Chagas Disease across Contexts: Scientific Knowledge in a Globalized World.

Chagas is the most important endemic disease in Latin America. It was progressively constructed as a relevant public issue, starting as a medical problem, focusing later on housing conditions, poverty, or vector agents. In recent decades, research has mainly focused on the parasite's biological characterization. In the meanwhile, both Chagas disease and knowledge about it spread out geographically. We analyze the worldwide scientific production on Chagas, showing that countries' research strategies depend on two main factors: endemicity and research traditions. This approach complements previous studies, allowing us to better understand the construction of Chagas disease as a social and scientific problem.

Who's afraid of Ebola? Epidemic fires and locative fears in the Information Age.

Epidemics have traditionally been viewed as the widespread occurrence of infectious disease within a community, or a sudden increase above what is typical. But modern epidemics are both more and less than the diffusion of viral entities. We argue that epidemics are 'fire objects', using a term coined by Law and Singleton: They generate locative fears through encounters that focus attention on entities that are unknown or imprecisely known, transforming spaces and humans into indeterminate dangers, alternating appearance and absence. The Ebola epidemic of 2014 had more complex impacts than the number of infections would suggest. We employ multi-sited qualitative interviews to argue that locative fear is the essence of modern global epidemics. In the discussion we contrast Ebola with both the Zika epidemic that followed and the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Cosmopolitanism or subordination? Latin American scientists' participation in European programs: motivations and dynamics analyzed from the European scientific leaders' point of view. / ¿Cosmopolitismo o subordinación? La participación de científicos latinoamericanos en programas europeos: motivaciones y dinámicas analizadas desde el punto de vista de los líderes europeos.

Using a qualitative approach, we explore the motivations of scientific groups and their dynamics in international cooperation. We consider the participation of Latin American scientists in European consortia and analyze the European hosts' point of view. Within the framework of "North-South" scientific cooperation, we propose three levels of analysis: on the institutional level, understanding Europe's interest in cooperating with Latin America; in terms of cognitive strategies, tracing what motivates European group leaders to include Latin Americans in their research projects; and in terms of practices, figuring out how work within these consortia is allotted. Towards the end, we propose a typology of some of the modalities of scientific cooperation by Latin American groups.

Partiendo de un enfoque cualitativo, pretendemos dar cuenta de las motivaciones de grupos científicos y sus dinámicas de cooperación internacional. Consideramos la participación de científicos latinoamericanos en consorcios europeos y analizamos el punto de vista de los líderes europeos. Dentro de la cooperación científica "Norte-Sur", planteamos tres niveles de análisis: a nivel institucional, comprender el interés de Europa en cooperar con Latinoamérica; en relación con las estrategias cognitivas, averiguar las motivaciones de líderes europeos para enrolar latinoamericanos en sus investigaciones; a nivel de las prácticas, conocer la organización del trabajo en el interior de esos consorcios. Hacia el final, proponemos una tipología de algunas configuraciones de cooperación científica de grupos latinoamericanos.

¿Cosmopolitismo o subordinación? La participación de científicos latinoamericanos en programas europeos: motivaciones y dinámicas analizadas desde el punto de vista de los líderes europeos / Cosmopolitanism or subordination? Latin American scientists' participation in European programs: motivations and dynamics analyzed from the European scientific leaders' point of view

Resumen Partiendo de un enfoque cualitativo, pretendemos dar cuenta de las motivaciones de grupos científicos y sus dinámicas de cooperación internacional. Consideramos la participación de científicos latinoamericanos en consorcios europeos y analizamos el punto de vista de los líderes europeos. Dentro de la cooperación científica "Norte-Sur", planteamos tres niveles de análisis: a nivel institucional, comprender el interés de Europa en cooperar con Latinoamérica; en relación con las estrategias cognitivas, averiguar las motivaciones de líderes europeos para enrolar latinoamericanos en sus investigaciones; a nivel de las prácticas, conocer la organización del trabajo en el interior de esos consorcios. Hacia el final, proponemos una tipología de algunas configuraciones de cooperación científica de grupos latinoamericanos.

Abstract Using a qualitative approach, we explore the motivations of scientific groups and their dynamics in international cooperation. We consider the participation of Latin American scientists in European consortia and analyze the European hosts' point of view. Within the framework of "North-South" scientific cooperation, we propose three levels of analysis: on the institutional level, understanding Europe's interest in cooperating with Latin America; in terms of cognitive strategies, tracing what motivates European group leaders to include Latin Americans in their research projects; and in terms of practices, figuring out how work within these consortia is allotted. Towards the end, we propose a typology of some of the modalities of scientific cooperation by Latin American groups.

Does Size Matter? The Multipolar International Landscape of Nanoscience.

How do different countries tackle nanoscience research? Are all countries similar except for a trivial size effect, as science is often assumed to be universal? Or does size dictate large differences, as large countries are able to develop activities in all directions of research, while small countries have to specialize in some specific niches? Alternatively, is size irrelevant, as all countries have followed different historical paths, leading to different patterns of specialisation? Here, we develop an original method that uses a bottom-up definition of scientific subfields to map the international structure of any scientific field. Our analysis shows that nanoscience research does not show a universal pattern of specialisation, homothetic of that of a single global leader (e.g., the United States). Instead, we find a multipolar world, with four main ways of doing nanosciences.

[To treat or not to treat? Scientific controversy about the treatment for chronic Chagas' disease patients.]. / ¿Tratar o no tratar? La controversia científica sobre el tratamiento para los enfermos de Chagas crónico.

Chagas disease is one of the main endemic illnesses in Latin America. Since 1969 up to the present, the treatment of chronic Chagas patients has been the object of a scientific-medical controversy mobilizing several bodies of knowledge and actors. The resolution of the controversy has direct effects on the health of patients; however, they have been systematically excluded of public debates. In this paper we identified and specified four different steps of the controversy, showing the different positions adopted by the actors implicated, analyzing their statements, the scientific knowledge mobilized during the debates and the consequences for the establishment of norms for the treatment. We conclude showing that what makes up the central issue of the controversy is not what the actors implicated explicitly state as it but the criteria (technical and cognitive) through which are measured and defined "illness" and "cure" states. This research is about a case study in Argentina.

Qué conocimineto oy para quién? Problemas sociales, producción y uso social de conocimientos científicos sobre la enfermedad de Chagas en Argentina / What knowledge and for whom? Social problems, production and social use of scientific knowledge on Chagas' disease in Argentina

Se dirige a comprender las relaciones complejas que existen entre la emergencia y persistencia de problemas sociales y el desarrollo de conocimientos científicos hacia ellos orientados. Expone las reflexiones y los datos que surgen de una investigación sobre la emergencia de la enfermedad de Chagas como problema social relevante y las estrategias de producción de conocimiento orientadas a su abordaje y resolución ocurridas durante el último medio siglo en la Argentina. En la medida en que considera que no emergen "problemas sociales" con independencia de quién (qué actores) los tematiza como tales, pone de relieve el modo de construcción histórica del Chagas como "problema", las tomas de posición de diferentes actores en torno de la enfermedad, las acciones desplegadas por éstos, y en especial las estrategias de producción de conocimiento científico orientadas a su abordaje.(AU)