Christophe Bonneuil

Les sciences et les techniques sont au coeur de nos vies quotidiennes et constituent les piliers de notre modernité. Elles ont transformé les modes de vie, les relations de pouvoir, nos identités et nos imaginaires. Controverses sur les OGM, enjeux du changement climatique et de sa prévision, nouveaux imaginaires véhiculés par Internet ou les jeux vidéo... Comment analyser dans ces cas qui font l'actualité les liens inextricables entre ce que l'on sait du monde, ce que l'on souhaite y faire et la façon dont on le gouverne? Les théories et approches dominantes de l'économie, de la sociologie, de l'histoire ou de la science politique ont souvent ignoré ces enchevêtrements complexes. Cet ouvrage propose un panorama du champ "sciences, techniques et société", très interdisciplinaire, qui s'est justement donné pour objet l'étude des transformations récentes et conjointes des façons de savoir, des formes d'expertise, des marchés, des espaces publics et des formes de gouvernement.

The Anthropocene, in which humankind has become a geological force, is a major scientific proposal; but it also means that the conceptions of the natural and social worlds on which sociology, political science, history, law, economics and philosophy rest are called into question. The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis captures some of the radical new thinking prompted by the arrival of the Anthropocene and opens up the social sciences and humanities to the profound meaning of the new geological epoch, the 'Age of Humans'. Drawing on the expertise of world-recognised scholars and thought-provoking intellectuals, the book explores the challenges and difficult questions posed by the convergence of geological and human history to the foundational ideas of modern social science. If in the Anthropocene humans have become a force of nature, changing the functioning of the Earth system as volcanism and glacial cycles do, then it means the end of the idea of nature as no more than the inert backdrop to the drama of human affairs. It means the end of the 'social-only' understanding of human history and agency. These pillars of modernity are now destabilised. The scale and pace of the shifts occurring on Earth are beyond human experience and expose the anachronisms of 'Holocene thinking'. The book explores what kinds of narratives are emerging around the scientific idea of the new geological epoch, and what it means for the 'politics of unsustainability'.

The paper investigates how field experimentation of genetically modified crops became central to the French controversy on genetically modified organisms in recent years. Initially constructed in the 1980s as a cognitive endeavor to be preserved from lay interference, field trials of genetically modified crops were reconceived as “an intrusion in the social space,” which had to be negotiated with actors from that space. In order to analyze this transformation, the authors suggest that it is necessary to develop an interpretive framework that combines theoretical perspectives from science and technology studies and the sociology of social problems, and emphasizes the importance of the way in which actors compete in a heterogeneous public space, to put forward alternative framings of problems. The authors present a detailed analysis of the interactions and conflicts between actors in diverse social arenas in order to better understand the dynamics of this sociotechnical controversy.

The article reevaluates the reception of Mendelism in France, and more generally considers the complex relationship between Mendelism and plant breeding in the first half on the 20th century. It shows on the one side that agricultural research and higher education institutions have played a key role in the development and institutionalization of genetics in France, whereas university biologists remained reluctant to accept this approach on heredity. But on the other side, plant breeders, and agricultural researchers, despite an interest in Mendelism, never came to see it as the breeders' panacea, and regarded it instead as of only limited value for plant breeding. I account for this judgment in showing that the plant breeders and Mendelism designed two contrasting kinds of experimental systems and inhabited distinct experimental cultures. While Mendelian geneticists designed experimental systems that allowed the production of definite ratios of different forms that varied in relation to a few characters, plant breeders' experimental systems produced a wide range of variation, featuring combinations between hundreds of traits. Rather than breaking this multiple variation down into simple elements, breeders designed and monitored a genetic lottery. The gene was a unit in a Mendelian experimental culture, an "epistemic thing" as Rheinberger put it, that could be grasped by means of statistical regularities, but it remained of secondary importance for French plant breeders, for whom the strain or the variety -- not the gene -- was the fundamental unit of analysis and manipulation.

Le différend commercial sur les OGM dans le cadre de l’OMC a mobilisé une expertise scientifique de façon quelque peu inédite. Dès le départ, le Groupe spécial a situé le différend dans le cadre de l’Accord sur l’application des mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires de l’OMC grâce à une nouvelle ontologie juridique. Ce groupe a mis en scène l’expertise scientifique en suivant des approches spécifiques définissant de quelle manière les experts seraient interrogés, les réponses qu’ils donneraient, leur rôle spécifique dans le domaine juridique et la façon dont leurs déclarations viendraient compléter ses conclusions. De plus, le Groupe spécial a procédé à un tournant procédural en présentant ses conclusions sous forme d’un jugement purement juridico-administratif tout en gardant implicites ses propres jugements sur les questions de fond liées aux risques.The high-profile WTO trade dispute on GMOs brought in scientific expertise in somewhat novel ways. From the outset, the Panel placed the dispute under the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement by drawing on a new legal ontology. The Panel brought scientific expertise into play in specific ways that defined how experts were questioned, the answers they would give, their specific role in the legal arena, and the way their statements would complement the Panel’s findings. Furthermore, the Panel created a procedural turning point in WTO jurisprudence by representing its findings as a purely legal and administrative assessment of whether the EC’s regulatory procedures violated the SPS Agreement, with its own assessments on substantive risk issues remaining implicit