: "Technoscience" is now most commonly used in academic work to refer to sets of activities wherein science and technology have become inextricably intermingled, or else have hybridized in some sense. What, though, do we understand by "science" and by "technology"? The use of these terms has varied greatly, but their current use presumes a society with extensive institutional and occupational differentiation. Only in that kind of context may science and technology be treated as "other" in relation to "the rest" (...) of the social order; whether as differentiated sets of practices or as specialized institutional forms. References to "technoscience" may then be taken to imply a reversal of earlier processes of cultural and institutional differentiation and/or a recombination of separate bodies of practice and skill. Either way a move back to a less differentiated state is implied, which makes it surprising that we appear to have very few memories of technoscience in periods less culturally and institutionally differentiated than our own and a lower level of technical and intellectual division of labor. However, the elusiveness of our memories of technoscience may be significant mainly for what it suggests about our ways of conceptualizing the past, rather than for any insight it offers into that past "itself." We tend to identify practices and networks of practices in terms of functions. And it may be because, at different times, different functions have been selected as constitutive of practices, that "technoscience" has come to be regarded as something especially characteristic of the present. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Historians of science, inasmuch as they are concerned with knowledges and practices rather than institutions, have tended of late to focus on case studies of common processes such as experiment and publication. In so doing, they tend to treat science as a single category, with various local instantiations. Or, alternatively, they relate cases to their specific local contexts. In neither approach do the cases or their contexts build easily into broader histories, reconstructing changing knowledge practices across time and space. (...) This essay argues that by systematically deconstructing the practices of science and technology and medicine (STM) into common, recurrent elements, we can gain usefully “configurational” views, not just of particular cases and contexts but of synchronic variety and diachronic changes, both short term and long. To this end, we can begin with the customary actors’ disciplines of early modern knowledge (natural philosophy, natural history, mixed mathematics, and experimental philosophy), which can be understood as elemental “ways of knowing and working,” variously combined and disputed. I argue that these same working knowledges, together with a later mode—synthetic experimentation and systematic invention—may also serve for the analysis of STM from the late eighteenth century to the present. The old divisions continued explicitly and importantly after circa 1800, but they were also “built into” an array of new sciences. This historiographic analysis can help clarify a number of common problems: about the multiplicity of the sciences, the importance of various styles in science, and the relations between science and technology and medicine. It suggests new readings of major changes in STM, including the first and second scientific revolutions and the transformations of biomedicine from the later twentieth century. It offers ways of recasting both microhistories and macrohistories, so reducing the apparent distance between them. And it may thus facilitate both more constructive uses of case studies and more innovative and acceptable longer histories. (shrink)

Summary Pierre-Joseph Macquer (1718–1784) is well known as one of the major chemists in the eighteenth century as a theoretician and a teacher. He is also known for his works on dyeing. This paper presents a new face of Macquer. He proposed a theory on mordants in dyeing as early as 1775. Besides his activity at the Académie des sciences, he played an important role in Government as the commissioner of dyeing from 1766 where he established close links with artisan (...) inventors. Académicien chimiste at the royal Manufactory of Sèvres from 1757, he was also the inventor of French porcelain. His notebooks show his organization, method, courage, passion and obstinacy in the search for the paste for hard porcelain. He also proposed an interpretation of its formation. Macquer was both a theoretician and a practical expert in dyeing as well as in porcelain making. He managed to bridge the gap between science and art. (shrink)

I argue in the paper that classical chemistry is a science predominantly concerned with material substances, both useful materials and pure chemical substances restricted to scientific laboratory studies. The central epistemological and methodological status of material substances corresponds with the material productivity of classical chemistry and its way of producing experimental traces. I further argue that chemist’s ‘pure substances’ have a history, conceptually and materially, and I follow their conceptual history from the Paracelsian concept of purity to the modern concept (...) of pure stoichiometric compounds. The history of the concept of ‘pure substances’ shows that modern chemists’ concept of purity abstracted from usefulness rather than being opposed to it. Thus modern chemists’ interest in pure chemical substances does not presuppose a concept of pure science. (shrink)

: This essay addresses the difficulties that sociology as a discipline continues to experience in grasping the relations between technology, science and the social. I argue that these difficulties stem from a resolute centering of sociology on the social, which follows a generically Durkheimian blueprint. I elaborate a response to these difficulties which derives from recent lines of work in science and technology studies, and which entails a decentering of the social relative to the material and the conceptual, in terms (...) of both objects of analysis and explanatory formats. In order to display the direct sociological relevance of this approach, I move to the macro level, developing the conceptual apparatus of a decentered social theory via the discussion of a historical example of major sociological significance—the systematic gearing together of scientific research, technological innovation and industrial production that originated in the synthetic dye industry in the second half of the nineteenth century. Besides the interest of the topic itself, the aim is thus to exemplify in some detail what a decentered sociology might look like, both empirically and conceptually. (shrink)

The term " technoscience " gained philosophical significance in the 1970s but it aroused ambivalent views. On the one hand, several scholars have used it to shed light on specific features of recent scientific research, especially with regard to emerging technologies that blur boundaries (such as natural/artificial, machine/living being, knowing/making and so on); on the other hand, as a matter of fact " technoscience " did not prompt great interest among philosophers. In the French area, a depreciative meaning prevails: " (...) technoscience " means the contamination of science by management and capitalism. Some even argue that " technoscience " is not a concept at all, just a buzzword. In this chapter, on the contrary, we make the case for the constitution of a philosophical concept of technoscience based on the characterization of its objects in order to scrutinize their epistemological, ontological, political and ethical dimensions. (shrink)

SummaryHistorians have explored the continuities between science and the arts in the Industrial Revolution, with much recent historiography emphasizing the hybrid nature of the activities of men of science around 1800. Chemistry in particular displayed this sort of hybridity between the philosophical and practical because the materials under investigation were important across the research spectrum. Inflammable gases were an example of such hybrid objects: pneumatic chemists through the eighteenth century investigated them, and in the process created knowledge, processes and instruments (...) essential for the creation of a new gaslight industry from 1800. Once this industry began to expand and mature, the interests and experiments of the gas industry stimulated new research work which in turn had relevance for theoretical debates.This paper explores how the emergence of the gas industry from 1800 provided an impetus for new work in theoretical chemistry. Boulton & Watt, important pioneers of the gas industry, explored the compositions of inflammable gases for practical purposes: the composition of these gases had an important effect on the luminosity of gaslights, and hence the economics of the new technology compared to older forms of lighting. As they explored these questions in their engineering work, they stimulated their friend William Henry to explore the nature of these gases further, and he carried out a series of experiments to determine their composition more exactly than Boulton & Watt had done. Henry published a series of paper between 1805 and 1820 where he made arguments about the compositions of inflammable airs, and further related these to contemporary debates about the laws of multiple and definite proportions, as well as John Dalton's atomism. Henry's research was also a hybrid of the theoretical and practical in that he tried to develop results useful for the fledgling gas industry. Specifically, he suggested the best kind of coal to use, and showed how gas quality varied with distillation time and temperature. (shrink)

This essay examines the early career of the chemist Emil Erlenmeyer (1825–1909), focusing on his various endeavors in industrial consulting and entrepreneurship, and his eventual decisive turn, in 1862, to academic research and teaching. This case study offers insights into the developing relationship between theory-based academic research and artisanal and industrial practice in the German states during the 1850s and 1860s. Attention is paid to the relevance of this material to the contemporary historiography of “technoscience.”.

The interaction between science and technology in the Industrial Revolution has been debated by various authors over the years. Most recently, Ursula Klein has described eighteenth-century chemistry as an interconnected system of science and technology because of the inherently productive nature of chemical experimentation. The technology used in the nineteenth gaslight industry follows the pattern that Klein describes: gaslight technology was derived from the academic studies of eighteenth-century pneumatic chemists. The foundation of the technology in science included first, a knowledge (...) about inflammable gases and their properties, and second, various instruments and processes developed for the study of gases. Although inflammable exhalations had been known long before the eighteenth-century, it was only with the work of Priestley, Volta, Berthollet, and other chemists that their properties and characteristics, including the multiplicity of species of inflammable gases, became known. The instruments and processes of pneumatic chemistry that were incorporated into gaslight apparatus were the retort, the pneumatic trough, lime purification of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, and finally the gasometer. The first important instance of lighting with inflammable gases, that of J. P. Minckelers in 1785, demonstrates that pneumatic chemistry formed part of an interconnected network of science and technology, as does the work of other early gaslight pioneers such as Philippe Lebon, Zachäus Winzler, and William Murdoch. Lebon came to gaslight through the investigation of distillation processes, and later thought of using the inflammable gas produced in this way. Zachäus Winzler, an Austrian chemist, recreated Lebon's thermolamp from the instruments in his laboratory after hearing descriptions of it. In the case of William Murdoch, he incorporated the pneumatic apparatus that James Watt had built for Thomas Beddoes. (shrink)