Analyze

Data infrastructure supporting recognition of the anthropocenic air pollution in the context of the 6th Naphtha plants is the collection of health related and biological data, as it could be one possibility to sue. The data collected in scientific studies mentioned in the film were the concentration of a certain metabolite (produced when being exposed to VCM) in the bodies of children visiting the schools nearby and the incidence of cancer in the surrounding area. Doing medical and epidemiological research on these topics could help to set regulations. And - and that's maybe even more important to the people affected - if you can prove that you got a disease from being near the factory, you might be able to sue.

What I find really noteworthy in this text is how Julia Watts Belser takes the poem by Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha and includes it into a scientific text. In this way, she not only allows an affected person to have her say, the poem also leaves the reader with a very striking image of the connection between the river and the body, in multiple ways, as well as the connection between enviromental harm and disability.

The text was published in 2020 (Vol. 40, No. 4) by The Ohio State University Libraries in their Journal Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ). It is, as you can read on their Homepage "a multidisciplinary and international journal of interest to social scientists, scholars in the humanities and arts, disability rights advocates, and others concerned with the issues of people with disabilities. It represents the full range of methods, epistemologies, perspectives, and content that the field of disability studies embraces. DSQ is committed to developing theoretical and practical knowledge about disability and to promoting the full and equal participation of persons with disabilities in society."

The author connects disability theories and activism with environmental justice, this approach allows her to show how disability is related to and through environmental harm, she shows how diagnoses are used politically in these cases, and looks critically at how these processes determine how, when and in what favor human and environmental harm is taken into account. The writing is shaped by the consequences of the Anthropocene like environmental harm linked to health isusses, especially affected are communities of color and poor communities in the United States, here pre-existing patters of structural inequality, already known from climate change come into play,  this communities are the most affected and the least responsible.

I think what is very striking in this text, is the author puts her perspective of the disability studies and uses it to draw lines from the disability studies, more particular the queer black disability studies, to the environmental justice movement. From reading the text, I think one can see, that Julia Belser is very involved in disability studies and the field of critical medicine/ psychology. The way she describes that we should turn away from always seeking to get (back) the pure nature, the healthy environment, the "healthy" body, she reminded me of the general idea of overcoming pure categories (for example Latour etc.) - and dualisms. Additionally, I think one could locate her in the area of inequality studies and the field analyzing structural violence.

The text left me with a question that I actually often find frustrating in the process of research. On page 6, the authors take up the criticism of a Fukushima resident who says: “[W]hat you call research does not give benefits to local people” (Miyamoto and Ankei, 2008, cited in Ankei, 2013, p.24). The authors here suggest adopting or borrowing terms from the field that are used by citizens to create a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003). From the authors' point of view, this can be achieved above all by paying closer and careful attention to the language of citizen organizations and the contexts these groups work in. After further elaboration, the authors call for citizen science terms and concepts developed by, for and with citizens to better reflect the values, priorities, and stakes of its main agents and of all concerned parties. But I am not sure that this approach alone would be sufficient to adequately address such expressed criticism. Perhaps one should ask about the expectations of people one is researching with/about in order to enter into a conversation and to be able to understand this criticism. Perhaps the authors will address this point again in further publications. I think to ask oneself how to deal with this criticism methodically and ethically could also be very fruitful for empirical research in general.

"Within this latter understanding of citizen social science, listening to the field becomes an important tool to accumulate not only concerns and issues expressed by citizens (Morris-Suzuki, 2014), but also to adopt and borrow terminologies used by citizens to generate a more “socially robust science” (Bonhoure et al. 2019, Nowotny, 2003)." (p. 6)

Concept of citizen science (top-down/ bottom-up), and also dealing with the question of the politicalness of data, I think that's quite interesting. As one of the members says: "We agreed that if we just measure accurately, the truth will shine through. If we start saying that we are against [the government], people will label us as against [the government]. So it becomes more difficult for everyone to join us. [...]" (p. 4) - so data is configured as something apolitical, neutral here, and so the citizen science groups also can be like this. I think this is interesting, that they have this concept of data.