File(s) not publicly available

Reason: This item is currently closed access.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the rhetorical construction of "bad" scientific work

journal contribution
posted on 26.06.2014 by Fred Attenborough
How are secondary accounts of “bad” scientific practice constructed? How do they engage with the primary data produced by “bad” scientists? And what happens to those primary data as generations of secondary accounts purporting to describe them accumulate? This paper addresses such questions via a case study of Dr. Hong, a microbiologist accused of “bad” scientific practice by numerous secondary accounts of the 2003 SARS outbreak. Bringing Hong’s own account of his own actions into dialogue with one of the most influential secondary accounts of his actions, the paper highlights the gross disparity between the two. Having argued that the rhetorical structuring of the secondary account is, ultimately, responsible for Hong’s characterisation as a “bad” scientist, it then moves to explore how subsequent accounts developed their own characterisations. What becomes clear is that as secondary accounts began feeding off one another, references to Hong’s account disappeared. Aided by the concepts of the “vanishing” and the “phantasm,” the paper concludes with a consideration of how this process left Hong’s work with a very peculiar form of existence.

History

School

  • Social Sciences

Department

  • Communication, Media, Social and Policy Studies

Published in

PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE

Volume

21

Issue

2

Pages

211 - 225 (15)

Citation

ATTENBOROUGH, F.T., 2012. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the rhetorical construction of "bad" scientific work. Public Understanding of Science, 21 (2), pp. 211 - 225.

Publisher

Sage Publications / © The Author

Version

VoR (Version of Record)

Publication date

2012

Notes

This article is closed access.

ISSN

0963-6625

Language

en

Exports