How we choose to respond to uncertainty matters for robust and responsible science. New laws and consensus reports are popular instruments for global governance of emerging technology and attendant uncertainty. However, the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu noted that \"[t]he judicial situation operates like a neutral space that neutralizes the stakes in any conflict through the de-realization and distancing implicit in the conversion of a direct struggle between parties into a dialogue between mediators.\" Put in other words, while law and legal modes of reasoning are certainly useful for conflict resolution and closure, their overprivileging in emerging technology and uncertainty governance can potentially bring about depoliticization by transforming the struggles and dissent necessary for democratic governance into a \"dialogue between mediators.\" Hence, the critical sociological gaze offered by Bourdieu is particularly relevant for democratization of global governance of multiomics technologies and timely with the current uptake of personalized medicine. For example, in May 2023, the Romanian government introduced a law to give patients the right to personalized medicine. Personalized medicine is related to the larger umbrella concept and field of theranostics, the fusion of therapeutics and diagnostics. It is therefore timely to reflect on a \"right for theranostics in planetary health,\" considering the potential for future pandemics and ecological crises in the 21st century. Rather than forcing consensus or convergence in an innovation ecosystem, dissent grounded in rigorous political theory, sociology of law and critical legal studies can strengthen democratization and global governance for personalized medicine and multiomics technologies.

The article presents a socio-legal analysis of the Legislative Decree (Lgs.D.) of 10 October 2022, n.150, implementing the law of 27 September 2021, n.134 (so-called \"Cartabia reform\"), which provides for the introduction in Italy of a comprehensive framework regulation of restorative justice. The central theme of this paper is precisely the conflict connected to a crime, the offender-victim relationship and restorative justice in the light of the aforementioned decree. As Luhmann observes, the omnipresence of conflicts in society is self-evident. Even the crime produces a conflict or, at times, is the extreme expression of a pre-existing and sometimes latent conflict. The problem that arises is, therefore, that of the control and management of conflicts. These are usually managed by the law, but, given its limitations, it is increasingly necessary to encourage the use of restorative justice programs. On an interpersonal level, conflict triggers a negative mechanism of hostility and disavowal of the other, which either wraps itself in an explosive vortex, or deviates, becoming the pretext for abandoning the only form of communication that conflict makes possible, as Luhmann observes, the one based on \"no\". The Italian regulatory intervention certainly appears relevant, albeit with some critical issues, and to be kept under observation for future application developments.

暂无摘要。

While the US Supreme Court was considering two related cases involving the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, one major question informing that decision was whether scientific research had achieved consensus regarding how children of same-sex couples fare. Determining the extent of consensus has become a key aspect of how social science evidence and testimony is accepted by the courts. Here, we show how a method of analyzing temporal patterns in citation networks can be used to assess the state of social scientific literature as a means to inform just such a question. Patterns of clustering within these citation networks reveal whether and when consensus arises within a scientific field. We find that the literature on outcomes for children of same-sex parents is marked by scientific consensus that they experience \"no differences\" compared to children from other parental configurations.

Sociological approaches to the social control of sickness have tended to focus on medicalization or the process through which social phenomena come to be regulated by medicine. Much less is known about how social problems historically understood as medical come to be governed by the criminal law, or what I term the \"criminalization of sickness.\" Thirty three US states have enacted criminal statutes that require all HIV-positive individuals to disclose their infection before engaging in a wide range of sexual practices. Drawing on evidence from 58 felony nondisclosure convictions in Michigan (95% of all convictions between 1992 and 2010), I argue that the enforcement of the state\'s HIV disclosure law is not driven by medical concerns or public health considerations. Rather, it reflects pervasive moralizing narratives that frame HIV as a moral infection requiring interdiction and punishment.