The first part of this paper has shown that the development of regulatory genetics and the lactose operon model stemmed from laboratory cultures rooted in local traditions. A "physiological" culture may be recognized in the Pasteurian context. The institutional continuity provided the basis for a tenuous link between Pasteur, Lwoff, and Monod. My claim is that the "national" value of regulatory and physiological genetics is an artifact produced in the course of the legitimization process accompanying the institutionalisation of the discipline. (...) In the 1960s, the lactose operon model was turned into a "flag-object," a symbol of the new culture. The work done by the Pasteurian group became therefore the most important, if not the only, exemplar of molecular biology in France.The second part o f the paper described the origins of general patterns that dominated the building of molecular biology in France. The study of the relationships between molecular biologists and biochemists or immunologists revealed the existence of alternatives to the development of operon research, or to the convergence with molecular biology. Both examples uncover specific paths leading to achievements that might be viewed as international trends: the expansion of RNA and translation studies, and the development of cellular immunology. They illustrate two possible patterns of linking local settings and disciplinary traditions: an oligopolistic situation where a few groups or one institution dominate an entire field, and the emergence of "collective" trends through collaboration networks or schools. (shrink)

Many decades after the publication of Genesis and development of a scientific fact, Fleck’s collective Denkstil remains a very important notion for analyzing the history of the biological and medical sciences. Following Fleck’s perspective this paper argues that the history of the sex hormones was critically shaped by our representation of the sexes, and our perceptions of the division of reproductive labor. Emerging at the boundary between physiological laboratories and consultation room, a molecular/endocrine style of thought stabilized during the early (...) decades of the twentieth century around the manipulation of sex hormones. This not only proved important in normalizing the sexual body, but also in defining sterility, menstrual disorders or menopause as pathological events to be treated ‘causally’.Analyzing the role played by industrial companies like the German firm Schering which produced these drugs, the paper suggests that the idea of a work style may be a convenient way to complement Fleck’s style of thought. First, the idea of work style is a reminder that science involves material action, which has strong links with industrial production. Second, it draws our attention to a deeply entrenched goal of the modern biosciences, the search for means to control the variability of the living, and standardize its uses. (shrink)

This paper examines the “biotechnology problem” in the history of molecular biology, namely the alleged reinvention of a basic academic discipline looking for the logic of life, into a typical technoscientific enterprise, closely related to agriculture, medicine, and the construction of markets. The dominant STS model sees the roots of this shift in a radical change of the regime of knowledge production. The paper argues that this scheme needs to be historicized to take into account the past in our biotech (...) present. Looking at the development of breast cancer genetic testing and GMOs as examples of mounting issues of intellectual property, risk and regulation, the paper also argues that historians of biology should pay closer attention to the political, the economical and the legal changes of the last thirty years. Solving the biotech problem requires new categories. The notion of “way of regulating” is given as an example of such notions linking the local and the global. (shrink)

During the first years of the post-war era, many French scientists travelled in the United States. As they looked for a reference to be used in rebuilding their own scientific landscape, their diaries say as much about the rise of the American biomedical complex as they do about their perception of research in the country. In order to illustrate how the French biologists adopted, competed with, or challenged the American model and how transatlantic exchanges played a critical role in the (...) molecularization of the life sciences, this paper presents three trajectories of laboratories. These include the services respectively led by P. Lépine and J. Monod at the Pasteur Institute, and G. Schapira’s biochemical research unit at the Hôpital des Enfants Malades. The three studies document the massive transatlantic circulation of materials, techniques, instruments, and people during the scientific reconstruction. The reconstruction however produced highly differentiated characters each operating in his own niche: the biotechnological inventor, the neo-clinician, and the fundamental biologist. The comparison situates the rise of molecular biology within the context of a rapidly expanding biomedical research system. It will help in understanding how, in contrast to the American situation, a logic of “demedicalization” became in France a means for developing biology at the molecular level. (shrink)

This paper investigated the part played by collaborative practices in chaneling the work of prominent biochemists into the development of molecular biology. The RNA collaborative network that emerged in the 1960s in France encompassed a continuum of activities that linked laboratories to policy-making centers. New institutional frameworks such as the DGRST committees were instrumental in establishing new patterns of funding, and in offering arenas for multidisciplinary debates and boundary assessment. It should be stressed however, that although this collaborative network was (...) based on centralized initiatives aimed at developing molecular biology as a new biological specialty, it operated above all as a nexus of practices. The main argument of this paper is that the central allocation of funds and resources, exemplified by the DGRST operation, actually enhanced the creation of a self-conscious community of biochemists turned molecular biologists by virtue of an increased circulation of tools, skills, and results that took place within the RNA network and a few analogous systems of exchange.Having hands on “things” viewed as identical for all practical purposes was a potent factor in changing the experimental systems and their meanings. Limited but shared means of doing helped to reduce uncertainties, change representations, and turn contingent decisions into meaningful choices. The collaborative enterprises then resulted in personal contacts and the transfer of skills and materials, which gradually incorporated the biochemical tools into systems producing facts relevant to molecular biology as defined by its early practitioners. In that sense, networking was a regulatory process that stabilized new research objects and acculturated French biochemists.The mere existence of such a collaborative network also changed the scale of the disciplining process. Collaborations may have been started for contingent motives, but multiple exchanges resulted in the emergence of a new collective, and amplified small displacements. Collaborations, however, worked both ways, and the RNA network may be viewed as an efficient “trading-post.” An unexpected outcome of the development of a conversion zone is the fact that, by the late 1960s, the former biochemists dominated the “new” world of molecular biology — both in terms of research habits, since interests in structural studies dominated the field, and in terms of institutional initiatives such as the creation of laboratories and institutes for molecular biology.As an example of the cognitive displacements achieved by the network, I have focused here on the stabilization of “messenger RNA” as a new biological entity. This process illustrates the role of “boundary objects” and other mediating innovations in the development of disciplinary structures. Students of science trained in the symbolic interactionism tradition have proposed that “boundary objects” enhance the multiple interactions between heterogeneous social worlds: they are robust enough to enhance unity, but plastic enough to be manipulated in different social and cultural contexts.81 Within the emerging network, messenger RNA was a weakly structured “genetic information carrier” in common use, but it could, at the same time, be a strongly structured “macromolecular structure” adapted to practical and local uses. Consequently, messenger RNA favored the association of groups of heterogeneous scientists with backgrounds and interests in medical biochemistry, genetics, physical chemistry, organic chemistry, and so forth. This contrast between general and local uses was also instrumental in integrating the manipulation of things and the negotiation of aims. In contrast to transfer RNAs, which in the French context remained objects for chemical (and mainly structural) studies, messenger RNA became a key component of the new culture of “genetic information”. Messenger RNA was a loose theoretical entity described as a “genetic information carrier” in the policy-making documents, while operational but tacit and more conflicting definitions prevailed at the bench. In other words, messenger RNA was not only a classical “boundary object” but also a “flag object,” which tightened the collaborative network by mediating between the DGRST offices and the laboratories. (shrink)

During the late 1940s and 1950s, radioisotopes became important resources for biological and medical research. This article explores the strategies used by French researchers to get access to this material, either from the local Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) or from suppliers in the United States or United Kingdom. It focuses on two aspects of this process: the transatlantic circulation of both isotopes and associated instrumentation; the regulation of use and access by the administrative bodies governing research in France. Analyzing the (...) investigations conducted within laboratories associated either with the atomic energy agency or with the local National Institute of Health (INH), the paper discusses the part played by the new tools in the postwar transformation of biomedical research. It contrasts the INH successful development of biological studies and metabolic tracing with the mixed results of CEA in advancing cancer radiotherapy, thus highlighting locally defined "normal paths" to radiobiology. (shrink)

This paper follows the trajectory of sex steroids in 1930s Germany as a way to investigate the system of research which characterized the development of these drugs. Analyzing the changing relationship between the pharmaceutical company Schering and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute für Biochemie headed by Nobel Prize winner Adolf Butenandt, the paper highlights the circulation of materials, information and money as much as the role of patents in shaping the study of sex steroids. Semi-synthetic analogs and metabolic pathways thus emerged (...) as shared bio-industrial assets. This collaborative work participated in a more general ‘internalization’ of biology, which took place in pharmaceutical firms during the 1920s and 1930s as a strategy to standardize and develop biologicals. The construction of the hormone market was also based on Schering’s collaboration with a selected group of clinicians who worked out the wide-range of indications associated with these ‘natural’ drugs. The paper finally shows how the wartime scientific and industrial mobilization in Nazi Germany marginalized the study of sex steroids and led to the dismantling of the KWIB–Schering network. (shrink)