Michel Dubois

The present article reviews in detail the generational fate of Actor-Network Theory (AnT). This theory is one of the rare examples of an intellectual product that has managed to transpose into the very general terms of contemporary social theory findings initially elaborated in what is often seen as the confidential field of science and technology studies. Building in particular on MJ Nye’s work on the origins of the social construction of science in order to establish a generational approach to the study of the sciences, the article distinguishes two generations of AnT and highlights the asymmetric character of the intergenerational link between them. In looking back on the principal criticisms of AnT since its creation, the article shows how second generation AnT – the ‘diaspora’ generation, as Law has termed it (1999) – identifies mostly with a degenerative research program (in Lakatos’ sense, 1978), built around four main types of effect: effects of repetition, of dramatization, of routinization and, finally, of invisibilization of the critical debate.

This critical note examines the impact of the so-called “post-genomic” revolution for the social sciences on the basis of five books published between 2016 and 2017. It is not only a question of introducing the French reader to current debates in the English-speaking world concerning the current redefinition of the boundaries between sociology and biology, but also and above all of contributing to reflection on the evolution of interdisciplinary research practices. Particular attention is given to the emerging field of epigenetics and the way it is represented by these studies as the place par excellence of the post-genomic revolution. The article underlines the importance for sociologists of becoming aware of the opportunities associated with this revolution, as well as being able to
free themselves from a certain number of conventional wisdoms. It also stresses the need to maintain a sufficiently critical distance from a “promising” research area.

Although key categories in sociology since Max Weber, " profession " and " discipline " are often used in a superficial manner, without any rigorous definitions. This article provides examples of impressionistic approaches of those two notions by analyzing studies on the socialisation process in the world of science. Building from E. Freidson (1970 [1984]), Y. Gingras (1991) and R. Stichweh's (1992) general line of arguments, I propose three main reasons to justify the need to consider " discipline " and " profession " as two distinct phenomena that the sociologist should study from the perspective of their interaction, but also of their transformation.

Cet article étudie les raisons de la visibilité contemporaine de la notion de « construction » dans le domaine des études sociales des sciences mais également de la théorie sociologique dès lors qu’elle se place dans la continuité de ces études. Cherchant à dépasser le constat réitéré par nombre de commentateurs de la seule diversité des formes du constructivisme, il propose d’envisager la « construction » comme une métaphore. Identifier les modalités de fonctionnement de la métaphore de la construction dans le discours sociologique permet non seulement de caractériser le « transport sémantique » inhérent au lexique constructiviste désormais constitué comme « prêt-à-penser ». Mais également de renforcer un point de vue critique sur les dimensions implicites d’une représentation qui, bien qu’initialement élaborée dans le cadre des études sur les sciences entend désormais, par l’intermédiaire de la théorie dite de l’acteur-réseau, s’étendre à l’ensemble des phénomènes sociaux.

The article proposes a sociological analysis of the epistolary relationship between two forerunners of the social study of science and technology: Robert K. Merton and Seabury C. Gilfillan. Based on primary source archived at Columbia University—a set of letters exchanged between 1932 and 1976—it develops a relational approach of epistolary communication that aims to reassess the traditional (and mostly economic) genealogy of innovation studies. The study of the invisible college of invention through the private and informal interactions allows us to specify the cognitive, normative and strategic components of academic correspondance but also to explain the durable separation of the sociological study of science (discovery) and technology (invention) observed until the end of the 1970s, before the emergence of the Science, Technology and Society (STS) field.

Located at the leading edge of reconfigurations of the contemporary academic world, biomedical research is a priority area for the sociology of science. A number of studies describe in turn the rise of the “scientist entrepreneur,” the blurring of the traditional boundaries between science and industry, or even the abandonment of the normative principles supposed to characterize the scientific community. This article proposes to shed light on these reconfigurations by studying a new field of biomedical research—the human embryonic stem cell (hESC)—and a key player in France: the Institut des Cellules Souches pour le Traitement et l’Étude des Maladies Monogéniques (Institute of Stem Cell Therapy and Exploration of Monogenic Diseases) or I-STEM. Reviving a tradition dedicated to the sociological study of scientific specialties, the article analyses the emergence of I-STEM from the dual perspective of the temporalities that coincide in a single project and its territorial location in the Evry Biopark. By adopting a broader conception of the regulation of science, the
article demonstrates the importance for sociologists not to interpret the logic of scientific action through too simplistic a framework, and from an international comparison between France and Britain, the need to replace a purely transgressive conception of technoscience
with an approach centred on the organizational regime of scientific work.

With the departure of Raymond Boudon on the 10th of April 2013, sociology lost an outstanding and unusual character. Explaining social phenomena entails understanding individual reasons; such is the main idea reintroduced in sociology by Boudon through the notion of methodological individualism. From his initial work on formal modelling of social phenomena to the theoretical elaboration of ordinary rationality, he kept on delivering a message of optimism tinged with voluntarism: sociology can under certain circumstances be a science like any other.