Drug testing is widely deployed in the United States throughout the public and private sectors. This case study uses two emergent drug-testing technologies—hair analysis and the sweat patch—as examples of techniques of governance that should be subjected to the political equivalent of strict scrutiny. The article contributes to conceptual debates in science and technology studies, arguing that the study of social structure and subject formation should be integral rather than epiphenomenal to analysis in the transdisciplinary field of science and technology studies (STS). The article contextualizes the development and deployment of drug-testing technologies within the structural and epistemological categories of racial and ethnic difference, gender, sexuality, and class formation. Conflicts between proponents of the technologies and critical advocates who seek to constrain their use mark sites of productive theoretical engagement with structural sociology, racial formation theory, critical race theory, and feminist critique.1 Finally, the article demonstrates how STS analyses can contribute to the struggles of strategic counterpublics as they advocate for changing the meaning and material consequences of suspect technologies.
American Civil Liberties Union. 1999. Drug testing: A bad investment. New York: Author.
2.
Ayers, William. 1997. A kind and just parent. Boston, MA: Beacon.
3.
Backer, T. E.1987. Strategic planning for workplace drug abuse programs. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse.
4.
Bertram, Eva, ed. 1996. Drug war politics: The price of denial. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Campbell, Nancy D.2000. Using women: Gender, drug policy, and social justice. New York: Routledge.
7.
Casserly, Theresa K.1997. Evidentiary and constitutional implications of employee drug testing through hair analysis. Cleveland State Law Review45.
8.
Cone, Edward J.1998. Testimony before U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce, Sub-committee on Oversight and Investigations, 23 July.
9.
Crawford, Lynn. 1986. Roots of evil. Science July/August: 67-68.
10.
Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 2798 (1993).
11.
Dreyfus, Hubert L., and Paul Rabinow. 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
12.
Drug Detection Report. 1995. FDA allows sweat patch by criminal justice agencies. February 21. 1995, p. 7-7.
13.
Epstein, William M.1999. Children who could have been. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
14.
Eubanks, Virginia. 2004. Popular technology: Citizenship and inequality in the information economy. PhD diss., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
15.
Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 121 S. Ct. 1281 (2001).
16.
Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
17.
Forsman, Franny. 2001. Sweat patchgives false positives. Federal Public Defender10(1):1-2.
18.
Foucault, Michel. 1991. The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Foucault, Michel. 1994. The ethics of concern for self as a practice of freedom. In Essential works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984: Ethics, edited by Paul Rabinow, translated by Robert Hurley et al. New York: The New Press.
20.
Fraser, Nancy. 1987. Unruly practices: Power, discourse, and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
21.
Frederiksen, Soren David. 2003. Polygraphy in the Canadian criminal courts: Rejecting bad science for legal reasons. Paper presented at Law and Society annual meeting, Pittsburgh, PA.
22.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
23.
Gordon, Diana. 1994. The return of the dangerous classes: Drug prohibition and policy politics. New York: W. W. Norton.
24.
Harwood, Henrik. 1984. Economic costs to society of alcohol and drug abuse and mental illness: 1980. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
25.
Henderson, G., M. Harkey, and R. Jones. 1993. Hair analysis for drugs of abuse. Report to the National Institute of Justice, Grant no. 90-NIJ-CX-0012. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
26.
Hirsch, James S.1995. Psychemedics stock surges 71% on news of private drug test. Wall Street Journal July 13, B7-B7.
27.
Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace. 1988. The Drug-Free Workplace report. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Science at the bar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Jones, Kathleen. 1993. Compassionate authority: Democracy and the representation of women. New York: Routledge.
30.
Kafka, Franz. 1948. The penal colony. New York: Schocken Books.
31.
Kean, Leslie and Dennis Bernstein. 1999. Hair tests raise doubts. Baltimore Sun, May 30.
32.
Kidwell, David. 1992. Hair analysis: Techniques and potential problems. In Recent developments in drug monitoring and clinical toxicology, edited by I. Sunshine, 555-564. New York: Marcel Dekker.
33.
Las Vegas Review-Journal. 2001. Federal court drug-testing device under fire, PharmChem sweat patch may be “too good.” January 2.
34.
Levisky, Joseph A., David L.Bowerman, Werner W.Jenkins, and Steven B. Karch. 2000. Drug disposition in adipose skin and tissue: Evidence for an alternative source of positive sweat patch results. Forensic Science International110.
35.
Long, Melissa, and David A. Kidwell. 2002. Improving the PharmChek sweat patch: Reducing false positives from environmental contamination and increasing drug Detection. Unpublished final report. U.S. Department of Justice Document No. 196030, Award No. 2000-RD-CX-A038.
36.
Mauer, Marc. 1999. The race to incarcerate. New York: New Press.
37.
Mead, Lawrence. 1997. The new paternalism: Supervisory approaches to poverty. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
38.
Mieckowski, Tom. 1992. New approaches in drug testing: A review of hair analysis. Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science521.
39.
Mieckowski, Tom. 2003. The further mismeasure: The curious use of racial categorizations in the interpretation of hair analysis. http://www.criminology.fsu.edu (accessed March 16, 2004).
40.
Morgall, Janine Marie. 1993. Technology assessment: A feminist perspective. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
41.
Nelson, Barbara. 1984. Making an issue of child abuse: Political agenda setting for social problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
Normand, Jacques. 1994. Under the influence? Drugs and the American WORKFORCE. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43.
Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
44.
Parton, Nigel. 1996. Social work, risk, and the “blaming system.” In Socialt heory, social change, and social work, edited by Nigel Parton, 4-18. New York: Routledge.
45.
Polsky, Andrew J.1991. The rise of the therapeutic state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
Reid, L. D., K. R. Murphy, and D. H. Reynolds. 1990. Drug abuse and drug testing in the workplace. In Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice, edited by Kevin R. Murphy and Frank E. Saal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
Rose, Nikolas. 1999. Powers of freedom. New York: Routledge.
48.
Schneider, Anne Larson, and Helen Ingram. 1997. Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
49.
Schram, Sanford F.2000. After welfare: The culture of postindustrial social policy. New York: New York University Press.
50.
Schram, Sanford F.2002. Praxis for the poor. New York: New York University Press.
51.
Simon, Jonathan. 1993. Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1890-1990. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52.
Smith, Dorothy E.1990a. The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
53.
Smith, Dorothy E.1990b. Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. New York: Routledge.
54.
Solinger, Rickie. 2001. Beggars and choosers: How the politics of choice shapes adoption, abortion, and welfare in the United States. New York: Hill and Wang.
55.
Solomon, Shana M., and Edward J. Hackett. 1996. Setting boundaries between science and law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Science, Technology, and Human Values21(2): 131-156.
56.
Soss, Joe. 2000. Unwanted claims. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
57.
Swift, Karen J.1995. Manufacturing “bad mothers”: Critical perspectives on child neglect. Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press.
58.
Thevenot, Carri Geer. 2001. Federal court drug-testing device under fire, PharmChem sweat patch may be “too good.”Las Vegas Review-Journal, January 2.
59.
Uhlman, Marian. 1998. Patch that might keep tabs on drug use will be tested in Philadelphia. Philadelphia Inquirer, April 22.
60.
United States v. Jamie M. Snyder, 187 F. Supp. 2d 52, Northern District of New York, 2002.
61.
United States v. Stumpf, 54 F. Supp. 2d 972 (D.NV. 1999).
62.
United States v. Marilyn Groveman, CR-S-98-082-HDM (NV. 2000).
63.
Winant, Howard. 1994. Racial conditions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
64.
Winner, Langdon.1977. Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
Zimring, Franklin E., and Gordon Hawkins. 1992. The search for rational drug control.New York: Cambridge University Press.
67.
Zinberg, Norman. 1984. Drug, set, and setting: The basis for controlled intoxicant use.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
