Bensaude-Vincent Bernadette

ArgumentThe interwar period in France is characterized by intense activity to disseminate science in society through various media: magazines, conferences, book series, encyclopedias, radio, exhibitions, and museums. In this context, the scientific community developed significant attempts to disseminate science in close alliance with the State. This paper presents three ambitious projects conducted in the 1930s which targeted different audiences and engaged the social sciences along with the natural sciences. The first project was a multimedia enterprise aimed at bridging what would later be named “the two cultures” – natural sciences and humanities – rather than at popularizing scientific results in the society at large. The second project, an encyclopedia namedEncyclopédie françaiseedited by the French historian Lucien Febvre, was meant to shape a cultural view of science for the general public. The third project and the most successful enterprise was thePalais de la découvertedesigned by the physicist Jean Perrin and explicitly aimed at attracting the young public. This paper explores the paradoxes that resulted from these large enterprises. Despite their social ideals, the scientists-popularizers favored an elitist concept of popular science essentially aimed at integrating science into high culture. While they strove to overcome the increased specialization of sciences, their efforts nevertheless accelerated the professionalization of scientific research and the isolation of science in an ivory tower. In their attempts to get closer to the public, they eventually contributed to spreading the cliché of the increasing gap between the scientists and the public.

"Public engagement in science" is one of the buzzwords that, since 2000, has been used in nanotechnology programs. To what extent does public engagement disrupt the traditional relations between science and the public? This paper briefly contrasts the traditional model of science communication - the diffusionist model - that prevailed in the twentieth century and the new model - the participatory model - that tends to prevail nowadays. Then it will try to disentangle the assumptions underlying the public dialogue initiated about nanotechnology, and conclude that nanotechnology actually develops a managerial model of society.

To fully accomplish the “thing turn” in the philosophy of technology this paper invites shifting the attention from humans towards the world. The concept of world here refers to the complex made of the Earth with all things and living beings, including humans; it ignores the great divide between nature and society or culture. In this worldly perspective, the thing turn means adopting the perspective of things and raising questions such as how artifacts come into being, how they intervene within the world, how they change it. Such issues are vital to prevent the alienation of technology both from nature and from human beings.

La chimie conquiert le statut de science académique au cours du siècle des Lumières et jouit d’un très grand prestige intellectuel et social au XIXe siècle. Cette promotion se répercute-t-elle dans les classifications du savoir? En comparant deux textes consacrés à la philosophie de la chimie dans des ouvrages à vocation encyclopédique – l’article « Chymie » de l’Encyclopédie de Diderot rédigé en 1753 par G.-F. Venel et les leçons sur la chimie dans le Cours de philosophie positive d’Auguste Comte, rédigées en 1835 – cet article tente de montrer qu’en dépit de son prestige croissant, la chimie conserve un statut problématique dans la classification du savoir. Cette science qui sera souvent érigée en modèle de positivité joue cependant un rôle très mineur dans l’élaboration du positivisme comtien.

The existence of a French philosophy of technology is a matter of debate. Technology has long remained invisible in French philosophy, due to cultural circumstances and linguistic specificities. Even though a number of French philosophers have developed views and concepts about technology during the twentieth century, "philosophy of technology" has never been established as a legitimate branch of philosophy in the French academic landscape so far. This book, however, demonstrates that a community of philosophers dealing with various issues related to technology and built up on the legacy of the previous generations has emerged. In gathering scholars with quite diverse theoretical backgrounds and matters of concern, this volume outlines a coherent, albeit heterogeneous, philosophical trend. Five chief characteristics are identified in this introduction: i) a close connection between history and philosophy, with a focus on the temporalities of technology, ii) the prevalence of the anthropological approach to technology whether it be social anthropology or paleoanthropology, iii) a focus on technological objects that we characterize as a "thing turn" à la française, iv) the dignification of technoscience as a philosophical category, and v) a pervading concern with ethical issues based on the anthropological interpretation of technology and quite distinct from current trends in applied ethics.

Historiography in a metaphysical mode Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-17 DOI 10.1007/s11016-011-9524-6 Authors Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, CETCOPRA/Université Paris 1-Panthéon-Sorbonne, 17 Rue de la Sorbonne, 75231 Paris Cedex05, France Jan Golinski, Department of History, University of New Hampshire, 20 Academic Way, Durham, NH 03824, USA Lissa L. Roberts, Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies (STePS), University of Twente, Postbox 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands John McEvoy, Department of Philosophy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA Journal Metascience Online ISSN 1467-9981 Print ISSN 0815-0796.

Offering an overall insight into the French tradition of philosophy of technology, this volume is meant to make French-speaking contributions more accessible to the international philosophical community. The first section, “Negotiating a Cultural Heritage,” presents a number of leading 20th century philosophical figures and intellectual movements that help shape philosophy of technology in the Francophone area, and feed into contemporary debates. The second section, “Coining and Reconfiguring Technoscience,” traces the genealogy of this controversial concept and discusses its meanings and relevance. A third section, “Revisiting Anthropological Categories,” focuses on the relationships of technology with the natural and the human worlds from various perspectives that include anthropotechnology, Anthropocene, technological and vital norms and temporalities. The final section, “Innovating in Ethics, Design and Aesthetics,” brings together contributions that draw on various French traditions to afford fresh insights on ethics of technology, philosophy of design, techno-aesthetics and digital studies. The contributions in this volume are vivid and rich in original approaches that can spur exchanges and debates with other philosophical traditions.

The hype surrounding the emergence of nanotechnology proved extremely effective to raise public attention and controversies in the early 2000s. A proactive attitude prevailed resulting in the integration of social scientists upstream at the research level, research programs on Ethical, Legal and Societal Impacts, and various public engagement initiatives such as nanojury and citizen conferences. Twenty years later, what happened to the promises of SHS integration and public engagement in nanotechnology? Was it part of the hype, one of the many promises made by the champions of nanotechnology initiatives that never materialized? As a contribution to this broad question, this paper focuses on public engagement initiatives in France and ventures some general reflections on their fate. I will first report, from an insider’s perspective, the public debates conducted by a civil society organization VivAgora, in the national context of fierce controversies. Then I will describe the permanent forum NanoRESP opened in 2013 when nano controversies waned out. On the basis of this case study, I will argue that the STS ideal of co-production of science and society gradually gave way to a more modest co-learning process between stakeholders in the 2010s.

While chemists today work in a variety of professional domains—ranging from medicine and pharmaceutical companies to nuclear technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology—students are taught chemistry as if it were a unified discipline with a specific territory and a common language shared by all chemists. The chemists’ imaginary is shaped around the image of a diaspora: a scattered population of former inhabitants of a homeland immersed in foreign countries and yet retaining their cultural identity. This essay suggests an alternative perspective on the basis of four different case studies of engagement of chemists beyond the traditional turf of chemistry: nuclear technology, materials science and engineering, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology. Instead of assuming that there is a predetermined territory of chemistry, it argues that the epistemic profile of chemistry is shaped by the various “terrains” (or fields) where chemists are working. The image of a family tree deeply rooted in soil should be replaced by that of a large and loose rhizome network.

Synthetic biology, materials chemistry and soft robotics are fast becoming leading disciplines within the field of practices which look to nature for inspiration and opportunities. In this article I discuss how these molecular-scale practices fit within the existing trends of bio-informed design defined at the macro level, that is, bionics, biomimetics and more specifically biomimicry. Based on the metaphysical views underlying bio-informed design practices, I argue that none of them currently fit the biomimicry model, as they are not consistently concerned with environmental sustainability. While biomimetic chemistry loosely belongs to the field of biomimetics, and soft robotics to the field of bionics, both practices have a profound impact on their respective fields, as they question the places of nature and engineers.

Scientific textbooks are often said to deliver a stereotyped kind of knowledge, which conceals rather than reveals the real making of science. They may, however, alternatively be regarded as of peculiar interest for historians of science. An over-mechanical application of the Kuhnian concepts of ‘scientific revolution’ and ‘normal science’ can lead to the neglect of the internal dynamics of ‘normal science’. Scientific textbooks may provide a better understanding of the process of normalization in science.