Fischer incorporates into his argument the close relationship between anthropological STS and social and environmental justice democracy, film, art, and comparative literature: "At issue for STS in all the above works are the emotional and aesthetic facets of science and technology, the social worlds they create and in which they operate, as well as the uneven developments, localizations, and alternative trajectories of the sciences and technologies in different places. Anthropologists used to indulge in fantasies of first contact, and historians in fantasies of identifying critical turning points or key experiments that change common sense, but in fact both anthropologists and historians always step into flows of prior representations, including those of journalists, novelists, ritualists, and shape-shifting cultural forms, tropes, or genres" (187). This encourages us to look beyond the academy in characterizing STS formations, as well as point toward future directions.
Anthropological STS involves (a) the skills of ethnographic detection—investigative description, evocation, provocation, the finding of strategic intersections of scale (conjunctures, multicausality, interferences, blockages, deflections); (b) deep and broad historical tracing of networks of technological and scientific exchange and influence, of cultural knowledges, of local resiliences and resistances, of governance imaginaries of better possibilities, and of the transferences (in psychological as well as material senses) of migration, new beginnings, and recuperations of lively pasts; and (c) the increasing use of digital technologies and mapping (as in the SafeCast dissemination of reliable portable Geiger counters and other sensing instruments to create independent, public, and verifiable maps of radiation danger post-Fukushima both in that prefecture and elsewhere and as in new research platforms for data production of air pollution and infrastructure decay, being pioneered in the Asthma Files at RPI with sites in Bangalore, Delhi, Beijing, and elsewhere). These are civil society endeavors that build community and that can verify or dispute official stories, thereby contributing to more robustness and plurality in the governance of society, again a matter of our common biopolis and life-worlds. (193)
Fischer does work to define “anthropology of STS” - six key features are defined on pg 183-4: "The anthropology of STS has emerged alongside, and broadens the purview of, British social studies of science (SSK), French actor-network theory (ANT), the Scandinavian social studies of technology (SCOT), and the history and philosophy of science (HPS) (Fischer 2015b). Five features distinguish anthropological STS: (a) a detailed interest in the actual workings of the sciences and technologies in a social context, in contrast with cherry-picking cultural metaphors (Fischer 2013a, Ong & Chen 2010, Suzuki 2015); (b) a global perspective that replaces knowledge transfer models with attention to exchanges and networks in the making of globally distributed sciences and (dis)articulated technologies (Anderson 2008, Ghosh 1995); (c) strategic multilocale and multiscale ethnographic access to complex distributed processes such as the avian flu, biosecurity, and associated ecological management (Fearnley 2013, Fischer 2013a, Mason 2016), the global coal, chemical, petroleum, solar cell, or nuclear industries and responses to accidents and disasters, or global clinical trials and provision of clinical care (Amir 2009, 2014; Das 2015; Fortun 2001; Shulman 2015; Sunder Rajan 2007, 2010, 2011a,b); (d) global university experiments in reshaping educational systems for the twenty-first century (Mistree 2015, Fischer 2013b, 2015a,b); (e) a concern with the powerful aesthetics of imaginaries, and explorations via bioart, literature, film, and drama of the possibilities of democratizing science, exploring the ramifying effects of technologies, and charting the emotional and psychic investments of both (Buergi 2016, Dean 2001, Lansing 1991, Suzuki 2015); and finally, (f) a practical, media, and pedagogical interest in translating legacy knowledges into public futures, or engaged partnerships with policy decision makers and participatory communities" (183-184).
Fischer makes important connections between anthropological STS and other fields, such as social and environmental justice democracy, film, art, and comparative literature: “At issue for STS in all the above works are the emotional and aesthetic facets of science and technology, the social worlds they create and in which they operate, as well as the uneven developments, localizations, and alternative trajectories of the sciences and technologies in different places. Anthropologists used to indulge in fantasies of first contact, and historians in fantasies of identifying critical turning points or key experiments that change common sense, but in fact both anthropologists and historians always step into flows of prior representations, including those of journalists, novelists, ritualists, and shape-shifting cultural forms, tropes, or genres” (187).