Original Article Scientific uncertainty and the creation of resuscitation guidelines Stuart Nairn a and Stephen Timmons b, * a University of Nottingham School of Nursing, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, London Road, Derby DE1 2QY, UK. E-mail: stuart.nairn@nottingham.ac.uk b University of Nottingham School of Nursing, Queen 0 s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK. E-mail: stephen.timmons@nottingham.ac.uk *Corresponding author. Abstract In this paper we show how the medical specialism of resuscitation deals with two substantial difficulties, and how this is achieved rhetorically. The first problem that resuscitation medicine faces is that it is unable, for a variety of reasons, to live up to its own ideals of being scientific and evidence-based. The second problem is that, despite 45 years of technological innovation, the specialism has made little progress in its main aim of saving lives. A range of texts from within resuscitation medicine will be analysed to show the discursive techniques employed by this community to rhetorically overcome these problems, and re-assert the authority of medicine within this sphere. Social Theory & Health (2010) 8, 289–308. doi:10.1057/sth.2009.4 Keywords: resuscitation; guidelines; scientific discourse; evidence-based practice; critical realism; critical discourse analysis Introduction Resuscitation is defined as ‘as the preservation or restoration of life by the establishment and/or maintenance of airway, breathing and circulation, and related emergency care’ (Australian Resuscitation Council, 2006, p. 322). Although resuscitation does not yet have the status of being a full medical specialism (like cardiology or orthopaedics), it is a substantial community within medicine with its own associations, conferences and journals, of which the most influential is ‘Resuscitation’. The growth of resuscitation as a r 2010 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1477-8211 Social Theory & Health Vol. 8, 4, 289–308 www.palgrave-journals.com/sth/