The (amorphous) anatomy of an invention: the case of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
The priority dispute between Raymond Damadian and Paul Lauterbur over the 'invention' of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has attracted the attention of social and natural scientists for more than 30 years. In this paper, I have used this priority dispute to analyze the complex socio-epistemic processes through which a claim for an invention is made and strengthened. I argue that a tension exists because techno-scientific practices are embedded within a particular disciplinary regime of authorship: even though techno-scientific practices occur through distributed cognition and are contingent upon particular socio-epistemic contexts, a claim for an invention requires assigning authorship to a particular person, company, or institution in order to clearly define the origin and the novelty of that particular techno-scientific event. Nevertheless, the outcomes of socio-epistemic practices for making and strengthening priority claims are shifting, open-ended, and contingent upon particular socio-epistemic contexts.
Prasad
Amit
A
Department of Sociology, University of Missouri-Columbia, 65211, USA. prasada@missouri.edu
D001319:Authorship; D049673:History, 20th Century; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000266:history*; D009613:Nobel Prize; D010330:Patents as Topic / Q000266:history; D012106:Research / Q000266:history*