Kiheung Kim
I am a research fellow in the Department of Chemical Engineering conducting a project, "Social Studies of Material Science". I have been trained as a sociologist of science and technology. My PhD was completed in the Science Studies Unit at the University of Edinburgh. I also worked as a postdoc research fellow in the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL for 3 years. Since December 2006, I have moved to the Imperial College to conduct an ethnography study with people in the PaCE group (Polymer and Composites Engineering Group).
I have worked in the field of social studies of biomedicine. Particularly, he worked at Science Studies Unit in the University of Edinburgh and the Wellcome Trust Centre for the Hisotry of Medicine at University College London. I researched on the socio-history of TSE (Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies)/Prion disease (known as mad cow disease). Although the prion disease (including BSE and variant CJD) becomes one of the most controversial and fascinating issues thanks to the recent outbreak of BSE and vCJD, the disease has a long history and there are records of the scrapie-like disease from as far back as 1752. His research is mainly focusing on the history of scrapie research and prion research in Britain and American. This project deals with history of veterinary and medical science with the view of the sociologically informed history of medicine. The developing and shaping concept of prion disease, which is still controversial in the scientific fielent of chemical Engineering in Imperial College London.d, is always associated with big social and medical transformation such as molecularisation of biomedicine. Currently I am working on the relationship between scrapie research and the Agricultural Research Council in Britain.
Supervisors: Steve Sturdy and David Bloor
I have worked in the field of social studies of biomedicine. Particularly, he worked at Science Studies Unit in the University of Edinburgh and the Wellcome Trust Centre for the Hisotry of Medicine at University College London. I researched on the socio-history of TSE (Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies)/Prion disease (known as mad cow disease). Although the prion disease (including BSE and variant CJD) becomes one of the most controversial and fascinating issues thanks to the recent outbreak of BSE and vCJD, the disease has a long history and there are records of the scrapie-like disease from as far back as 1752. His research is mainly focusing on the history of scrapie research and prion research in Britain and American. This project deals with history of veterinary and medical science with the view of the sociologically informed history of medicine. The developing and shaping concept of prion disease, which is still controversial in the scientific fielent of chemical Engineering in Imperial College London.d, is always associated with big social and medical transformation such as molecularisation of biomedicine. Currently I am working on the relationship between scrapie research and the Agricultural Research Council in Britain.
Supervisors: Steve Sturdy and David Bloor
less
InterestsView All (37)
Uploads
Books by Kiheung Kim
In Korean abstract (if you can read Korean, you can find lots of interesting stories about mad cow controversy in South Korea)
<광우병 논쟁>은 두려움을 유발시키는 데 초점을 맞추기보다, 광우병의 기원과 과학자들의 연구 성과를 차근차근 살펴보는 신중한 전략을 취한다. 지금 이 시점에서 가장 필요로 하는 것은 감성적인 반응보다는 이성적인 판단이기 때문이다.
저자는 “지난 30년 동안 과학자들이 어떻게 이 질병을 발견하고 이해하고 연구해왔는지를 알아보지 않고서는 이 복잡한 질병의 실체를 정확하게 이해할 수 없다. 만일 이 질병에 대한 모든 사실을 과학자들이 밝혀냈다고 생각해 간단하게 그 정보에 근거하여 판단하면 심각한 오해를 불러일으킬 소지가 다분하다”라고 주장한다.
광우병은 과학자들이 갖고 있는 불확실성에 대한 공포와 대중들이 갖고 있는 질병에 대한 공포, 이 두 가지 공포가 결합하여 상승작용을 일으킬 수밖에 없는 복잡하고 사회적인 질병이다. 저자는 이 미스터리한 질병을 마주할 때 무엇보다 중요한 것은 “한국에 살고 있는 시민들 중 단 한 사람이라도 광우병에 걸릴 수 있는 가능성을 완전히 차단해야 한다는 점”이라는 것을 재차 강조한다.
저자는 광우병을 이해하기 위해 한 때 녹음기 하나만을 달랑 들고, 학문의 최전선에서 광우병을 연구하던 세계적인 과학자들을 직접 만나 광우병을 어떠한 방식으로 연구했는지를 인터뷰하기도 했다. 그가 만난 과학자들은 프리온 이론을 제시해 노벨상을 받는 스탠리 프루지너를 비롯해, 프레드 코헨, 앨런 디킨슨, 모이라 브루스 등 다수다.
독자들은 이 책을 통해 광우병을 포함한 퇴행성 신경질환이 지닌 독특한 특성과 그 질병의 역사를 일목요연하게 살펴볼 수 있을 것이다. 또한 저자가 광우병의 진원지인 영국에서 광우병을 연구했기 때문에, 영국의 경험, 영국 정부의 해결 방식 등을 상세하게 엿볼 수 있다.
Prion theorists claim that the disease is caused by abnormal proteins that contain no DNA, which has long been regarded as the blueprint of every single life form. This theory has held centre stage within the controversy. The scientific community has gradually come to accept the prion hypothesis, but some researchers still do not agree with this view. To understand these contemporary circumstances requires an examination of the history of scientific disputes relating to scrapie, and this book will analyse how competing hypotheses have achieved and lost
credibility within the scientific community and wider arenas.
This research has three major aims. First, it shows the history of scrapie research in the context of the development of biomedicine in the twentieth century. The development of scrapie research corresponded with on-going institutional changes in British and, later, American biomedicine. Second, this research examines the relations between scientific practice and wider social transformations which have been closely associated with the development of scientific knowledge. In particular, the development of molecular biology and biotechnological enterprise have played a vital role in building consensus around so-called
prion research. Third, this work builds on an appropriate methodological framework from within the sociologically informed history of medicine, which has shown that medical scientific knowledge can be analysed in ways similar to the analysis of other social beliefs and knowledge systems. This work aims to contribute to that well-established tradition of social history of science, which refers primarily to the theoretical works of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK).
Papers by Kiheung Kim
In Korean abstract (if you can read Korean, you can find lots of interesting stories about mad cow controversy in South Korea)
<광우병 논쟁>은 두려움을 유발시키는 데 초점을 맞추기보다, 광우병의 기원과 과학자들의 연구 성과를 차근차근 살펴보는 신중한 전략을 취한다. 지금 이 시점에서 가장 필요로 하는 것은 감성적인 반응보다는 이성적인 판단이기 때문이다.
저자는 “지난 30년 동안 과학자들이 어떻게 이 질병을 발견하고 이해하고 연구해왔는지를 알아보지 않고서는 이 복잡한 질병의 실체를 정확하게 이해할 수 없다. 만일 이 질병에 대한 모든 사실을 과학자들이 밝혀냈다고 생각해 간단하게 그 정보에 근거하여 판단하면 심각한 오해를 불러일으킬 소지가 다분하다”라고 주장한다.
광우병은 과학자들이 갖고 있는 불확실성에 대한 공포와 대중들이 갖고 있는 질병에 대한 공포, 이 두 가지 공포가 결합하여 상승작용을 일으킬 수밖에 없는 복잡하고 사회적인 질병이다. 저자는 이 미스터리한 질병을 마주할 때 무엇보다 중요한 것은 “한국에 살고 있는 시민들 중 단 한 사람이라도 광우병에 걸릴 수 있는 가능성을 완전히 차단해야 한다는 점”이라는 것을 재차 강조한다.
저자는 광우병을 이해하기 위해 한 때 녹음기 하나만을 달랑 들고, 학문의 최전선에서 광우병을 연구하던 세계적인 과학자들을 직접 만나 광우병을 어떠한 방식으로 연구했는지를 인터뷰하기도 했다. 그가 만난 과학자들은 프리온 이론을 제시해 노벨상을 받는 스탠리 프루지너를 비롯해, 프레드 코헨, 앨런 디킨슨, 모이라 브루스 등 다수다.
독자들은 이 책을 통해 광우병을 포함한 퇴행성 신경질환이 지닌 독특한 특성과 그 질병의 역사를 일목요연하게 살펴볼 수 있을 것이다. 또한 저자가 광우병의 진원지인 영국에서 광우병을 연구했기 때문에, 영국의 경험, 영국 정부의 해결 방식 등을 상세하게 엿볼 수 있다.
Prion theorists claim that the disease is caused by abnormal proteins that contain no DNA, which has long been regarded as the blueprint of every single life form. This theory has held centre stage within the controversy. The scientific community has gradually come to accept the prion hypothesis, but some researchers still do not agree with this view. To understand these contemporary circumstances requires an examination of the history of scientific disputes relating to scrapie, and this book will analyse how competing hypotheses have achieved and lost
credibility within the scientific community and wider arenas.
This research has three major aims. First, it shows the history of scrapie research in the context of the development of biomedicine in the twentieth century. The development of scrapie research corresponded with on-going institutional changes in British and, later, American biomedicine. Second, this research examines the relations between scientific practice and wider social transformations which have been closely associated with the development of scientific knowledge. In particular, the development of molecular biology and biotechnological enterprise have played a vital role in building consensus around so-called
prion research. Third, this work builds on an appropriate methodological framework from within the sociologically informed history of medicine, which has shown that medical scientific knowledge can be analysed in ways similar to the analysis of other social beliefs and knowledge systems. This work aims to contribute to that well-established tradition of social history of science, which refers primarily to the theoretical works of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK).