14.01.2014 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!