Two PhD Candidates for Social Studies of Controversies in Nanobiology

Are you an aspiring researcher, interested by how error correction works in science and what obstacles it faces? And would you like to work at the forefront of science in a dynamic, international team? We are looking for two PhD Candidates who will investigate one of two projects concerning controversies about error correction and scientific promising, novelty claims and discursive reframing of novelty in nanobiology.
The first PhD project involves a qualitative social science study of two related controversies in nanobiology concerning the permeability of cell membranes and the blood/brain barrier to novel nanoparticles. In recent decades, the promise that nanoparticles will be able to intervene in cellular processes with great precision has boosted nanobiology and nanomedicine. These claims are now being challenged by critical nanobiologists, with allegations of over-promising and, in some cases, even questioning research integrity. The controversy has raised not only technical issues about the molecular interactions around cell membranes, but also about the process of scientific correction, selective attention to spectacular claims, or the power of accumulated reputations. This project will study the development of the controversy, with a particular focus on error claims and correction attempts, the response to these claims and corrections, and the continuation of research trajectories based on challenged assumptions. Methodologically, the project will rely on qualitative interviews and documentary analysis, but informed by scientometric information gathered in associated projects.

The second PhD project involves a qualitative social science study of scientific promising, novelty claims and discursive reframing of novelty in nanobiology. The particular focus of this project will the portrayal of the nanoparticle-protein corona as a radical innovation, as opposed to claims by critical nanobiologists that the protein corona is simply a continuation of colloid adsorption research. The case provides a lens to study practices of reframing, of novelty, and of the challenges that such reframing misrepresents the innovative potential of research. This project also analyses science as a social process and asks how scientists assess what forms of promising and reframing are acceptable. The project will rely on interviews and documentary analysis from a wide range of sources (scientific, policy, media) to study how novelty claims made in the literature are connected to the mobilisation of research resources. This project can also build on systematic bibliometric studies developed by scientometricians and data scientists working in associated research projects.