In this paper I unpack and critically reflect on some of the key insights each paper in this Special Issue if ST&HV offers on the in(visibilities) of labor and practices in Translational Medicine. I also broaden the discussion to think about the general implications these (in)visibilities have for the future of translational medicine and the bioeconomy, as well as the ways we might wish to study it.
Ahola-LaunonenJohannaKurkiSofi. 2022. “Dynamics of Expectations in the Bioeconomy – Hopes, Disillusionments, and Conflicting Futures.” Science and Public Policy49: 819–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac030.
2.
Argudo-PortalVioleta. 2023. “Fresh or Thawed T Cells? How Modes of Bioavailability Matter in the Study of Translational Medicine.” Science, Technology, & Human Values50 (2): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439231171972.
3.
BarkerRichard W.ScannellJack W.. 2015. “The Life Sciences Translational Challenge: The European Perspective.” Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science49 (3): 415–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014561340.
4.
BorupMadsBrownNikKonradKorneliavan LenteHarro. 2006. “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology.” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management18 (3–4): 285–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002.
5.
Briz HernándezIsabel.2024. “Miscellaneous Care: Bridging the In-Between of Translational Medicine.” Science, Technology, & Human Values50 (2): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439231223787.
6.
ButlerDeclan.2008. “Crossing the Valley of Death.” Nature453 (12): 840–42. https://www.doi.org/10.1038/453840a.
7.
DaviesGail.2010. “Captivating Behaviour: Mouse Models, Experimental Genetics and Reductionist Returns in the Neurosciences.” Sociological Review58 (SUPPL. 1): 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01911.x.
8.
FrieseCarrie.2024. “The Shadow Bodies of Mice: Invisible Work in Translational Medicine.” Science, Technology, & Human Values50 (2): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241276276.
9.
HopkinsMichael M.2006. “The Hidden Research System: The Evolution of Cytogenetic Testing in the National Health Service.” Science as Culture15 (3): 253–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430600890701.
10.
KraftAlison.2013. “New Light Through an Old Window? The ‘Translational Turn’ in Biomedical Research: A Historical Perspective.” In In Translational Medicine: The Future of Therapy? edited by MittraJames, 19–53. Boca Raton, FL: Pan Stanford.
11.
LewisJamieAtkinsonPaul AnthonyFeatherstoneKatieHarringtonJean. 2012. “Representation and Practical Accomplishment in the Laboratory: When Is an Animal Model Good Enough?” Sociology47 (4): 776–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038512457276.
12.
MittraJames.2016. The New Health Bioeconomy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
13.
MittraJamesMastroeniMichèleHaddowGillWieldDavidBarlowElisabeth. 2019. “Re-Imagining Healthcare and Medical Research Systems in Post-Devolution Scotland.” Sociological Research Online24 (1): 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780418823221.
14.
MittraJamesTaitJoyceMastroeniMichèleTurnerMarc L.MountfordJoanne C.BruceKevin. 2015. “Identifying Viable Regulatory and Innovation Pathways for Regenerative Medicine: A Case Study of Cultured Red Blood Cells.” New Biotechnology32 (1): 180–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2014.07.008.
15.
MittraJamesZoukasGiorgos. 2020. “Unpacking the Concept of Bioeconomy.” Technology Studies33 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.69662.
16.
StarSusan LeighGriesemerJames R.. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science19 (3): 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.
17.
WebsterAndrew.2007. Health, Technology and Society: A Sociological Critique. Health, Technology and Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
WebsterAndrewGardnerJohn. 2019. “Aligning Technology and Institutional Readiness: The Adoption of Innovation.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management31 (10): 1229–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1601694.
