Clearly I cannot cite (Anon, m.s.), right?!

I'm an alum!

6. Issues for philosophy of science?

The book raised important questions for me about the use of statistical methods in simulation studies and phylogenetic inference. It strikes me that there is important philosophical work that needs to be done in this area for some more technically-minded folks.

5. Great for teaching

In part because of the clarity, I think this is a great teaching book. I especially liked the (slightly long!) chapter on genocide, data sovereignty, and palaeogenomic inference (Ch. 8 "Seeing Ghosts: From the Excavated Past to the Hauntings of the Present").

4. Clarity of presentation

This is my first Fullwiley book, but I was incredibly impressed by the clarity of presentation on complex and technical issues. The material on ancestry-informative markers (AIMs) was particularly excellent — it'll find its way into my class for sure.

3. Rich ethnographic material

The best part is Fullwiley's ethnography of the Kittles lab, examining how radicalized dynamics play out across all levels of scientific, social, and individual meaning-making — this was powerfully and clearly presented, with some truly engaging actors.

2. New Concepts

Fullwiley's "Sci Non-Fi" (Ch. 7) is an interesting new concept, about how scientific fantasies, or imagination, structure and inspire new research. It's not a big deal, but I didn't find this concept distinct from more familiar science studies ideas like "scientific imaginaries".

1. Structure

The book collects pieces from Fullwiley's decades-long ethnographic work in genomics labs. The introduction provided some overarching framing — but my experience was that the book contained relatively isolated segments (the introduction; Chs. 1–2; 3–6; 7; 8).

Huh!

I might have to defer to people who work on the semantics/psych of moral language. I would have thought that "shouldn't" and "oughtn't" had the same kind of "force".

Or maybe it's a Britishism? I don't think folks in the US tend to use "ought not"....

Fifth, a tiny gripe.

And I know this is rich coming from a philosopher — but I would have appreciated more pictures. Especially given the emphasis on publicity, I had been expecting more about the displays/images used in science communication, mass marketing, public spaces, and the like.

6/6

Fourth, a wish.

I wished there had been more on the public reception and understanding. Towards the end of the book "celebrity" just seems to be operationalized as "media coverage" — but I didn't know who the public was that was reading, engaging, or seeking more information about aDNA.

5/6

Third, a useful new concept, well-situated in the literature.

This is the idea of "celebrity science" as a science that "exists and evolves under intense public interest and extreme media exposure [...] a celebrity science is the outcome of prolonged publicity." (202)

4/6

Second, what a great intro book.

The chapters are easy to read, driven by interviews and narratives. Most end with connections to big ideas in philosophy, history, and STS (think trading zones, boundary objects, data-driven research, &c.)

A very useful resource for introducing these concepts.

3/6

First, what a great topic.

Maybe it's millennial nostalgia, but it was both fun and fascinating to learn about the genesis of Jurassic park and the outsized influence that book and film had on creating and sustaining interest in "ancient DNA".

2/6