IsisCB Explore

Article ID: CBB376759289

Risky Technologies: Systemic Uncertainty in Contraceptive Risk Assessment and Management (2019)

Geampana, Alina (Author)

Science, Technology and Human Values
Volume: 44
Issue: 6
Pages: 1116-1138

URI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919831411

DOI: 10.1177/0162243919831411

Outside Links

PubMed

WorldCat

Google Scholar

JSTOR

Academia.edu

Risk assessment Technoscience; science and technology studies Controversies and disputes Regulation Birth control; contraception; sterilization Interviews 21st century

Focusing on the controversial birth control pills Yaz and Yasmin, this article explores how debates about the safety of these drugs have materialized in risk evaluations and the management of technological risk. Drawing on in-depth interviews with stakeholders and content analysis of legal, medical, and regulatory documents, I highlight how professional contraceptive risk assessment is characterized by systemic uncertainty and doubt, resulting in increased responsibility for users themselves to manage the drugs’ potentially increased risks of venous thromboembolism. The analysis centers on three key areas in the assessment process that denote disagreement: risk measurement in postmarket surveillance data, the distinctiveness of the drugs’ benefits when compared to other contraceptive technologies, and the weighing of the risks and benefits against each other. While professionals negotiate uncertainty both in epidemiological research and in clinical practice, users are constructed as agents who should manage risk individually. Such processes are underlined by a diffusion of responsibility in the systemic management of contraceptive risk. This article suggests, more broadly, that medical technologies can be conceptualized as artifacts that are instrumental in the dispersion of risks.

...More

Citation URI

https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB376759289/

Citations Indexes

Similar Citations

Article Becky Mansfield; (2021)
Deregulatory science: Chemical risk analysis in Trump’s EPA (/isis/citation/CBB234438851/)

Article Leonie Dendler; Gaby-Fleur Böl; (July 2021)
Increasing Engagement in Regulatory Science: Reflections from the Field of Risk Assessment (/isis/citation/CBB423909656/)

Article Oliver Todt; José Luis Luján; (2022)
Rationality in Context: Regulatory Science and the Best Scientific Method (/isis/citation/CBB425178130/)

Article Philip Olson; Christine Labuski; (August 2018)
‘There’s always a [white] man in the loop’: The gendered and racialized politics of civilian drones (/isis/citation/CBB568832607/)

Article Woochang Lee; Hyomin Kim; (2022)
The Politics and Sub-Politics of Mad Cow Disease in South Korea (/isis/citation/CBB202228566/)

Article Maite P. Salazar; Daniel Valenzuela; Manuel Tironi; Rodrigo A. Gutiérrez; (2019)
The ambivalent regulator: The construction of a regulatory style for genetically modified crops in Chile (/isis/citation/CBB036000701/)

Article Poonam Pandey; Aviram Sharma; (2017)
NGOs, Controversies, and “Opening Up” of Regulatory Governance of Science in India (/isis/citation/CBB915250388/)

Article Henri Boullier; Emmanuel Henry; (2022)
Toxic Ignorance: How Regulatory Procedures and Industrial Knowledge Jeopardise the Risk Assessment of Chemicals (/isis/citation/CBB183545703/)

Article Julie Guthman; Sandy Brown; (May 2016)
Whose Life Counts: Biopolitics and the “Bright Line” of Chloropicrin Mitigation in California’s Strawberry Industry (/isis/citation/CBB827594313/)

Article Gwen Ottinger; (2022)
Misunderstanding Citizen Science: Hermeneutic Ignorance in U.S. Environmental Regulation (/isis/citation/CBB618398697/)

Article John Law; Solveig Joks; (2019)
Indigeneity, Science, and Difference: Notes on the Politics of How (/isis/citation/CBB559875033/)

Article Abby Kinchy; Guy Schaffer; (November 2018)
Disclosure Conflicts: Crude Oil Trains, Fracking Chemicals, and the Politics of Transparency (/isis/citation/CBB796979408/)

Article Anne Kerr; Tineke Broer; Emily Ross; Sarah Cunningham Burley; (August 2019)
Polygenic risk-stratified screening for cancer: Responsibilization in public health genomics (/isis/citation/CBB774833590/)

Article Dilshani Sarathchandra; (2017)
Risky Science? Perception and Negotiation of Risk in University Bioscience (/isis/citation/CBB691241938/)

Article Chuncheng Liu; (2022)
Seeing Like a State, Enacting Like an Algorithm: (Re)assembling Contact Tracing and Risk Assessment during the COVID-19 Pandemic (/isis/citation/CBB635816935/)

Article Robin S. Gregory; (January 2017)
The Troubling Logic of Inclusivity in Environmental Consultations (/isis/citation/CBB229498527/)

Article Katrin Amelang; Susanne Bauer; (August 2019)
Following the algorithm: How epidemiological risk-scores do accountability (/isis/citation/CBB077353059/)

Article Baker, Jonathan D.; (June 2011)
Tradition and toxicity: Evidential cultures in the kava safety debate (/isis/citation/CBB825126706/)

Article Allain J. Barnett; Melanie G. Wiber; (2019)
What Scientists Say about the Changing Risk Calculation in the Marine Environment under the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015) (/isis/citation/CBB359628559/)

Article Klaus Hoeyer; (July 2015)
Regulatory Anatomy: How “Safety Logics” Structure European Transplant Medicine (/isis/citation/CBB387324455/)

Comments

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}