Law and regulation increasingly interact with science, technology, and medicine in contemporary society. Law and social science (LSS) analyses can therefore benefit from rigorous, nuanced social scientific accounts of the nature of scientific knowledge and practice. Over the past two decades, LSS scholars have increasingly turned for such accounts to the field known as science and technology studies (STS). This article reviews the LSS literature that draws on STS. Our discussion is divided into two primary sections. We first discuss LSS literature that draws on STS because it deals with issues in which law and science interact. We then discuss literature that draws on STS because it sees law as analogous to science as a knowledge-producing institution amenable to social science analysis. We suggest that through both of these avenues STS can encourage a newly critical view within LSS scholarship.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Alatout S. 2007. State-ing natural resources through law: the codification and articulation of water-scarcity and citizenship in Israel. Arab World Geogr 10:16–37 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alder K. 2007. The Lie Detectors: The History of an American Obsession New York: Free
  3. Allen BL. 2004. Shifting boundary work: issues and tensions in environmental health science in the case of Grand Bois, Louisiana. Sci. Cult. 13:429–48 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aronson JD. 2007. Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
  5. Aronson JD, Cole SA. 2009. Science and the death penalty: DNA, innocence, and the debate over capital punishment in the United States. Law Soc. Inq. 34:603–33 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ashmore M. 1989. The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  7. Balmer A. 2015. Telling tales: some episodes from the multiple lives of the polygraph machine. Knowledge, Technology and Law E Cloatre, M Pickersgill 104–18 Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  8. Berger PL, Luckmann T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge New York: Anchor
  9. Bertenthal A. 2017. The “right paper”: developing legal literacy in a legal self-help clinic. Law Soc. Inq. In press
  10. Biagioli M. 2011. Patent specification and political representation: how patents became rights. Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property M Biagioli, P Jaszi, M Woodmansee 25–39 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch T. 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems Cambridge: MIT Press
  12. Bloor D. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  13. Bora A. 2008. Scientific norms, legal facts, and the politics of knowledge. Who Owns Knowledge? Knowledge and the Law N Stehr, B Weiler 67–86 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction [Google Scholar]
  14. Boyd W, Kysar DA, Rachlinski JJ. 2012. Law, environment, and the “nondismal” social sciences. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 8:183–211 [Google Scholar]
  15. Braverman I. 2008. The tree is the enemy soldier: a sociolegal making of war landscapes in the occupied West Bank. Law Soc. Rev. 42:449–82 [Google Scholar]
  16. Burk DL. 2013. Edifying thoughts of a patent watcher: the nature of DNA. UCLA Law Rev. Discourse 60:92–102 [Google Scholar]
  17. Calavita K. 2002. Engaged research, “goose bumps,” and the role of the public intellectual. Law Soc. Rev. 36:5–20 [Google Scholar]
  18. Calavita K. 2010. Invitation to Law and Society: An Introduction to the Study of Real Law Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  19. Callon M. 1984. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. Sociol. Rev. 32:196–233 [Google Scholar]
  20. Callon M, Latour B. 1992. Don't throw the baby out with the bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley. Science as Practice and Culture A Pickering 343–68 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Caudill DS. 2002a. Ethnography and the idealized accounts of science in law. San Diego Law Rev 39:269–305 [Google Scholar]
  22. Caudill DS. 2002b. Give me a line in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion or in official commentary to the rule of evidence for admissibility of experts in court and I will move the [legal] world. Houst. Law Rev. 39:437–46 [Google Scholar]
  23. Caudill DS. 2011. Stories about Science in Law: Literary and Historical Images of Acquired Expertise Farnham, UK: Ashgate
  24. Caudill DS, LaRue LH. 2003. Why judges applying the Daubert trilogy need to know about the social, institutional, and rhetorical—and not just the methodological—aspects of science. Boston Coll. Law Rev. 45:1–53 [Google Scholar]
  25. Caudill DS, LaRue LH. 2006. No Magic Wand: The Idealization of Science in Law Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
  26. Caudill DS, Redding RE. 2000. Junk Philosophy of science? The paradox of expertise and interdisciplinarity in federal courts. Wash. Lee Law Rev. 57:685–766 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cloatre E. 2008. Trips and pharmaceutical patents in Djibouti: an ANT analysis of socio-legal objects. Soc. Legal Stud. 17:263–81 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cloatre E, Pickersgill M. 2015. Introduction. Knowledge, Technology and Law E Cloatre, M Pickersgill 1–14 Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  29. Cloatre E, Wright N. 2012. A socio-legal analysis of an actor-world: the case of carbon trading and the clean development mechanism. J. Law Soc. 39:76–92 [Google Scholar]
  30. Cohen JE. 2012. Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  31. Cole SA. 2004. Grandfathering evidence: fingerprint admissibility ruling from Jennings to Llera Plaza and back again. Am. Crim. Law Rev 41:1189–276 [Google Scholar]
  32. Cole SA. 2007. Where the rubber meets the road: thinking about expert evidence as expert testimony. Villanova Law Rev 52:803–42 [Google Scholar]
  33. Cole SA. 2009. A cautionary tale about cautionary tales about intervention. Organization 16:121–41 [Google Scholar]
  34. Cole SA. 2010. Who speaks for science? A response to the National Academy of Sciences Report on forensic science. Law Probab. Risk 9:25–46 [Google Scholar]
  35. Cole SA, Aronson JD. 2009. Blinded by science on the road to abolition?. The Road to Abolition CJ Ogletree Jr., A Sarat 46–71 New York: N.Y. Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Collins H, Evans R. 2007. Rethinking Expertise Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  37. Collins HM. 1981. Stages in the empirical program of relativism. Soc. Stud. Sci. 11:3–10 [Google Scholar]
  38. Collins HM, Yearley S. 1992. Epistemological chicken. Science as Practice and Culture A Pickering 301–26 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Coombe RJ. 2011. Cultural agencies: the legal construction of community subjects and their properties. Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property M Biagioli, P Jaszi, M Woodmansee 79–98 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  40. Cowan D, Carr H. 2008. Actor-network theory, implementation, and the private landlord. J. Law Soc. 35:149–66 [Google Scholar]
  41. Cunliffe E. 2011. Murder, Medicine and Motherhood Oxford: Hart
  42. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 1993.
  43. Davis KE, Kingsbury B, Merry SE. 2012. Indicators as a technology of global governance. Law Soc. Rev. 46:71–104 [Google Scholar]
  44. DeSoucey M, Schleifer D. 2010. Technique and technology in the kitchen: comparing resistance to municipal trans fat and fois gras bans. Stud. Law Politics Soc. 51:185–218 [Google Scholar]
  45. Dioso-Villa R. 2016. Is the expert admissibility game fixed? Judicial gatekeeping of fire and arson evidence. Law Policy 38:54–80 [Google Scholar]
  46. Edmond G. 2001. The law-set: the legal-scientific production of medical propriety. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 26:191–226 [Google Scholar]
  47. Edmond G, Mercer D. 1998a. Representing the sociology of scientific knowledge and law. Sci. Commun. 19:307–27 [Google Scholar]
  48. Edmond G, Mercer D. 1998b. Trashing “junk science.”. Stanford Technol. Law Rev 1998:3 [Google Scholar]
  49. Edmond G, Mercer D. 2002. Conjectures and exhumations: citations of history, philosophy and sociology of science in US federal courts. Law Lit 14:309–66 [Google Scholar]
  50. Edmond G, Mercer D. 2004. The invisible branch: the Authority of science studies in expert evidence jurisprudence. Expertise in Regulation and Law G Edmond 197–241 Aldershot, UK: Ashgate [Google Scholar]
  51. Edmond G, Roach K. 2011. A contextual approach to the admissibility of the state's forensic science. Univ. Tor. Law J. 61:343–409 [Google Scholar]
  52. Engel DM. 1998. How does law matter in the constitution of legal consciousness. How Does Law Matter? BG Garth, A Sarat 109–44 Evanston, IL: Northwest. Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  53. Ewick P, Silbey SS. 1998. The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  54. Faigman DL. 1999. Legal Alchemy: The Use and Misuse of Science in the Law New York: W.H. Freeman
  55. Faulkner A. 2012. Law's performativities: shaping the emergence of regenerative medicine through European Union legislation. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42:753–74 [Google Scholar]
  56. Faulkner A, Lange B, Lawless C. 2012. Material worlds: intersections of law, science, technology and society. J. Law Soc. 39:1–19 [Google Scholar]
  57. Fish A. 2006. The commodification and exchange of knowledge in the case of transnational commercial yoga. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 13:189–206 [Google Scholar]
  58. Flear ML, Pfister T. 2014. Contingent participation. Knowledge, Technology, and Law E Cloatre, M Pickersgill 33–49 Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  59. Flear ML, Pickersgill M. 2013. Regulatory or regulating publics? The European Union's regulation of emerging health technologies and citizen participation. Med. Law Rev 21:39–70 [Google Scholar]
  60. Fleck L. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  61. Foster KR, Huber PW. 1999. Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts Cambridge: MIT Press
  62. Foster L. 2014. Critical cultural translation: a socio-legal framework for regulatory orders. Indiana J. Glob. Legal Stud. 21:79–105 [Google Scholar]
  63. Franklin S. 1995. Science as culture, cultures of science. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 24:163–84 [Google Scholar]
  64. Freudenburg WR. 2005. Seeding science, courting conclusions: reexamining the intersection of science, corporate cash, and the law. Sociol. Forum 20:3–33 [Google Scholar]
  65. Freudenburg WR. 2008. Rethinking the threats to scientific balance in contexts of litigation and regulation. Environ. Health Perspect. 116:142–47 [Google Scholar]
  66. Golan T. 2004. Laws of Men and Laws of Nature Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press
  67. Gundhus HI. 2012. Experience or knowledge? Perspectives on new knowledge regimes and control of police professionalism. Policing 7:176–92 [Google Scholar]
  68. Guzik K. 2013. Taking hold of the wheel: automobility, social order, and the law in Mexico's Public Registry of Vehicles (REPUVE). Law Soc. Rev. 47:523–54 [Google Scholar]
  69. Haack S. 2003. Defending Science—Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism Amherst, NY: Prometheus
  70. Hayden C. 2003. When Nature Goes Public: The Making and Unmaking of Bioprospecting in Mexico Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  71. Holmes OW. 2009. The Common Law Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  72. Horwitz MJ. 1980. Law and economics: Science or politics?. Hofstra Law Rev 8:2–8 [Google Scholar]
  73. Huising R, Silbey SS. 2011. Governing the gap: forging safe science through relational regulation. Regul. Gov. 5:14–42 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hunter C. 2015. Solar panels, homeowners and leases: the lease as a socio-legal object. Exploring the “Legal” in Socio-Legal Studies D Cowan, D Wincott 137–56 London: Palgrave [Google Scholar]
  75. Jacob M-A. 2011. Knowledge games, truthfulness and organ transplants regulation. BioSocieties 6:243–61 [Google Scholar]
  76. Jacob M-A. 2015. Misconduct hunting: research integrity via law, science and technology. Knowledge, Technology and Law E Cloatre, M Pickersgill 137–53 Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  77. Jain SSL. 2006. Injury: The Politics of Product Design and Safety Law in the United States Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  78. Jasanoff S. 1995. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  79. Jasanoff S. 2003. Breaking the waves in science studies: comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies.”. Soc. Stud. Sci 33:389–400 [Google Scholar]
  80. Jasanoff S. 2005. Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings. Am. J. Public Health 95:S49–S58 [Google Scholar]
  81. Jasanoff S. 2006. Just evidence: the limits of science in the legal process. J. Law Med. Ethics 34:328–41 [Google Scholar]
  82. Jasanoff S. 2008. Making order: law and science in action. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies EJ Hackett, O Amsterdamska, M Lynch, J Wacjman 761–86 Cambridge: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  83. Jasanoff S. 2011. Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age Cambridge: MIT Press
  84. Kahn J. 2013. Race in a Bottle: The Story of BiDil and Racialized Medicine in a Post-Genomic Age New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  85. Kawar L. 2014. Making the machine work: technocratic engineering of rights for domestic workers at the International Labour Organization. Indiana J. Glob. Legal Stud. 21:483–511 [Google Scholar]
  86. Kelty C. 2011. Inventing Copyleft. Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property M Biagioli, P Jaszi, M Woodmansee 133–48 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  87. Kirkland A. 2016. Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury New York: N.Y. Univ. Press
  88. Kruse C. 2016. The Social Life of Forensic Evidence Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  89. Kuhn TS. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  90. Langdell CC. 1887. Address to Harvard Law School Association at the quarter-millennial celebration of Harvard University. Law Q. Rev. 3:118–25 [Google Scholar]
  91. Lange B. 2005. Social dynamics of regulatory interactions: an exploration of three sociological perspectives. Law and Sociology: Current Legal Issues M Freeman 141–64 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. LaRue LH, Caudill DS. 2004. A non-romantic view on expert testimony. Seton Hall Law Rev 35:1–45 [Google Scholar]
  93. Latour B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  94. Latour B. 2002. La Fabrique du Droit: Une Ethnographie du Conseil d'État Paris: La Découverte
  95. Latour B. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Crit. Inq. 30:225–48 [Google Scholar]
  96. Latour B. 2010. The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil D'Etat Cambridge, UK: Polity
  97. Law J. 1987. Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese expansion. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology WE Bijker, TP Hughes, T Pinch 111–34 Cambridge: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  98. Law J, Hassard J. 1999. Actor Network Theory and After Oxford: Blackwell
  99. Lawless C. 2012. The low template DNA profiling controversy: biolegality and boundary work among forensic scientists. Soc. Stud. Sci. 43:191–214 [Google Scholar]
  100. Levi R. 2009. Gated communities in law's gaze: material forms and the production of a social body in legal adjudication. Law Soc. Inq. 34:635–69 [Google Scholar]
  101. Levi R, Valverde M. 2001. Knowledge on tap: police science and common knowledge in the legal regulation of drunkenness. Law Soc. Inq. 26:819–46 [Google Scholar]
  102. Levi R, Valverde M. 2008. Studying law by association: Bruno Latour goes to the Conseil d'Etat. Law Soc. Inq. 33:805–25 [Google Scholar]
  103. Lezaun J. 2012. The pragmatic sanction of materials: notes for an ethnography of legal substances. J. Law Soc. 39:20–38 [Google Scholar]
  104. Lynch M. 2001. Science and technology studies: ethnomethodology. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences NJ Smelser, PB Baltes 13644–47 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  105. Lynch M. 2009. Science as vacation: deficits, surfeits, PUSS, and doing your own job. Organization 16:101–19 [Google Scholar]
  106. Lynch M, Cole SA. 2005. STS on trial: dilemmas of expertise. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35:269–311 [Google Scholar]
  107. Lynch M, Cole SA, McNally R, Jordan K. 2008. Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  108. M'charek A. 2008. Silent witness, articulate collective: DNA evidence and the inference of visible traits. Bioethics 22:519–28 [Google Scholar]
  109. Madison MJ. 2005. Law as design: objects, concepts, and digital things. Case West. Reserve Law Rev. 56:381–478 [Google Scholar]
  110. Mannheim K. 1936. Ideology and Utopia New York: Harvest
  111. Maurer B. 2004. The cultural power of law? Conjunctive readings. Law Soc. Rev. 38:843–49 [Google Scholar]
  112. McCann M. 2006. On legal rights consciousness: a challenging analytical tradition. The New Civil Rights Research: A Constitutive Approach B Fleury-Steiner, LB Nielsen ix–xxx Burlington, UK: Ashgate [Google Scholar]
  113. Merry SE, Coutin SB. 2014. Technologies of truth in the anthropology of conflict. Am. Ethnol. 41:1–16 [Google Scholar]
  114. Mnookin JL. 1998. The image of truth: photographic evidence and the power of analogy. Yale J. Law Humanit. 10:1–74 [Google Scholar]
  115. Mnookin JL. 2001. Scripting expertise: the history of handwriting identification evidence and the judicial construction of reliability. Va. Law Rev. 87:102–226 [Google Scholar]
  116. Mnookin JL. 2008. Of black boxes, instruments, and experts: testing the validity of forensic science. Episteme 5:343–58 [Google Scholar]
  117. Moore SF. 1973. Law and social change: the semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. Law Soc. Rev. 7:719–46 [Google Scholar]
  118. Murphy T, Cuinn GO. 2013. Taking technology seriously: STS as a human rights method. European Law and New Health Technologies ML Flear, A-M Farrell, TK Hervey, T Murphy 285–308 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  119. Murray F. 2011. Patenting life: how the oncomouse patent changes the lives of mice and men. Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property M Biagioli, P Jaszi, M Woodmansee 399–411 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  120. Nader L. 1972. Up the anthropologist: perspectives gained from studying up. Reinventing Anthropology, ed. Hymes D. 284–311 New York: Pantheon Books [Google Scholar]
  121. Ottinger G. 2013. Changing knowledge, local knowledge, and knowledge gaps: STS insights into procedural justice. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 38:250–70 [Google Scholar]
  122. Parthasarathy S. 2007. Building Genetic Medicine: Breast Cancer, Technology, and the Comparative Politics of Health Care Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  123. Posner RA. 1987. The decline of law as an autonomous discipline, 1962–1987. Harvard Law Rev 100:761–80 [Google Scholar]
  124. Pottage A. 2011. Law machines: scale models, forensic materiality, and the making of modern patent law. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41:621–43 [Google Scholar]
  125. Pottage A. 2012. The materiality of what?. J. Law Soc. 39:167–83 [Google Scholar]
  126. Rees G. 2015. Making the colposcope “forensic”: the medico-legal management of a controversial visualization device. Knowledge, Technology and Law E Cloatre, M Pickersgill 86–103 Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  127. Riles A. 1998. Infinity within the brackets. Am. Ethnol. 25:378–98 [Google Scholar]
  128. Riles A. 2000. The Network Inside Out Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  129. Riles A. 2011. Collateral Knowledge: Legal Reasoning in the Global Financial Markets Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  130. Riles A. 2016. Afterword: a method more than a subject. Exploring the “Legal” in Socio-Legal Studies D Cowan, D Wincott 257–64 London: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  131. Rip A. 2003. Constructing expertise—in a third wave of science studies?. Soc. Stud. Sci. 33:419–34 [Google Scholar]
  132. Risinger DM. 2007. The irrelevance and central relevance of the boundary between science and non-science in the evaluation of expert witness reliability. Villanova Law Rev 52:679–722 [Google Scholar]
  133. Roberts DE. 2013. Law, race, and biotechnology: toward a biopolitical and transdisciplinary paradigm. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9:149–66 [Google Scholar]
  134. Rooke C, Cloatre E, Dingwall R. 2012. The regulation of nicotine in the United Kingdom: how nicotine gum came to be a medicine, but not a drug. J. Law Soc. 39:39–57 [Google Scholar]
  135. Ross A. 1996. Science Wars Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
  136. Saks MJ, Faigman DL. 2008. Failed forensics: how forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 4:149–71 [Google Scholar]
  137. Scheffer T. 2010. Knowing how to sleepwalk: placing expert evidence in the midst of an English jury trial. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35:620–44 [Google Scholar]
  138. Schweber H. 1999. Law and the natural sciences in nineteenth-century American universities. Sci. Context 12:101–21 [Google Scholar]
  139. Seron C, Silbey SS. 2004. Profession, science, and culture: an emergent canon of law and society research. Blackwell Companion to Law and Society A Sarat 30–60 Oxford: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  140. Shapin S. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  141. Shapin S, Schaffer S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  142. Silbey J. 2014. The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators, and Everyday Intellectual Property Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press
  143. Silbey SS. 2005. After legal consciousness. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:323–68 [Google Scholar]
  144. Silbey SS. 2006. Governing green laboratories Presented at Constr. Leg. Sci. Organ. Fields Cult. Cent. Law Soc. Cult. Cent. Organ. Res. Univ. Calif. Irvine: April 7
  145. Silbey SS. 2008a. Law and Science: Epistemological, Evidentiary, and Relational Engagements 1 Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
  146. Silbey SS. 2008b. Law and Science: Regulation of Property, Practices, and Products 2 Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
  147. Silbey SS. 2009. Taming Prometheus: talk about safety and culture. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:341–69 [Google Scholar]
  148. Silbey SS. 2013. What makes a social science of law? Doubling the social in socio-legal studies. Exploring the “Socio” of Socio-Legal Studies D Feenan 20–36 London: Palgrave Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  149. Silbey SS, Ewick P. 2003. The architecture of authority: the place of law in the space of science. The Place of Law A Sarat, L Douglas, M Umphrey 75–108 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  150. Silverstein H. 1996. Unleashing Rights Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  151. Sismondo S. 2004. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies Malden, MA: Blackwell
  152. Sokal A, Bricmont J. 1998. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science New York: Picador
  153. Sorell T. 1991. Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science London: Routledge
  154. Suchman M. 2003. The contract as social artifact. Law Soc. Rev. 37:91–142 [Google Scholar]
  155. Swanson K. 2007. Biotech in court: a legal lesson on the unity of science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 37:357–84 [Google Scholar]
  156. Swanson KA. 2011. Authoring an invention: patent production in the nineteenth-century United States. Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property M Biagioli, P Jaszi, M Woodmansee 41–54 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  157. Tejani R. 2016. Little black boxes: legal anthropology and the politics of autonomy in tort law. Univ. New Hampshire Law Rev. 11:129–70 [Google Scholar]
  158. Teubner G. 1983. Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law Soc. Rev. 17:239–86 [Google Scholar]
  159. Toom V. 2012. Bodies of science and law: forensic DNA profiling, biological bodies, and biopower. J. Law Soc. 39:150–66 [Google Scholar]
  160. Valverde M. 1996. Social facticity and the law: a social expert's eyewitness account of law. Soc. Legal Stud. 5:201–17 [Google Scholar]
  161. Valverde M. 2003. Law's Dream of a Common Knowledge Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  162. Valverde M. 2005. Authorizing the production of urban moral order: appellate courts and their knowledge games. Law Soc. Rev. 39:419–56 [Google Scholar]
  163. Valverde M, Levi R, Moore D. 2005. Legal knowledges of risk. Law and Risk Law Comm. Can., 86–120 Vancouver: UBC Press [Google Scholar]
  164. van Brakel R, De Hert P. 2011. Policing, surveillance and law in a pre-crime society: understanding the consequences of technology based strategies. J. Police Stud. 20:163–92 [Google Scholar]
  165. Van Hoyweghen I, Horstman K, Schepers R. 2007. Genetic “risk carriers” and lifestyle “risk takers”: Which risks deserve our legal protection in insurance?. Health Care Anal 15:179–93 [Google Scholar]
  166. van Oorschot I. 2014. Seeing the case clearly: file-work, material mediation, and visualizing practices in a Dutch criminal court. Symb. Interact. 37:439–57 [Google Scholar]
  167. Winickoff DE. 2015. Epistemic jurisdictions: science and courts in regulatory (de)centralisation. Knowledge, Technology and Law E Cloatre, M Pickersgill 173–88 Abingdon, UK: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  168. Wittgenstein L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations New York: Macmillan
  169. Wolpert L. 1993. The Unnatural Nature of Science Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  170. Wynne B. 2003. Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of proportionalism. Soc. Stud. Sci. 33:401–17 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error