Search

Tumour genetics is currently turning into a massive clinical approach. This paper is an enquiry into its practices as they expand beyond expert and experimental contexts and become routinised in clinical hospital settings. Studying a French university hospital, we unpack the content and everyday organization of diagnostic labour in this context. Exploring the sociotechnical frictions that arise in the process, we describe the ways in which they are collectively controlled, and stabilized through organizational fictions, that are instrumental in making tumour genetics doable in the hospital, at a large scale. We further show that the new role of external regulations in the production of clinical values for mutations has a strong impact on diagnostic work, making it possible to be performed locally without resorting to expert bioclinical collectives, and outside the professional jurisdiction of clinical geneticists. This division of labour appears as a necessary condition for the rise in clinical productivity required by a new function assigned to genetics: to guide the prescription of drugs for common diseases. This turn in the way genetics is embedded in the clinic calls for a thorough reassessment of its impacts on clinical discourses, practices and decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a detailed account of how surgeons perceived and used a device‐procedure that caused widespread patient harm: transvaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic floor disorders in women. Drawing from interviews with 27 surgeons in Canada, the UK, the United States and France and observations of major international medical conferences in North America and Europe between 2015 and 2018, we describe the commercially driven array of operative variations in the use of transvaginal mesh and show that surgeons' understanding of their hands‐on, sensory experience with these variations is central to explaining patient harm. Surgeons often developed preferences for how to manage actual and anticipated dangers of transvaginal mesh procedures through embodied operative adjustments, but collectively the meaning of these preferences was fragmented, contested and deferred. We critically reflect on surgeons' understandings of their operative experience, including the view that such experience is not evidence. The harm in this case poses a challenge to some ways of thinking about uncertainty and errors in medical sociology, and calls for attention to a specific feature of surgical work: the extent and persistence of operative practices that elude classification as right or wrong but are still most certainly better and worse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]