We Have Never Been Scientists

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

¹Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern, transl. by Cathrine Porter (New York, 1993).

²B. Bozeman and V. Mangematin, ‘Editor's Introduction: Building and Deploying Scientific and Technical Human Capital’, Research Policy, 33 (2004), 565–68.

³F. Murray, ‘The Role of Academic Inventors in Entrepreneurial Firms: Sharing the Laboratory Life’, Research Policy, 33 (2004), 643–59.

⁴B. Bozeman, and E. Corley, ‘Scientists’ Collaboration Strategies: Implications for Scientific and Technical Human Capital’, Research Policy, 33 (2004), 599–616.

⁵A.L. Oliver, ‘Biotechnology Entrepreneurial Scientists and Their Collaborations’, Research Policy, 33 (2004), 583–97.

⁶D.H. Hsu, E.B. Roberts and C.E. Eesley, ‘Entrepreneurs from Technology-Based Universities: Evidence from MIT’, Research Policy, 36 (2007), 768–88.

⁷W. Shrum, J. Genuth, and I. Chompaloy, Structures of Scientific Collaboration (Cambridge, MA, 2007), 210.

⁸T.F. Gieryn, ‘The Scientific Life a Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation’, Science, 322 (2008), 1189–90. This kind of veneration for ‘the scientific life’ also finds its way into the writings of Bruno Latour who, as well, has reservations with respect to most sociological analyses of modern technoscience. In the epilogue, Shapin discusses two different sociological accounts of technoscience. The one is functional and instrumental; the other is phenomenological, even ethnomethodological. The one attempts to uncover underlying (sociological) reasons for empirical observations of social life; the other takes social phenomenon and the reasoning provided by social actors for granted. Whereas Shapin openly admits to using the one or the other intermittently, Bruno Latour, in his books, most often stays dedicated to the other account.