Accounts of scientific work at the lab bench largely overlook or sideline the considerable time and effort that scientists devote to the acquisition, management, and dispersal of funding. While multiple studies explore the subject of scientific funding from the political economic, historical, and comparative policy perspectives, we develop an approach premised upon relational socioeconomics and grounded in ethnographic study at the bench. We focus our attention upon what we call ‘money-work’—scientists’ everyday practical work, action, and interaction about funding. To illuminate how scientists regularly engage in mundane activity that is simultaneously scientific and economic we apply Zelizerian concepts of earmarking, making good matches, and the development of valuation criteria. Our framework for contemporary laboratory ethnography investigates a political economy of science funding in which science and money do not occupy ‘separate spheres’ or ‘hostile worlds’, but rather lead intimately connected lives. Given the current crisis in science funding, such a perspective on relational work, currency fluctuation, and valuation in exchange is essential for the next generation of science studies scholarship.
AmesM. (2019). The charisma machine: The life, death and legacy of one laptop per child. MIT Press.
2.
Atkinson-GrosjeanJ.FairleyC. (2009). Moral economies in science: From ideal to pragmatic. Minerva, 47(2), 147–170.
3.
AvilesN.VertesiJ. (2026). Merton redux: Re-confronting the norms of science in democracy. Issues in Science & Technology. 42(3): 21–23. https://doi.org/10.58875/WDWX1854.
4.
AvilesN. B. (2024). An ungovernable foe: Science and policy innovation in the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Columbia University Press.
5.
BakerZ. (2017). Climate state: Science-state struggles and the formation of climate science in the US from the 1930s to 1960s. Social Studies of Science, 47(6), 861–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717725205
BandeljN.MorganP. J.SowersE. (2015). Hostile worlds or connected lives? Research on the interplay between intimacy and economy: Intimacy and economy. Sociology Compass, 9(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12242
8.
BaradK. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
9.
BarleyS. R. (1996). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observation of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78–108.
10.
BerdahlJ. L.CooperM.GlickP.LivingstonR. W.WilliamsJ. C. (2018). Work as a masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289
11.
BermanE. P. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.
12.
BermanE. P. (2022). Thinking like an economist: How efficiency replaced equality in U.S. public policy. Princeton University Press.
13.
BolT.de VaanM.van de RijtA. (2018). The matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), 4887–4890. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719557115
14.
BourdieuP. (2021). Forms of capital. Polity Press.
15.
BrownD. W. (2021). The mission: A true story (1st ed.). Custom House.
16.
BurriR. V. (2008). Doing distinctions: Boundary work and symbolic capital in radiology. Social Studies of Science, 38(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312707082021
17.
BurtR. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.
CallonM. (Ed.). (1998). Laws of the markets. Blackwell.
20.
CastillaE. J.HwangH.GranovetterE.GranovetterM. S. (2000). Social networks in silicon valley. In LeeC.-M. (Ed.), The silicon valley edge: A habitat for innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 218–247). Stanford University Press.
21.
CollinsH. M. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now?Polity Press.
22.
ConwayE. M. (2015). Exploration and engineering: The jet propulsion laboratory and the quest for mars. Johns Hopkins University Press.
DoddN. (2014). The social life of money. Princeton University Press.
25.
EpsteinS. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. University of California Press.
26.
EpsteinS. (2007). Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. University of Chicago Press.
27.
EyalG. (2019). The crisis of expertise. Polity Press.
28.
FreemanJ. (1972). The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 17, 151–164.
29.
FrickelS.MooreK. (Eds.). (2006). The new political sociology of science: Institutions, networks, and power. University of Wisconsin Press.
30.
FourcadeM.HealyK. (2013). Classification situations: Life-chances in the neoliberal era. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(8), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.11.002
31.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice Hall.
32.
GarfinkelH.LynchM.LivingstonE. (1981). The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar. Philosophy of Social Science, 11, 121–158.
33.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325
34.
GiraudeauM. (2018). Proving future profit: Business plans as demonstration devices. Osiris, 33(1), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1086/699293
35.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
36.
HarawayD. J. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Routledge.
37.
HayesA.O’BrienR. (2021). Earmarking risk: Relational investing and portfolio choice. Social Forces, 99(3), 1086–1112. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa025
38.
HelmreichS.RoosthS.FriednerM. I. (2015). Sounding the limits of life: Essays in the anthropology of biology and beyond. Princeton University Press.
39.
HendrixA. R.HurfordT. A.BargeL. M.BlandM. T.BowmanJ. S.BrinckerhoffW.BurattiB. J.CableM. L.Castillo-RogezJ.CollinsG. C.DiniegaS.GermanC. R.HayesA. G.HoehlerT.HosseiniS.HowettC. J. A.McEwenA. S.NeishC. D.NeveuM.… VanceS. D. (2019). The NASA roadmap to ocean worlds. Astrobiology, 19(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2018.1955
40.
HilgartnerS. (2017). Reordering life: Knowledge and control in the genomics revolution. MIT Press.
41.
HubbardS.NaderiF.GarvinJ. (2001, October1–5). Following the water: The new program for mars exploration [Conference session]. 52nd International Astronautical Congress, Toulouse, France. https://doi.org/IAF-01-Q.3.a.01
42.
InancH. (2020). Varieties of precarity: How insecure work manifests itself, affects well-being, and is shaped by social welfare institutions and labor market policies. Work and Occupations, 47(4), 504–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888420934539
43.
JasanoffS. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
44.
KallebergA. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400101
45.
Knorr CetinaK. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.
46.
Knorr CetinaK.BrueggerU. (2000). The market as an object of attachment: Exploring postsocial relations in financial markets. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 25(2), 141–168.
47.
Knorr CetinaK.PredaA. (Eds.). (2005). The sociology of financial markets. Oxford University Press.
48.
KohlerR. E. (1991). Drosophila and evolutionary genetics: The moral economy of scientific practice. History of Science, 29(4), 335–375.
49.
LamontM. (2012). Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221.
50.
LaveR.MirowskiP.RandallsS. (2010). Introduction: STS and Neoliberal Science. Social Studies of Science, 40(5), 659–675.
51.
LogsdonJ. M. (2015). After apollo? Richard Nixon and the American space program. Palgrave Macmillan.
52.
LynchM. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge University Press.
53.
MacKenzieD. A. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press.
54.
MazzucatoM.RobinsonD. K. R. (2018). Co-creating and directing innovation ecosystems? NASA’s changing approach to public-private partnerships in low-earth orbit. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.034
MesseriL. (2016). Placing outer space: An Earthly ethnography of other worlds. Duke University Press.
57.
MesseriL.VertesiJ. (2015). The greatest missions never flown: Anticipatory discourse and the ‘Projectory’ in technological communities. Technology and Culture, 56(1), 54–85. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2015.0023
58.
MillerT. R.NeffM. W. (2013). De-facto science policy in the making: How scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, Why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva, 51(3), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9234-x
59.
OppenheimerM.OreskesN.JamiesonD.BrysseK.O’ReillyJ.ShindellM.WazeckM. (2019). Discerning experts: The practices of scientific assessment for environmental policy (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
60.
OrbachM.DemkoM.DoyleJ.WaberB. N.PentlandA. (2015). Sensing informal networks in organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(4), 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214556810
61.
O’ReillyJ. (2017). The technocratic Antarctic: An ethnography of scientific expertise and environmental governance. Cornell University Press.
62.
OreskesN. (2022). Science on a mission: How military funding shaped what we do and don’t know about the ocean (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
63.
Owen-SmithJ. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Research Policy, 32(6), 1081–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00111-7
64.
Pardo-GuerraJ. P. (2019). Automating finance: Infrastructures, engineers, and the making of electronic markets. Cambridge University Press.
65.
Pardo-GuerraJ. P. (2022). The quantified scholar: How research evaluations transformed the British social sciences. Columbia University Press.
66.
Perri, 6. (1997). Social exclusion: Time to be optimistic (pp. 1–24). Demos.
67.
PolanyiK. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time (2nd ed.). Beacon Press.
68.
Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences. (2006). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11530
69.
RavenelleA. (2019). Hustle and gig: Struggling and surviving in the sharing economy. University of California Press.
70.
ReineckeD. (2021). When funding fails: Planetary exploration at NASA in an era of austerity, 1967–1976. Social Studies of Science, 51(5), 750–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127211021913
RobinsonJ. N. (2020). Making markets on the margins: Housing finance agencies and the racial politics of credit expansion. American Journal of Sociology, 125(4), 974–1029. https://doi.org/10.1086/707927
SchorJ. B.Attwood-CharlesW.CansoyM.LadegaardI.WengronowitzR. (2020). Dependence and precarity in the platform economy. Theory and Society, 49(5–6), 833–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09408-y
76.
ShapinS. (1994). A social history of truth. University of Chicago Press.
ShindellM. (2019). Making a community of expertsthe rise of consensus-based assessments for policy in cold war America. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 49(1), 70–103. https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2019.49.1.70
79.
SlaughterS.CampbellT.HollemanM.MorganE. (2002). The ‘traffic’ in graduate students: Graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Science, Technology & Human Values, 27(2), 282–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390202700205
80.
SmallM. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. Oxford University Press.
81.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1998). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’, and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. In BiagioliM. (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 505–524). Routeledge.
SzajnfarberZ. (2014). Space science innovation: How mission sequencing interacts with technology policy. Space Policy, 30(2), 83–90.
86.
TatarewiczJ. N. (1986). Federal funding and planetary astronomy, 1950–75: A case study. Social Studies of Science, 16(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631286016001005
87.
TaylorK.-Y. (2021). Race for profit: How banks and the real estate industry undermined Black homeownership. The University of North Carolina Press.
88.
VertesiJ. (2020). Shaping science: Organizations, decisions, and culture on Nasa’s teams. University of Chicago Press.
89.
VertesiJ.boydd. (2023). The resource bind: System failure and legitimacy threats in sociotechnical organizations. Sociologica, 17(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/18894
90.
VertesiJ. A.EnriquezD. (2025). The ghost of middle management: Automation, control, and heterarchy in the platform firm. Sociologica, 19(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/16415
91.
WajcmanJ. (2015). Pressed for time: The acceleration of life in digital capitalism. University of Chicago Press.
WherryF. F. (2012). The culture of markets. Polity Press.
94.
WherryF. F. (2016). Relational accounting: A cultural approach. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 4(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1057/ajcs.2016.1
95.
WingfieldA. H. (2019). Flatlining: Race, work, and health care in the new economy. University of California Press.
ZelizerV. A. (1997). The social meaning of money. Princeton University Press.
98.
ZelizerV. A. (2005). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton University Press.
99.
ZelizerV. A. (2012). How I became a relational economic sociologist and what does that mean?Politics & Society, 40(2), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329212441591
