Civil Epistemologies and the Institutionalization of Three Controversial Medical Technologies
New medical technologies often spark scientific and social controversy. In order to inform public opinion, journalists use a number of sources, including doctors and associations of patients who put forward various scientific, clinical and social arguments based on real-life experiences. In this arena of political deliberation, where science, clinical aspects and personal trajectories intersect, how do public policies gain legitimacy ? What arguments lead to the institutionalization of medical innovations ? This article examines the viewpoints of medical specialists, associations of patients and the opinions reported in the written press on three specific medical technologies : screening for Down’s syndrome, electroshock therapy, and prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer. It shows how, in each case, a particular narrative somehow succeeds in forging a clear direction where the institutionalization of medical innovation takes place.