In 2012, the University of Copenhagen's Medical Museion collaborated with members of the local DIY biology community to create a DIY biology lab and event series. This article discusses the project and the hacker movement more generally with reference to two current museum trends: first, the opening up of museums through external collaborations, for instance in co-curation; and second, renewed interest among science and technology museums in revealing the "behind the scenes" of research, including bringing laboratories into museums. With regard to the first trend, we suggest that hacking may be a useful framework for thinking about co-curation, and argue that co-curation needs to be understood as a process that doesn't just involve the representation of diverse narratives, but instead incorporates a range of diverse actors into the design and production of an exhibition. With regard to the second, we argue that biohacking may be a better fit to a museum's desire to exhibit research processes than traditional scientific laboratories, given biohacking's emphasis on enabling citizens to understand and carry out scientific research. We develop these suggestions by charting the course of the collaboration.
In his treatises Hero of Alexandria describes a range of devices for producing spectacles and generating wonder that have frequently been treated as marginal by historians of technology and science. In this paper I shall show that these devices and Hero's emphasis on wonder-making are of central importance to the image that Hero presents of mechanics. Hero uses the concept of wonder to add an intellectual component to the utility of mechanics, to strengthen the epistemological claims of mechanics and to relate mechanical expertise to divine cunning. He is thereby able to present mechanics as a form of knowledge which is epistemically on a par with philosophy, but which still maintains powerful practical consequence.
IntroductionTycho Brahe's Epistolae astronomicae of 1596 has often been treated as a contribution to the Danish astronomer's dispute with Nicolai Reymers Baer, called Ursus. One purpose of this paper is to reconsider the question of whether this dispute was a major consideration in Tycho's decision to publish the work. The matter hinges, we feel, on issues of editorial practice: the standard interpretation of the work depends upon a charge of editorial impropriety levelled at Tycho, as the publisher of his own correspondence, by the twentieth-century editors of his Opera omnia, and accepted by later historians. It also turns on commonly held notions of the role and character of epistolary communication that are not wholly appropriate to the explication of scholarly letters written in the early-modem period. Consideration of early-modem epistolary culture allows us to establish a clearer picture of the possible range of functions of the Epistolae astronomicae, and this in tum enables a reappraisal ofthe charges levelled at Tycho. The standards required of letter-editors in the sixteenth century were not the same as those sought of early twentieth-century scholars, and it is, we suggest, the disjunction between these two, rather than a serious failure of either Tycho or his modem editors to live up the expectations of their contemporaries, that accounts for the current understanding of the Epistolae astronomicae. For reasons that are explicable, but regrettable, Tycho's behaviour as an editor of his own correspondence has long been, we believe, misrepresented.One moral to be drawn from this is that it is important for historians of science, even those who are not themselves engaged in the editing of historical documents, to be sensitive to the vagaries of editorial procedure and practice. There are many different interests at work amongst editors -whereas some focus mainly on producing readable texts, others prioritize the role of those texts as historical documents. In the case of the Epistolae astronomicae, scholars are typically working with a modem edition (prepared by John Dreyer and Hans Raeder) of an early-modem edition (compiled by Tycho Brahe and his assistants) of early-modem manuscripts (authored by Tycho and others). Our investigations suggest that, for the most part, they may rely upon the probity of all the editors involved in producing this composite document, and hence on the value of the modem edition of Epistolae astronomicae as a record of an actual letter-exchange. In general, however, historians would be unwise to take too much on trust. The purposes for which editions are produced, and the editorial principles behind them, may differ greatly from those we tend to take for granted.' A broader purpose of this paper, therefore, is to alert historians of
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.