(2002) 'Cyberscience and Social Boundaries: the Implications of
Laboratory Talk on the Internet'
Sociological Research Online, vol. 7, no. 2, <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/2/hine.html>
To cite articles published in Sociological Research Online, please reference the above information and include paragraph numbers if necessary
Received: 3/11/2000 Accepted: 8/7/2002 Published: 31/08/02
Other understandings about animals, rarely communicated in accounts of laboratory methods, pertained to rats as holistic living creatures. These understandings were communicated informally, and were not validated through rigorous testing. They were part of the everyday life of the laboratory, consisting of various sorts of tacit 'know-how', recipe knowledge and experimental craft that enabled practitioners to deal with the contingency of 'handling' laboratory rats.
scientists themselves create that appearance of impersonality, detachment and universality which sociologists have customarily regarded as literally descriptive of social action and technical belief in science. Gilbert and Mulkay (1980: 270).
|Figure 1 Number of postings in protocols archive per year, 1993-2001|
|Figure 2 Number of postings in protocols archive per month in 1996|
The recognition of trustworthy persons is a necessary component in building and maintaining systems of knowledge, while the bases of that trustworthiness are historically and contextually variable.
Simply chopping the top off a blue 1ml pipette works.in addition to the automatic headers, is unusual in this newsgroup. The majority of messages are signed off with at least a first name, and many authors (199 out of 644 or 30.9% in the sample) include some kind of signature in their postings. These range from a name alone, to the use of a full signature at the end of the message giving contact details, affiliations and qualifications. If we consider authors not identified by name and surname either in header information or in a signature, we are left with only 7.6% of the sample or 49 out of 644 authors remaining anonymous.
Could someone help me out with the reaction conditions for Mung bean nuclease? I need to convert a NcoI digested site to blunt ends, but I seem to be losing most of my plasmid...
Some info on reaction times and units of enzyme / ug of DNA would be very helpful!
Thanks in advance...
I can't remember the units I use, but I incubate @ 30 deg. for 35 min, and then 95 deg. for 10 min to incactivate.
Mung Bean Nuclease (like most other DNA modifying enzymzes it seems) generally does what it wants when it wants. I have had the same problem as you but generally succeed in the end. Routinely I use approx. 5U Mung Bean/ug DNA, leave at RT (25?C) for 1 h, add EDTA to 10mM and heat to 68?C for 10 min. I don't know if this is the correct method (!!) but it has worked for me in the past.
It is good idea to titer the amount of mung Bean nuclease one uses in the reaction since it has a tendancy to be overzealous in its activity when excess enzyme is around. I used it to make a blunt end and it resulted in clones with a variety of different termini when sequenced.
I just transformed with ligations from several rxns with diffrent amounts of nuclease and sequenced several clones, many were diffrent but I got the one I wanted!
Anthony Williams Ph.D
I've been using [brand name] DNA preps for years. The quality is great: as everyone who's used them knows, though the yield is at best inconsistent. At random intervals, and for no apparent reason, there will be absolutely no DNA produced. I've been willing to deal with that when I was getting 5 out of 6, or whatever, with good yields; with important DNA, I'd always run duplicates to be reasonably sure of getting something.
In the last two days, I've run 10 [brand name] DNA preps - 8 midi-preps, two maxi-preps - and got one (1) with detectable DNA. Meanwhile two identical cultures, run on a different company's resin, gave 160 ug and 175 ug of DNA from 200 ml bugs (low copy-number plasmid.
One out of ten is not acceptable. Over the years I've gone around and around with [brand name] reps. I've tried dozens of variations on the protocol, I've tried everything they suggest, I follow the directions exactly, and in spite of it I just spent two days pouring DNA down the sink.
The hell with it. Until I hear from users that the [brand name] preps are reliable, I'm not going to use them any more.
Blowing off steam,
It your right to be pissed but it might be more productive to find a source of the problem in your protocol. Unless no one else uses your reagents I'd start with finding a dumbass with hands growing out his/her rear end that used the kit before - every place has at least one. Like last week suddenly [brand name] kit suddenly stopped sequencing while newly purchased fmol kept on rolling with the same template and primers. Until that is the same schmuck got his hands on it too. Now, if you can't find one.....
Now you can resume being pissed.
I have had low or no yields with [brand name] niniprep spin columns!
Yep, me too.
We went back to the old [brand name] kit and then started to make our own version (from the original PNAS reference. We can't call it by the original name, but it is the same I reckon. Yields are consistently good, honest.
Full reference at [URL for World Wide Web site]
courtesy of Dr James Waters who has trouble shooted this. P.S. Use TBE in the gel for best results.
Switch to CsCl...it's really not as labor intensive as everyone thinks. Given your futile preps, it will no doubt save you time and money. And you will never have to worry about the quality of your DNA...CsCl banding is the gold standard, (ever notice what [brand name] compares their preps to?) Brad Staten
The [brand name] maxiprep is definitely inconsistent both with regard to yield and purity. I have the impression that some of the problems relate to the plasmid; certain plasmids (even high copy numbers) don't give high yields with the [brand name] maxiprep. I have also the impression that one should not use the filter tips but should stick to the centrifuge step. Two times now I had no yield using the filter tips, whereas the same prep was fine when using the centrifuge step instead. Lately I am having a lot of trouble with the purity; even multiple phenol/chloroform extractions does not increase purity.
Nope. I've gone through debugging of the [brand name] preps a dozen times; in no case have I ever found a clear source of a problem. All the points you mention I've ruled out already - in the past five years or so I've got scores of tips and suggestions and warning from the [brand name] tech representatives and other users, and I'm careful with my reagents and all that.
The bottom line is that if the procedure is so fragile that it can't tolerate different phases of the moon, I'm not interested in using it. It's not productive to spend my time fixing [brand name]'s problems. It's productive to get my DNA and do my experiments.
Thanks to everyone who's sent me suggestions, commiserations, and "Hey-that-happened-to-me-too!" comments.
BIOSCI promotes communication between professionals in the biological sciences. All postings to the newsgroups should be made in that spirit. While the general public may "listen in" to the discussions, these newsgroups are intended primarily for communications between researchers. There are other forums on Usenet such as sci.bio.misc for the asking and answering of biological questions from lay persons. (<http://www.bio.net>)
There appears to be a clear tension between the allure of a "democratic" analysis which would allow readers to formulate their own understandings of the raw data, and an ethical commitment to protecting the subjects of study from unnecessary exposure. The words of informants may have been presented in a public forum, but it is unlikely that they expected their words to subsequently become fodder for a sociological analysis of scientific discourse online such as presented here. On the other hand, the talk presented here is, I would suggest, not in itself terribly shocking, and its (more?) public exposure in this paper is unlikely to cause particular distress or harm to those concerned. But should I then promote even more public exposure, by directing readers to the original source to examine the phenomenon for themselves?
This discussion is somewhat ironic, since the paper focuses precisely on the implications of the "publicness" of online talk about laboratory practices. My eventual conclusion suggests that no more harm is likely to accrue to participants on the basis of this analysis than from the initial fact of the publicness of their discourse. In this sense, the decision not to consult participants on the use of their data is situated within the context of the analysis developed in the paper, where I conclude that particular discursive practices, rather than the mere fact of publicness, are likely to keep this form of public science talk from threatening the special status of science. My analysis is unlikely to matter sufficiently to the participants in the discussion. The ethical decision taken here is, then, wholly contextual: I have suggested elsewhere (Hine, 2000) that this may be a more useful and sensitive means of making ethical decisions on the use of online data than the application of absolute rules. Finally, many ethical discussions also revolve around the reasonable expectations of speakers as to the uses to which their words might be put. In this case, I can reasonably expect that anyone who reads thus far in the current paper is sociologically inclined, and hence alive to the ethical issues which surround the sociological analysis of public discourse. Consequently, I have decided to leave the question unresolved and abdicate some ethical responsibility to readers: I may or may not have altered identifying details of individuals and the group in this version of the article, and it is for readers to decide for themselves whether to test which I have done so and to consider whether this would make a difference to their reading of the analysis. This decision is made as a contribution to ongoing discussions about the appropriate ethical stance for Internet researchers, within the context of an over-arching belief that nothing in the analysis is likely to be of harm to the participants. Were the subject of discussion to be more personally sensitive to the participants, or my form of analysis more directed at understanding individuals rather than broad patterns of discourse, I might have taken the decision to discuss my analysis more fully with participants, or to withhold direct quotations from the analysis.
BEAULIEU, A. (2001) 'Voxels in the Brain: Neuroscience, Informatics and Changing Notions of Objectivity', Social Studies of Science Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 635-680.
CAMBROSIO, A. and KEATING, P. (1988) 'Going Monoclonal: Art, Science and Magic in the Day-to-Day use of Hybridoma Technology', Social Problems Vol. 35, No. 3 pp. 244- 260.
CASTELLS, M. (2001) The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
COLLINS, H.M. (1975) 'The Seven Sexes: a Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics', Sociology Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 205-224.,p> COLLINS, H.M. (1985) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: Sage. COLLINS, H.M. and PINCH, T. (1998) The Golem: What you Should Know about Science, Second edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
COLLINS, H.M. and EVANS, R. (2002) 'The Third Wave of Science Studies', Social Studies of Science Vol. 32, No. 2 pp. 235-296.
DAVID, M. and ZEITLYN, D. (1996) 'What are they Doing? Dilemmas in Analyzing Bibliographic Searching: Cultural and Technical Networks in Academic Life' Sociological Research Online, Vol. 1, No. 4, <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/1/ 4/2.html>
ETAN Expert Working Group (1999) Transforming European Science through Information and Communication Technologies: Challenges and Opportunities of the Digital Age. Prepared for the European Commission. Directorate General for Research, Directorate AP-RTD Actions: Policy Co- ordination and Strategy.
FUJIMURA, J. (1996) Crafting Science: a Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
GALISON, P. (1999) 'Buildings and the Subject of Science', in P. Galison and E. Thompson (editors) The Architecture of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 1-15.
GIERYN, T. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
GILBERT, G.N. and MULKAY, M. (1980) 'Contexts of Scientific Discourse: Social Accounting in Experimental Papers', in K.D. Knorr, R. Krohn, and R. Whitley (editors) The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Dordrecht: Reidel, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook Vol. 4, pp. 269-284.
GILBERT, G.N. and MULKAY, M. (1984) Opening Pandora's Box: a Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GOFFMAN, E. (1971) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. (1956) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
HERT, P. (1997) 'The Dynamics of On-Line Interaction in a Scholarly Debate', The Information Society Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 329-360.
HINE, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
JORDAN, K. and LYNCH, M. (1998) 'The Dissemination, Standardisation and Routinisation of a Molecular Biological Technique', Social Studies of Science Vol. 28, Nos. 5/6, pp. 773-800.
KLING, R. and McKIM, G. (2000) 'Not Just a Matter of Time: Field Differences in the Shaping of Electronic Media in Supporting Scientific Communication', Journal of the American Society for Information Science Vol. 51, No. 14, <http://www.slis.indiana.edu/kling/publications.html >
KNORR-CETINA, K. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: an Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
KNORR-CETINA, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: how the Sciences make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LATOUR, B. and WOOLGAR, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: the Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
LEWENSTEIN, B.V. (1995) 'Do Public Electronic Bulletin Boards Help Create Scientific Knowledge? The Cold Fusion Case', Science, Technology and Human Values Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 123-149.
LIVINGSTONE, D.N. (1995) 'The Spaces of Knowledge: Contributions towards a Historical Geography of Science', Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 5-34.
LYNCH, M. (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: a Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
LYNCH, M. (1988) 'Sacrifice and the Transformation of the Animal Body into a Scientific Object: Laboratory Culture and Ritual Practice in the Neurosciences', Social Studies of Science Vol. 18, No. 2 pp. 265-289.
MATZAT, U. (1998) 'Informal Academic Communication and Scientific Usage of Internet Discussion Groups', paper given at IRISS '98 International Conference, 25-27 March 1998, Bristol, UK. <http://www.sosig.ac.uk/iriss/papers/paper19.htm>.
MAXWELL, R. (1990) Information Technology as a Way of Reducing the Costs and Time in the Dissemination of Scientific and Technological Information. Fourth Annual Dainton lecture. Boston Spa: British Library.
MEYROWITZ, J. (1985) No Sense of Place: the Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behaviour. New York: Oxford University Press.
NENTWICH, M. (1999) Cyberscience: The Future of Research in the Age of Information and Communication Technologies (1998-2002) <http://www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/cyberscience.htm>.
OECD (2000) The Global Research Village Conference 2000: Access to Publicly Financed Research Organised
jointly by the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Directorate Research and Science Policy
and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Directorate for Science,
Technology and Industry (DSTI), Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy (CSTP)
POTTER, J. (1996) Representing Reality. London: Sage.
SHAPIN, S. (1995) 'Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge',
Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 21, pp. 289-321.
SHAPIN, S. (1998) 'Placing the View from Nowhere: Historical and
Sociological Problems in the Location of Science', Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 5-12.
STAR, S.L. and GRIESEMER, J.R. (1989) 'Institutional Ecology,
Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology, 1907-39', Social Studies of Science Vol. 19, pp. 387-320.
TURKLE, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the
Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
WOOLGAR, S. editor. (2002) Virtual Society? Technology,
Cyberbole, Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WOUTERS, P. (2000) 'The impact of the Internet on the sciences'.
Paper presented at 4S/EASST conference Worlds in Transition: Technoscience, Citizenship and
Culture in the 21st Century. September 27-39, 2000, University of Vienna, Austria.
ZEITLYN, D, DAVID, M. and BEX, J. 1999 Knowledge Lost in
Information: Patterns of Use and Non-Use of Networked Bibliographic Resources. British Library
Research and Innovation Centre Research Report no. RIC/G/313.
ZENZEN, M. and RESTIVO, S. (1982) 'The Mysterious Morphology of
Immiscible Liquids: A Study of Scientific Practice' Social Science Information Vol. 21 No. 3,
POTTER, J. (1996) Representing Reality. London: Sage.
SHAPIN, S. (1995) 'Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge', Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 21, pp. 289-321.
SHAPIN, S. (1998) 'Placing the View from Nowhere: Historical and Sociological Problems in the Location of Science', Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 5-12.
STAR, S.L. and GRIESEMER, J.R. (1989) 'Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39', Social Studies of Science Vol. 19, pp. 387-320.
TURKLE, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
WOOLGAR, S. editor. (2002) Virtual Society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
WOUTERS, P. (2000) 'The impact of the Internet on the sciences'. Paper presented at 4S/EASST conference Worlds in Transition: Technoscience, Citizenship and Culture in the 21st Century. September 27-39, 2000, University of Vienna, Austria.
ZEITLYN, D, DAVID, M. and BEX, J. 1999 Knowledge Lost in Information: Patterns of Use and Non-Use of Networked Bibliographic Resources. British Library Research and Innovation Centre Research Report no. RIC/G/313.
ZENZEN, M. and RESTIVO, S. (1982) 'The Mysterious Morphology of Immiscible Liquids: A Study of Scientific Practice' Social Science Information Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 447-473.