Massimiliano Simons

The 1980s, it is often claimed, was the decade when experimentation finally became a philosophical topic. This was the responsibility, the claim continues, of one particular movement within philosophy of science, called “new experimentalism.” The aim of this article is to complicate this historical narrative. We argue that in the 1980s, the study of experimentation was carried out not by one movement with one particular aim but rather in a diverse and open-ended way by people with different aims and backgrounds. We then argue that from the late 1990s onward, this diversity disappeared and made room for disciplinary divisions—questions concerning experimentation became philosophical, others sociological, and so on. The reason for this, we claim, was that science and technology studies, philosophy of technology, and philosophy of science took over aspects of the 1980s study of experimentation. In this way, we argue, these elements became institutionalized, whereas others were forgotten. The importance of this process of institutionalization is illustrated by means of a discussion of other, similar approaches to the philosophy of experimentation that have not been able to ensure continuity because they did not find an institutional home.

This article examines how minimal genome research mobilizes philosophical concepts such as minimality and essentiality. Following a historical approach the article aims to uncover what function this terminology plays and which problems are raised by them. Specifically, four historical moments are examined, linked to the work of Harold J. Morowitz, Mitsuhiro Itaya, Eugene Koonin and Arcady Mushegian, and J. Craig Venter. What this survey shows is a historical shift away from historical questions about life or descriptive questions about specific organisms towards questions that explore biological possibilities: what are possible forms of minimal genomes, regardless of whether they exist in nature? Moreover, it highlights a fundamental ambiguity at work in minimal genome research between a universality claim and a standardization claim: does a minimal genome refer to the minimal gene set for any organism whatsoever? Or does it refer rather to a gene set that will provide stable, robust and predictable behaviour, suited for biotechnological applications? Two diagnoses are proposed for this ambiguity: a philosophical diagnosis of how minimal genome research either misunderstands the ontology of biological entities or philosophically misarticulates scientific practice. Secondly, a historical diagnosis that suggests that this ambiguity is part of a broader shift towards technoscience.

It is commonly accepted that technology and society have always been intertwined. The question is rather how we should understand that relation. This introduction to the special issue ‘Technology and Society’ gives a brief overview of the history of the questions related to this intertwinement. The special issue consists of six essays, emanating from presentations at the 2019 conference on Technology and Society at the Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven. It was organized by the Working Group on Philosophy of Technology, whose aim is to promote philosophy of technology at the KU Leuven, but also more broadly in Belgium.

Do-It-Yourself biology or DIYbio aims to open the field of molecular biology to all who are interested by showing that it can be done within one’s own garage or by opening community labs. In this sense it can be considered as one of the contemporary shapes of citizen or ‘amateur’ science. A great part of the existing literature focuses on how these cases can be seen as the sign of a democratization of science. However, within these studies it is often forgotten that many of the members of the movements such as DIYbio are well-trained scientists with PhDs and other official credentials. Not only can this fact problematize the claims made by these studies, but it is also something that they cannot explain. Why do certified rocket scientists feel the need to design rockets outside of the official institutions? Why do biologists with a PhD stop their training and start tinkering in their basements? Beyond a general introduction to DIYbio, this paper aims to do three things. First of all it aims to analyze the phenomenon at the level of discourse, mainly focusing on the anti-institutional element of DIYbio. Rather than seeing this citizen science as merely a form of the democratization of the sciences, its origins lay within a deep-rooted critique on existing institutions such as the universities and the biotech industry. Secondly, these discourses are contrasted conceptually with the possible historical origins of the movement, ranging from synthetic biology, hackerspaces to the biotech industry itself. The central question will be: even if at a discourse level they present themselves as the renaissance of biology, are there other tendencies, histories and origins present in their practices? Thirdly, an attempt will be made to sketch possible future scenarios of DIYbio, based on personal experiences of setting up and maintaining a DIYbio lab and community, insights as a member of the global DIYbio movement and experience in implementing professional services in the DIYbio and maker sphere. Three observations will be at the core of this discourse. Firstly, DIYbio today encompasses many different kinds of initiatives that practise biosciences in new ways, all as a mutation on its initial conception in 2008. Local groups that started out similarly, diversified over the years according the intentions of the local communities. Secondly, more and more attempts at professionalising are being made in older communities. An anti-institutional element is often kept and used as a competitive advantage against the establishment. Finally, DIYbio benefits from developments in the sharing economy and growing freelance culture. How do these factors work together and do they have the potential for systemic change?

The work of Michel Serres, if considered at all, is often presented as a radical break with or criticism of the work of Gaston Bachelard. The aim of this paper is to correct this image, by focusing on the early Hermes series by Serres. In these studies Serres still portrays himself as a follower of Bachelard, rather than an adversary. This is exemplarily shown in his neologism, i.e. the new new scientific spirit, referring to the attempt to update Bachelard in the light of more recent scientific developments. This shows how the roots of Serres’ philosophy lie not in a radical break with Bachelard, but must be understood rather as a Bachelardian criticism of Bachelard himself. This Bachelardian criticism consists in what could be called his surrationalism: the sciences do not follow the categories imposed by philosophers, but are always more flexible and open than these categories allow. The philosopher should follow this scientific flexibility, rather than trying to contain it in his or her categories. Instead of abandoning Bachelard’s perspective, Serres’ criticisms can therefore be understood as a radicalisation of Bachelard’s thought. Specific critiques of Serres, such as those concerning the novelty of Bachelard’s thought, the role of epistemology, the role of normativity, and finally the role of politics, and their consequences will be evaluated through a reappraisal of this Bachelardian move that underlies Serres’ criticism. Finally, this can also open a path to reassess the relation between Bachelard and Bruno Latour or Isabelle Stengers, who can be considered as followers of Serres.

In this article, two different claims about nature are discussed. On the one hand, environmental philosophy has forced us to reflect on our position within nature. We are not the masters of nature as was claimed before. On the other hand there are the recent developments within synthetic biology. It claims that, now at last, we can be the masters of nature we have never been before. The question is then raised how these two claims must be related to one another. Rather than stating that they are completely irreconcilable, I will argue for a dialogue aimed to discuss the differences and similarities. The claim is that we should not see it as two successive temporal phases of our relation to nature, but two tendencies that can coexist.

This paper aims to evaluate the different approaches to history within contemporary French philosophy of science, especially related to the benefits and necessity of normative judging. Within the French tradition of historical epistemology, there has always been a combination between a historical and philosophical perspective. This has resulted in numerous methodological reflections on this topic still relevant for contemporary debates within IHPS. Generally this centered around the question to what extent clear philosophical starting points where a merit and necessity, or rather a bias and obstacle. In recent French philosophy of science this tension let to the search for a third approach. Inspired by developments within sociology of science, they criticize the overemphasis on judging history from the present. But rather than abandoning all philosophical perspective, their claim is that history of science itself produces philosophical norms or ‘obligations’ within particular sciences. This, however, does not result in abandoning the earlier approaches, but rather their reappraisal. Earlier internal criticisms within HEP can be reread as claiming that the opponent fails to live up to this requirement, i.e. to follow history’s own obligations, rather than imposing them. The claim defended in this paper is that the merit of certain philosophical approaches must be tested linked to obligations within specific disciplines. Concretely, this will be evaluated through examples from recent history of molecular biology, especially synthetic biology and metagenomics. The specific obligations of these disciplines will be analysed and evaluated according to the different frameworks within French philosophy of science.

Within French epistemology the question is central whether the present can be a reference point for the history of science or whether scientific practices should be understood within their own historical context. Both positions are linked with problems: either it results in a ‘whig history’ written from the perspective of the victors or it leads to the accusation of relativism and to resistance from the scientists themselves. Isabelle Stengers claims that this resistance by scientists must be considered as an essential element in the historiography of the sciences. She is part of a more recent generation of French philosophers of science, who build on the work of the earlier generation but with significant differences. Stengers interprets the scientist’s work as ‘in the service of history’: everyone must be forced to recognize their work not as the product of personal construction but as a necessary discovery in the history of science. The work of the historian of science is in conflict with the aims of the scientists themselves, who want to be seen as the norm of the present by which one should read the history of science. This service of history is not some external ideological factor, but an internal part of the scientific practice itself. The construction of the difference between the discovery of a pre-given fact and the construction of a fiction is for Stengers the core of the scientific practices. This use of history will be illustrated by the case of synthetic biology, as described by Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent. Synthetic biologists are invoking specific past or future scenario’s, such as that of synthetic chemistry or computer engineering, to legitimatize their current research projects and ambitions. From this perspective, the problematic tension between the past and the present is so hard to cope with because it is not merely a struggle among historians and philosophers of science, but also among the scientists themselves.

The emerging field of synthetic biology aims to design biological entities by engineering methods. Nature is explicitly no longer something ‘out there’, but instead as whatever is actively made in scientific laboratories. Although apparently unrelated to the Anthropocene, interesting discussions arise once confronted with each other. On the one hand, authors such as Bruno Latour have forced us to reflect on how we are not the masters of nature as was claimed before. We can even speak of ‘the end of nature’. On the other hand, synthetic biology claims that we can now be the masters of nature we have never been before. Nature exists indeed, namely the nature that we have created in the laboratory. How to relate these two perspectives? Their simultaneous emergence appears paradoxical, but must not too hastily result in the conclusion that synthetic biology is merely the latest shape of our childish, modern dreams. Rather synthetic biology can be a critical interrogator of the ‘end of nature’. Can we really endorse that it is impossible to “return to a pre-modern notion of nature” and this “take-offpoint is irretrievably lost”? Or must we make the more modest claim, that modern projects often fail, but that success is not excluded? I argue that Latour mix up two possible conclusions: starting from the correct conclusion that we are uncertain that we are certain they jump to stating that we are certain that we are uncertain, which does not follow. We can never be certain again that we can reduce things to passive nature, although it might work for some cases, perhaps even synthetic biology.

In recent philosophy of science constructivist perspectives have gained prominence. Science is increasingly seen as ‘technoscience’, meaning that rather than consisting of a mere observation of a passive nature out there, it is argued that science is also always intervening due to the use of scientific instruments and techniques. In this sense, science ‘constructs’ the object it studies, rather than merely observe it. There are, however, different varieties of constructivism that are often confused with one another and are in need of conceptual differentiation. These different forms will be examined using the case of synthetic biology, a new discipline in biology which aims to create or redesign novel biological systems using engineering methods. Synthetic biology, thus, seems to be a more radical case of constructivism than previous disciplines in the life sciences. This radicalization demands, however, a more elaborate conceptualization of what constructivism can mean. Using a historical epistemological approach three claims will be made. Firstly, I will argue that the constructivist aspect of synthetic biology must be understood by confronting it with other disciplines within the history of biology, such as molecular biology or metagenomics. Secondly, the claim will be made that the notion of constructivism must be historicized or regionalized: rather than stating that ‘science in general is constructive’, the extent to which science is constructive depends on the specific period and discipline under consideration. Thirdly, I will claim that a specific science or discipline can be constructivist in different ways at the same time and that the dominance of one form of constructivism can significantly shift within the history of science.

That scientific practices can be interpreted as constructive practices that create their own objects rather than describing objects out there is a spreading idea within philosophy of science. But while normally the claim is that this is being done behind the scenes, in the case of synthetic biology it seems to be right in the open. To really comprehend what is going within synthetic biology, the idea of constructivism within philosophy must therefore be revised and differentiated in particular types of what it means to construct nature.

What it means for conspiracy theories to become mainstream In debates about conspiracy theories, it is often claimed that conspiracy thinking is on the rise or has even become mainstream. In this article, I want to explore this claim conceptually, and argue that there are at least three ways to interpret the claim that ‘conspiracy thinking has become mainstream’. First, there is the individual level, where it is a matter of counting heads. Mainstream then means that the majority believes in conspiracy theories. But there are two other levels. There is the institutional level, which is about whether conspiracy theories circulate within social institutions in an acceptable way. Is it acceptable to express conspiracy theories as a politician, scientist or journalist? Mainstream here means that dominant institutions in society view conspiracy thinking as an acceptable form of communication. Finally, there is the cultural level. Here the question is whether conspiracy thinking is a culturally acceptable way of speaking and thinking about society. Is it socially accepted as normal behavior, or is it rather a form of deviant behavior, accompanied by (informal) sanctions or demands for additional justification or proof? Mainstream here means that conspiracy thinking is seen as a normal way of speaking, without being accompanied by strange looks, shunning or the need to justify oneself as a conspiracy thinker. By making this distinction, we can think more clearly about whether conspiracy thinking is actually on the rise, and how we should deal with it.

Although Michel Foucault is often discussed as a political philosopher, his work can also be place within the tradition of French historical epistemology. However, in contrast to Gaston Bachelard or Georges Canguilhem, his work has been more open to the critique of relativism. The question that will be raised here is in what way one can understand his seemingly relativist conclusions about science, while being part of a science admiring tradition. Different models will be proposed, ranging from a total break, a total identification, to a radicalization of historical epistemology by Foucault.

The starting point of this PhD project is a constructivist interpretation of scientific practices: science does not study independent and pre-given phenomena, but constructs them in an active way. Although this topic has already been argued for in general, this project wants to focus on recent emerging life sciences, such as systems biology, Artificial Life and synthetic biology. These disciplines bring forth an extreme form of this constructivist aspect: they actively and explicitly produce biological phenomena, such as synthetic cells that do not exist outside of the laboratories. It is, however, unclear what this ‘construction’ of nature entails. There are multiple interpretations of how to understand these technical mediations and how this constructive element either shows the uniqueness of scientific practices or precisely shows how there is nothing special about scientific practices in relation to other practices. On the one hand this project wants to identify the different interpretations of constructivism in science: what does it in fact mean to claim that science constructs its object? Secondly, it wants to differentiate the notion of constructivism itself, by abandoning it as a general claim to more local, historical claims. This allows us to differentiate how a discipline, such as synthetic biology, is constructive in a unique sense, rather than being classified merely as one illustration of constructivism. This allows us to make room for the singularity of synthetic biology: in what specific way is synthetic biology a constructive practice?