Certain fields of research are deeply shaped by their proximity with policy-makers and administrations. The so-called 'regulatory sciences' and their corresponding expert communities emerge from this intermediary space between science and policy. Social studies of expertise and scientific experts show, however, that modes of engagement with policy-making vary greatly from one scientist to another. Two scientists that are part of the same research group or laboratory may engage the policy realm differently. How then does the social organization of research influence scientists' participation in scientific advice and the production of regulatory sciences? The paper looks at toxicology, a field in which knowledge production is centrally motivated by risk assessment, but one that has also seen the emergence of different knowledge-making motives, including advancement of fundamental knowledge and frontier research. A toxicology laboratory may thus harbor a diversity of moral economies of scientific advice. The paper argues that scientists' engagements with policy, through scientific advice and regulatory risk assessment, create organizational tensions and force changes to the standard, team-based social organization of research work.

中文翻译：

---

科学家如何成为专家（或不成为专家）：毒理学实验室研究和参与科学建议的社会组织。


某些研究领域因其与政策制定者和政府的密切关系而受到深刻影响。所谓的“监管科学”及其相应的专家群体诞生于科学与政策之间的这一中介空间。然而，对专业知识和科学专家的社会研究表明，不同科学家参与政策制定的方式差异很大。属于同一研究小组或实验室的两名科学家可能会以不同的方式参与政策领域。那么，研究的社会组织如何影响科学家参与科学建议和监管科学的生产呢？本文着眼于毒理学，这是一个知识生产主要由风险评估驱动的领域，但也出现了不同的知识生产动机，包括基础知识和前沿研究的进步。因此，毒理学实验室可能拥有多种道德经济的科学建议。该论文认为，科学家通过科学建议和监管风险评估来参与政策，会造成组织紧张，并迫使研究工作的标准、基于团队的社会组织发生变化。