Adjudicating non-knowledge in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings.

After 5600 families of children diagnosed with autism filed claims with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the United States, the court selected 'test' cases consolidated into the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, held from 2007 to 2008, to examine claims that vaccines caused the development of autism. The court found all of the causation theories presented to be untenable and did not award damages to any parents. We analyze the Omnibus Autism Proceedings as a struggle within the scientific field between the scientific orthodoxy of the respondents and the heterodox position taken by the plaintiffs, suggesting that the ruling in these cases helped to shore up hegemony on autism causation. Drawing on the literature on non-knowledge, we suggest that only the respondents had enough scientific capital to strategically direct non-knowledge toward genetic research, thereby foreclosing the possibility of environmental causation of autism. The plaintiffs, who promote a non-standard ontology of autism, suggest that the science on autism remains undone and should not be circumscribed. In analyzing the Omnibus Autism Proceedings with field theory, we highlight the way in which scientific consensus-building and the setting of research agendas are the result of struggle, and we show that the strategic deployment of non-knowledge becomes a major stake in battles for scientific legitimacy and the settling of scientific controversies.