Sociological and ethnographic studies of science - different perspectives

The text below, extracted from Susan Perry's article "What Cultural Primatology Can Tell Anthropologists about the Evolution of Culture":

Once more behavioral ecologists joined the cultural primatology bandwagon, the research emphasis started to shift away from the question “Does Species X have culture?” to more theoretically interesting questions such as “Under which conditions should individuals engage in social learning?,” “Who should an individual copy?,” “How do various socioecological variables affect the dynamics of social transmission?,” and “What adaptive benefits accrue to animals who engage in social learning?” Which features of the task, of the demonstrator, and of the social context stimulate the animal to pay attention to details such as the physical properties of the objects being manipulated (e.g., color, smell, size, shape), the motor movements of the demonstrator, the apparent behavioral goals of the demonstrator (as determined by the consequences of their actions), or the movements of manipulated objects relative to other objects?

Susan's insights are clearly in line with what we should probably be moving toward in terms of sociological studies of science. We currently keep asking the same old questions such as whether science is or is not a social construct or whether we can have an objective view of the world. Perhaps, we should also be studying more attentively in which situations a social influence is more evident, how does it affect scientist's judgement and that of patients, how should society handle scientific controversies, how and when should research findings be incorporated into practice, and what is the relationship between science and industry.