Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Public Voices in Pharmaceutical Deliberations: Negotiating “Clinical Benefit” in the FDA’s Avastin Hearing.Christa B. Teston, S. Scott Graham, Raquel Baldwinson, Andria Li & Jessamyn Swift - 2014 - Journal of Medical Humanities 35 (2):149-170.
    This article offers a hybrid rhetorical-qualitative discourse analysis of the FDA’s 2011 Avastin Hearing, which considered the revocation of the breast cancer indication for the popular cancer drug Avastin. We explore the multiplicity of stakeholders, the questions that motivated deliberations, and the kinds of evidence presented during the hearing. Pairing our findings with contemporary scholarship in rhetorical stasis theory, Mol’s (2002) construct of multiple ontologies, and Callon, Lascoumes, and Barthe’s (2011) “hybrid forums,” we demonstrate that the FDA’s deliberative procedures elides (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Being Expert: L’Aquila and Issues of Inclusion in Science-Policy Decision Making.Danielle DeVasto - 2016 - Social Epistemology 30 (4):372-397.
    Responding to the call to provide guidance for incorporating diverse perspectives in science-policy debate, Collins and Evans’ normative model of expertise provides a useful starting point for deciding who gets to come to the table—expertise and experience. However, new materialist critiques highlight the epistemic challenges of such an approach. Drawing on the work of Annemarie Mol, I propose that the theory of multiple ontologies and a practise-based orientation can enrich conversations about expertise and inclusion in science-policy decision-making, particularly in matters (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations