Statistics constitute the social universe of which they are gathered. The foundation necessary to develop quantified knowledge about society is the population. If quantified knowledge changes society, the question arises on how individuals become to be represented as population. The population has to be extracted from individuals in a process that we call “populationisation.” This encompasses the development of the individual into a segment of a population through the compilation of individual data into population data and its analysis. To describe the process of populationisation, we follow a statistical risk assessment tool, the German Diabetes Risk Score, from its inception in a cohort study to its entry into the public sphere of German society. The population is extracted from individuals that function as research subjects through an identification number. Preprocessed information is entered into a dynamic database that enables its rearrangement according to main aggregates. Through populationisation, a signified is enacted that can be sliced up and that is equal in all its parts. Now predictions can be computed and fed back to society as tools of moral judgment. The acting individual and “society” are—numerically and literally!—entangled in the production and enactment of risk knowledge.
AronowitzRobert. 2008. “Framing Disease: An Underappreciated Mechanism for the Social Patterning of Health.”Social Science and Medicine67(1):1–9.
2.
AsadTalal. 2002. “Ethnographic Representation, Statistics, and Modern Power.” In From the Margins: Historical Anthropology and its Futures, edited by AxelBrian K., 66–90. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
3.
BauerSusanne. 2009. “From Society to Molecule and Back: The Contested Scale of Public Health Science.” In Contested Categories: Life Sciences in Society, edited by BauerSusanneWahlbergAyo, 113–34. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
4.
BeckStefanKehlChristophNiewöhnerJörg, eds. 2008. Wie geht Kultur unter die Haut? Emergente Praxen an der Schnittstelle von Medizin, Lebens- und Sozialwissenschaft. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript-Verlag.
5.
BeckUlrichGiddensAnthonyLashScott. 1996. Reflexive Modernisierung. Eine Kontroverse. Frankfurt, Germany: Edition Suhrkamp.
6.
BischofChristine. 2010. “Räume epidemiologischer Wissensproduktion in Europa.” In Essen in Europa. Kulturelle ‘Rückstände' in Nahrung und Körper, edited by BauerSusanneBischofChristineHaufeStephan GabrielScholze-IrrlitzLeonoreBeckStefan, 113–34. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript-Verlag.
7.
BoeingHeinerKorfmannA.BergmannManuela. 1999. “Recruitment Procedures of the EPIC-Germany.”Nutrition & Metabolism43(4): 205–15.
8.
BowkerGeoffrey C.1996. “The History of Information Infrastructures: The Case of the International Classification of Diseases.”Information Processing and Management32(1): 49–61.
9.
BowkerGeoffrey C.StarSusan Leigh. 1999. Sorting Things Out. Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
10.
ClarkeAdele E.FujimuraJoan H., eds. 1992. The Right Tool for the Job. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
DesrosièresAlain. 1998. The Politics of Large Numbers. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
13.
DouglasMary. 1987. How Institutions Think. London: Routledge.
14.
FosketJennifer. 2004. “Constructing ‘High-Risk Women’: The Development and Standardization of a Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool.”Science, Technology, & Human Values29(3): 291–313.
15.
GiddensAnthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16.
GigerenzerGerdSwijtinkZenoPorterTheodoreDastonLorraineBeattyJohnKrügerLorenz. 1989. The Empire of Chance. How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
GoodmanSteven N. 1999. “Probability at the Bedside: The Knowing of Chances or the Chances of Knowing.”Annals of Internal Medicine130(7): 604–606.
18.
GreeneJeremy A.2007. Prescribing by Numbers: Drugs and the Definition of Disease. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
19.
HackingIan1986. “Making up People.” In Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought, edited by HellerThomas C.SosnaMortonWellberyDavid E., 222–36. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
HackingIan1995. “The looping Effects of Human Kinds.” In Causal Cognition: A Multi-disciplinary Debate edited by SperberDanPremackDavidPremackAnn James, 351–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
HaftenbergerM.SchuitA. J.TornoM. J.BoeingH.WarehamN.Bueno-de-MesquitaH. B.KumleM.HijartakerA.ChirlaqueM. D.ArdanazE.AndrenC.LindahlB.PeetersP. H. M.AllenN. E.OveradK.TjonnelandA.Clavel-ChapelonF.LinseisenJ.BergmannM. M.TrichopoulouA.LagiouP.SalviniS.PanicoS.RiboliE.FerrariP.SlimaniN.. 2002a. “Physical Activity of Subjects Aged 50-64 Years Involved in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.”Public Health Nutrition5(6B): 1163–76.
22.
HaftenbergerM.LahmannP. H.PanicoS.GonzalesC.A.SeidellJ. C.BoeingH.GiurdanellaM. C.KroghV.Bueno-de-MesquitaH. B.PeetersP. H. M.SkeieG.HijartakerA.RodriguezM.QuirosJ. R.BerglundG.JanlertU.KhawK. T.SpencerE. A.OvervadK.TjonnelandA.Clavel-ChapelonF.TehardB.MillerA. B.Klipstein-GrobuschK.BenetouV.KiriaziG.RiboliE.SlimaniN.. 2002b. “Overweight, Obesity and Fat Distribution in 50- to 64-Year-Old Participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC).”Public Health Nutrition5(6B): 1147–62.
23.
HarawayDonna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
24.
HardingSandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
25.
HardingSandra. 1993. The “Racial” Economy of Science: Toward a Democratic Future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
26.
HardingSandra. 1998. Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Epistemologies. Ithaca, NY: Indiana University Press.
27.
HeidemannC.BoeingH.PischonT.NöthlingsU.JoostH. G.SchulzeM. B.. 2009. “Association of a Diabetes Risk Score with risk of Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, Specific Types of Cancer, and Mortality: A Prospective Study in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam Cohort.”European Journal of Epidemiology24(6): 281–8.
28.
HolmbergChristineParascandolaMark. 2010. “Individualised Risk Estimation and the Nature of Prevention.”Health, Risk & Society12(5): 441–52.
29.
HolmbergChristineHattigUlrichSchulzeMatthiasBoeingHeiner. 2011. “The Potential of the Internet for Health Communication: The Use of an Interactive on-line Tool for Diabetes Risk Prediction.”Patient, Education, and Counselling83(1): 106–12.
30.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press.
31.
LatourBrunoWoolgarSteve. 1986. Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
LenoirThimothy. 1998. “Inscription Practices and Materialities of Communication.” In Inscribing Science. Scientific Texts and the Materiality of Communication, edited by LenoirThimothy, 1–20. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
PorterTheodore. 1996. Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
RathmannW.MartinS.HaastertB.IcksA.HolleR.LöwelH.GianiG., and KORA Study Group. 2005. “Performance of Screening Questionnaires and Risk Scores for Undiagnosed Diabetes: The KORA Survey 2000.”Archives of Internal Medicine165(4): 436–41.
35.
RheinbergerHans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36.
RockhillBeverly. 2005. “Theorizing About Causes at the Individual Level while Estimating Effects at the Population Level: Implications for Prevention.”Epidemiology16(1): 124–9.
37.
RockhillBeverlySpiegelmanD.ByrenC.HunterD. J.ColditzG. A.. 2002. “Validation of the Gail et al. Model of Breast Cancer Risk Prediction and Implications for Chemoprevention” J Natl Cancer Inst93(5): 358–65.
38.
SaussureFerdinand de.1998. “Der Gegenstand der Sprachwissenschaft” In Zeichen über Zeichen. Texte zur Symiotik von Charles Sanders Peirce bis Umberto Eco und Jacques Derrida, edited by MerschDieter, 193–215. Frankfurt/M, Germany: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
39.
SchulzeMatthias B.HoffmannKurtBoeingHeinerLinseisenJ.RohrmannS.MohligM.PfeifferA. F.SprangerJ.ThamerC.HaringH. U.FritscheA.JoostHans-Georg. 2007a. “An Accurate Risk Score based on Anthropometric, Dietary, and Lifestyle Factors to Predict the Development of type 2 Diabetes.”Diabetes Care30(3): 510–5.
40.
SchulzeMatthias B.HolmbergChristineHoffmannKurtBoeingHeinerJoostHans-Georg. 2007b. “Kurzfragebogen zur Bestimmung des Diabetesrisiko auf Grundlage des deutschen Diabetes-Risiko-Scores.”Ernährungsumschau54(12): 698–703.
41.
SieriS.AgudoA.KesseE.Klipstein-GrobuschK.San-JoseB.WelchA. A.KroghV.LubenR.AllenN.OvervadK.TjonnelandA.Clavel-ChapelonF.ThiebautA.MillerA. B.BoeingH.KolyvaM.SaievaC.CelentanoE.OckeM. C.PeetersP. H. M.BrustadM.KumleM.DorronsoroM.Fernandez FeitoA.MattissonI.WeinehallL.RiboliE.SlimaniN.. 2002. “Patterns of Alcohol Consumption in 10 European Countries Participating in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Project.”Public Health Nutrition5(6B): 1287–96.
42.
WaidzunasTom. 2012. “Young, Gay, and Suicidal: Dynamic Nominalism and the Process of Defining a Social Problem with Statistics.”Science, Technology, & Human Values(Online first).
