not
have to pay at the time of registration; an invoice will be emailed to you that details
payment instructions and deadlines.
Registration includes access to the opening reception, the plenary and sub-plenary sessions,
panel sessions, the book exhibit, all the fringe events (e.g. sign up events such as tree
planting and a visit to the University wind turbine), and tea/coffee during the morning and
afternoon breaks and lunches. You will receive a printed conference programme on arrival.
Registration also includes bus travel between the city and the University.
Please register for the social event on the Friday night. We have worked hard to organise an
event that will be enjoyable for everyone. It will take place in a marquee on the University
campus. Your ticket includes a range of international street food, a drink, music installations,
live music and dancing, and more. There will be a cash bar serving locally brewed beers, as
well as a gin bar and a cocktail bar. There is an extra cost for this event (note there is a
concession rate) and you need to book this at the time of Registration.
Your EASST membership means you have a considerable discount on the conference fee.
The early-bird conference fees are:
EASST member: €280
Member concessions (student or low-waged): €160
Non-member concession (student or low-waged): €240
Social event: €45
Social event concession (student or low-waged): €30
Details about accommodation and travel to Lancaster are on the conference web page.
We are looking forward to MEETING you in Lancaster
Vicky Singleton and Richard Tutton
Chairs of the conference Local Organising Committee
The new EASST Council met towards the end of May in Lancaster UK. This was the official handover to our new President Ulrike Felt. There has been a large turnover of Council members so this was also an opportunity for council members to get to know each other, to review what EASST has been doing in recent years and to decide which areas of responsibility to take on.
A main part of the agenda related to our forthcoming EASST conference in 2018. Council had the opportunity to view the extensive facilities and to discuss with the local team their ideas for both the organisation of the event and for the theme and approach. Council were impressed with the level of commitment and enthusiasm for this important conference. Further details and an initial call will be available very soon. Check the EASST website and Eurograd posts for further details.
The EASST fund has now been launched for events taking place in 2018. Council will meet again at the beginning of November and will take forward a range of other issues including the next round of EASST awards for collaborative activity which will be awarded at the conference.
The 2016 EASST Awards for collaborative activity were made at the final plenary of the EASST / 4S Conference alongside the 4S awards. The plenary was hosted by EASST President, Fred Steward and 4S President, Lucy Suchman.
The plenary had a novel format. The Award Winners were paired and, following short citations from members of the prize committees (4S) or Council (EASST), they were encouraged ask questions of each other and to have a conversation about their work.
The details of the EASST award winners are:
The 2016 EASST Amsterdamska award for a creatively edited anthology in STS is made to:
Beyond Imported Magic: Essays on Science, Technology, and Society in Latin America, MIT Press, 2014, edited by Eden Medina, Ivan da Costa Marques & Christina Holmes.
Beyond Imported Magic provide insights into Science and Technology studies in Latin America, which until now are only peripherally discussed in our field. It seeks to employ critical frameworks from science and technology studies (STS) to formulate new ideas and knowledge about how Latin American peoples, countries, cultures, and environments create, adapt, and use science and technology.
Its creative potential is founded in two core principles. The first explains the title of the book: Its contributions go beyond the idea of science and technology in Latin America as imported from somewhere else and instead explore alternative views of how scientific ideas and technologies are created, move, change and adapt. “Imported magic” was a native term applied about computers when they were first introduced in Brazil. The second principle is to examine the specificities of Latin American experiences to understand science and technology more broadly. The book does so throughout its three parts: The first part examines the politics of knowledge and representation in specific Latin American contexts and possible frames of analysis for studying science and technology in the region. The second traces the circulation of scientific ideas within community, national, and transnational networks. The final part addresses the mechanisms through which scientific projects and technologies are linked to Latin American politics and political will.
The book opens with an introduction to the Latin American historical context for science and technology and for Science & Technology Studies. Already the introduction very nicely points to how this kind of ‘area study’ in STS is not only about providing important insight into a part of the world broadly neglected by STS. Moreover, it is about how insights into this geographical area may provide innovative theoretical and empirical insights for the field of STS at large. The turn to other cultural ways of dealing with, developing, adapting and changing science and technology in order to learn also about the specificities of the culturality of the own understanding of science and technology suggests a promising method for theoretical and empirical developments of the field of STS.
Beyond Imported Magic challenges the idea of science and technology as moving from the global north to the global south, from an alleged centre to an alleged periphery. While this point is in itself not new, but has tradition in the anthropological areas of STS, the richness and varity of the book’s empirical studies from one and the same region provide a refreshing view of how innovations coming out of Latin America was adapted in the global North, about how collaboration and co-development between Latin American scientists and technology developers have shaped not only Latin American science, technology and politics but also European/US ones. Additionally, studies are presented of how technological adaptations in Latin America of imported innovations have been taken up in the global north.
Even though the understanding that knowledge is always situated and technology always socio-materially embedded belongs to the foundational insights of Science & Technology Studies the empirical studies in the field often discuss science and technology rather generally or in relation to rather small social practices. In both procedures the cultural situatedness of science and technology is often overlooked. In this situation Beyond Imported Magic very convincingly reminds us of the importance of taking into account local, professional, national and regional cultures and histories in the studies of science and technology.
The Amsterdamska award is not only granted to books whose content is creative, of high quality and with promise to gain crucial impact in the field of STS. At least as important for granting the award is the book’s collaborative contribution. The book is a result of a collaborations of scholars of all status levels: from ph.d to post docs, assistant professors, independent researchers, and Professors. The collaboration that finally resulted in the book started at a workshop that was part of the planning of the 4S meeting in Buenos Aires in 2014, followed up by a meeting among the authors and local STS scholars in Bloomington. Of this followed an open call for contributions, which we expect has also evoked engagement in the field of STS in South America. Not only is the book a result of a collaborative process. We also expect the book to be important for collaboration and community building within STS in South America, and among South American scholars and scholars in Europe and the rest of the world. EASST highly appreciates this collaborative endeavour and highly values that Beyond Imported Magic is not only the result of a collaborative process, but probably just as much is likely to ignite collaboration in the STS community in South America and beyond.
The aim of EASST as an organisation is to support Studies of Science and Technology in Europe. Why award a book from and about South America? On the one hand EASST greatly values that many scholars with background in European institutions have contributed to this book. Indeed, half of the contributors work or have been working in Europe. When considering what counts as ‘European’ one might in a globalized world moreover need – and want – to go beyond a geopolitical definition. This book’s great value for European STS scholars is to challenge prevailing concepts and methodologies through actively listening to ‘different’ experiences.
The 2016 EASST Freeman Award for a collective contribution to the interaction of STS with the study of innovation’ is made to:
The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement Strategies, Routledge, 2016, edited by Sampsa Hyysalo, Torben Elgaard Jensen & Nelly Oudshoorn.
This book addresses the phenomenon of users centered innovation from a wide set of perspectives. Users innovation occurs in almost all areas, such as medicine, drugs, informatics, design, urban infrastructures, wind turbines. While the book is centered on STS, contributions also come from other fields, including management, innovation studies, legal studies and techno-anthropology. The volume originates in the EASST/4S Copenhagen meeting in 2012 where the idea of a book was discussed with the participants of a dedicated session and an open call for chapters was subsequently organized. The final volume holds contributions from 6 European countries (Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, UK, Norway, Sweden) and four contributors from the USA.
The volume gathers a rich set of contributions on users centered innovation. The 11 chapters are grouped into four parts. The first part focuses on theories of user innovation and the production of users in innovation. The second part is dedicated to user-producer engagements and industrial strategizing. Part III discusses innovation practices and user communities and the volume ends with a part on unwanted innovation and non-users. In addition, the editors have produced a comprehensive introductory chapter and Trevor Pinch has written an afterword.
We think the volume produces an outstanding contribution to the interface of STS and innovation studies. First of all, it provides a timely renewal of studies of users innovation. It takes stock of the different perspectives, including user-centered design, participatory design, open source software, consumption studies, co-creation and peer production. It also brings them together in a novel way. It interestingly demonstrates, for instance, that a wide part of the history of marketing may be analyzed as direct and indirect forms of involvements (voluntary or not) of users to the innovation process. It also discusses how this may challenge the idea that users innovation is associated with democratization of innovation. Secondly, the volume broadens the usual interest in user innovation. It goes beyond the traditional focus on situations of co-production in a participatory mode and also studies users’ innovation when it occurs in the margins, sometimes illegally, or when it is associated with controversies and conflicts. In doing so, and that is the third contribution, does the volume bring a novel research agenda on users in innovation. It succeeds in deepening the analysis of the place of empowerment, community building and strengthening of social capital in innovation dynamics.
To summarize, this volume is an excellent and opportune illustration of the cross-fertilization between STS and innovation studies. It will constitute a landmark in the area of users’ innovation. Therefore, it is awarded the EASST Freeman prize 2016.
The 2016 EASST Ziman Award for a ‘collaborative promotion of public interaction with science and technology’ is made to:
The Leiden Manifesto – declaration, website and international network, authored by Diana Hicks, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols.
The Leiden Manifesto is an initiative to engage with the rise of metrics based research assessment by articulating a set of principles which draw on the insights of science and technology studies on the nature of knowledge.
It has a distinctive European dimension as a partnership between Dutch and Spanish centres in science, technology and innovation studies along with a US scholar and arises from the European hosting of an international scientometrics conference.
It addresses a broad audience of ‘evaluators’ who are often tasked with a role of assessing research performance with the ultimate goal of reassuring ‘public’ accountability. The manifesto represents a serious and successful public-facing and comprehensible interpretation of the technical area of metrics which is understandable by a wide audience. It draws on state of the art knowledge on research metrics and is linked to an extensive range of international projects, publications, conferences, workshops and networks.
Presented as a distillation of best practice it is at the same time informed by core STS concepts about knowledge. It emphasises situatedness both in terms of different cognitive domains and research missions as well as the wider socioeconomic, national and regional context. It also engages with performativity and the way in which indicators can change the knowledge system itself.
The initiative is designed to influence evaluation practice rather than simply to critique it. This is an impressive effort to take specialised scientometric knowledge into a wide policy arena.
Much research evaluation practice and discourse is quite narrowly national in nature. This collaboration has turned it into a wider international European and global comversation. Its relevance to widely diverse national contexts is shown by the number of translations from Catalan to Chinese. It is generating a significant ‘impact’ through the creation of an extensive international network. Research evaluation is often treated in a technocratic and managerial fashion. This initiative promotes a more reflexive approach and recommends a coevolution approach.
John Ziman, President of EASST 1983-86 contributions to ‘public interaction’ involved a number of interventions on contemporary political aspects of science – social responsibility of scientists, expert conflict and innovation, freedom of scientists in the Soviet Union, and careers within the science system. They could be described as public actions aimed at politicians and scientists.
This initiative resonates with the Ziman tradition in being addressed to a broad interdisiplinary professional audience of evaluators and scientists on a visible public issue of research accountability.
The EASST Council (the elected body that runs our association) meets twice a year, last time in Munich in October and next in Copenhagen in April. Issues which are currently being discussed and progressed include:
Elections: the terms of office (normally 4 years) of the majority of Council members, and the President, come to an end this year. There will be a specific call for self-nominations and details of the election process later in the year. However, if you want to know more about the Council you can see the current members from our website at https://easst.net/about-easst/easst-council-members/ and read the constitution at https://easst.net/about-easst/easst-constitution/. If you want to know more, please contact our secretary via estrid.sorensen(at)rub.de or the president at president(at)easst.net
Current Conference: there has been a massive response to the call for papers with over 2,500 received. Track Conveners and the Scientific Committee are busy assessing these. Students from 4S and EASST are working together to put together a Postgraduate Workshop to procede the conference. Both EASST and 4S have funds to support the conference attendance of students and those at early career stage who have had papers accepted. To keep in touch with developments follow the conference website at http://www.sts2016bcn.org/ .
Future Conferences: a reminder that we issued a call for those interested in hosting EASST’s next conference in 2018 (or at a future date). Council will be discussing this at the beginning of April so please get in touch straightaway if you are interested but have not yet told us.
Membership: a reminder that our membership year ends on 30th Those members who have a Futurepay agreement to cover renewals will receive a reminder about this – and an opportunity to cancel if you want to. If you know that your credit card has been renewed or changed over the year let us know and we can tell you how to update it. Others will receive an invoice as normal. A reminder that membership offers a discount on conference registration rates.
Awards for collaborative activities: thanks for your nominations. Council is considering those and the awards will be made in Barcelona.
Science and Technology Studies: our peer reviewed online journal has a new editor Salla Sariola. Thanks to Sampsa Hyysalo, the outgoing editor, for all his hard work. The journal has increased its issues from 3 to 4 per year based on the quality and quantity of submissions. Council is discussing other developments including an open journal platform and a pre-publication repository.
Website: we are currently making some amendments to our website to make its format more compatible with mobile and tablet use. We will use this opportunity to make some other minor changes. Look out for our new site soon.
EASST Review: we are always keen to hear your news via submissions to EASST Review. To discuss this contact our editor at ignacio.farias(at)tum.de