CFP/CFA: SRPoiSE 3 and VMST 6 – May 2016

Jun 2, 2015 by Matthew J. Brown

Back to Conference Website

Call for Proposals / Call for Abstracts:

The 3rd Annual Meeting of SRPoiSE: The Consortium for Socially Relevant Philosophy of/in Science and Engineering


The 6th Annual Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology Conference


The Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology
The University of Texas at Dallas
Richardson, Texas, USA
May 19-22, 2016

Co-sponsored by
The Erik Jonsson School of Engineering & Computer Science
The School of Natural Sciences & Mathematics

Invited Speakers

Conference Description

This conference aims to promote ethically responsible and socially beneficial scientific research and technological innovation, primarily through critical and philosophical engagement with science, engineering, and medicine and through reflection on their role in society, from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The conference goal is also to improve the capacity of philosophers of all specializations to collaborate and engage with scientists, engineers, policymakers, and a wide range of publics, as well as to promote philosophic reflection by these latter groups, and also by historians, humanists, and social scientists about the role of science in society.

We seek proposals for presentations, panels, and discussions for our annual meeting of philosophical work that furthers these aims. We are especially interested in work done in collaboration with scientists, engineers, policymakers, or wider publics; works that foster ethical, philosophical, and social reflection by scientists, engineers, medical researchers and professionals; engagements with these issues from across the arts, humanities, and human and social sciences; and work that reflects on how to collaborate more effectively across these groups and overcome institutional and conceptual barriers to collaboration.

The Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology is part of the School of Arts & Humanities at the University of Texas at Dallas. The Center’s mission is to understand, evaluate, and improve the ethical and cultural influences on and implications of science and technology. The Consortium for Socially Relevant Philosophy of/in Science and Engineering supports, advances, and conducts philosophical work that is related to science and engineering and that contributes to public welfare and collective wellbeing.

Potential topics include but are not limited to:

  • Social justice issues in science, engineering, technology, and medicine
  • The role of ethics and values in science, technology, and medicine
  • Ethics education in science and engineering; socially relevant STEM/STEAM education
  • Public understanding of science and medicine; science communication
  • Literary, artistic, cinematic, and pop cultural representations of science and its social implications
  • The role of science, engineering, and medicine in policy
  • Issues with and new models of science advising
  • Broader impacts and ethical, legal, and social implications of research
  • Rethinking responsible conduct of research
  • Coupled epistemic-ethical issues and analyses
  • Science and democracy; democratization of science; citizen science
  • Creating and cultivating cultures for ethically and socially responsible STEM
  • Involving stakeholders in research; participatory action research
  • Public humanities projects around science, engineering, technology, and medicine
  • Analyses of interdisciplinarity and collaboration
  • Socially relevant HPS / STS
  • Humanities engaging science and society
  • Literary, cultural, and artistic challenges and critiques of science, engineering, technology, and medicine

Proposal Types

Traditional individual presentations

Proposals for twenty minute presentations of original research. These proposals will be organized into thematic sessions with discussion at the end. If possible, a discussant or commenter will be assigned for the session to synthesize the discussion. Please submit an abstract of 250 words. Submissions that are not accepted will be automatically considered for Lightning talks / open roundtables.

Panel discussions

Organized panel discussions on a specific theme, focused on original research. Proposals that include diverse disciplinary approaches and/or institutional locations (e.g., faculty/student/other affiliates, different universities, academics/industry/policy) will be given priority over more homogenous panels. We encourage innovations on panel format. Please submit an abstract of at least 100 words describing panel theme, as well as 250 word abstracts for each presentation/contribution. Panels without a discussant to synthesize the discussion may be assigned one.

Lightning talks / Ignite session / Open roundtables

Short presentations (5-10 minutes). Exact format to be determined by number of submissions and feedback from potential presenters. Lightning talks and Ignite presentations generally involve a series of rapid-fire presentations, perhaps with auto-advancing slides, of roughly five minutes. Open roundtables generally involve multiple simultaneous presentations of approximately 10 minutes with small groups, with plenty of time for discussion. These formats are especially good for early-career scholars, scholars exploring a new area of research, praxis-focused case studies and best practices recommendations. Please submit an abstract of 250 words describing the topic to be presented.

Roundtable discussions

Roundtable discussions of a focal topic or question. Roundtable discussions are more informal and dialogical. Roundtables should include a strong moderator, a focal topic, question, or series of questions, prepared remarks from participants, and plenty of time for cross-panel and audience discussion. Please submit a 250-word description of the roundtable theme or topic, and 250-word biographies of the roundtable participants (including moderator). Roundtable discussions will be evaluated in part based on the qualifications of the panelists, and will not be reviewed anonymously.

Birds-of-a-feather briefs

Birds-of-a-feather sessions are networking opportunities in which presenters will lead an informal discussion about a chosen topic for fellow practitioners, with the bulk of the time reserved for audience participation and informal discussion. Proposals should be in the form of an abstract of 250 words describing the topic to be discussed, and 250-word biographies of the presenters. Birds-of-a-feather proposals will be evaluated in part based on the qualifications of the panelists, and will not be reviewed anonymously.


Those working on book manuscripts in some pertinent area of research are invited to discuss their idea with conference participants in a session focused on constructive feedback about such projects. This includes fresh ideas for books just underway as well as books nearing completion, but does not extend to author-critics sessions on recently-published books. Please submit a 500 word abstract describing your book manuscript and its state of completion, the content of your presentation, and questions for discussion / feedback sought.


Graduate students preparing dissertation proposals, in the dissertation-writing phase, or approaching their dissertation defense are invited to present their work at a special dissertations-in-progress session focused on constructive and supportive feedback. Instructions: Please submit a 500-word abstract describing the content of your dissertation. We will work with you in advance of the session on general guidelines for preparing the presentation and what to expect.


We invite presentations from those working on experimental research or teaching projects that don’t neatly fit under the headings of traditional research presentations, books, or dissertations in progress, including experiments in public philosophy, field philosophy, science-philosophy collaboration, and X-phi. Please submit a 500-word abstract describing your project, what stage it is in, the content of your presentation, and questions for discussion / feedback sought.

Workshop sessions

The first day of the conference will be reserved for special workshop sessions. These sessions should be working sessions, not just longer panel sessions for presenting research. As such, they should aim to have a hands-on or how to element, to focus on professionalization and (traditional or alt-ac) career success, to help students and scholars gain skills or knowledge necessary to work in SRPoiSE areas, or to make new connections between SRPoiSE scholars and thinkers in other fields or areas of philosophy not ordinarily associated with SRPoiSE. Please submit a 500-word abstract describing your workshop plan, including the role and contribution of each participant, and 250-word biographies of the organizer and each participant. Workshop proposals will be evaluated in part based on the qualifications of the panelists, and will not be reviewed anonymously.

Plenary sessions, keynotes etc.

TBD. If you have suggestions for plenary sessions, binary session dialogues, keynote speakers, Rogerian arguments, etc., please email [email protected]

Submission Instructions

Please submit your proposal using one of these forms:

Multiple submissions will be considered, but multiple appearances on the program will be limited. You will not be able to make multiple presentations of the same general kind, but you may be able to, e.g., present original research and in a more informal or praxis-focused session.

Submissions are due by November 1, 2015.

The Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology works to foster diversity and inclusiveness in our programming, events, and outreach efforts. Proposal authors and panel organizers will be asked to submit an optional 50-100 word diversity statement to explain their commitment and contributions to diversity in their proposal and in general. Conference proposals will be reviewed for quality, but final programming decisions will be made with professional and social diversity and inclusiveness in mind.

Seeking volunteers for:

  • Discussants and commenters
  • Session chairs
  • Conference logistics

Please email [email protected] if you are willing to volunteer. Please include a abbreviated biography or CV.

Program committee

  • Matthew J. Brown (UT Dallas – philosophy of science), Organizer
  • Magdalena Grohman (UT Dallas – psychology, education, creativity), Co-organizer
  • Dale Dorsey (University of Kansas – ethics, value theory)
  • Dan Hicks (AAAS and EPA – philosophy of science, political philosophy)
  • Kim Knight (UT Dallas – literature, media studies, digital humanities)
  • Eun Ah Lee (UT Dallas – science education)
  • Kathryn Plaisance (University of Waterloo – philosophy of science)
  • Mark Tschaepe (Prairie View A&M and AIDS Foundation Houston – philosophy of science, applied ethics)
  • Sean A. Valles (Michigan State University – philosophy of science and medicine)


All conference locations will be wheelchair accessible. Further accessibility information is TBD, depending on available facilities. Feedback is welcome at [email protected].