In the context of the question of the extent to which science studies is able to mount an adequate critique of contemporary developments in science and technology, and in view of the proliferating interest in ethics across the social sciences, this article has two aims. Firstly to address some of the implications for ethics of Bruno Latour's, and to a lesser extent Alfred North Whitehead’s, conceptions of reality, both of which have a bearing on the long-standing dichotomy between facts and values. Drawing on Whitehead's work, it also, secondly, seeks to make a positive argument for ethics and to ask again, in the light of this discussion, where the ethical dimensions of Latour's work might be located. Towards the end of the article, I suggest that Latour's concept of exteriority obliges him to pursue a politics of reality which is the special providence of ‘moralists’, rather than a politics of virtual reality in which all entities, human and non-human, are engaged.
Barad, K. (1996) ‘Meeting the Universe Halfway: Realism and Social Constructivism without Contradiction’, in L. H. Nelson and J. Nelson (eds) Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht, Boston, MA and London: Kluwer .
2.
Barry, A. (2004) ‘Ethical Capitalism’, in W. Larner and W. Walters (eds) Global Governmentality. London: Routledge , pp. 195–211.
3.
Barry, B. (forthcoming) ‘Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity’ , Theory, Culture & Society, special issue on Alfred Whitehead.
4.
Cheah, P. (1996) ‘Mattering’ , diacritics26(1): 108–139 .
5.
Delanda, M. (2002) Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London and New York: Continuum .
6.
Elliott, C. (2004) ‘Six Problems with Pharma-funded Bioethics’ , Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci35: 125–129 .
7.
Evans, J. (2002) Playing God! Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate 1959–1995. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
8.
Foucault, M. (1998) ‘What is an Author?’, in J. D. Faubion (ed.) Aesthetics, Method and Epistemology. Harmondsworth, Mx: Penguin .
9.
Fraser, M. (2002) ‘What is the Matter of Feminist Criticism?’ , Economy and Society31(4): 606–625 .
10.
Fraser, M. (forthcoming) ‘Concerning Events’, in C. Bruun Jensen and K. Rodje (eds) Deleuzian Intersections in Science, Technology, and Anthropology.
11.
Goffey, A. (forthcoming) ‘Abstract Experience’, Theory, Culture & Society, special issue on Alfred Whitehead.
12.
Halewood, M. (2003) ‘Subjectivity and Matter in the work of A. N. Whitehead and G. Deleuze: Developing a Non-essentialist Ontology for Social Theory’, unpublished PhD thesis, Goldsmith's College, University of London.
13.
Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge .
Kirby, V. (1997) Telling Flesh: The Substance of the Corporeal. New York and London: Routledge .
16.
Komesaroff, P. A. (1995) ‘Introduction: Postmodern Medical Ethics?’, in P. A. Komesaroff (ed.) Troubled Bodies: Critical Perspectives on Postmodernism, Medical Ethics, and the Body. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press .
17.
Latour, B. (1999) Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press .
18.
Latour, B. (2004a) ‘Why has Critique run out of Steam?: from Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’ , Critical Inquiry30 (Winter): 225–248 .
19.
Latour, B. (2004b) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, trans. C. Porter . Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press .
20.
Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
21.
Lury, C. (2005) ‘“Contemplating a Self-portrait as a Pharmacist”: a Trade Mark Style of doing Art and Science’ , Theory, Culture & Society22(1): 93–110 .
22.
MacIntyre, A. (2003[1981]) After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Gerald Duckworth .
23.
Martin, E. (1995) ‘Working across the Human–Other Divide’, in L. Birke and R. Hubbard (eds) Reinventing Biology: Respect for Life and the Creation of Knowledge. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press .
24.
McMillan, J. (2004) ‘Is Corporate Money Bad for Bioethics?’ , Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci35: 167–175 .
25.
Michael, M. (2000) Reconnecting Culture, Technology and Nature: From Society to Heterogeneity. London: Routledge .
26.
Mol, A.-M. (2004) ‘Good and Bad Realities: on Appreciation’ , paper presented at 4S and EASST, ‘Public Proofs: Science, Technology, and Democracy’, 25–28 August, Paris.
27.
Parker, M. (forthcoming) ‘Responsibility and the Ethics of Bioethics’ , Social Science and Medicine.
28.
Pels, P. (2000) ‘The Trickster's Dilemma: Ethics and the Technologies of the Anthropological Self’, in M. Strathern (ed.) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London and New York: Routledge .
29.
Proctor, R. (1991) Value-Free Science?: Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press .
30.
Putnam, H. (2004) The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press .
31.
Rose, N. (1998) Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
32.
Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
33.
Rose, P. (2002) On Whitehead. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .
34.
Stengers, I. (1997) Power and Invention: Situating Science. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press .
35.
Stengers, I , (1999) ‘Whitehead and the Laws of Nature’ , Salzburger Theolgische Zietschrift3(2): 193–206 .
36.
Stengers, I. (2000) The Invention of Modern Science, trans. D. W. Smith . Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press .
37.
Stengers, I. (2002) ‘Beyond Conversation: the Risks of Peace’, in C. Keller and A. Daniell (eds) Process and Difference: Between Cosmological and Poststructuralist Postmodernisms. New York: State University of New York Press .
38.
Stengers, I. (2004) ‘A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality’ , paper presented at ‘Whitehead, Invention and Social Process’, Centre for the Study of Invention and Social Process (June), Goldsmith's College, London.
39.
Stengers, I. (forthcoming) ‘Whitehead's Account of the Sixth Day’ , Configurations, Special Issue on Alfred Whitehead.
40.
Strathern, M. (2000) ‘Afterword: Accountability and Ethnography’, in M. Strathern (ed.) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London and New York: Routledge .
41.
Whitehead, A. N. (1920) The Concept of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
42.
Whitehead, A. N. (1938) Modes of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
43.
Whitehead, A. N. (1978) Process and Reality, corrected edn, ed. D. R. Griffin and D. W. Sherburne . New York: Free Press .
44.
Whitehead, A. N. (1985) Science and the Modern World. London: Free Association Books .
