Science Interrupted examines how scientists in China pursue environmental sustainability within the constraints of domestic and international bureaucracies. Timothy G. McLellan offers a theoretical framework for analyzing the formal procedural work of Chinese bureaucracy—work that is overlooked when China scholars restrict their gaze to the informal and interpersonal channels through which bureaucracy is often navigated. Homing in on an agroforestry research organization in southwest China, the author takes the experiences of the organization's staff in navigating diverse international funding regimes and authoritarian state institutions as entry points for understanding the pervasiveness of bureaucracy in contemporary science. He asks: What if we take the tools, sensibilities, and practices of bureaucracies seriously not only as objects of critique but as resources for re-thinking scientific practice? Extending a mode of anthropological research in which ethnography serves as source of theory as well as source of data, Science Interrupted thinks with, and not only against, bureaucracy. McLellan shows that ethnographic engagement with bureaucracy enables us to imagine more democratic and more collaborative modes of scientific practice.

"Provides a collection of both personal narratives and critical analyses of mental illness in the LIS field, exploring intersections with labor, culture, stigma, race, ability, identity, and gender"--

Stories give life and substance to scientific methods and provide an inside look at scientists in action. Case studies deepen scientific understanding, sharpen critical-thinking skills, and help students see how science relates to their lives. In Science Stories, Clyde Freeman Herreid, Nancy Schiller, and Ky Herreid have organized case studies into categories such as historical cases, science and the media, and ethics and the scientific process. Each case study comprises a story, classroom discussion questions, teaching notes and background information, objectives, and common misconceptions about the topic, as well as helpful references. College-level educators and high school teachers will find that this compilation of case studies will allow students to make connections between the classroom and everyday life.

Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better A riveting exploration of the world of science, diving headfirst into its triumphs and tribulations. Penned by seasoned microbiologists Ferric C. Fang and Arturo Casadevall, this book offers a comprehensive analysis of the scientific enterprise through various lenses, including historical, philosophical, and personal. From their unique vantage points as researchers, clinicians, and educators, Fang and Casadevall dissect the intricate mechanisms of science, shedding light on its strengths and weaknesses. Through engaging historical anecdotes, personal narratives, and insightful academic studies, they present a candid evaluation of sciences performance, including a thought-provoking examination of its role during the COVID-19 pandemic. A must-read for anyone curious about the present predicaments and future potential of science, Thinking about Science: Good Science, Bad Science, and How to Make It Better is more than just a book; its a roadmap to understanding and improving the scientific endeavor for the benefit of society at large. The authors have given us a thoughtful description of science and the joy of discovery, an unflinching diagnosis of where improvements are needed, and recommendations for remedies well worth considering. Scientists, science and society would benefit if this book were read by both future and established scientists, as well as the administrators, policymakers, and regulators who are in a position to help us do better. Michael Kalichman, UC San Diego With a deep understanding of the profound impact of science on society, the authors provide thought-provoking perspectives on changes in the scientific enterprise that will support sustainable, equitable practices, and engender public trust. An engaging read for everyone with an interest in science or science policy. Stanley Maloy, San Diego State University

In Power Interrupted, Sylvanna M. Falcón redirects the conversation about UN-based feminist activism toward UN forums on racism. Her analysis of UN antiracism spaces, in particular the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, considers how a race and gender intersectionality approach broadened opportunities for feminist organizing at the global level. The Durban conference gave feminist activists a pivotal opportunity to expand the debate about the ongoing challenges of global racism, which had largely privileged men’s experiences with racial injustice. When including the activist engagements and experiential knowledge of these antiracist feminist communities, the political significance of human rights becomes evident. Using a combination of interviews, participant observation, and extensive archival data, Sylvanna M. Falcón situates contemporary antiracist feminist organizing from the Americas—specifically the activism of feminists of color from the United States and Canada, and feminists from Mexico and Peru—alongside a critical historical reading of the UN and its agenda against racism.

Science news is met by the public with a mixture of fascination and disengagement. On the one hand, Americans are inflamed by topics ranging from the question of whether or not Pluto is a planet to the ethics of stem-cell research. But the complexity of scientific research can also be confusing and overwhelming, causing many to divert their attentions elsewhere and leave science to the “experts.” Whether they follow science news closely or not, Americans take for granted that discoveries in the sciences are occurring constantly. Few, however, stop to consider how these advances—and the debates they sometimes lead to—contribute to the changing definition of the term “science” itself. Going beyond the issue-centered debates, Daniel Patrick Thurs examines what these controversies say about how we understand science now and in the future. Drawing on his analysis of magazines, newspapers, journals and other forms of public discourse, Thurs describes how science—originally used as a synonym for general knowledge—became a term to distinguish particular subjects as elite forms of study accessible only to the highly educated.