Is it fair to say that Keller's description of McClintock's 'difference rather than division' runs parallel to the debate of objectivity (in this case an 'ideal' nature) and social constructionists' concepts of nominalism? 

Funny how this could be yet again visualized by the post-modern bubble diagram that seems to sufficiently describe nearly everything I encounter these days.

Maybe STS agenda should be more in line with conflict management in this article. 

I will admit, however, that such proactive scientific work done to prove somebody else wrong has to occasionally promote new science as a by product.  Who would fund that type of project though, i.e. meaning a smear campaign, or would it be funded as the original research topic?

Going off of Jess with some somewhat rambling comments…Using some of the thoughts of this week about embedding culture inside of cells…I was thinking about Langdon (of all people) and “Do Artifacts have Politics”…what political roles are the cultures and politics “in” cells still playing out to this day (Gould has one good example)? Thinking of my own work around chimeras and stem cells…what they actually “are” is still up in the air…meaning our future is still up in the air waiting for the “is” of stem cells to be stabilized. To add to Jess, I wouldn’t say they (the scientists) “got the politics right,” but I would say it is more of an interactive mutually enforcing process.

It was not that their politics fit "better"...it was that they are always already caught in a political environment...which affects their thinking...their science then reinforces the politics...It is not bad science, just science...one can only think with their own brain.

In physiological democracy of Just, which political or social actors are playing the roles of genes? has Just determined any role for genes? since Goldschmidt consider genes as controllers of cytoplasm and Just consider cytoplasm as controlling  the nucleus , so what about gene in Just physiological democracy?

Papers which depicting disputes on the superiority of genetics or embryology or considering difference on science not division , in my opinion, are portraying struggles toward increasing human being’ knowledge. Are these papers are trying to prove that scientific facts, theories or – or any other elevated words that we can use here- are affected by subjectivity of their authors?

 I myself disagree with the Just idea on the important role of marginalized populace or outer layer of cytoplasm on the functions of nucleuses or central government of the cell, or I agree with Mclcintocks that we should consider differences not divisions - maybe in future, if i become a famous scholar ;) you judge me because I am a female I agree with her , ha ha and because I am not black american i disagree with Just, just kidding, but I think we should prove or disprove scientific discoveries not based on the subjectivity of the authors, whereas all our claims should be based on the scientific theories and we should be as objective as we can.

hierarchical structures hold so much explanatory appeal in embryology/genetics/business everything.It makes you wonder how much exactly humanity is missing out on (as far as experiencing life) because our explanations are overly simplistic.

Do scientists like Just and Goldschmidt lose credibility by attempting to graft inherently human social ordering systems onto the cellular level?  By advancing a particular social agenda in their work they risk being marginalized based on ideology rather than the science or even their ethnicity.  Similarly, by insisting that cellular components have one specific social order they limit the effectiveness of the metaphor by not carrying it to its logical conclusion.  Perhaps instead of arguing for an ideology on the cellular level, they should be arguing that cells have social order and differentiate hierarchical from non hierarchical operations or even social revolutions from one to the other.