A History of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in the United States: Political Appeal and Public Health Efficacy.

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have become a widely embraced policy to address the US opioid crisis. Despite mixed scientific evidence on their effectiveness at improving health and reducing overdose deaths, 49 states and Washington, DC have adopted PDMPs, and they have received strong bipartisan legislative support. This article explores the history of PDMPs, tracking their evolution from paper-based administrative databases in the early 1900s to modern-day electronic systems that intervene at the point of care. We focus on two questions: how did PDMPs become so widely adopted in the United States, and how did they gain popularity as an intervention in the contemporary opioid crisis? Through this historical approach, we evaluate what PDMPs reflect about national drug policy and broader cultural understandings of substance use disorder in the United States today. (Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1191-1197. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305696).

The Insights of Radical Science in the CRISPR Gene-Editing Era: A History of Science for the People and the Cambridge Recombinant DNA Controversy.

In the wake of controversy over human embryonic gene-editing with CRISPR/Cas9 technology, scientists and commentators have looked repeatedly to the 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA (rDNA) as a model for adjudicating gene-editing today. STS scholars, however, have long critiqued Asilomar as a case of insular scientific self-regulation. Looking beyond Asilomar, other histories from the early biotech years offer fresh insights for those working to create a socially responsible biotechnological practice today. Some of the first scientists to approach genetic engineering with a deep understanding of power and social equity were the biologists in the radical movement Science for the People (SftP). In 1976, SftP learned that Harvard University was planning to build a high-containment facility for rDNA research on its Cambridge campus, and fostered a unique moment of democratic technoscientific governance in their community. The organization's radical framework for understanding and regulating rDNA differed from Asilomar's liberal approach in important ways. While their colleagues at Asilomar ignored the social consequences of rDNA, SftP biologists produced incisive analyses of genetic reductionism, the commercialization of biotechnology, and the public regulation of science-and shared their ideas widely. Along the way, they fostered intellectual connections with an early community of radical and feminist science studies scholars who were investigating emerging issues around genetic engineering. As such, SftP's history offers a sharper understanding of how radical scientists engaged with early STS scholars, as well as profound insights for those who are pursuing an equitable gene-editing landscape in the CRISPR era.