I sometimes wonder what the value(s) of critical sociological engagement with science for scientists themselves might be. As discussed in the critique of the so-called deficit model, no system of knowledge production, scientific or not, is inherently superior to others (e.g., Wynne 1992). Hence, we—social scientists of science—celebrate plurality of knowledge. Scientists may well develop an interest in communicating to and engaging with the nonscientist public by recognizing that science has its limitations, as many other systems of knowledge production do, and also by realizing the significance of lay expertise. But can and should scientists learn to engage with their own system as critically as we would? Isn't the unpacking or deconstructing of scientific knowledge too disturbing for them to remain active in the system? This book—Body as Risksuggests that it may not be as counterproductive as one might think. Tatsuya Mima, in writing the book, wears two hats, one as a neuroscientist and the other as a medical sociologist, and discusses how risk is calculated in moder society. As its title suggests, the author's main argument is that now health risk can be identified in one's own body, which then gets turned into a subject of his or her disciplinary practice.
