States of secrecy: an introduction

Abstract

This introductory article provides an overview of the historiography of scientific secrecy from J.D. Bernal and Robert Merton to this day. It reviews how historians and sociologists of science have explored the role of secrets in commercial and governmentsponsored scientific research through the ages. Whether focusing on the medieval, early modern or modern periods, much of this historiography has conceptualized scientific secrets as valuable intellectual property that helps entrepreneurs and autocratic governments gain economic or military advantage over competitors. Following Georg Simmel and Max Weber, this article offers an alternative interpretation of secrecy as a tool to organize and to hierarchically order society. In this view, the knowledge content of secrecy is less important than its socialpsychological effects. The authors argue that, in many instances, entrepreneurial researchers and governments use scientific secrets as an effective tool to manipulate the beliefs of their competitors and the larger public, and not necessarily to protect the knowledge that they hold.There's not a city in the world without its Loyal and Ancient and Justified and Hermetic Order of little men who think they can reap the secrets of the ancients for a couple of hours every Thursday night and don't realize what prats they look in a robe. 1

Factors affecting the independence and reliability of Science and how these are perceived

“…In many instances, industrial researchers and governments use scientific secrets as an effective tool to manipulate the beliefs of their competitors and the larger public, and not necessarily to protect the knowledge they possess (Vermeir and Margócsy 2012 ).…”

Situating ciphers among alchemical techniques of secrecy

“…Some even argue that it is only with the Méthode de nomenclature chimique (1787) that modern chemistry was born during the 'Chemical Revolution' (Lefèvre, 2018). The long-held opinion that there was a 'Scientific Revolution' in the seventeenth century during which the scientific method emerged and amongst other things, secretive and obscure language in science was replaced by scientific openness is now widely contested within the history of science (Principe, 2011;Vermeir and Margócsy, 2012). The scholarly movement called 'The New Historiography of Alchemy' pioneered by Lawrence Principe and William Newman (Martinón-Torres, 2011) has demonstrated that the caesura between alchemy and chemistry is an artificial one (Newman and Principe, 1998;Newman, 2006).…”

Cordes sensibles. Accords et désaccords de savoir-faire lors d’une enquête sur la lutherie

“…La question n'est pas de savoir si cette recette est vraie, fausse, vraie-fausse ou faussevraie. Ce luthier possède quelque chose que les autres n'ont pas, quelque chose qu'il garde secrètement -pas trop quand même, sinon ce secret perdrait son efficacité psychologique et sociale [Vermeir et Margócsy, 2012] -et qu'il est supposé avoir intégré à sa pratique. Et c'est peut-être là que se trouve le vrai secret de Stradivarius : l'idée de l'existence de savoirs tangibles qui confèrent une autre épaisseur aux gestes de ceux qui les ont en leur possession ; même si l'on sait que le savoir n'est pas « une chose en soi » qui pourrait se « transvaser » automatiquement [Sigaut, 1991 : 42] Le faire et le discours sur le savoir-faire ne se confondent pas [Chamoux, 1996].…”