No abstract

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has emerged as one of the most dramatic health crises of recent decades. This paper treats mainstream news about the current pandemic as a valuable entry point for analyzing the relationship between science and politics in the public sphere, where the outbreak must be both understood and confronted through appropriate public-health policy decisions. In doing so, the paper aims to examine which actors, institutions, and experts dominate the SARS-CoV-2 media narratives, with particular attention to the roles of political, medical, and scientific actors and institutions within the pandemic crisis. The study relies on a large dataset consisting of all SARS-CoV-2 articles published by eight major Italian national newspapers between January 1, 2020 and June 15, 2020. These articles underwent a quantitative analysis based on a topic modeling technique. The topic modeling outputs were further analyzed by innovatively combining ad-hoc metrics and a classifier based on the stacking ensemble method (combining regularized logistic regression and linear stochastic gradient descent) for quantifying scientific salience. This enabled the identification of relevant topics and the analysis of the roles that different actors and institutions engaged in making sense of the pandemic. The results show how the health emergency has been addressed primarily in terms of political regulation and concerns and only marginally as a scientific matter. Hence, science has been overwhelmed by politics, which, in media narratives, exerts a moral as well as regulatory authority. Media narratives exclude neither scientific issues nor scientific experts; rather, they configure them as a subsidiary body of knowledge and expertise to be mobilized as an ancillary, impersonal institution useful for legitimizing the expansion of political jurisdiction over the governance of the emergency.

This article, based on ethnographic research conducted in a major Italian institution specialising in cancer care and research, provides insight into the clinical and basic research laboratory practices articulated around an experimental protocol designed to develop a biomarker. The article adopts an 'ecological' perspective matured in the field of science and technology studies of the translational process and suggests that biomedical activities are multi-directional, and cannot be understood in reductionist terms, that is, as a two-way linear transfer of bio-knowledge from the bench to bedside and back. I propose the notion of technomimicry, in its dual acceptation in the clinical and experimental sense, to understand the cognitive, social and material strategies involved in the circuit of migration of heterogeneous materials and information across scientific laboratories and clinics. Clinical and experimental technomimicry theoretically capture the multi-directional and multi-modal process of the re-location of materials and bio-knowledge from one site to another. These concepts also highlight how the epistemological boundaries of the clinic and laboratory are required to be mutually adjusted and continuously realigned in order to translate laboratory facts into clinical activities, and clinical evidence into researchable issues.

In the most recent decade, translational research (TR) has played a pivotal role in the production and circulation of medical knowledge and technologies, thus redefining biomedicine's moral force, its cultural authority, and its status in society. As a major component of contemporary life sciences, TR—or more commonly, translational biomedicine—aims to transfer more quickly and effectively the findings of basic science into therapeutic interventions for patients by means of innovative organisational arrangements, research methodologies, protocols, and professional roles. This article brings together sociological research examining translational biomedicine from different perspectives to accomplish two goals. First, it offers a comprehensive introduction to the social science debate concerning the growing adoption of a TR framework in biomedicine, with a special focus on the organisational, professional, and epistemological issues. Second, the article has an operational purpose to raise questions about the main methodological repercussions for social scientists facing the investigation of TR as a complex and multi‐sited phenomenon that challenges traditional qualitative/quantitative research approaches.

This article examines historical trends in the reporting of health, illness and medicine in UK and Italian newspapers from 1984 to 2017. It focuses on the increasing "biomedicalization" of health reporting and the framing of health and medicine as a matter of technoscientific interventions. Methodologically, we relied on two large datasets consisting of all the health-and medicine-related articles published in the online archives of The Guardian (UK) and la Repubblica (Italy). These articles underwent a quantitative analysis, based on topic modelling techniques, to identify and analyse relevant topics in the datasets. Moreover, we developed some synthetic indices to support the analysis of how medical and health news are "biomedicalized" in media coverage. Theoretically, we emphasise that media represent a constitutive environment in shaping biomedicalization processes. Our analyses show that across the period under scrutiny, biomedicalization is a relevant, even if sometimes ambivalent, frame in the media sphere, placing growing centrality on three dimensions: i) health and well-being as a matter of individual commitment to self-monitoring and self-surveillance; ii) biomedicine as a large technoscientific enterprise emerging from the entanglement between research fields and their technological embodiments; iii) the multiverse reforms of welfare systems in facing the trade-off between universal health coverage and the need to render the national healthcare system more sustainable and compatible with non-expansionary monetary policies and austerity approaches in managing state government budgets.