Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
MLN.
http://www.jstor.org
Scrips and Scribbles'
Hans-Jorg Rheinberger
1. Introduction
Over the past thirty years, scientific writing and publishing has
received substantial coverage from the history of science and related
literary studies. A great deal of attention has thereby been devoted to
literary technologies, especially the different forms and tools of
rhetorical enhancement, persuasion, and dissimulation.2 This paper
addresses another aspect of scientific writing. It is concerned with the
scrips and scribbles of the laboratory, that research place where
scientific knowledge is made to emerge and can be grasped in its
emergence. An increasing amount of literature in the history of
science, especially from historians of science and technology con-
cerned with micro-historical reconstructions, has been devoted to
laboratory notebooks and other forms of laboratory and research
inscription.3 With few exceptions, however, the epistemic function of
such notes in the overall order of knowledge production has been
I thank Colin Milburn for editing this text and improving its readability.
2
See, for example, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump:
Hobbes,Boyle, and the ExperimentalLife (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1985);
Charles Bazerman, Shaping WrittenKnowledge.The Genreand Activityof the Experimental
Article in Science(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press 1988); Greg Myers, Writing
Biology.Textsin the Social Constructionof ScientificKnowledge(Madison: The University of
Wisconsin Press 1990); Timothy Lenoir (ed.), InscribingScience.ScientificTextsand the
Materialityof Communication(Stanford: Stanford University Press 1998).
3From a science study perspective, see Karin Knorr Cetina, The Manufactureof
Knowledge.An Essay on the Constructivistand Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford:
Pergamon Press 1981); Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, LaboratoryLife. The Construc-
tion of ScientificFacts (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1986); for an overview from
2. Laboratory Writing
Elsewhere I have given a detailed description of experimental systems
as the material arrangements within which I see the game of modern
scientific knowledge production taking place.5 The following brief
rehearsal shall serve as a starting point from which to develop the
argument of this paper. I have characterized experimental systems as
the smallest working units of science in the making, as systems of
epistemic manipulation designed to give yet unknown answers to
questions which themselves are not yet clear. As such, and as the
French molecular biologist Francois Jacob once marvelously put it,
they are systems "for concocting expectation," or "machines for
making the future."6 Experimental systems inextricably co-generate
phenomena and the corresponding concepts that these phenomena
come to embody in the process of their techno-epistemic constitu-
tion. I have addressed these noumenal-phenomenal entities, manipu-
lated within experimental systems, as epistemic things. Epistemic
things thus are shaped in and occupy an opaque intermediary space:
they lie, so to speak, at the interface between the material and the
conceptual side of science. To stress this hybridity, I have therefore
also characterized them as graphematic entities.7 That means they are
scripturally configured in the broad sense that Jacques Derrida has
conveyed to this notion and to which I will come back at the very end
of this paper. In the realm of graphematicity, the objects of research
the perspective of history of science, see Frederic L. Holmes, Jiirgen Renn, and Hans-
J6rg Rheinberger (eds.), Reworkingthe Bench. ResearchNotebooksin the History of Science
(Dordrecht: Kluwer, in press).
4 An exception is Christoph Hoffmann and Peter Berz (eds.), UberSchall.ErnstMachs
und PeterSalchersGeschoflfotografien (Gottingen: Wallstein 2001).
5
Hans-J6rg Rheinberger, Towarda History of EpistemicThings. SynthesizingProteinsin
the TestTube(Stanford: Stanford University Press 1997).
6 Francois Jacob, La statue intrieure (Paris: Editions Odile Jacob 1987), 13.
7 Hans-J6rg Rheinberger, "Experimental Systems-Graphematic Spaces" in: Timo-
thy Lenoir and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht (eds.), InscribingScience:ScientificTextsand the
Materialityof Communication(Stanford: Stanford University Press 1998), 285-303.
624 HANS-JORGRHEINBERGER
have not yet definitely become paper, and the paper-the scrip, the
scribble-is still part and parcel of a materially mediated experimen-
tal engagement. It still belongs fully to the knowledge regime of the
laboratory.
A closer look into these spaces reveals an immense variety of
primary written research traces and marks ready for historical analy-
sis. These traces reach from excerpts of research papers to notes of
fragmentary ideas or preliminary conjectures, from sketches of
experimental setups to records and arrangements of data deriving
from these experiments, from tentative interpretations of experimen-
tal results to calculations, from the calibration of existing instrumen-
tation to the design of new apparatus. All these and many more
comparable activities circumscribe a space, and at the same time are
inscribed into a space that lies betweenthe materialities of the
experimental systems and the spirituality of the final written commu-
nications that are eventually, at a later date, released to the scientific
community.
The primary forms of 'write-ups' in the laboratory have long been
regarded as simple records of data. These data in turn have been seen
as ideally resulting from some 'pencil of nature' and thus transparent
with respect to the matter whose contours they were taken to render
intelligible. Forms of tracing such as the 'method of curves' in
nineteenth century physiology or microphotography in bacteriology
at the end of the nineteenth century have been praised as instances of
such transparent renderings. But being the result of data collection-
which usually itself already derives from a sophisticated experimental
constellation-is only one part of these graphic assessments: they are
always already part of a broader laboratory discursivity.8They are not
the inert and extrinsic starting point for a genuinely 'intellectual'
process of subsequent knowledge generation, for they are themselves
an integral part of this process, deriving from and connecting the
process to its epistemic objects. The epistemically productive function
of these tracts, tracks, and traces of an experimental system is that
they always already display and exhibit a tentative texturalization that
can be addressed as an intrinsic aspect of any epistemic thing.
8
Soraya de Chadarevian, "Graphical Method and Discipline: Self-Recording Instru-
ments in Nineteenth-Century Physiology"in Studiesin Historyand Philosophyof Science24
Fotografiein Wissenschaft,
(1993), 267-291. Peter Geimer (ed.), OrdnungenderSichtbarkeit.
Kunst und Technologie(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 2001).
M LN 625
9 For a nice
example of such reversibility, see Bruno Latour, "Le pedofil de Boa
Vista" in La clef de Berlin (Paris: La Decouverte 1993), 171-225.
10
Christoph Hoffmann and Peter Berz, "Machs Notizbuch" in UberSchall, 91-141.
626 HANS-JORGRHEINBERGER
idea of science in the making than on the level of texts and the
possibilities of analysis they suggest. Here we find ourselves largely in
the space of the pre-normative, where the opportunistic character of
knowledge acquisition shows itself unhindered, in the space of the
'assay' in the deeper sense of this notion, a sense that is constitutive
for the making of science. An assay is not a trial. It is an exploratory
leap whose tentativity is not yet bound to scrutiny. Thus, the explor-
atory potential of experimental systems is carried over into the
exploratory space of notetaking with its enhanced freedom of combi-
nation, unrestricted by narrow compatibility considerations.
As Francois Jacob has recently remarked, scientists, when going
public, "describe their own activity as a well-ordered series of ideas
and experiments linked in strict logical sequence. In scientific
articles, reason proceeds along a high road that leads from darkness
to light with not the slightest error, not a hint of a bad decision, no
confusion, nothing but perfect reasoning. Flawless.""1 Research notes,
on the other hand, are the documentary residues, the products of
whatJacob, in contrast to the well-ordered "day science," has charac-
terized as the agitations of a "night science." "By contrast, night
science wanders blind. It hesitates, stumbles, recoils, sweats, wakes
with a start. Doubting everything, it is forever trying to find itself,
question itself, pull itself back together. Night science is a sort of
workshop of the possible where what will become the building
material of science is worked out. Where hypotheses remain in the
form of vague presentiments and woolly impressions. Where phe-
nomena are still no more than solitary events with no link between
them. Where the design of experiments has barely taken shape.
Where thought makes its way along meandering paths and twisting
lanes, most often leading nowhere."'2 In this contact zone halfway
between experiment and paper, where the shuffling and reshuffling
of research notes is executed, the individual artistic potential of the
research scientist finds its primary playground.
IIFrancoisJacob, OfFlies, Mice, & Men (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1998),
125.
12
Ibid, 126.
M LN 627
13 Archive for the History of the Max-Planck-Society,Berlin, III. Abt., Rep. 17.
14 Gregor Mendel, "Versuche fiber Pflanzen-Hybriden" in Verhandlungendes Natur-
forschendenVereinsin Brunn 4 (1866), 3-47.
15
Hugo de Vries, "Sur la loi de disjonction des hybrides" in Comptesrendus de
lAcademiedes Sciencesde Paris 130 (1900), 845-847; Carl Correns, "G. Mendel's Regel
fiber das Verhalten der Nachkommenschaft der Rassenbastarde"in BerichtederDeutschen
BotanischenGesellschaft18 (1900), 158-168.
628 HANS-JORGRHEINBERGER
6
Hans-J6rg Rheinberger, "Carl Correns' Experimente mit Pisum, 1896-1899" in
Historyand Philosophyof the Life Sciences22 (2000), 187-218.
17
Hans-Jorg Rheinberger, "When did Carl Correns read Gregor Mendel's paper? A
research note" in Isis 86 (1995), 612-616.
M LN 629
Fig. 1. "Hybrid gr + p $ Al (yellow)." Archive for the History of the Max Planck
Society, Berlin, III. Abt., Rep. 17, Folder "Pisum Results 1897." Reprinted with
permission of the Archive for the History of the Max Planck Society, Berlin.
630 HANS-JORGRHEINBERGER
one character pair, namely the color of the germ (cotyledons), and
neglect the form of the seed as well as the color of the seed coat to
which he had paid considerable attention in his earlier descriptions.
He could retrace which seeds he had used to raise the successive
generations of hybrid plants, and add them to the remaining ones to
yield a virtually complete record. In so doing, and in summing over
all the individual plants and their yield of seeds, he could arrive at
substantial numbers that allowed him, in contrast to what he had set
out to do at the beginning, to perform a thorough statistical
evaluation of his numbers. The "experiment" in his publication of
1900, which in fact is a composite of all the crosses he had been doing
with these two pea varieties between 1896 and 1899, now added up to
several hundreds of peas in each of the successive generations for the
particular character pair under review. The research notes assumed
the positive function of a repository and of a tool to reorient the
experimental gaze in a direction that had been unthinkable for
Correns at the beginning of the experiments.
It can be seen as a fortunate byproduct of the starting point of the
experiments that Correns concentrated on characters that he ex-
pected to become visible on the seeds. Paradoxically speaking, we
could say that the xeniaboth prevented him from an early recognition
of the transmission ratios observed later and enabled him to do just
that after all. For in addition to the protocols-that is, the paper
record-the seeds themselves acted in his system as a kind of
naturally digitalized material protocol of green cotyledons and yellow
cotyledons. This repository existed because Correns had to collect
and keep the seeds for sowing the next generation in the following
years. Correns could also come back to this material protocol-
namely, his boxes filled with peas-at any time, even after a year or
two, and he could use them additionally as a check for his notes. Not
until Correns had worked himself deeply into the breeding system of
Zea mays and Pisum for about four years did this character of the
system become relevant for him, at a time when he realized that his
results were heading in a different direction. It appears to me that
this is a particular juncture of an experimental paper trail with the
material characteristics of an experimental system, creating the
possibility of recurrent moves of interpretation, which possibly repre-
sent a generalizable feature of experimental exploration. In any case,
it is a good example of the epistemic and potentially knowledge-
producing function of scientific notetaking.
632 HANS-JORG RHEINBERGER
18
This part of the paper is based on a section of Hans-Jorg Rheinberger, "Discourses
of Circumstance. A Note on the Author in Science" in Peter Galison and Mario Biagioli
(eds.), ScientificAuthorship(London: Routledge 2003), 309-323.
19Michel Foucault, TheArchaeologyof Knowledge(New York: Pantheon Books 1972),
140.
20
Special kinds of such technologies are to be found in different scientific disci-
plines. For chemistry, see Ursula Klein, "Paper Tools in Experimental Cultures" in
Studiesin Historyand Philosophyof Science32A (2001), 265-302.
M LN 633
21 For a
comprehensive overview, see Gerald L. Geison and Frederic L. Holmes
(eds.), ResearchSchools:HistoricalReappraisals(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
1993, Osiris 8).
634 HANS-JORGRHEINBERGER
22 Nelson
Goodman, Languagesof Art (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 1968).
M LN 635
23 Claude
Levi-Strauss,La penseesauvage (Paris: Plon 1962), 31.
24 Gaston Bachelard, La formation de l'espritscientifique(6th ed. Paris: Vrin 1969), 13.
25JacquesDerrida, "Signature evenement contexte" in Margesde la philosophie(Paris:
Editions de Minuit 1972), 365-393.
636 HANS-JORGRHEINBERGER