NSF.GOV

SBE HOME

BCS HOME

SES HOME

NUGGETS

FASTLANE

STS and the History of Medicine

Within the scholarly communities that operate under the science and technology studies (STS) umbrella, researchers have given more attention in recent years to topics located at the intellectual boundary with the history of medicine. At least part of this interest reflects contemporary developments in science and technology (the human genome project, bio-medical science and technology, and so forth), but also driving this scholarship is the increasingly multidisciplinary approach of STS scholars. This emerging research activity has caused the Science and Technology Studies Program to re-examine its definition of a relationship with the history of medicine and its methods for determining the appropriateness of proposals.

From its inception, the NSF's Science and Technology Studies Program has considered traditional scholarship in the history or social studies of medicine to be outside its domain. This decision reflected and still reflects a formal institutional boundary between NSF and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the primary source of research funds in all fields of medicine. The NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) provides basic guidance about this boundary.

Research with disease-related goals, including work on the etiology, diagnosis or treatment of physical or mental disease, abnormality, or malfunction in human beings or animals, is normally not supported. Animal models of such conditions or the development or testing of drugs or other procedures for their treatment also are not eligible for support. Research in bioengineering, with diagnosis or treatment-related goals, however, that applies engineering principles to problems in biology and medicine while advancing engineering knowledge is eligible for support. Bioengineering research to aid persons with disabilities also is eligible.

The STS Program has consistently interpreted this statement to mean that it cannot support historical, philosophical, and social science research on topics with disease-related and public health considerations. Further reinforcing the STS program's acceptance of this NIH/NSF boundary is a simple reality: The STS program lacks the resources to incorporate history of medicine into its scholarly mission. The one exception to this general rule has been support by the STS program for dissertation research in the history of medicine, since no similar opportunities exists elsewhere.

The GPG noted, however, that bioengineering studies are appropriate if proposals apply engineering principles to problems in medicine to advance engineering knowledge. This comment suggests another possible logic that might lead to STS support for research connected to the history of medicine. Indeed, the STS program has for a long time supported proposals that explicitly pursued research in medical science or medical technology. For example, the STS Program supported a historical study of neonatal medical technology because this project advanced STS knowledge.

But STS scholars with interests in medical topics, especially those in the handful of graduate programs that combine the history and/or philosophy of science, technology, and medicine, occasionally have found this an awkward formulation. In May 2001, the STS Program's Advisory Panel revisited the guidelines for determining the appropriateness of medically-oriented proposals. The Panel affirmed that "regular" history of medicine proposals cannot be supported by the STS Program. But the Panel suggested two additional criteria to guide decisions. First, panelists felt the Program should consider proposals that approach medical topics with scholarly questions and intellectual foundations derived from the science and technology studies communities. Appropriate projects would examine medical or public health topics in order to explore issues and questions of importance to STS scholars, that is, to learn about the interaction of science and technology and society. The second point follows logically from the first, as the panel felt that the audience addressed by such proposals primarily should be the scholarly communities within the science and technology studies rubric, rather than medical practitioners and historians of medicine. This restriction is not absolute, for the Foundation's second general review criterion emphasizes consideration of the broader impact of a proposal.

Clearly, the intellectual boundary between STS fields and historical, philosophical, and social studies of medicine is not rigidly fixed, and thus resists easy determination. The distinctions outlined above may seem artificial, but the goal is to allow scholars from the diverse intellectual communities that comprise science and technology studies to explore all relevant topics. Practical limits, including the general NSF restrictions on medical and public health research and budgetary restraints, require maintaining a distinction between science and technology studies and historical and social sciences studies of medicine. But investigators should feel free to contact the STS Program to discuss any questions they may have.

The Division of Social and Economic Sciences Suite 995, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230 USA Tel: 703-292-8760	Last Updated 04.27.04 Contact SES Webmaster