A wider approach to science journalism

FIORAVANTI, C (2013). Intercom - Revista Brasileira de Ciências da Comunicação 36 (2): 315-338 Essay A wider approach to science journalism Carlos Fioravanti1 In this Essay, based on proposals by other journalists, recommendations from the creators of the Actor-Network Theory and the observation of scientific practice, I am presenting a wider approach to science journalism, taking science as a collective, historical work, marked by uncertainty and a diversity of actors. Compared to the classical, predominant approach, which focuses on individual scientists and considers science a linear, deprived of internal conflicts and a predictable process, the Wider Approach may help journalists write about science in a less naive way, avoiding the most common mistakes while reporting scientific achievements, to diversify the source of the information and draw a more realistic picture of science. Keywords: science journalism, Actor Network Theory, drug discovery and development Isolated proposals The science journal Nature published two remarkable essays on science journalism in 2009. In the first, Toby Murcott, former science correspondent for the BBC World Service, suggested that the process of science production, usually shown as mysterious, needed to be opened up, and science journalists should be more pro-active and questioning, like those who write about politics, indicating mistakes and contradictions and participating in political debates with relevant comments. Additionally, Murcott affirmed that the current approach of science journalism – in which journalists act as priests, taking information from an authority, the scientist, and leading it to a congregation – needed to be revised, in order to reach a deeper, more critical view of science news.1 In the same issue of Nature, Boyce Rensberger, who wrote about science for 32 years at Washington Post and New York Times, recognized that the science reporter has evolved a lot, from cheerleaders to watchdogs, but still need to be more detached and independent to write more comprehensive and impartial reports.2 1 Carlos Fioravanti is a science journalist and currently researcher in the history of medicine in Brazil. He has written about science, environment and technology since 1987 for national and international newspapers and magazines. In 2007 he was awarded a Fellowship at Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University, UK, and in 2010 he concluded his PhD research at the Department of Science and Technology of the State University of Campinas (Unicamp), Brazil. Email: [email protected]. Methodological approaches and proposals to improve professional practice such as Murcott‟s and Rensberger‟s are rare in science journalism, a branch of journalism characterized by an extreme dependence on scientific papers and press releases, and a limited variety of sources of information – in general, the only interviewees are usually the same scientists who announce the results of their research. In search of broader ways to write about science and a wider view of science, I have brought together strategies of action by journalist and top publications – science magazines such as Nature, Science e PNAS value the accuracy of information and the importance of not hyping the news; the science section of The New York Times presents scientific discoveries as lively, human narratives; and The Economist offers a unique combination of respect and doubt about the latest breakthroughs. With the same goal, in a complementary and convergent way, I have adopted the conceptual tools of the Actor-Network Theory (ANT). ANT considers that the production of knowledge results from the interaction of distinct groups of actors, not only scientists, with distinct interest. Science becomes, then, a social, collective phenomenon, which may emerge, move ahead or disappear as a result of negotiations and conflicts among interested people. In science, affirms Bruno Latour, an ANT idealizer, the “building of a fact is such a collective process that a person alone only builds dreams, allegations and sentiments, but not facts”.3 In a previous article, I presented the possibilities of use of the ANT principles – such as the possibility of following the actors (humans and non-humans) and the connections between them to understand what happened and may happen – as a way of improving the coverage of science news.4 Now, integrating proposals by other journalists and ANT idealizers, as well as the observation of the scientific practice, I am presenting a Wider Approach to Science Journalism, in search of a broader view of science. The Wider Approach proposes to go beyond the simplistic, optimistic views predominating in science journalism. Optimism reigns In late April 1983, one of the most important weekly magazines in Brazil published a scientific breakthrough: the fusion of cells from an ox and a tomato, resulting in a hybrid cell called boimate (oxmate). The editors interviewed respected Brazilian scientists, who assured then that the emergent molecular biology could indeed do things like that hybrid, announced by a team led by Barry McDonalds and William Winpey, of the Department of Biology at the University of Hamburg. It would be a breakthrough, as the reproduction between beings from different species – or species very distant, as in this case – was still impossible. Three months later, Estado de São Paulo, a leading newspaper in Brazil, presented the mistake in a witty story entitled “Magazine discover „magic hamburger‟”: the news was a First of April joke by the British science magazine New Scientist. The name of the scientists mentioned were, in fact, references to the restaurant chains McDonald‟s e Wimpy‟s.5 A lesson from boimate is that journalists should not simply accept scientific research as unquestionable. In thirty years, science journalism has improved a lot in Brazil, but the lack of basic knowledge in the production of science keeps the optimism alive. In 2005, a reporter from Estado wrote that scientists in two public research centers had found a new medicine to act against Trypanosoma cruzi, the protozoan causing Chagas disease, yet the tests in animal models and in humans had still not been carried out.6 The reporter should know that the identification of promising new molecule is just the first step in a long, difficult and expensive journey, which can lead to a new drug, if everything goes well. As part of my doctoral research, I have followed the story of 26 molecules presented over the past 15 years in international scientific journals and in Brazilian newspapers and magazines as promising medicines. The molecules represented new hope against cancer, tuberculosis, pain, inflammation, arterial hypertension, Alzheimer‟s disease, arthritis, epilepsy, mycosis, and ulcers, as well as typical tropical health problems such as Chagas disease and schistosomiasis. The scientists responsible for the research have stated, through the media, that these molecules would be evaluated in humans or be available as medicine in a few years. For various reasons, until now none of the molecules has reached the promised goals.7 As journalists, researchers and readers, we often presume the existence of a connection among research centers, companies and government which doesn‟t really exist, thereby hindering the expected continuity of a discovery. Even the existence of connections among actors supposedly interested in new drugs is not enough to assure their continuity, as the drug candidates have to overcome a series of difficult tests to be approved and marketed. Even when a drug is being sold, the fight among academics in search of data or companies unwilling to provide information about drugs continue, as brightly described in Ben Goldacre‟s Bad Pharma.8 Unlike sports news, there are no easy conclusions in the uncertain world of science. Various scientists have already advised me “not to believe in science too much”. In a similar way, we should not trust drugs or modern medicine without being suspicious of their limits. A comprehensive profile of science journalists around the world led by a SciDev team indicated that we could go beyond the usual limits. Most of 951 respondents said that good science journalism implies reporting the facts “independently, neutrally and in an original manner”; two third of all respondents consider that science journalists “are not critically astute enough when writing or investigating leads”.9 Rarely journalists suspect unrealistic goals, as did a Financial Times‟ writer on examining a 10-year € 1.1 billion project to simulate the entire human brain, announced in January 2013 by the European Commission.10 Also rare are stories discussing the limits of genetic testing or questioning scientific axioms, such as genes causing diseases – “The truth is that genes only very rarely cause diseases”, argued The Atlantic writer David Shenk.11 The wider approach Simplistic views of science characterize what I will call here the Classic Approach to science journalism. The Classical Approach focuses on positive results, is centered on an individual scientist and considers science a linear, peaceful and predictable process. This strategy of presenting science news has worked, but I believe that it needs a few adjustments. A possible improvement is the Wider Approach, which combines strategies by other journalists and ANT idealizers, as well as observation of the scientific practice. The aim of the Wider Approach is to enlarge the view usually expressed in the Classical Approach, currently the most usual way of presenting scientific discoveries. The classical approach predominates in Brazil, where the conclusions of scientists are generally presented as the unquestionable truth. In a recent research, the main Brazilian newspapers gave less space to skeptical voices on climate change, suggesting how the prospect of certainty predominates over doubt and debate, in comparison with similar newspapers in China, France, India, the UK, and the USA.12 The Wider Approach implies subtle, but relevant changes in the normal way of dealing with science. Scientific papers, the most common starting point for science news, could be seen as a support for good reports (as already shown in Nature, Science, New York Times and other top journals), not a justification for the stories. While the Classical Approach overvalues the episodic (hot news) over any possibility of debate on the implications of scientific achievement, the Wider Approach values the possibility of starting debates based on hot news. The tone and the language could also be slightly different. We could see science in a less formal way, with less optimism and more uncertainty, as we know that science and technology rarely move forward as expected. We could also use less powerful verbs (an experiment indicates or suggests), instead of the unquestionable most common verbs (in the Classical Approach, any experiment shows or demonstrates something, with no room for doubts, surprises or disappointments). Additionally, the scientists could change from a lonely hero to a more human, complete being. In the Classical Approach the persona predominates, expressing an impersonal, nearly heroic approach, while in the Wider Approach there is room for the researcher as an individual, with emotion, desires and doubts. Instead of just emphasizing positive results and certainty about conclusions of the research, in the Wider Approach negative or doubtful results may be considered. Consequently, the language will turn form the usual “It will arrive soon…” to more prudent conclusions, such as “If all goes well, maybe it will arrive soon...”, or “if this research is right, if they receive funding…” As a result, science will emerge as historical fact dependent on many actors, instead of focusing on just one scientist and in the present, as in the Classical Approach (see comparative table below). Two views of Science Journalism Classical Approach Wider Approach The perception Science is linear, absent of internal Science is non-linear, resulting from of science by conflicts, with both course and negotiation among people with same or non-scientists results predictable, individual, different interests, follows sinuous includes few actors, focuses on course with unpredictable results, is present time, is very dependent collective, includes many actors, takes a on scientific papers. historical view, is less dependent on scientific papers. Pace Everything is fast and predictable. Advance is slow. Obstacles and contrary forces may be considered. Tone Science is treated too formally, as There is less formality and optimism dogma; optimism about the and more room for wit, skepticism and impact and the continuity of the irreverence. research predominates. Emphasis Positive results and certainty Negative or doubtful results can also be about conclusions of the research considered. predominate. Presumption Trust in the intrinsic value of Intrinsic value only is not enough. scientific work (if it is good, it will Advances depend on alliances, go ahead). interests, negotiations and luck. Journalistic Descriptive, distant from the Descriptive and narrative, closer to the language reader, asymmetric / patronizing reader, more sensitive, with more (experts versus lay people) and interaction and dialogue. purely rational. Separation reigns. Vocabulary Assertive verbs (discover, find, Less assertive verbs (verify, indicate, show, affirm, assure) are find, suspect, believe, hypothesize) and common, with no space for doubt. more space for doubt and conditionals (if he/she is right... if further experiments confirm…). Journalist’s The persona predominates, More space for the researcher as an image of expressing an impersonal, nearly individual. scientists heroic approach. Actors Few and exclusively human. Many actors, including non-humans: Abstraction predominates. microbes, papers, objects, equipment, Actions depend only on human institutions. will. Journalist’s role Interviewee’s role Intermediary (he/she just Mediator (adds value to information transmits information) and reflects on its consequences) Scientist is just the provider of information and explanations about a specific issue. Scientist can help to plan the story, as the dialogue with journalist becomes possible. A more human science In science, a result is not accepted only because it is correct or consistent, but also because other people are interested in accepting it. A refusal doesn‟t mean that it is not right. The most well known case is the Galileo‟s heliocentric model of the Solar System, which the Catholic Church considered heretical and was later proved to be correct. In the early 20th century, Alfred Wegener pioneered the description of the continental drift, but most British geologists initially rejected his evidence because it had been a German, not a British, who had presented the new theory, currently considered essential in geophysics.13 Science, being a human activity, is not logical or rational all the time. In the Classical Approach to Science Journalism, arguments are purely scientific and rational, while in the Wider Approach they are also social and political, reflecting alliances, conflicts and interests. Journalists could examine why a result or a theory has been accepted or not: is something being threatened? A way to do this is to pay attention to the partnerships or rivalries between scientists and institutions, as well as the political and/or economic forces which drive their work. Scientific research could progress faster when it is linked to political and economic interests, as the connections are already made. It could also be valuable to examine the rhetoric: who is speaking out? What kind of argument is he/she using? Rhetoric can be stronger than scientific arguments to move science. Astonishing headlines from universities, research centers and funding agencies should also be carefully evaluated. Institutions have to be zealous of their public image, as visibility may assure funding, and sometimes they press scientists to produce hot news too quickly. Non-human actors A more significant change is the concept of actor, defined by ANT as “anything that does modify a state of affairs by making a difference”,14 with the reservation: “If an actor makes no difference, it‟s not an actor”.15 Actions emerge from as entities of the actor network are brought together.16 An actor only exists when he is a network-actor, that is, when he it is connected with others through a network, a concept denoting the “ability of each actor to make other actors do unexpected things”.17 ANT emerged in 1980s with pioneer studies by Latour, Michel Callon and John Law, who, searching for a new theory to understand social phenomena, considered the participation of non-human beings, such as microbes, oysters and ships, decisive to the evolving of situations previously analyzed only through human motivation, interests and limits.18,19 ,20 Assigning roles equally relevant to human and non-human actors became, thereafter, one of the peculiarities of this approach. In the Wider Approach the concept of the actor includes nonhumans, such as microbes, equipment or institutions. The non-human actors help science to become material, concrete, and could be more valued as they enrich the report. A wider approach in science journalism values details, things or people usually forgotten. Looking for heroes, we rarely consider others who tried and didn‟t achieve the results described and could also have interesting things to say. For example, in 1924 and 1925 the physician André Gratia and his assistant Sara Dath published various papers in French announcing that a mould had inhibited the growth of bacteria in their laboratory at Pasteur Institute in Belgium. They kept studying the phenomenon, but later Gratia became sick and, when he returned to the laboratory, the fungi that had led to those effects had not survived. In 1929 Alexander Fleming observed the same phenomenon in his laboratory in London and published a paper detailing his findings. Nearly ten years later the Fleming‟s paper was found by Ernest Chain at Oxford, who continued the development of penicillin. Things can easily go wrong. On field trips to collect animals, plants, rocks or sediment, scientists can be sick, equipment can break down, it can rain heavily, and plans can be totally frustrated. Rarely do we see science from the inside, but why not consider these events in the reports? The Wider Approach is open to action and unpredictable. A more sensible feature of the Wider Approach is the journalist‟s role, which scientists cannot accept easily, at least in Brazil. The journalist is no longer an intermediary, just transmitting information, like a postman or a scientist‟s spokesperson, but a mediator, reflecting on the information and its consequences independently (actor, intermediary and mediator are common terms in the Actor Network Theory‟s reports). As I apply the wider approach, I suspect that most scientists in Brazil prefer to be the lonely hero in simpler reports rather than sharing space and ideas with other leading experts in more sophisticated stories, yet none of them have protested so far. The role of interviewee could also be enlarged. In the Wider Approach, the scientist is no longer just the provider of information and explanations about his or her paper. The scientist can also be a thinker and help the journalist to plan and broaden the story, without interfering in the journalist‟s autonomy. The researcher can suggest or confirm other people from other centers, who could be interviewed, or from other times, who should be remembered as part of a historical background. The researcher can also help to check conclusions and the tone of the report, as a conventional editor in a newsroom does. As the dialogue becomes possible and journalist is no longer alone to plan the work, the story will be made with, no more for or about, a scientist. Photographers can also offer a valuable assistance to plan and edit a story, which will be the result of a collaborative effort, no longer just an expression of scientific or journalistic talent. My own experience has shown that this kind of collaboration, in which each part considers the interests of the other, is possible. A journalist‟s work doesn‟t have to be so lonely. Lessons from the forest The Wider Approach has allowed me to better understand scientific production and to improve my writing. In November 2012, after an 18-hour trip by ship along very wide rivers, I landed in the steaming city of Maués, in the state of Amazonas, Brazil, to see a new way of producing oil from rosewood, a native tree in the Amazon rainforest. In 2011 a local producer started using leaves and branches of rosewood, as only the trunks had been used since the early 20th century to produce the oil used in perfumes. The inclusion of leaves and branches in the production could be seen as easy and simple – the extra raw material could be used without additional costs and without any change in the industrial process of the oil extraction –, but a simple innovation like this took 13 years to be adopted. An academic researcher started pursuing the possibility of extracting oil from leaves in 1998. He formed a team of researchers, received some grants, collected plants in the Amazon rainforest, worked in his laboratory and in 2005, on announcing the preliminary results of the experiments, he was optimistic about the inclusion of leaves in the traditional process of extracting oil from rosewood, but he still had to convince other people about his findings. The producer in Maués was suspicious – why had such a simple thing not been tried before? – and then spent two years carrying out his own tests and getting the clients‟ approval. Meanwhile, a federal law restricted the production of oil, as this tree was under threat of extinction, other producers abandoned the oil extraction and various perfume producers stopped using rosewood oil in their formulas.21 In science and technology, even simple things can be difficult, as they depend on many people with different mindsets and agendas. This conclusion may sound obvious, but normally optimism reigns. We journalists and scientists should be more prudent about the advance of scientific and technological achievements, but we should consider obstacles and variables (predicted or not) and avoid simplistic vision, keeping in mind that even brilliant ideas can progress slowly. The success of any scientific or technological achievement depends on many variables, mainly time, money, equipment, expertise, students or other researchers to work on the promising research – and everything has to be at hand at the same time! Luck is also welcome, as all experiments can go wrong, new laws can deter the pace of science, funding agencies can delay the approval of grant requests, other research groups could publish the results first, or the consumers could refuse to adopt a new product resulting from a discovery considered brilliant in the laboratory. In the face of so many variables, we journalists should not incorporate the scientists‟ optimism. Scientists, on presenting their research project to receive funding, have to predict what they will do and find and how much it will cost. Researchers expect that their work will go well, but they will hardly be able to imagine all the obstacles they will have to face to confirm their conclusions, to convince other groups about the importance of their work or to translate their science into economic worth. Sometimes scientists give journalists a deadline to present new results of their work, but generally such deadlines are not met. It is risky to take optimistic assumptions seriously, such as the possibility of superconductivity changing transportation, as announced in 1980s, or knowledge about human genome effectively improving medical treatment, yet knowledge about issues like these are certainly relevant. In countries where the national or regional system of innovation is precarious, meaning the connections among research centers, companies and government are weak, the pace of science is slow and the lack of continuity of research is very common. Pessimistic conclusions such as those concerning the impact of climate change are equally risky and could be presented as a warning, not as fate. We tend to be optimistic because we trust the intrinsic value of science, meaning that everything may go well as the research presented is for the benefit of humanity. We journalists and scientists are trained to be optimistic, but should avoid announcing a secure future for any discovery. On the other hand, being pessimistic and listing the barriers to success could make the discovery less significant. Even the more skeptical science writer would hardly write that a scientist will advance if he/she is really right about the findings, has enough talent and succeed in convincing other researchers and funding agencies to support his/her brilliant research. We should consider the uncertainty of science to avoid false hopes, which could lead us to be unrealistic, pretentious or naïve. In 2012, a former pharmaceutical company researcher classified most journalists in India as inept to describe the complexities involved in the clinical trial process, leading the readers to false expectations about new medicines.22 In the field The Wider Approach has motivated me to pay more attention to non-human actors – such as the boiler and the motor used to extract oil from rosewood in Maués, which were salvaged from a ship wrecked about half a century ago and produce sounds similar to a steam locomotive in the middle of the rainforest – and has allowed me to explore different areas, such as cancer, environment and geophysics, in a more comprehensive way. A few recent examples follow: . To suggest that a disease is not only a medical problem, but also a historic, social one, I described the way of life and the anguish of the inhabitants of a village in the State of Goiás, Brazil, who present xeroderma pigmentosum, a hereditary genetic disease aggravated by exposure to the sun. I also presented the solidarity among them, and the support from physicians and scientists to find new cases and improve the treatment of those already diagnosed.23 . In a report about mineral structures and transformations into deep regions of the Earth, I avoided unnecessary technical details and presented the difficulty of studying the inner planet, the evolution of the historical views about the inner planet, and the personal backgrounds of the researchers interviewed.24 . For nine days, I accompanied a group of scientists on an oceanographic research vessel, in an expedition to collect sediments (mud) from the seabed, and presented “a little of the machinery of science at work, and the things that the papers do not mention: the laborious, repetitive work, the stress of unforeseen circumstances, the possible explanations about the observed phenomena, literally the dirty work of science expressed on muddy faces”. I saw how the “usually hidden forces of science emerge subtly, not just by dint of good questions, institutions and money, but also through friendship, respect and camaraderie.” A German geophysicist remarked that the collecting of sediments had brought together 40 people, including the seamen who operated the winches to operate the collection equipment, the cooks and the mechanics in the engine room; the scientific papers resulting from the work, however, will bear the names of only a few scientists.25 . In a news feature on the genetics of aging, this time only in a laboratory, I presented the routine of researchers who worked on the worm Caenorhabditis elegans to find new ways of controlling genes which speed up the cellular metabolism. Also, I created a metaphor, Quasimodo effect, to describe the accumulation of the amino acid glutamine, which forms green dots along the worm‟s body and appear to hinder its movement, like the hunchback in the French writer Victor Hugo‟s book.26 Conclusions The Wider Approach, by valuing the uncertainty and the diversity of actors, can help journalists to think more independently, and the reader to better know the development of knowledge. The Wider Approach doesn‟t exclude the Classical one, which can still be useful, in more moderate versions, when the time or space to describe the news is short. Widening our view, science could finally become the result of collective efforts and constantly changes – the conclusions presented in any scientific paper are far from being the final truth. In practical terms, applying all the following possibilities of action at the same time may be impossible, but sometimes one or another could be useful to present science news more realistically. As this approach is under development, any feedback is very welcome. Acknowledgement Regina Fioravanti, Alison Askew, my colleagues Marcos Pivetta, Ricardo Zorzetto, Rodrigo Andrade and Bruno de Pierro, and Profs. Alysson Muotri, Carlos Escobar, Renata Wentzcovitch and Till Hanebuth provided very helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Notes and references MURCOTT, T. Science journalism: Toppling the priesthood. Nature 459 (7250): 1054-5, 2009. RENSBERGER, B. Science journalism: Too close for comfort. Nature 459 (7250): 1055-6, 2009. 3 LATOUR, Bruno. Ciência em ação: como seguir cientistas e engenheiros sociedade afora. São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2000:70. 4 FIORAVANTI, C. and VELHO, L. Let's follow the actors! Does Actor-Network Theory have anything to contribute to science journalism? Jcom 9 (4): A02, 2010. Available at: http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/09/04/Jcom0904%282010%29A02/Jcom0904%282010%29A02.pdf 5 --- Os Frutos da Carne. Veja 1983:84 --- Scientist make the first plant-animal hybrid. New Scientist 1983:888 --- Revista descobre “hamburger mágico”. Estado de São Paulo 1983:20. 6 CASTRO, M. Da planta, uma arma contra o „Trypanosoma‟. Estado de São Paulo 2005:A11 7 FIORAVANTI, C. Strengthening our natural defences: a new drug candidate and a new approach to fighting infectious diseases. The Lancet Student 2010. Available at: http://www.thelancetstudent.com/legacy/2010/09/02/strengthening-our-natural-defences-a-new-drug-candidate-and-anew-approach-to-fighting-infectious-diseases/ FIORAVANTI, C. Fungos, instituições, máquinas e pessoas em negociação: O percurso do fármaco P-Mapa. Doctoral research, State University of Campinas, Brazil, 2010. Available at: http://cutter.unicamp.br/document/?code=000769368 8 GOLDACRE, B. Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. London: Fourth Estate, 2012. 9 ROMO, J. „SciDev.Net Global Review 2012‟, London, SciDev.Net, 2012. Available at: http://issuu.com/scidev.net/docs/scidevnetglobalreview2012 10 MARCUS, G. We are not yet ready to simulate the brain. Financial Times 2013. Available at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b70cc5d6-6b00-11e2-9670-00144feab49a.html 11 SHENK, D. The Limits of Genetic Testing. The Atlantic 2013. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/the-limits-of-genetic-testing/255416/ KOLATA, G. Study Says DNA‟s Power to Predict Illness Is Limited. New York Times 2013. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/health/research/dnas-power-to-predict-is-limited-study-finds.html?_r=0 12 PAINTER, J. Poles Apart: the international reporting of climate skepticism. Reuters Institute for the Study of Jornalism, Oxford, 2011. 13 STEWART, J. Drifting Continents and Colliding Interests: a Quantitative Application of the Interests Perspective, Social Studies of Science 16 (2):261-79, 1986. 14 LATOUR, B. Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005:71. 15 LATOUR, 2005:130. 16 MURDOCH, J. Towards a geography of heterogeneous associations. Progress in Human Geography, 21 (3): 321-37, 1997. 17 LATOUR, 2005:129. 18 LATOUR, Bruno. Give me a laboratory and I will move the world. In: KNORR, Karin; MULKAY, Michael (eds.). Science observed. London: Sage, 1983: 141-70. 19 CALLON, Michel. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: LAW, John (org.). Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? London, Routledge, 1986:196-223. 20 LAW, John. On the methods of long-distance control: vessels, navigators and the Portuguese route to India. In: LAW, John (ed.). Power Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? London, UK: Routledge and Henley, 1986: 234-63. 21 FIORAVANTI, C. Perfume from the Amazon. Pesquisa Fapesp 202, 2012. Available at: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/2013/02/27/perfume-from-the-amazon/ 22 RAMAMURTHY, N.V. Inept media trials of clinical trials. Perspectives in Clinical Research 3 (2):47-9, 2012. Available at: http://www.picronline.org/article.asp?issn=2229-3485;year=2012;volume=3;issue=2;spage=47;epage=49;aulast=Ramamurthy 1 2 FIORAVANTI, C. Struggling with the Sun, Pesquisa Fapesp 199, 2012. Available at: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/2012/09/11/struggling-with-the-sun/ 24 FIORAVANTI, C. Opening up the Earth, Pesquisa Fapesp 198, 2012. Available at: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/2012/08/07/opening-up-the-earth/ 25 FIORAVANTI, C. Precious sea mud. Pesquisa Fapesp 206, 2013. Available at: http://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/2013/05/15/precious-sea-mud/? 26 FIORAVANTI, C. Em um verme, as travas do envelhecimento. Pesquisa Fapesp 212, 2013. 23