Bensaude-Vincent Bernadette

The introduction of the modern concept of chemical element has often been credited to Lavoisier. I will argue that despite the significant impact of the definition of elements as non-decompound bodies in Lavoisier’s “Elements of Chemistry,” this claim is misleading for at least three reasons. First, elements were already defined as residues of analysis prior to Lavoisier. Second, Lavoisier did not totally give up the traditional view of elements as constituents of all bodies. Third, the modern definition of chemical element implies a clear distinction between simple bodies and elements that was later introduced by Dmitri Mendeleev. I will outline the role of this conceptual distinction in Mendeleev’s process of classification of elements and symmetrically emphasize how the periodic system contributed to stabilize his notion of element as an individual defined by its position in the system. Thus the concept of element appears as both a precondition and a product of the construction of the periodic system.

Carbon is much more than a chemical element: it is a polymorphic entity with many faces, at once natural, cultural and social. Ranging across ten million different compounds, carbon has as many personas in nature as it has roles in human life on earth. And yet it rarely makes the headlines as anything other than the villain of our fossil-based economy, feeding an addiction which is driving dangerous levels of consumption and international conflict and which, left unchecked, could lead to our demise as a species. But the impact of CO on climate change only tells part of the story, and to demonize carbon as an element which will bring about the downfall of humanity is to reduce it to a pale shadow of itself. In this major new history of carbon, Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Sacha Loeve show that this omnipresent element is at the root of countless histories and adventures through time, thanks to its extraordinary versatility. Carbon has a long and prestigious CV: its work and achievements extend far beyond the burning of fossil fuels. The fourth most abundant element in the universe and the second most abundant element in the human body, carbon is the chemical basis of all known life. Carbon chemistry has a long history, with applications ranging from jewellery to heating, underpinning developments in metallurgy, textiles, pharmaceuticals, electronics, nanoscience and green technologies. A biography of carbon transgresses the boundaries between chemical and social existence, between nature and culture, forcing us to abandon the simplified image of carbon as the anti-hero of human civilization and enabling us to see instead the great diversity of carbon’s modes of existence. With scientific precision and literary flair, Bensaude-Vincent and Loeve unravel the surprising ways in which carbon has shaped our world, showing how unrecognizable the earth would be without it. Uncovering the many hidden lives of carbon allows us to view our own with fresh eyes.

This paper interrogates the general assumption of the symmetry between analysis and synthesis. It argues that the emphasis on symmetry between analytic and synthetic operations proceeds from a reconceptualization of the empirical tradition of chemical analysis under the aegis of mathematical and philosophical notions. Given that the experimental analyses and syntheses are viewed as mere translations of a mode of reasoning onto the material realm, I refer to this approach as the intellectualist tradition. I highlight the contrast between this intellectualist approach, which describes analysis and synthesis as two distinct and successive operations, and more pragmatic approaches to analysis and synthesis as practical arts that emphasize the synchrony between the two processes rather than their symmetry.

This discussion paper proposes that a meaningful distinction between science and technoscience can be found at the level of the objects of research. Both notions intermingle in the attitudes, intentions, programs and projects of researchers and research institutions—that is, on the side of the subjects of research. But the difference between science and technoscience becomes more explicit when research results are presented in particular settings and when the objects of research are exhibited for the specific interest they hold. When an experiment is presented as scientific evidence which confirms or disconfirms a hypothesis, this agrees with traditional conceptions of science. When organic molecules are presented for their capacity to serve individually as electric wires that carry surprisingly large currents, this would be a hallmark of technoscience. Accordingly, we propose research on the ontology of research objects. The focus on the character and significance of research objects makes this a specifically philosophical project.

The Natural Contract (1990) marks the emergence of the environmental question in Serres’s work that became central in his later publications. Over the twenty years when the Anthropocene emerged as a distinct narrative entangling geological time with the history of human technology, Serres developed a rather similar “Grand Récit” embracing deep geological time, biological evolution, the process of hominization, and the future of humankind, although he did not enter into conversation with the leading figures of the interdisciplinary field of Anthropocene studies. This paper seeks to characterize Serres’s position in the field of environmental philosophy as it has been reconfigured by the introduction of the concept of the Anthropocene. It first briefly surveys the personal pathway that led Serres to his diagnosis of a global climate crisis. It then compares the concepts that guided his analysis with the concepts debated in Anthropocene studies. Finally, I will suggest that the ethical measures proposed by Serres to face the crisis did not help to bring him into dialogue with the Anthropocene scholars.

Of all the scientific disciplines chemistry seems to be particularly concerned about its public image. Indeed, popular associations with chemistry range from poisons, hazards, chemical warfare, and environmental pollution to alchemical pseudo-science, sorcery, and mad scientists. Despite repeated campaigns for convincing the public that chemistry would bring health, comfort, and welfare, chemists frequently meet with hostility in popular culture. As student enrollment numbers has been shrinking, chemistry departments have been closed in several countries. Also in humanist culture chemistry has a very low profile; philosophers in particular keep to their traditional neglect of anything related to chemistry. Of course, chemists have always been complaining about their low prestige, the lack of public acknowledgment of their achievements, and the misguiding popular associations with chemistry, such that we now have a long record of complaints of almost two centuries. More recently, in response to their public image, chemists have tried to launch slogans such as ‘green chemistry’ or even dropped the term ‘chemistry’ altogether and adopted more fashionable labels such as ‘materials science’, ‘molecular science’, or ‘nanotechnology’. Surprisingly or not, chemists have never translated their complaints into serious research programs to understand the public image of chemistry in its cultural and historical contexts. To be sure, chemical societies and, particularly, the chemical industry have commissioned many reports for promotional or marketing purposes. Yet, such reports usually scratch only on the surface and may well have recommended one or the other camouflage tactics. Even the recent boost of academic research in Public Understanding of Science (PUS) has virtually excluded chemistry and, instead, focused on topics such as ‘Frankenfood’ and genetic engineering. The failure to deal with chemistry in PUS studies is more serious than the traditional neglect in the humanities, because stereotypes of chemistry have dominated the popular image of science in general..

Hésitation vaccinale, refus de la 5G, théories du complot suscitent de nombreuses lamentations sur la montée de l'irrationalité et la perte de confiance dans la communauté scientifique. Pour y faire face, certains continuent d'en appeler à l'autorité de la science et des 'faits' comme à des totems. Cet affrontement rend aveugle aux problèmes inhérents à la fabrication des savoirs, et sourd aux préoccupations des publics concernés. Du changement climatique à la pandémie de Covid, les auteurs analysent les récentes controverses et proposent ainsi une réflexion sur les pratiques de recherche et d'expertise en temps de crise. En donnant des clés pour repenser les rapports entre sciences, industrie et démocratie, cet essai salvateur plaide pour une transformation de la méfiance généralisée en une défiance exigeante, seule capable d'activer de nouveaux modes de production et de réception des sciences en société"--Page 4 of cover.

Scientists and engineers who extensively use the term “nanomachine” are not always aware of the philosophical implications of this term. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the concept of nanomachine through a distinction between three major paradigms of machine. After a brief presentation of two well-known paradigms - Cartesian mechanistic machines and Von Neumann's complex and uncontrolled machines – we will argue that Drexler's model was mainly Cartesian. But what about the model of his critics? We propose a third model - Gilbert Simondon's notion of concrete machines – which seems more appropriate to understand nanomachines than the notion of “soft machines”. Finally we review a few strategies currently used to design nanomachines, in an effort to determine which paradigm they belong to.

It is often assumed that chemistry was a typical positivistic science as long as chemists used atomic and molecular models as mere fictions and denied any concern with their real existence. Even when they use notions such as molecular orbitals chemists do not reify them and often claim that they are mere models or instrumental artefacts. However a glimpse on the history of chemistry in the longue durée suggests that such denials of the ontological status of chemical entities do not testify for any specific allegiance of chemists to positivism. Rather it suggests that the dilemma positivism vs realism is inappropriate for characterizing the ontology of chemistry. This alternative shaped at the turn of the twentieth century in the context of controversies about atomic physics does not take into account the major concern of chemists, i.e. making up things. Only by considering what matters for chemists, their matters of concern rather than their matter theories, can we expect to get an insight on their ontological assumptions. The argumentation based on historical data is twofold. It is wellknown that generating new substances out of initial ingredients which is the raison d'être of chemistry raised a vexing puzzle which has been alternatively solved with the Aristotelian notion of mixt and the Lavoisieran notion of compound. I argue that an essential tension remains intrinsic in chemistry between the two conceptual frameworks. The second section tries to make sense of the long tradition in chemistry of ontological noncommitment. I argue that what is usually considered as a denial of the existence of the basic units of matter would be better characterized as a focus on more important actors on the chemical stage.

La chimie est délaissée des philosophes et historiens des sciences. Cette discipline ne serait-elle pas bonne à penser? Qu’est-ce que ce silence, ce mépris ou cette méconnaissance nous enseignent sur le régime du savoir en chimie? Inversement, la chimie méprisée, méconnue ou simplement ignorée ne signalerait-elle pas les travers des philosophes et les limites de leur pouvoir de conceptualiser et de penser? Cet ouvrage donne un aperçu de la complexité de ces questions en adoptant un point de vue symétrique où se croisent les regards des chimistes et des philosophes. En abordant les problématiques posées par les théories de la matière et en étudiant la question du corps du chimiste et de son statut social, ce volume s’interroge aussi sur l’image de la chimie et sur le rejet du « chimique » au profit du « naturel » très en vogue aujourd’hui.