Alberto Cambrosio

“Going Monoclonal”: Art, Science, and Magic in the Day-to-Day Use of Hybridoma Technology

Recent work in the sociology of science has highlighted the local and tacit dimensions of scientific work. Against the widely held assumption that we are here dealing with a form of knowledge largely beyond the control and manipulation of scientists, we will argue that the unsaid is indeed a part of conscious scientific practice—and hence subject to negotiation, discussion, and construction. Based on a study of the transmission of hybridoma technology, this paper will show that questions of local knowledge, tacit knowledge, and “magic,” far from being ignored by scientific researchers, are explicitly a part of their daily practice. It will be seen that these questions give rise to a series of social and technical distinctions which are constitutive of scientific work.

Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biotechnology Patent Dispute

This paper analyzes expert testimony from a patent dispute involving two California biotechnology companies. This case provides us with an opportunity to study “science” and “law” as they interact, instead of contrasting them as separate, although parallel, practices. In the court, “science,” which usually bears the marks of objectivity and certainty, appears uncertain and subject to interpretation. Through an examination of the representations made by scientific witnesses during the trial as to the origin, novelty, and non-obviousness of the disputed object of discovery, we show that, while one might expect “technical” arguments to play a central role in the proceedings, “social,” “historical,” “economic,”or “philosophical” arguments are coextensive with and constitutive of the “technical.”

Patents and Free Scientific Information in Biotechnology: Making Monoclonal Antibodies Proprietary

There has been some concern m recent years that economic interests in the biotechnology area could, particularly through patenting, have a constricting influence on scientific research. Despite this concern, there have been no studies of this phenomenon beyond isolated cases. In this article we examine the evolution of the biomedical field of hybridoma/monoclonal antibody research with detailed examples of the three types of patent claims that have emerged there—basic claims, claims on application techniques, and claims on specific antibodies. We analyze the impact of these claims and their legal histories on (1) the free flow of scientific information and, (2) the activity of scientific researchers. We conclude that such patent claims present severe restrictions for both, not only in the monoclonal area but in general, amounting to a subtle but significant shift in the political economy of science and technology.

The commercial application of a scientific discovery: The case of the hybridoma technique

Abstract This article is an examination of the diffusion of a particular scientific technique, the hybridoma/monoclonal antibody technique, focusing on its adoption (with various degrees of success) by five institutions in three countries - Canada, the U.S., and the U.K. - for use in diagnostic kits for Hepatitis B. As such, it is pertinent to the more general issue of the appropriation of scientific discovery for use in commercial products. Consequently the article also includes the exposition of a model to allow for a systematic comparison of the different strategies used by the institutions for adopting the hybridoma/monoclonal technique. The institution sample includes academic (research, hospitals), commercial (companies), and hybrid institutions.

What’s in a Pill? On the Informational Enrichment of Anti-Cancer Drugs

The May 28, 2001, cover of Time splashed the following headline: “There Is New Ammunition in the War Against Cancer: These Are the Bullets.”* Color-coded in orange, the words ammunition, cancer, and these pointed to a tiny pile of orange pills identified in a smaller headline: “Revolutionary new pills like GLEEVEC combat cancer by targeting only the diseased cells. Is this the breakthrough we’ve been waiting for?” Two years later, Daniel Vasella, Chairman and CEO of Novartis, the maker of Gleevec, reiterated both the color theme and the war metaphor in the title of his book Magic Cancer Bullet: How a Tiny Orange Pill Is Rewriting Medical History (Vasella, 2003).1

Cancer Research and Protocol Patients: From Clinical Material to Committee Advisors

As discussed by social scientists in relation to AIDS,1 neuromuscular diseases,2 and, more generally, internet discussion groups3 and biomedical research,’ patient activism has been on the rise in recent years.5 Cancer is no exception. Presently, in the US, more than 850 cancer advocacy organisations and associations — most founded within the last 15 years — sometimes cooperate and sometimes compete in an extremely partisan (and increasingly controversial)6 environment. The most important of the cancer patient advocate groups, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, formed in 1991, now comprises over 600 member organisations and over 70,000 members.’ In 1993, eight different patient groups established the Cancer Leadership Council in an attempt to reach a consensus on health care reform; the Council now federates 33 groups. By the mid-1990s other associations began to put together their own strategies and increase their political visibility. In 1996, prostate cancer activists met to form the National Prostate Cancer Coalition (NPCC), and a coalition of advocacy groups came together under the name of the Intercultural Cancer Council in early 1995, calling for, among other things, greater participation of minority physicians and patients in clinical trials.8 Similar trends can be seen in Europe, where groups such as Europa Donna9 (breast cancer) and its counterpart Europa Uomo (prostate cancer), established respectively in 1993 and 2002, came together in 2003 with close to 200 other organisations under the umbrella of the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC).10