Integrarse en redes de cooperación en nanociencias y nanotecnologías: el rol de los dispositivos instrumentales

Matthieu  Hubert; Ana Spivak L’Hoste

doi:10.48160/18517072re29.244

Authors

Matthieu Hubert PACTE Politique Organisation / Unité Mixte de Recherche cnrs, Université de Grenoble, France
Ana Spivak L’Hoste CONICET / Escuela de Humanidades, Universidad Nacional de San Martín y Departamento de Antropología de la Universidad de Buenos Aires

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re29.244

Keywords:

scientific collaboration, scientific instrumentation, nanoscience, nanotechnology, centre–periphery, cooperation networks

Abstract

Competences and resources agglomeration and geographical concentration are characteristic features of nanoscience and nanotechnology growth in some countries. This paper questions the appropriation of nanoscience and nanotechnology dynamics by researchers of a country where such concentration is absent. It deals with the insertion of researchers in local and international, formal and informal cooperation networks including various partners. The data collected in three Argentinean laboratories show how much access to instruments is a central concern for researchers. It shows how these researchers adjust their research strategies and practices to the lack of instruments. Finally, this study questions inequalities in the scientific communities from the point of view of instrumental mediations. It argues the interest of approaching these inequalities in terms of integration and differentiation rather than in terms of centre(s) and periphery (-ies).

References

Andrini, L. y S. Figueroa (2008), “El impulso gubernamental a las ciencias y nanotecnologías en Argentina”, en Foladori, G. y N. Invernizzi (comps.), Nanotecnologías en América Latina, México, M. A. Porría, (de próxima aparición).

Arnall, A. y D. Parr (2005), “Moving the nanoscience and technology (nst) debate forwards: short-term impacts, long-term uncertainty and the social constitution”, Technology in Society, N° 27, pp. 23-38.

Arvanitis, R. y D. Villavicencio (1998), “Comparative perspective on technological learning: Introduction”, Science, Technology and Society, vol. 3, N° 1, pp. 1-9.

Carton, M. y J. B. Meyer (comps.) (2006), La société des savoirs. Trompe-l’oeil ou perspectives?, París, L’Harmatan.

Delgado, G. C. (2007), “Sociología política de la nanotecnología en el hemisferio occidental: el caso de Estados Unidos, México, Brasil y Argentina”, Revista de estudios sociales, N° 27, pp. 164-181.

Fogelberg, H. y H. Glimell (2003), Bringing visibility to the invisible: towards a social understanding of nanotechnology, Gotemburgo, Göteborg University.

Foladori, G. y N. Invernizzi (2005), “Nanotechnology and its socio-economic context”, Science studies, vol. 18, N° 2, pp. 67-73.

Guan, J. y N. Ma (2007), “China’s emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology”, Research Policy, vol. 36, N° 6, pp. 880-886.

Hessenbruch, A. (2004), “Nanotechnology and the negotiation of novelty”, en Baird, D., A. Nordmann y J. Schummer (comps.), Discovering the nanoscale, Amsterdam, ios Press, pp. 135-144

Hubert, M. (2007), “Hybridations instrumentales et identitaires dans la recherche sur les nanotechnologies. Le cas d’un laboratoire public au travers de ses collaborations académiques et industrielles”, Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, N° 2, pp. 243-266.

Jouvenet, M. (2007), “La culture du ‘bricolage’ instrumental et l’organisation du travail scientifique. Enquête dans un centre de recherche en nanosciences”, Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, N° 2, pp. 189-220.

Kostoff, R. N., R. G. Koytcheff y G. Y. Lau Clifford (2007), “Global nanotechnology research metrics”, Scientometrics, vol. 70, N° 3, pp. 565-601.

Kreimer, P. (1997), “Migration of scientists and the building of a laboratory in Argentina”, Science, Technology and Society, vol. 2, N° 2, pp. 229-259.

Kreimer, P. (2006), “¿Dependientes o integrados? La ciencia latinamericana y la nueva división internacional del trabajo”, Nómadas, N° 24, pp. 199-212.

Meyer, J. B. (2005), “Les diasporas de chercheurs, un atout pour l’avenir?”, Pour la science, N° 328, pp. 14-17.

Meyer, M. (2007), “What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency”, Scientometrics, vol. 70, N° 3, pp. 779-810.

Mody, C. M. (2004), “How probe microscopists became nanotechnologists”, en Baird, D., A. Nordmann y J. Schummer. (comps.), Discovering the nanoscale, Amsterdam, ios Press, pp. 119-133.

Pouris, A. (2007), “Nanoscale research in South Africa: a mapping exercise based on scientimetrics”, Scientometrics, vol. 70, N° 3, pp. 541-553.

Robinson, D. K. R., A. Rip y V. Mangematin (2007), “Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology”, Research Policy, vol. 36, N° 6, pp. 871-879.

Vinck, D. (1992), Du laboratoire aux réseaux. Le travail scientifique en mutation, Luxemburgo, Office des Publications Officielles des Communautés Européennes.

Vinck, D. (1996), “The dynamics of Scientific Intellectuals Within the Integrative Trend in Europe: The Case of Co-operation Networks”, en Elzinga a. y C. Landström (comps.), Internationalism and Science, Londres, Taylor Graham, pp. 162-198.

Vinck, D. (1999), “Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique. Contribution à la prise en compte des objets dans les dynamiques sociales”, Revue Française de Sociologie, vol. xi, N° 2, pp. 385-414.

Vinck, D. (2006), “L’équipement du chercheur. Comme si la technique était déterminante”, Ethnographique.org, N° 9, (on line).

Vinck, D. (2008), “The ‘enterprise of science’: construction and reconstruction of social cohesion around nano”, inédito.

Wong, P. K., Y. P. Ho y C. K. Chan (2007), “Internationalisation and evolution of an emerging technology: the case of nanotechnology”, Scientometrics, vol. 70, N° 3, pp. 715-737.

Zhou, P. y L. Leydesdorff (2006), “The emergence of China as a leading nation in science”, Research Policy, vol. 35, N° 1, pp. 83-104.