Book Review and Scientific Reasoning Exercise for Secondary School Students

Laboratory Life, The Construction of Scientific Facts

Zoltan Raffai

Oct. 2, 2014

By Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar

Laboratory Life is product of cooperation between Bruno Latour, French philosopher and sociologist of
science, and Steve Woolgar, an English sociologist. The book was first published in 1979, based on Latours
anthropological observations of scientists (the participants) daily work conducted in The Salk Institute for
Biological Studies (a laboratory specialized in neuroendocrinological research) over a two year period.
The authors overall aim in this book is to describe the processes by which scientists daily work leads to
the construction of facts. The themes of the books six chapters respectively are: (1) the premises of Latours (the
observer) anthropological method applied in his filed work, and the authors questions in the focus of their
investigation; (2) description of how the laboratorys physical setting supports the process of fact construction,
discussion of the laboratorys culture, the details four areas of endocrinological research the laboratory focuses on,
analysis of the participants daily activities in terms of their reading and writing of notes and publications,
categorization and examination the types of statements the participants produce; (3) detailed analysis of the
historical/sociological circumstances of the production of a single scientific fact that unfolded over the course of
seven years in five competing biochemistry laboratories; (4) exploration of the social microprocesses of fact
construction and dismantling, explanation of the epistemological paradox of facts introducing the concepts of
splitting and inversion; (5) analysis of the construction of statements (facts) by reflecting on considerations of
economic nature involved in scientists decision making process in regards to their daily work, concurrent research,
and their long term career choices; (6) synthesis of the first five chapters conclusions, summary of the creation of
order out of disorder.
Laboratory Life is a dense examination of the scientific process from a sociological point of view that relies
on anthropological field work for its data, and ventures into semantics, epistemology, economics, and social theory
of science in its analysis. In Chapter 1, From Order to Disorder, the authors draw up the theoretical framework of
their investigation. This chapter is about the selection, and justification thereof, of the interpretative tools of
sociology that the observer applies in making sense of his observations. The authors are cognizant of the fact that
they, the observers of scientific activity, and the practitioners of science have much in common; the activities they
engage in have many similar features. Though the distinction between social and natural sciences is frequently
drawn by practitioners from both fields, the authors believe that this distinction is based on the erroneous
conceptions of the nature of the scientific method (p. 30). In the opening and closing chapters of the book Latour
and Woolgar draw parallels between their own work and the subject of their analysis. This double-layered take on
the sociology of science and on the construction of scientific facts creates an interesting reflexivity which the
authors dont fail to discuss. Still in Chapter 1, the authors point out that, in contrast to other sociological analyses
of science, their work doesnt focus on norms, competition, or other functionalist features of scientific work.
Instead, they are interested in the construction of sense (p. 32), and the social construction of scientific
knowledge in so far as it draws attention to the process by which scientists make sense of their observations. (p.
32).
Chapter 2, An Anthropologist Visits the Laboratory, begins with a description of the laboratorys physical
layout and of the different activities that the participants undertake in each of the laboratorys sections. The
authors describe the scientific apparatuses the participants use in their daily work, placing special emphasis on bio

assays that transform pieces of matter into written documents (p. 51). These machines use biological samples as
their input and, after analysis that may take several days, print figures, graphs, or diagrams as their output. Latour
and Woolgar call these machines inscription devices (p. 52). Inscription devices hold special importance in the
participants work because they represent an immediate relationship between the substance analyzed and the
result of the analysis. The central feature of the participants activities is to write articles based on the inscription
devices diagrams and on previous scientific publications. The observer describes the participants as people that
are in the business of convincing others that their activities are in no way associated with beliefs, a culture (of
neuroendocrinology), or interpretations, they simply relay hard truths in their publications. Thus end products of
the participants work are scientific publications, and the laboratory is a system of literary inscription.(p. 52). The
observer decides that further understanding the various production stages of documents (from scribblings, to
notes, to preprints and publications) is central in his effort of making sense of the production of facts, more so
because the whole of the laboratorys impressive budget (1.5 million dollars in 1975) goes into the production of
about 40 publications per year. The laboratorys layout, its costly devices, the chemicals, and the animals used in
its experiments engender highly valued written documents. The analysis of the publications is twofold, it extends
to the number and types (four types distinguished) of articles written in the five research programs of the Salk
Institute, to articles published by other laboratories categorized by topics within the nascent field (in the 1960s) of
neuroendocrinology, and to the number of citations each publication has received within a four year period after
its publication. The number of citations a paper receives reflects the papers value (in the eye of the participants
and other scientists) and supports the laboratorys continued funding. On the second level the authors analyze the
statements (used interchangeably with facts) within publications, describing five statement types. Roughly
speaking type 1 statements are conjectures, type 2 are tentative suggestions, type 3 are facts with modalities (a
modality is a statement about another statement, in other words it is a context/condition that qualifies the
statement), type 4 statements are facts explained, and type 5 statements are facts taken for granted. Each
statement may evolve up or down on this scale, becoming a fact of nature, or sinking into disregard. The
function of literary inscription is the successful persuasion of readers [about the truth value of statements], but the
readers are only fully convinced when all sources of persuasion seem to have disappeared. (p. 76). Statements
transform from a lower type to type 5 if a scientist is successful in persuading others that they should drop all
modalities used in relation to a particular assertion and that they should accept and borrow this assertion as an
established matter of fact, preferably by citing the paper in which it appeared. (p. 80). The authors describe that
some statements may remain type 1 barely changing over time, while others move up and down on the scale in
rapid succession as they are proven, disproven, and proven again. The constitution of a fact is a relatively rare
event, and when it happens the fact often disappears from scientists daily discussions.
Chapter 3, The Construction of a Fact: The Case of the TRF(H). In this chapter the authors focus on the
research that five globally distributed, competing laboratories have undertook on a single biochemical molecule
(Thyrotropin Releasing Factor or Hormone, TRF (H)) between 1962 and 1969. The authors describe that both the
researchers questions and their definition of what constitutes the proof of the statements answering the
questions has changed over the described period. As a result of the re-definition of the acceptable proof, from the
simple description of TRFs physiological effects to the description of its exact chemical structure, three of the five
laboratories have fallen out of the race. The re-definition of the research problem was a conscious choice of one of
the laboratories that has remained in the competition until the end. The shift in emphasis from the physiological to
the chemical analysis meant an immense shift in the complexity and the scale of the research involved. The
authors conduct the historical reconstruction of the construction of a fact. Simply represented, the research in this
period evolved through these stages:
Before 1962: Is there a TRF?

After 1962: There is a TRF. What is it? Its a peptide.

Around 1966: It might not be a peptide. Then, its not a peptide.
January 1969: Its a peptide. It contains 3 known amino acids.
April 1969: Structure reduced to 6 choices.
November 1969: Structure reduced to the only possible choice (fact created).
The authors aim in this case study is to describe the processes in operation that remove the social and historical
circumstances on which the construction of a fact depends (paraphrased, pg. 105). Building on their notion of
literary inscription, Latour and Woolgar demonstrate how TRFs structure became a fact by a close analysis of the
number of papers published, the citation patterns, and the disciplinary origins of the publications discussing the
molecule. After the successful description TRFs chemical structure in November 1969 (the two labs succeeded
with this task roughly at the same time) the number of citations, all referring to the same few papers, between the
groups has increased until 1971, and decreased at the same rate from then on. Juxtaposed with this is the number
of publications with TRF in their titles written by other research groups. There is a rapid increase in the number of
these publications from 1970 to 1974. This rapid growth contrasted with the negative slopes of citation graphs
between the two groups demonstrates that TRF became a taken for granted fact (citations about developing a
proof drop while outside articles about TRF increase, see Fig. 3.1, p. 109). Also notably, from 1970 a growing
number of new publications dealt with TRF, however the new publications came from authors of other, but
related, scientific disciplines. These latter publications didnt concern themselves with the isolation and structure
of TRF, rather they wrote about it as a tool in their own work. TRF moved from the small inner group to the wider
outer group. Those that wrote the pre-1962 papers about the existence of TRF did not participate in further
research in this chain and their papers were not cited post 1969. The two transition points (1-does TRF exist era, 2what is TRFs structure era) in this evolving field engendered two subspecialties.

Chapter 4, The Microprocessing of Facts. This chapter closely examines the day to day activities of the
laboratory in order to describe the most intimate aspects of fact construction. (paraphrased, p. 151). The analysis
of the social microprocesses of fact construction is based on Latours notes about the contents, timing, gestures,
and intonation of the scientists conversations. In the authors view fact construction is a thoroughly social
process (p. 152). They show this by pointing to the local, contextual character of scientific practices in contrast to
the often exalted behavior of scientists along the lines of idealized ethics of the scientific method. Latour and
Woolgar also state that descriptions of what scientists work are tautological (scientists appear to be scientific
because they are scientists, or they seem to be logical and using formal deductive reasoning more than nonscientists by definition). The authors empirically show (by describing and analyzing types of verbal exchanges) that
there isnt a significant difference between scientific and other types of work. The authors find essentially that the
participants motivations and their exchanges made arent scientific, they are social. In the course of these
exchanges beliefs are changed, statements are enhanced or discredited, and reputations and alliances between
researches are modified. (p. 158). The authors find that a single discussion [...] can thus comprise a series of
complex negotiations. (p. 157); and that the most important characteristic of these kinds of exchange is that they
are devoid of statements which are objective in the sense that they escape the influence of negotiation between
participants. (p. 158). Next, the authors contrast the notions of finding facts and constructing facts. It is a
frequently held notion that scientists discover and describe facts of nature that exist out there. However as
Latour and Woolgar show that facts are constructed and not found, and that the correspondence between an
outside reality and scientific facts/statements exists because they come from the same source: the scientists.
Facts are not found, they are produced. It is in retrospect, after the fact has become an accepted fact (and is set
free from the conditions of its production as seen in Ch. 1), that facts appear to be found. The authors describe the

processes of splitting and inversion that produce the apparent finding of facts by scientists, and argue that the
thus constructed notion of a fact is paradoxical. A fact splits into the statement referring to an object, and to the
object that the statement describes. It is both out there in objective reality, and it is also a statement. The
congruence between the described and the describing statement stems from the common source. Inversion is the
claim that the object came first (was out there), and the scientist found (discovered) it rather than the scientist
proposed its existence and thereby created it (of course not without something that resembles it in actuality.).

Chapter 5, Cycles of Credit. In this section the authors argue that the norms of science are not the main
factor guiding the scientists decision making behavior in the laboratory. Rather, the participants make decisions
based on factors of economy, career advances, and in defense of their own image as competent scientists. Typical
utterances of this type are: This instrument can bring me 10 papers a year. In science, you should always be
overcautious. If we dont double check, people could argue that the numbers in our paper are due to (p. 189,
190). The notion of credit is the main theme of this chapter; it has several parallel meanings. Mainly, it refers to the
trust in a scientist competence; it serves as a currency in the exchange of ideas. Scientists ability to find a job in
cutting edge subfield, to acquire funding, to publish in prestigious journals all hinge on credit. Trustworthiness,
reputation, personal influence, the power to make decisions in research, belief in someones competence,
recognition by peers, and the rewarding of cooperation are key elements of scientists work on the daily bases and
in the span of their career as well. Latour and Woolgar find that credibility is convertible from one for to another, it
can be exchanged, shared, stolen, accumulated and wasted. Furthermore, the economic notions of investment,
return, feedback, reward, and satisfaction, are at the center in the distribution of credit. The authors also state
however, that in some cases scientists dont speak of credit at all. Credit is not mentioned in connection to future
or ongoing research; it is only mentioned in connection to past work and group structure. Credit as currency or
reward doesnt entirely describe the scientists behavior practicing science. Indeed, our scientists had a much
more subtle way of accounting success than simply measuring returns in currency. The success of each investment
was evaluated in terms of the extent to which it facilitated the rapid conversion of credibility and the scientists
progression through the cycle. (p. 207).

Chapter 6, The Creation of Order Out of Disorder. This chapter begins with the linking of the notions of
fact construction through persuasion, with the notion of the post fact-construction vanishing of circumstances by
the processes of splitting and inversion, with the idea that credibility facilitates the synthesis of economic notions
(funding, budget, payoff) and epistemological notions of proof, certitude and doubt. (paraphrased, pg. 239), and
with the idea that the perceived reality is a consequence of scientific work rather than the cause of it. A key idea
from this section of the book is: The set of statements considered too costly to modify (in the face of evidence to
the contrary) constitute what is referred to as reality. Scientific activity in this view is not about nature, but it is a
fierce fight to construct reality. (p. 243)
The argument the authors constructed throughout the book reconciles the apparent discrepancies
between the final products of science (solid facts), and the random daily events and conditions of the scientific
process. Latour and Woolgar point out that the informal flow of information in scientists daily activities is the rule,
and formal communication is a posterior rationalization of the real process; the construction of order relies upon
the existence of disorder. They also affirm that there is a great amount of energy wasted in scientific activity;
most papers are never read, out of the few that are read most are transformed and misrepresented, and that few
facts emerge from the substantial background noise. (p. 252). In other words, the idealized view of the scientific

process and what scientists actually do are quite different; the construction of scientific facts is a complex social
process.
Finally, the authors draw the readers attention again to the reflexivity of their work. The validity of their account
of scientific fact construction obtained through their observation of endocrinologists qualifies itself inasmuch as
they used the tools of science to obtain information about science itself.
-----------END----------------------------------

Choice A: Create an activity for your students that illustrates something about how science works based on what
you learned from the book.
I would ask the students to work in small groups in our schools learning garden conducting an
investigation about a topic they are somewhat knowledgeable about but need to fill in gaps with hypotheses and
conjectures. Ex.: Why do some tropical fruit trees grow their fruits directly on their trunks and throughout the
year, while fruit trees from temperate regions grow fruits seasonally on the ends of their branches? How are the
two fruiting strategies suited to the trees respective climates? (The topic will have to be very carefully chosen.)
The objective of the activity is for the students to get a firsthand experience about the complexity of the scientific
process in practice:
- How many dead ends have they reached?
- How many times did they have to rely on the teacher for outside information about the topic of their
investigation?
- How did the pressure from, or cooperation with, the other groups affect their work?
- What facts back up their hypotheses?
How certain were they about the conclusions they have made at the end of their work?
- Occasionally as the students would appear to be satisfied with their hypotheses/explanations, the teacher
would stir up confusion by asking for the clarifications/justifications of their thoughts.
Once the students are done with their investigation in the garden/field I would ask the groups to present
their reasoning. Next, we would analyze how the process involved differed from the scientific method.
We would emphasize that though some hypotheses are more likely to represent the actual process of nature,
absolute certainty about every detail of the process is not obtainable.