‘Zoonati’ vs. ‘epistemic tresspasers’: Science identity in contentious online advocacy campaigns on the origins of SARS-CoV-2

Abstract

This article explores how science is mobilized as a collective identity, normative ideal, and instrumental tactic in contentious online global advocacy campaigns on the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It incorporates qualitative analysis of over 2300 public Twitter postings by core zoonosis and lab origin proponents who identify as scientists. These online exchanges provide a real-time window into how the collective identity of scientist is constructed and mobilized as a master frame. Similarly, this paper explores ways in which the boundaries of science, conspiracy, and politics are set and contested in a context of complex and fast-moving global events.

Keywords

Covid-19 origins social media scientific norms identities boundary work

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andersen

K. G.

Rambaut

Lipkin

I. W.

Holmes

E. C.

Garry

R. F

. (2020). The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine, 26(4), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9

Azocar

M. J.

Ferree

M. M.

(2015). Gendered expertise. Gender & Society, 29(6), 841–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215602104

Bauer

Bogner

(2020). Let’s (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520907255

Benford

R. D.

Snow

D. A.

(2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.

Bliss

(2015). Science and struggle: Emerging forms of race and activism in the genomic era. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 661, 86–108.

Blue

Davidson

(2021) Co-producing uncertainty in public science: The case of genomic selection in forestry. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4) 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520982540

Bonneuil

Foyer

Wynne

(2014). Genetic fallout in bio-cultural landscapes: Molecular imperialism and the cultural politics of (not) seeing transgenes in Mexico. Social Studies of Science, 44(6), 901–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312714548258

Branswell

(2014). Bio-unsafety level 3: Could the next lab accident result in a pandemic? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bio-unsafety-level-3-could-the-next-lab-accident-result-in-a-pandemic/

Brown

M. B.

(2015). Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 45(1), 3–30.

10.

Calisher

Carroll

Colwell

Corley

R. B.

Daszak

Drosten

Enjuanes

Farrar

Field

Golding

Gorbalenya

Haagmans

Hughes

J. M.

Karesh

W. B.

Keusch

G. T.

Lam

S. K.

Lubroth

Mackenzie

J. S.

Madoff

… Turner

(2020). Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19. Lancet, 395(10226), e42–e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9

11.

Cohoon

Howison

(2021). Norms and open systems in open science. Information & Culture, 56, 115–137.

12.

Collins

Evans

Weinel

(2017). STS as science or politics? Social Studies of Science, 47(4), 580–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717710131

13.

Chan

Ridley

(2022). Viral: The search for the origin of Covid-19. HarperCollins Publishers.

14.

Crits-Christoph

Gangavarapu

Pekar

Moshiri

Singh

Levy

J. I.

Goldstein

S. A.

Suchard

M. A.

Popescu

Robertson

D. L.

Lemey

Wertheim

J. O.

Garry

R. F.

Rasmussen

A. L.

Andersen

K. G.

Holmes

E. C.

Rambaut

Worobey

Débarre

(2023). Genetic evidence of susceptible wildlife in SARS-CoV-2 positive samples at the Huanan Wholesale Seafood Market, Wuhan: Analysis and interpretation of data released by the Chinese Center for Disease Control, March 20. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7754299

15.

Dawson

(2018). Biocapitalism and de-extinction. In Grusin

(Ed.), After extinction (pp. 173–200). University of Minnesota Press.

16.

Dodge

(2017). Crowded advocacy: Framing dynamic in the fracking controversy in New York. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(3), 888–915.

17.

Fominaya

C. F.

(2015). Autonomous social movements and the paradox of anti-identitarian collective identity. In McGarry

Jasper

J. M.

(Eds.), The identity dilemma: Social movements and collective identity (pp. 65–84). Temple University Press.

18.

Frickel

Gibbon

Howard

Kempner

Ottinger

Hess

D. J.

(2010). Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 5(4), 444–473.

19.

Frickel

Moore

(2006). The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. University of Wisconsin Press.

20.

Frutos

Javelle

Barberot

Gavotte

Tissot-Dupont

Devaux

C. A.

(2022). Origin of COVID-19: Dismissing the Mojiang mine theory and the laboratory accident narrative. Environmental Research, 204, Article 112141.

21.

Gamson

W. A.

(1995). Constructing social protest. In Johnston

Klandermans

(Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 85–106). University of Minnesota Press.

22.

Geissler

P. W.

(2013). Public secrets in public health: Knowing not to know while making scientific knowledge. American Ethnologist, 40(1), 13–34.

23.

Gieryn

T. F.

(1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.

24.

Gieryn

T. F.

Figert

A. E.

(1986). Scientists protect their cognitive authority: The Status degradation ceremony of Sir Cyril Burt. In Böhme

Stehr

(Eds.), The knowledge society: The growing impact of scientific knowledge on social relations (pp. 67–86). D. Reidel.

25.

Giusta

M. D.

Jaworska

Greetham

D. V.

(2021). Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists’ and scientists’ social networks, topics and communicative styles. Public Understanding of Science, 30(1), 75–90.

26.

Hallonsten

(2022). On the essential role of organized skepticism in science’s “internal and lawful autonomy” (Eigengesetzlichkeit). Journal of Classical Sociology, 22(3), 282–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X211000247

27.

Holmes

E. C.

Goldstein

S. A.

Rasmussen

A. L.

Robertson

D. L

Crits-Christoph

Wertheim

J. O.

Anthony

S. J.

Barclay

W. S.

Boni

M. F.

Doherty

P. C.

Farrar

Geoghegan

J. L.

Jiang

Leibowitz

J. L.

Neil

S. J. D.

Skern

Weiss

S. R.

Worobey

Andersen

K. G.

… Rambaut

(2021). The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review. Cell, 184(19), 4848–4856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.017

28.

Horton

(2010). Defenders of nature and the comarca: Collective identity and frames in Panama. Mobilization, 15(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.17813/maiq.15.1.9kj681848387464r

29.

Hosseini

Senabre Hidalgo

Horbach

S. P. J. M.

Güttinger

Penders

(2024). Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values. Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance, 31(5), 428–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625

30.

Hurlbut

J. B.

(2015). Reimagining responsibility in synthetic biology. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(1), 113–116.

31.

Jamieson

K. H.

(2021). How conspiracists exploited COVID-19 science. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1464–1465.

32.

Jasanoff

(1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195–230.

33.

Jasanoff

Hurlbut

Saha

(2015). CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(1), 25–32.

34.

Jeon

(2019). Invisibilizing politics: Accepting and legitimating ignorance in environmental sciences. Social Studies of Science, 49(6), 839–862.

35.

Kahn

L. H.

(2021, November 19). Creating dangerous viruses in the lab is a bad way to guard against future pandemics. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

36.

Klotz

L. C.

Sylvester

E. J.

(2014). The consequences of a lab escape of a potential pandemic pathogen. Frontiers in Public Health, 2, 116.

37.

Koblentz-Stenzler

Pack

(2021). Infected by hate: Far-right attempts to leverage anti-vaccine sentiment. International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT), https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep30926

38.

Lachenal

(2015). Lessons in medical nihilism. Virus hunters, neoliberalism and the AIDS crisis in Cameroon. In Geissler

(Ed.), Para-states and medical science: Making African global health (pp. 103–141). Duke University Press.

39.

Lakoff

(2017). A fragile assemblage: Mutant bird flu and the limits of risk assessment. Social Studies of Science, 47(3), 376–397.

40.

Landry

Spivak

G. C.

(1996). The Spivak reader: Selected works of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Routledge.

41.

Merton

R. K.

(1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Ed. N. W. Storer. University of Chicago Press.

42.

Mitroff

I. I.

(1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579–595.

43.

Morello-Frosch

Brown

Zavestoski

(2012). Introduction: Environmental justice and contested illnesses. In Brown

Morello-Frosch

Zavetoski

, & The Contested Illnesses Research Group (Eds.), Contested illnesses: Citizens, science, and health social movements (pp. 3–14). University of California Press.

44.

Mulkay

M. J.

(1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15(4–5), 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847601500406

45.

Musunuri

Sandbrink

J. B.

Monrad

J. T.

Palmer

M. J.

Koblentz

G. D.

(2021). Rapid proliferation of pandemic research: Implications for dual-use risks. Perspectives, 12(5), Article e01864-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01864-21

46.

Nowlin

M. C.

(2021). Political beliefs, views about technocracy, and energy and climate policy preferences. Public Understanding of Science, 30(3), 331–348.

47.

Pekar

Magee

Parker

Moshiri

Wertheim

J. O.

(2022). The molecular epidemiology of multiple zoonotic origins of SARS-CoV-2. Science, 377(6609), 960–966. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8337

48.

Polletta

Jasper

J. M.

(2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.

49.

Oreskes

Conway

E. M.

(2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to climate change (reprint ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.

50.

Ritson

(2016). ‘Crackpots’ and ‘active researchers’: The controversy over links between arXiv and the scientific blogosphere. Social Studies of Science, 46(4), 607–628.

51.

Sarewitz

(2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385–403.

52.

Smallman

(2020). ‘Nothing to do with the science’: How an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government. Social Studies of Science, 50(4), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719879768

53.

Snow

D. A.

Benford

R. D.

(1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.

54.

Suldovsky

Landrum

Stroud

N. J.

(2019). Public perceptions of who counts as a scientist for controversial science. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519856768

55.

Sweet

P. L.

Giffort

(2021). The bad expert. Social Studies of Science, 51(3), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720970282

56.

van Stekelenburg

Roggeband

. (2013). Introduction: The future of social movement research. In van Stekelenburg

Roggeband

Klandermans

(Eds.), The future of social movement research: Dynamics, mechanisms, and processes (pp. xi–xxii). University of Minnesota Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt46npj4

57.

Walter

Lörcher

Brüggemann

(2019). Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists’ interactions in the climate change debate. Public Understanding of Science, 28(6), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519844131

58.

Worobey

Levy

J. I.

Malpica Serrano

Crits-Christoph

Pekar

J. E.

Goldstein

S. A.

Rasmussen

A. L.

Kraemer

M. U. G.

Newman

Koopmans

M. P. G.

Suchard

M. A.

Wertheim

J. O.

Lemey

Robertson

D. L.

Garry

R. F.

Holmes

E. C.

Rambaut

Andersen

K. G.

(2022). The Huanan seafood wholesale market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Science, 377(6609), 951–959. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8715

59.

Zschau

Adams

A. E.

Shriver

T. E.

(2012). Reframing the biotechnology debate: The deconstructive efforts of the Council for Responsible Genetics. Symbolic Interaction, 35(2), 221–239.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB