The objective of this project is to advance the study of public understanding of science by analyzing how lay and expert advocates of alternative cancer therapies evaluate their scientific merit in the context of general social values. The project will draw on the science and technology studies and cultural and medical anthropology literatures on boundary-work and cultural reconstruction. It will extend those literatures by examining how an anthropology of public understandings of science can be made relevant to issues of public policy. Methodologically, the empirical research will involve two phases: a review of public literature and conference presentations, and in-depth, ethnographic interviews with many of the leading figures in the alternative cancer therapies movement. Interviews will cover a wide spectrum of views, including some mainstream critics. They will focus on the scientific or technical criteria used to distinguish good and bad research and therapies, and how these criteria are negotiated with general values such as cost, availability, side effects and quality of life, and a concern with `naturalness.` The hypothesis is that public discourse in this area will reveal sophisticated understandings of science. Policy implications for analysis include the question of paternalism in funding and regulatory procedures and the general problem of democratizing scientific production for various areas of scientific research and funding. Results will be reported to the academic community, the alternative cancer community, and the general public.
