Citizens, policy-makers and scientists all face the problem of assessing maverick scientific claims. Via a case study, I show the different resources available to experts and non-experts when they make these judgements and reflect upon what this means for technological decision-making in the public domain.
BoyceT (2006) Journalism and expertise. Journalism Studies7(6): 889–906.
3.
BoyceT (2007) Health, Risk and News: The MMR Vaccine and the Media. New York: Peter Lang.
4.
CarolanMS (2006) Sustainable agriculture, science, and the co-production of ‘expert’ knowledge: The value of interactional expertise. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability11(4): 421–431.
5.
CollinsHM (1974) The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Social Studies of Science4(2): 165–186.
6.
CollinsHM (1975) The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics. Sociology9(2): 205–224.
7.
CollinsHM (1999) Tantalus and the aliens: Publications, audiences and the search for gravitational waves. Social Studies of Science29(2): 163–197.
8.
CollinsHM (2004) Gravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
9.
CollinsHM (2010) Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
10.
CollinsHM (2011a) Gravity’s Ghost: Scientific Discovery in the Twenty-First Century (Second paperback edition published as, 2013, Gravity’s Ghost and Big Dog: Scientific Discovery and Social Analysis in the Twenty-First Century). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
11.
CollinsHM (2011b) Language and practice. Social Studies of Science41(2): 271–300.
12.
CollinsHM (2014) Are We All Scientific Experts Now? Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
CollinsHMEvansR (2002) The third wave of Science Studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32(2): 235–296.
14.
CollinsHMEvansR (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
CollinsHMPinchTJ (1979) The construction of the paranormal: Nothing unscientific is happening. In: WallisR (ed.) On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge. Staffordshire: University of Keele, pp. 237–270.
16.
CollinsHMPinchTJ (1993) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
CollinsHWeinelMEvansR (2010) The politics and policy of the Third Wave: New technologies and society. Critical Policy Studies4(2): 185–201.
18.
DurantD (2010) Public participation in the making of science policy. Perspectives on Science18 (2): 189–225.
19.
EdwardsASheptyckiJ (2009) Third Wave criminology: Guns, crime and social order. Criminology and Criminal Justice9(3): 379–397.
20.
EpsteinS (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA; Los Angeles, CA and London: University of California Press.
21.
GierynTF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48(6): 781–795.
22.
GierynTF (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
23.
GormanME (2008) Scientific and technological expertise. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology1(1): 23–31.
24.
IrwinA (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
25.
JenkinsLD (2007) Bycatch: Interactional expertise, dolphins and the U.S. tuna fishery. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A38(4): 698–712.
26.
LangmuirI. (1953). Pathological science: Colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. Published as Langmuir, Irving, and Robert N. Hall. “Pathological science.”Physics Today, 42.10 (2008): 36–48.
27.
PinchTJCollinsHM (1984) Private science and public knowledge: The committee for the scientific investigation of the claims of the paranormal and its use of the literature. Social Studies of Science14(4): 521–546.
28.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
29.
SchilhabT (2007) Interactional expertise through the looking glass: A peek at mirror neurons. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A38(4): 741–747.
30.
SelingerEDreyfusHLCollinsHM (2007) Interactional expertise and embodiment. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A38(4): 722–740.
31.
ShapinS (1984) Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science14(4): 481–520.
WeinelM (2010) Technological decision-making under scientific uncertainty: Preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in South Africa. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, UK.
35.
WynneB (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: LashSSzerszynskiBWynneB (eds) Risk, Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGE, pp. 44–83.
