Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...
Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...
Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Normal Pathways: Controlling isotopes <strong>and</strong> building biomedicine in postwar France.<br />
In December 1945, the French physician <strong>and</strong> physicist Louis Bugnard arrived in New York for a<br />
scientific voyage <strong>of</strong> two months in the United States. Bugnard was then the <strong>of</strong>ficial envoyé from the<br />
French Ministry for Health. He was in charge <strong>of</strong> documenting the status <strong>of</strong> medical research, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
advancing the collaboration between the two sides <strong>of</strong> the Atlantique. During his trip Bugnard was<br />
fascinated by US instrumentation, in particular the biophysical instrumentation: electron microscopes,<br />
electrophyosiological apparatuses , cyclotrons <strong>and</strong> isotopes. Rather than means for curing diseases like<br />
cancer, the latter were perceived as elements <strong>of</strong> a new form <strong>of</strong> experimental medicine. As he returned to<br />
Paris, Bugnard started a laboratory <strong>of</strong> nuclear medicine with the support <strong>of</strong> the Rockefeller Foundation.<br />
He however was soon nominated head <strong>of</strong> Institut National d’Hygiene, the medical state research agency.<br />
As such he became responsible for authorizing the circulation <strong>and</strong> the biological uses <strong>of</strong> radioactive<br />
material. This paper will examines the part played by the control <strong>of</strong> radioisotopes either locally produced<br />
(by the French CEA) or imported from the United States in Bugnard’s attempt to normalize biomedicine.<br />
Gaukroger, Stephen<br />
E-mail Address: stephen.gaukroger@philosophy.usyd.edu.au<br />
The Idea <strong>of</strong> a Mathematical Physics in the Early 17th Century<br />
In the early decades <strong>of</strong> the seventeenth century, various attempts were made to develop a quantitative<br />
dynamical vocabulary on the basis <strong>of</strong> work in the practical mathematical disciplines. The paper, which<br />
summarises some research undertaken jointly with John Schuster, looks at some <strong>of</strong> the issues involved<br />
in early seventeenth-century thinking on just how a mathematical natural philosophy might be established.<br />
The paper focuses on what, prior to the dynamical fleshing out Galileo’s kinematic model by<br />
Newton <strong>and</strong> others, seemed to be the most promising areas <strong>of</strong> practical mathematics, namely statics <strong>and</strong><br />
hydrostatics. It contrasts various possible underst<strong>and</strong>ings <strong>of</strong> the role <strong>of</strong> mathematics in natural philosophy,<br />
<strong>and</strong> distinguishes sharply between the Mechanica approach <strong>and</strong> Archimedean approaches, <strong>and</strong><br />
within the latter compares conceptions <strong>of</strong> statics <strong>and</strong> hydrostatics <strong>and</strong> their possible extensions in the<br />
work <strong>of</strong> Galileo, Stevin, Beeckman, <strong>and</strong> Descartes. Descartes’ approach to hydrostatics is quite different<br />
from that <strong>of</strong> his contemporaries, above all in his attempt to provide a natural-philosophical grounding for<br />
it, at the same time using it to develop a range <strong>of</strong> concepts, approaches, <strong>and</strong> ways <strong>of</strong> thinking through<br />
problems that will shape his mature work in optics <strong>and</strong> cosmology. These questions will be taken up in<br />
John Schuster’s paper, which looks at some <strong>of</strong> the details <strong>of</strong> Descartes’ approach.<br />
Geimer, Peter<br />
E-mail Address: geimer@mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de<br />
Noise or Nature? Photographing the Invisible around 1900<br />
The talk is based on the observation that every new photographic procedure has produced its own<br />
specific chemical <strong>and</strong> physical accidents that emerged in the shape <strong>of</strong> disturbing blurs, dots, veils, halos<br />
<strong>and</strong> spots. Since they menaced the photographic task <strong>of</strong> representing natural phenomena, photographers<br />
<strong>and</strong> scientists described them as ‘mysterious phenomena,’ ‘enemies,’ ‘parasites,’ <strong>and</strong> ‘waste.’ I will argue<br />
that these photographic accidents are neither defective nor exceptional cases, but on the contrary are<br />
constitutive manifestations <strong>of</strong> photography. Special attention will be dedicated to cases in which photographs<br />
functioned as visible (<strong>and</strong> the only) pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the existence <strong>of</strong> certain invisible rays <strong>and</strong> fluids.<br />
Here, scientific representations could resemble those conspicuous blurs <strong>and</strong> veils that were normally<br />
treated as photographic waste. In this scenario, separating facts from artifacts became problematic.<br />
Moreover, what first appeared as disturbing accident could later serve as scientific explanation for<br />
otherwise inexplicable phenomena. Scientists found themselves involved in a sphere <strong>of</strong> knowledge in<br />
which the interpretation <strong>of</strong> visual recordings oscillated between accidents <strong>and</strong> incidents, inscriptions <strong>of</strong>