interdisciplinarity and W1D4 talks

OK, so, plenty of very interesting ideas so far, but I have to say that today's talks were electrifying--and I'd guess not just for me given that people stuck around until almost 2:00 to hear out the speakers in the Q&A. I have lots of thoughts so I'll necessarily be partial--in both senses of the term (and with a nod to Haraway)--and I reserve the right to amend and nuance this later. My thoughts just at this moment are about interdisciplinarity, and I think folks in the humanities and the human sciences are better about it than the sciences. I'll just put that out there as a claim. Herman Gray in just a very narrow talk referenced several people who are social scientists and deeply engaged with and invested in science. And he also referenced a 20th century example--ending in 1972--of the Tuskegee syphillis experiments. I guess I'll just continue briefly to express having my fur brushed the wrong way by folks standing in for the "hard" sciences (coded technologically and in distinction from the social sciences here as IT) pointing fingers at every other discipline for not being involved in their research agendas. I'd really like to see the tables turned, and the purse strings held by social interests and the money meted out for scientific projects that show themselves to be deeply and directly engaged with what I'll call with some hesisation the public interest. I hesitate because that itself is being actively refigured in ways that aren't, I argue, in the public interest. Dr. Gray mentioned a really potent example of this process in coding consumer as a form of citizenship that can be earned by particular kinds of technological literacy and access. Yes, in some ways that is a call for knowledge not for knowlege's sake, but directed and interested. First, I'll just follow some decades of feminist science scholarship by pointing out that not only is there no such thing as disinterested science but it wouldn't be desirable if there were. In Dr.Gray's words, this concern is about intent. I'll also insist that this isn't to close down knowledge for its own sake--after all, this kind of discovery and scholarship is in some ways about serious play, about joy, about labor, and I'd like some funding to do that too. ;p There are groups creating models of community science and making researchers accountable to those interests. There are obvious vagaries in this--like Intelligent Design--but it is also fecund. Think just for a second of a bunch of women running around with specula or Annie Sprinkle showing people her os. What I'm getting at is this moment of calling science to account not merely in a debunking mode but in the mode of engaging the science and coming up with better accounts of how knowledge is created and how to create better knowledge. This is an act of love, labor, and dialogue I'll call critique. And I'd happily administrate the funds to dish out to scientists who want a piece of my research agenda pie. Now, about Tracy Fullerton's talk. What a refreshing blend of thoughtful examination and exhilarating exposition. It is so nice to hear someone take seriously and in advance the kinds of concerns people voiced on Day 1, and without dismissing possibilities and problems.