Dr. D. Stemerding (Dirk)

dirk stemerding

Assistant Professor

 

Ravelijn

 

Address

Dirk Stemerding

 

MB-STePS

 

PO Box 217

 

7500 AE Enschede

 

 

E-mail

d.stemerding@utwente.nl

Telephone

(053) 489 3348

Fax

(053) 489 2159

 

Background

Dirk Stemerding was trained in biology and is now working as assistant professor in the field of Science and Technology Studies.

Research

General theme of his research is the study of societal embedding of technology as a process in which actors have to articulate the potentialities of a new technology, the demand for the technology, the network of production and maintenance, and issues of political and cultural acceptability. In the past ten years he has worked on a range of projects studying (1) the introduction of new forms of genetic (DNA-)diagnosis in clinical genetics as well as other clinical practices, and (2) issues of government regulation in the field of the new genetics. As principal investigator of the recently established Dutch Centre for Society and Genetics Dirk Stemerding is currently planning work which aims at a prospective analysis and interactive scenario study focussing on the dynamics and implications of the shift from established practices of clinical genetics to emerging practices of community genetics.

Publications

Stemerding D. (1993), “How to deal with the implications of human genome research? On the bounds of a politics of regulation”, in: H. Haker, R. Hearn and K. Steigleder (eds.), Ethics of Human Genome Analysis. European Perspectives, Tübingen, Attempto Verlag: 217-235.

Koch L., Stemerding D. (1994), “The sociology of entrenchment: a cystic fibrosis test for everyone?”, Social Science & Medicine 39 (9): 1211-1220.

Stemerding D. (1995a), “The entrenchment of human genome technology in society: on shifting boundaries between private and public discourses”, in: R. von Schomberg (ed.), Contested Technology. Ethics, Risk and Public Debate, Tilburg, International Centre for Human and Public Affairs: 143-154.

Stemerding D., Jelsma J. (1995b), “Wege zur sozialverträglichen Gentechnologie in den Niederlanden”, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 20 (3): 56-69.

Stemerding D., Jelsma J. (1996), “Compensatory ethics for the human genome project”, Science as Culture 5 (3): 335-351.

Stemerding D., Koch L., Bourret P. (1997), “DNA-diagnosis and the emergence of cancergenetic services in European health care”, European Journal of Human Genetics 5 (suppl. 2): 25-30.

Bourret P., Stemerding D., Koch L. (1998a), “L’oncogénétique: une activité nouvelle entre recherche et médecine”, Bulletin Cancer 85 (3): 239-242.

Bourret P., Koch L., Stemerding D. (1998b), “DNA diagnosis and the emergence of cancer-genetic services in European health care”. In: P. Wheale, R. von Schomberg, P. Glasner, The Social Management of Genetic Engineering, London, Ashgate: 117 -138.

Stemerding D., Hilgartner S. (1998c), “Means of coordination in making biological science: on the mapping of plants, animals and genes”. In: C. Disco, B. van der Meulen (eds.), Getting New Technologies Together. Studies in making sociotechnical order. Berlijn, de Gruyter: 39-69.

Berkel D. van, Stemerding D. (1999), “Maternale serumscreening, politieke besluitvorming en de rol van maatschappelijke leerprocessen”, Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen 77 (4): 225-234.

Stemerding D., D. van Berkel (2001), “Maternal serumscreening, political descision-making and social learning”, Health Policy 56: 111-125.

Stemerding D., J. Jelsma (2003), “Dutch roads to a socially acceptable gene technology”, International Journal of Biotechnology 5(1): 47-57.

Stemerding D., A.P. Nelis (2004), “New practices of screening in the field of cancer genetics: a co-evolutionary perspective”. In: P. Glasner (ed.), Reconfigurating Nature. Issues and Debates in the New Genetics. Aldershot, Ashgate: 203-222.

Stemerding D., A.P. Nelis (te verschijnen), “Choices and choosing in cancer genetics”, in H. Harbers (ed.), Inside the Politics ofTechnology: Agency and normativity in the co-production of technology and society.

Detailed description of research

General theme of research is the study of societal embedding of technology as a process in which actors have to articulate the potentialities of a new technology, the demand for the technology, the network of production and maintenance, and issues of political and cultural acceptability. Particular point of interest in the study of societal embedding is the way in which processes of articulation take shape in, and are framed by socio-technical regimes. In a number of different research projects studies have been made of the introduction of new forms of genetic (DNA-)diagnosis in clinical genetics as well as other clinical practices.

Studies have been made of (1) the introduction of DNA diagnosis for cystic fibrosis in clinical genetics and the (Danish) debate on the prospect of population based carrier testing for this genetic disease (in collaboration with Lene Koch, University of Copenhagen: 1994 and also 1995a), (2) the introduction of DNA diagnosis for hereditary forms of colon- and breast cancer in three European countries - Denmark, France and the Netherlands. This latter study was made (in collaboration with Lene Koch and Pascale Bourret, University of Aix-en-Provence) as partner in a EU Concerted Action Programme on Genetic Services in Europe. In these studies, the dynamics of societal embedding is understood in the context of pre-existing regimes of diagnosis and screening in the fields of clinical and cancer genetics (1997, 1998a and 1998b).

Based on the earlier studies in the field of cancer genetics, a project has been started (in collaboration with Annemarie Mol, University of Twente) focussing on the norms incorporated in cancergenetic practices and regimes. In (studies of) medical practices, normativity is pre-dominantly connected with matters of choice, especially choices of patients - whether or not to take a genetic test for example. In this project we are interested in the ways in which patient choices are shaped by earlier decisions incorporated in technical and organizational practices in the fields of oncology and clinical genetics.

In processes of societal embedding, the political and cultural acceptability of a new technologies frequently becomes an important subject of debate. Thus, societal embedding may be seen as a learning process about the (potential) effects of a new technology, involving a variety of actors. From this perspective, government regulation as a way to control the effects of new technologies often appears as a too limited approach. The limitations of existing regimes of regulation have been studied in three different projects relating to the introduction of new genetic technologies.

A study of the ways in which issues of regulation have been defined (in the Netherlands) by actors involved in the human genome innovation network and by the government and parliament (1993 and also 1996).

Attempts of the Dutch government to regulate activities in the field of genetic modification of animals on the basis of animal welfare legislation – the so-called ‘Herman’ case - have been contrasted (in a study in collaboration with Jaap Jelsma, University of Twente) with the impact of interactive learning processes in the field of novel foods initiated by a Dutch consumer organisation (1995b).

The introduction of a new genetic (serum)screening test in Dutch prenatal care has been studied (in collaboration with Dymphie van Berkel, University of Utrecht) as a complex learning process, revealing a clear and unresolved tension between the promotional activities of professionals in the field and wider debates about possible effects, involving actors like the Dutch Health Council, the government, and midwifes, social scientists or philosophers speaking for those directly affected by the new technology (1999).

Currently planning work which aims at a prospective analysis of the shift from established practices of clinical genetics to emerging practices of community genetics, a shift related to developments in genomics and visible in particular on the level of expectations.