Stem cell researchers labor in unpredictable circumstances, beset by uncertainties allied to the study of cellular signaling behaviors. STS research, based primarily on the work of Star (1985), has demonstrated that medical scientists often approach these vicissitudes using a type of phronesis that aims to better qualify the causes of experimental ambiguities, while also identifying optimistic reference points to help guide future research. Knowledge of this type of phronesis is extended by this article, which examines the composition of the three most popular citations allied to the regenerative cellular biology/human-induced pluripotent stem cells (hiPSC) literature. When analyzed, these papers afford evidence that the adducement of positive signals begins with sorting and categorizing. This article finds that, when representing the outcomes of this cataloging for peer-review consumption, the authors concerned predicated their observations in a perspicacious rhetoric, which serves to reinforce positive-leaning ascriptions by couching them in images of virtue, fortitude, and due diligence. The research findings presented herewith suggest that adducements of this kind may be anchored in a representational practice that could be described as “modal splicing.” This article contributes to the STS literature by observing connections between modal splicing, perspicacious representation, and knowledge affirmations in hiPSC contexts.
BarryF.MurphyJ.2004. “Mesemchymal Stem Cells: Clinical Applications and Biological Characterization.”The International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology36:568–84.
2.
BowkerG.StarS. L.1996. “How Things (actor-net) Work: Classification, Magic and the Ubiquity of Standards.”Philosophia25 (3-4): 195–220.
3.
BowkerG.StarS. L.1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
FlyvbjergB.2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
FuchsE.TumbarT.GuaschG.2004. “Socializing with the Neighbors: Stem Cells and their Niche.”Cell116 (6): 769–78.
7.
FrankM.2003. “Impact Factors—Arbiter of Excellence?”Journal of the Medical Library Association91 (1): 4–6.
8.
FranzosiR.1998. “Narrative Analysis—Or Why (and how) Sociologists Should be Interested in Narrative.”Annual Review of Sociology24:517–54.
9.
GoodingD.2009. “Visualizing Scientific Inference.”Topics in Cognitive Science2 (1): 15–35.
10.
GrossA.2006. Starring the Text: The Place of Rhetoric in Science Studies. Illinois: Suthern Illunios University Press.
11.
GrossA.HarmonJ.ReidyM.2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
HackettE.2005. “Essential Tensions: Identity Control, and Risk in Research.”Social Studies of Science35 (5): 787.
13.
HallidayM.1970. “Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a Consideration of Modality and Mood in English.”Foundations in Language6 (3): 322–61.
14.
HofmannB.2002. “Medicine as Practical Wisdom (phronesis).”Poiesis Prax1: 135–49.
15.
HylandK.1998. Hedging in Scientific Articles. Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins.
16.
HylandK.2002. “Activity and Evaluation: Reporting Practices in Academic Writing.” In Academic Discourse, edited by FlowerdewJ., 115–30. Harlow, UK: Longman.
17.
JainR.2005. “Normalization of Tumor Vasculature: An Emerging Concept in Antiangiogenic Therapy.”Science307 (5706): 58–62.
18.
JasanoffS.2008. “Representation and Re-presentation in Litigation Science.”Environmental Health Perspectives116 (1): 123–29.
19.
KnaapenL.CazeneuveH.CambrosioA.CastelP.FerversB.2010. “Pragmatic Evidence and Textual Arrangements: A Case Study of French Clinical Cancer Guidelines.”Social Science and Medicine71 (4): 685–92.
20.
KempP.2006. “History of Regenerative Medicine: Looking Backwards to Move Forwards.”Regenerative Medicine1 (5): 653–69.
21.
KisidayJ.JinM.KurzB.HungH.SeminoC.ZhangS.GrodzinskyA.2002. “Self-assembling Peptide Hydrogel Fosters Chondrocyte Extracellular Matrix Production and Cell Division: Implications for Cartilage Tissue Repair.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America99 (15): 9996–10001.
22.
KoglerG.SenskenS.AireyJ.TrappT.MushenM.FeldhahnN.LiedtkeS.SorgR.FischerJ.RosenbaumC.GreschatS.KnipperA.BenderJ.DegistririciO.GaoJ.CaplanA.CollettiE.lmeida-PoradaG.MullerH.ZanjaniE.WernetP.2004. “A New Somatic Stem Cell from Placental Cord Blood with Intrinsic Pluripotent Differentiation Potential.”The Journal of Experimental Medicine200 (2): 123–35.
23.
Knorr-CetinaK.1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, New York, and Toronto: Pergamon Press.
24.
LanzaR.RosenthalN.2004. “The Stem Cell Challenge.”Scientific American290 (6): 92–99.
25.
LongC.2002. “The Ontological Reappropriation of Phronesis.”Continental Philosophy Review35 (1): 35–60.
26.
LongP.2001. Openness, Secrecy, Authorship. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
27.
LysaghtM.JaklenecA.DeweerdE.2008. “Great Expectations: Private Sector Activity in Tissue Engineering, Regenerative Medicine, and Stem Cell Therapeutics.”Tissue Engineering: Part A14 (2): 305–19.
28.
MasonC.ManzottiE.2010. “Regenerative Medicine Cell Therapies: Numbers of Units Manufactured and Patients Treated between 1988 and 2010.”Regenerative Medicine5 (3): 307–13.
29.
MartinJ.1989. “Discourses of Science: Recontextualisation, Genesis, Intertextuality and Hegemony.” In Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, edited by MartinJ.VeelRobert, 3–13. London, UK: Routledge.
30.
Martins-TaylorK.XuR. H.2011. “Concise Review: Genomic Stability of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells.”Stem Cells30 (1): 22–27.
31.
MaxsonS.LopezE.YooD.Danilkovitch-MiagkovaA.LeRouxM.2012. “Concise Review: Role of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Wound Repair.”Stem Cells Translation Medicine1 (2): 142–49.
32.
MellorF.2010. “Negotiating Uncertainty: Asteroids, Risk and the Media.”Public Understanding of Science19 (1): 16–33.
33.
MostoslavskyG.2011. “Concise Review: The Magic Act of Generating Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: Many Rabbits in the Hat.”Stem Cells30 (1): 28–32.
34.
MushinI.2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Bejamins Publishing.
35.
MyersG.1992. “‘In This Paper…We Report…’ Speech Acts and Scientific Facts.”Journal of Pragmatics17 (4): 295–313.
36.
Owen-SmithJ.2001. “Managing Laboratory Work through Skepticism: Processes of Evaluation and Control.”American Sociological Review66: 427–52.
37.
PattersonW.2008. “Narratives of Events: Labovian Narrative Analysis and its Limitations.” In Doing Narrative Research, edited by AndrewsM.SquireC.TamboukouM., 22–40. London: Sage.
38.
PendleburyA.2008. “The Use and Misuse of Journal Metrics and Other Citation Indicators.”Varia- Scientometrics57: 1–11.
39.
PerrierA.TabarV.BarberiT.RubioM.BrusesJ.TopfN.HarrisonN.StuderL.PtashneM.2004. “Derivation of Midbrain Dopamine Neurons from Human Embryonic Stem Cells.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America101 (34): 12543–548.
40.
PickersgillM.2010. “Ordering Disorder: Knowledge Production and Uncertainty in Neuroscience Research.”Science as Culture20 (1): 71–87.
41.
PinchT.1981. “The Sun-set: The Presentation of Certainty in Scientific Life.”Social Studies of Science11 (1): 131–58.
ReyaT.MorrisonS.ClarkeM.WeissmanI.2001. “Stem Cells, Cancer and Cancer Stem Cells.”Nature414 (November 1): 105–11.
44.
RibesD.BowkerG.2009. “Between Meaning and Machine: Learning to Represent the Knowledge of Communities.”Information and Organization19 (4): 199–217.
45.
RingeJ.KapsC.BurmesterG. R.SittingerM.2002. “Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine: Advances in the Engineering of Tissues and Organs.”Naturwissenschaften89: 338–51.
46.
RosaE.1998. “Metatheoretical Foundations for Post-normal Risk.”Journal of Risk Research1 (1): 15–44.
47.
RosenthalN., 2003. “Prometheus’s Vulture and the Stem-Cell Promise.”The New England Journal of Medicine349(3): 267–74.
48.
RothM. W.2008. “Radical Uncertainty in Scientific Discovery Work.”Science, Technology, & Human Values34 (3): 313–36.
49.
SatoN.MeijerL.SkaltsounisL.GreengardP.BrivanlouA.2004. “Maintenance of Pluripotency in Human and Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells through Activation of Wnt Signalling by a Pharmacological GSK-3-specific Inhibitor.”Nature Medicine10 (1): 55–63.
50.
SmallH.2004. “On the Shoulders of Robert Merton: Towards a Normative Theory of Citation.”Scientometrics60 (1): 71–79.
51.
StarS. L.1985. “Scientific Work and Uncertainty.”Social Studies of Science15 (3): 391–427.
52.
StarS. L.1989, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Search for Scientific Certainty. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
53.
TannenD., ed. 1993. Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
54.
TomasekJ.GabbianiG.HinzB.ChaponnierC.BrownR.2002. “Myofibroblasts and Mechano-regulation of Connective Tissue Remodelling.”Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology3: 349–63.
55.
VerstraeteJ. C.2001. “Subjective and Objective Modality: Interpersonal and Ideational Functions in the English Modal Auxiliary System.”Journal of Pragmatics33 (10): 1505–28.
56.
WenP.SunP.XiR.2011. “Stem Cell Niche.” In Regenerative Medicine: From Protocol to Patient, edited by SteinhoffG., 81–102. London and New York: Springer Science and Business Media, B.V.
WoolgarS.1980. “Discovery: Logic and Sequence in Scientific Text.” In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, edited by KnorrK.KrohnR.WhitelyR., vol. 4, 239–68. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
59.
WoolgarS.1982. “Laboratory Studies: A Comment on the State of the Art.”Social Studies of Science12 (4): 481–98.
