DISSENT IN SCIENCE - STYLES OF SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE IN THE CONTROVERSYOVER THE CAUSE OF AIDS

In this paper, we use a scientific controversy, and the efforts to leg itimize and undermine a theory, to examine the co-production of facts and the rules for verifying facts over time. We discuss these processe s in terms of what we call 'styles of scientific practice.' In contras t to the focus of idealist philosophers on theory production and valid ation as forms of logic or ways of thinking, our styles of practice al so include the activities of hands and eyes and the discourses between multiple actors in diverse situations. We discuss aspects of the diff erent styles of practice deployed by opponents in a current controvers y surrounding the etiology of AIDS to understand how the same data are interpreted in different ways to support diametrically opposed views. Our study describes and examines rules of confirmation used by suppor ters of the theory that HIV causes AIDS. For example, we introduce an 'epidemiological' style of practice used by AIDS researchers to synthe size information to understand this disease. Styles of practice stress the historically located collective efforts of scientists, technician s, administrators, institutions, and various 'publics' as they build a nd sustain ways of knowing. Yet, we also show that the 'history' is al so a contested construction, not a given in dusty archives. We describ e the different versions of history constructed by various participant s in the debate to validate their current constructions and definition s of the disease AIDS. Finally, we discuss the politics behind disease definitions and the consequences of different definitions.