Undone Science: Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions by David J. Hess (review)

Undone Science takes a political sociological approach to science and technology, scientific expertise and knowledge, exploring the contentious nature of innovation and regulation as they embrace both official and grassroots actors and expertise. In so doing, it promotes a much-needed dialogue between Social Movement Studies (SMS) and Science and Technology Studies (STS)—two disciplines that have seldom talked to each other, despite their parallel development and the potential mutual benefit of such cross-pollination. The six chapters tackle a wide range of compelling case studies, from solar energy to organic food, from cancer therapies to climate change.

This volume is a vital read for at least four reasons. First, it encourages a dialogue that is simultaneously arduous and necessary, one that can enrich both disciplines. For example, as the author skillfully explains, SMS brings into STS an attention to inequality and to publics “other than” those officially associated with scientific knowledge. Conversely, STS contributes to break the “black box” approach of much SMS work on technology and innovation. In so doing, the author puts new (conceptual) weapons in the hands of scholars interested in the controversies surrounding some grand challenges of our times, from climate change to vaccines. He also responds to a lack of systematic treatment of scientific controversies in, for example, political sociology.

Second, the book proposes a pioneering “way of thinking about the SMS-STS relationship” (p. 23) that emerges from and moves past case studies. This creative effort goes well beyond merely syncretizing off-the-shelf concepts. On the contrary, while grounding his work on a comprehensive literature review of the two fields, the author develops a novel, transdisciplinary conceptual toolkit that includes original notions such as “undone science” and “mobilized publics.” Particularly notable is the effort to bring a multi-faceted, dynamic notion of agency into the spotlight, looking at how said agency develops in relation to knowledge production and the related negotiations.

Third, the book addresses current and urgent problems of political nature—including contentious knowledge and the mobilization of public support for policy decisions—for which the traditional “siloed” treatment is no longer sufficient. This is particularly relevant in times of rampant populism and decreasing faith in science and the scientific project. Looking beyond the case studies that illustrate the book, the proposed approach appears particularly useful to situate and understand, for example, counter-surveillance publics, digital rights and internet governance mobilizations, and “data activism”—in other words, new publics that coalesce around highly specialized and technical issue areas. The case studies on citizen science and smart meters already move in this direction.

Finally, the book is well-written and engaging. It makes for an excellent read as a whole as well as on a chapter-by-chapter basis (e.g., in a course syllabus). It is a must in any graduate program on both disciplines, as well as in neighboring fields such as cultural sociology, (new) media studies, sociology of innovation, and critical data studies. It is highly recommended also to students of informatics and engineering, as it illuminates the social dimensions of technology development.

The book has only two weaknesses. First, it is built on a somewhat shallow understanding of the evolution of the nature of information today, its validation and diffusion. The so-called “datafication” and the “platformization” of human relations subtend in fact to a fundamental change in the deep fabric of society, with dramatic consequences at the ontological and epistemological level (think of the “fake news” phenomenon). This brings into light a number of questions, for example, how do “intellectual contention” and the “official public” evolve in the age of social media? How can “counterpublics” be effectively mobilized? What is the agency of digital infrastructure in this process? Second, although the author demonstrates awareness of “alternative” approaches such as postcolonial thinking, the book remains anchored, as per the author’s admission, to a Western perspective, with largely U.S. examples. Adopting...