ABSTRACT
In this chapter, I criticize essentialist discourses about interdisciplinary research. I argue that definitions of interdisciplinary nanomedicine by researchers support knowledge claims and boundary work vis-à-vis alternative scientific approaches (Gieryn, 1983). As such, they are tools used in the knowledge politics of interdisciplinary research – that is, how researchers put forward the type of interdisciplinary work that matters and undervalue other ways of doing science. First, researchers define nanomedicine as a sub-area of biomedical engineering whose members are interested in the same problems, share an overall vision of interdisciplinary work and have a strategic interest in labeling their research as nanomedicine. They use this definition to foster shared commitments among researchers and to promote interdisciplinary nanomedicine. Second, researchers define nanomedicine as a loose association between separate sub-domains, each centered on a nano-object and/or on therapeutic end-points, and compete for recognition of their contribution to breakthrough innovation. Lastly, researchers see nanomedicine as an outgrowth of research areas in chemical, engineering and physical sciences, which bring radical innovations and disqualify so-called traditional approaches in the life sciences.
