“Scholars and Citizen Action: The Lessons of 1848”

Lynn Nyhart (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

How are we to do history of science in the present era? What are our responsibilities vis-à-vis our roles as citizens and our roles as scholars? This talk argues that, in seeking answers to these questions, we can benefit from examining scientists’ actions in 1848-49, despite the very different circumstances of scientists living through the revolutions of 1848 and historians of science today. By studying the actions, and not just the words, of a few German life scientists, especially the infamous radical materialist Karl Vogt and the much more moderate botanist and cell theorist Matthias Schleiden, we gain renewed insight into longstanding arguments for the value of science and—crucially—of scholarship more generally. These scientists’ positions and their actions invite us as historians of science to integrate citizen action into our jobs as scholars, to re-examine our longstanding commitment to a neutral or critical stance toward science, and to defend science without becoming scientists’ patsies or surrogates.

“Basements, Attics, and Garages: Crowdsourcing as Domestic Science in the 21st century”

Bruno Strasser (University of Geneva)

In the late 20th century, millions of online users became involved in "citizen science": producing scientific knowledge at home using personal computers. Instead of understanding this transformation as a redistribution of expertise, this paper analyzes it as a relocation of scientific activity in the domestic space. As Steven Shapin has argued, “one of the distinguishing marks of modern society is the radical disjunctions of residences and workplaces” (Shapin 1994, p. 409), making this phenomenon of crowdsourcing, that seemingly brings together again residences and workplaces, all the more surprising. Recent studies of “domestic science” have shown that the home has remained, however, a significant place for science throughout the modern period (Opitz et al., eds. 2016). Comparing crowdsourcing with earlier examples of domestic science in the 20th century highlights historical continuities in the gendering of space, the technological cultures, and the public identities of its practitioners. However, the promoters of crowdsourcing also forged a specific vision and moral economy of public participation, where the public was constituted of individuals acting alone from their homes, while forming a virtual crowd, supporting a more “democratic” science.

“Voices of Science Activism in the Age of Trump”

Adam Shapiro (Consortium for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine)

From the point of view of the history of political activism and social movements, the worldwide March for Science on April 22, 2017 (in Washington DC and over 600 cities around the world) might be seen as significant but not unprecedented. In some respects, it is derivative of the worldwide Women's Marches that preceded it by three months. From the perspective of the history of science and its cultural impacts however, the Science March is something very different: quite possibly the largest event in science history. This tension between placing the march between different historical narratives is reflected in the diversity of perspectives on the march given by oral history interviews with participants, organizers, and critics. Dozens of oral history interviews allow us to observe the organic emergence of questions about how to frame our history, rather than imposing boundaries and categories upon our subjects after-the-fact. Reflected in this, is the wide range of answers and anxieties concerning whether the Science March has a unifying message, whether science itself can (or should) avoid being "political," and whether "science" can serve as a basis for organizing and resisting the knowledge politics of the Trumpian state and its allies.