Beach Haven

In this review articles by two writers both speak to the concept of displacement in the creation, or production, of science, though with some variation in vocabulary, and some splitting of STS hairs. STS stands for Science, Technology and Society and is a field of scientific study. For Bruno Latour, scientists never leave the lab. They just expand the boundaries of the lab to include places that might be thought of as ‘outside’. For Michel Callon, the border areas within the network of science production are blurred through translation.

Latour describes the dissolution of the inside/outside boundary as a critique of STS scholarship. Laboratory scientists expand the lab boundaries by creating some level of control over conditions at sites potentially benefiting from the work. For example, Louis Pasteur was able to completely isolate anthrax in the lab, grow it from the microscopic world to the visible world. Once his group was able to figure out how to weaken the strain in the controlled environment, some of the controls were recreated at a specific farm for further testing. In this way both micro/macro and inside/outside had less, or even no, real meaning.

Callon similarly argues that statements (scientific product) can be taken out of the laboratories through translation. As the language changes through ‘black boxing’ pieces of the translation chain, scientific information can become another kind of information (or power) such as political or economic.

Both authors speak to the idea of scale inversion. Latour shows how anthrax is grown from the microscopic to the visible. Then the cultures are turned into a vaccine, and the border of the lab is extended to the farm. As controls are imposed on the farm, the macro of the farm is lessened and the micro of anthrax is enlarged. At first the conditions of the farm loom larger over the lab, but later the strength that comes from the vaccine changes the farm into a subset of the lab. Likewise, the strength of the disease becomes subject to the strength of the vaccine. In Callon’s case, the idea of translation also inverts the power dynamic. For example, once atomic theory could be translated into the theory of the atom bomb FDR’s administration shifted from ignoring the science talk, to pushing for it, and even funding it. Modification of scale for both authors is a modification of society as network actors are displaced (Latour) and/or power is redefined through translation (Callon).

In similar ways both Latour and Callon speak to the power of publication. Latour describes inscription as a way to sell science, in that the ideas of science really only exist in the papers published. The strength of science is seen as being more about the strength of the publication than the actual science, though the science needs to be in place to support the paper as much as possible. Callon argues the publication is the product of science. Expression of ideas and supporting arguments as published is the purpose of the efforts in the lab or in the field. The published documents give science its power as the information is translated into other fields where non-scientific actors in the network interact.

Referring to a biblical phrase found in the New Testament book of Matthew, Robert K. Merton speaks to a halo effect on successful scientists, and a reciprocal barrier to scientific initiates. Margaret W. Rossiter argues Merton puts too much emphasis on the positive side of the equation, the haves, while neglecting an understanding of those who are often overlooked, the have-nots.

The so-called Matthew effect describes a social and psychological base for a reward and communications system based on the biblical quote, "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." A kind of hierarchy forms in the scientific community. The worth of a scientific career is peer-adjudged based on metrics such as the quantity of publications, citations of one’s papers by others, and the value placed on the school or laboratory a scientist is associated with. In a sort of reciprocal measurement, works by scientists of rank are peer-adjudged higher based on the perceived rank of the author or co-author.

The opposite is also true in that works of lesser known scientists that may be of equal, or even higher quality, as compared with works created by ranking scientists are overlooked by many involved in peer review. Merton points out that recognized scientists understand this happens so they often try to place others in a more prominent co-author position in a paper, or even leave out their own names altogether. They do this in order to help newer associates gain rank. Despite the good intention, it is often true that the lesser ranked co-authors are overlooked, and the ranked author acknowledged. Even when the ranked author chooses to not be listed as a co-author, when it is known that the others are associated with the scientist of rank, the halo effect still encourages peers to give credit to the well-known name because the others are known to be linked to them.

Rossiter renamed the negative portion of the Matthew effect as the Matilda effect after Matilda Joslyn Gage. She did this because of the experience Gage had that reflects the effect. It is Rossiter’s contention that Merton spent too much of his explanation of the Matthew effect on ranked scientists, how the halo effect works, and how the haves attempt to help the have-nots. Rossiter prefers to speak to the negative impact on the have-nots, especially women contributors.

Pointing to a number of historical examples in which women were either primary author, or a significant co-author and simultaneously ignored, Rossiter demonstrates how women have a double hurtle to overcome. Along with the barriers identified by Merton, women have the additional challenge of overcoming sexism. In fact, in several places in his paper Merton refers to the work of Harriet Zuckerman who created the data his paper is based on. Rossiter chides Merton for not identifying Zuckerman as a co-author which he later agreed he should have done. 

Rossiter also points out that Merton may have been making a supportive case of the Matthew effect as functional, and suggested lesser-known scientists might learn how to take advantage of the system.

Rossiter does admit there are some women scientists who have been noted by peers as a ranking member of the scientific society, but she argues these to be exceptions. She also points out how the women of note had to achieve recognition by more overwhelming accomplishment to rise in the scientific annals than their male counterparts. The negative impact seems even higher on collaborating women when they are married to the ‘main’ (male) author. For example it can be noted that Zuckerman was a student of Merton and they eventually married. 

​The Matthew statement taken from the Bible does not match in context with the Matthew effect based on the phrase. Despite that, the positive lift given to some, and the artificial barriers imposed on others, seem supported by the arguments of both Merton and Rossiter.