{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024944974321349962, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004402054292002935, 'mean_word_length': 5.621359223300971, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How climate change comes to matter; the communal life of facts

techno-scientific responses to public resistance across technology fields but also acknowledges that ‘no critical masses emerge that mobilized against computers like they did against nuclear power or biotechnology’ (p. 118), which is a surprising fact given the deep reaching social transformation that has been brought about by Information Technology (IT). Obviously, there is a striking differential in resistance across techno-scientific developments. While suggesting several plausible explanations for this phenomenon Bauer admits that ‘(t)he absence of critical mass to challenge IT despite plenty of potential concerns is the surprising historical fact that calls for an explanation’ (p. 212). The key question of how techno-scientific movements deal with and learn from resistance synthesizes a large amount of research literature on science, technology and society from various disciplinary angles. Remarkably, Bauer is highly self-reflexive about the social sciences which, in fact, have become a key player in techno-scientific movements’ learning responses to social resistance. In regarding techno-scientific projects as social movements and using a functional analogy with pain Bauer introduces two genuinely original and innovative arguments into the debate on technology and society.