The June edition of The Social Studies of Science has three articles of interest to discard studies (details below). Social Studies of Science, or Science and Technology Studies (STS), critically examines the social processes through which scientific and technical knowledge is created, evaluated, challenged, spread, accepted, refuted, transformed, and fit back into social relations and culture. STS and discard studies share the conviction that “waste” is not given in nature, but is created, and thus study processes of waste becoming. Following Mary Douglas’ idea that, “Where there is dirt there is system. Dirt is the by-product of a systematic ordering and classification of matter, in so far as ordering involves rejecting inappropriate elements” (1988: 36), both disciplines research how “systematic ordering,” “classifications of matter” and “inappropriate elements” are created and naturalized in social-technical systems. An important topic in both disciplines is how scientific and technical objects and forms of “dirt” are open to debate. “Pollution ideas are the product of an ongoing political debate about the ideal society,” notes Douglas “…[P]ollution beliefs uphold conceptual categories dividing the moral from the immoral and so sustain the vision of the good society” (1982: 36-7). Science plays a role in this, sometimes explicitly, as when “scientists are often asked to contribute to help resolve… policy issues that are unfolding amidst a complex, volatile mix of clashing values, differing preferences, and opposing, often mutually exclusive, societal priorities” (Lackey 2004: 2). Sometimes the use of science to determine what is and is not out of place is less overt, but no less present. The following articles take some of these less overt engagements as their point of study:

Normalizing Transantiago: On the challenges (and limits) of repairing infrastructures by Sebastián Ureta

This article looks to propose a new way to understand the repair of failing large sociotechnical systems. Leaving aside romantic valuations, repair always involves a certain degree of normalization. Derived from conceptualizations by Foucault, repair as normalization is understood as a particular form of power that, first, recognizes a certain normal state to which the failing system should evolve and, second, develops different strategies to reach it, usually involving the deployment of particular disciplinary devices. The ultimate aim of such practices is usually not only the improvement of the system but centrally the maintenance of a certain kind of power. In order to show the empirical usability of such conceptualization, the article analyzes the case of Transantiago, a thoroughgoing reform of the public transport system of Santiago, Chile. The start of Transantiago in February 2007 was marred by multiple failures, becoming one of the biggest public controversies in the country in recent decades. Given this, several different strategies were developed to repair such failures, understanding them explicitly as normalization. The article analyzes two particular strategies: attempts to change the negative ‘public perception’ about Transantiago through the use of quantitative indicators and the introduction of an unexpected type of infrastructure to increase the overall speed of the system. Finally, the conclusion analyzes how the conception of repair as normalization can help us better understand the complexities involved in dealing with failing large sociotechnical systems such as Transantiago, pointing to the need to sometimes move beyond repair.