Jackson Catherine M
Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London, United Kingdom.
Endeavour. 2011 Jun;35(2-3):55-62. doi: 10.1016/j.endeavour.2011.05.003. Epub 2011 Jun 30.
The institutional revolution has become a major landmark of late-nineteenth century science, marking the rapid construction of large, institutional laboratories which transformed scientific training and practice. Although it has served historians of physics well, the institutional revolution has proved much more contentious in the case of chemistry. I use published sources, mainly written by chemists and largely focused on laboratories built in German-speaking lands between about 1865 and 1900, to show that chemical laboratory design was inextricably linked to productive practice, large-scale pedagogy and disciplinary management. I argue that effective management of the novel risks inherent in teaching and doing organic synthesis was significant in driving and shaping the construction of late-nineteenth century institutional chemical laboratories, and that these laboratories were essential to the disciplinary development of chemistry. Seen in this way, the laboratory necessarily becomes part of the material culture of late-nineteenth century chemistry, and I show how this view leads not only to a revision of what is usually known as the laboratory revolution in chemistry but also to a new interpretation of the institutional revolution in physics.
机构变革已成为19世纪后期科学的一个主要里程碑，标志着大型机构实验室的迅速建立，这些实验室改变了科学培训和实践。尽管这对物理学史学家很有帮助，但在化学领域，机构变革却更具争议性。我利用主要由化学家撰写、主要聚焦于1865年至1900年左右在德语地区建立的实验室的已发表资料，来表明化学实验室设计与生产实践、大规模教学和学科管理有着千丝万缕的联系。我认为，有效管理教学和进行有机合成中固有的新风险，对于推动和塑造19世纪后期机构化学实验室的建设具有重要意义，而且这些实验室对化学学科的发展至关重要。从这个角度看，实验室必然成为19世纪后期化学物质文化的一部分，我还展示了这种观点不仅如何导致对通常所说的化学实验室变革的修正，还如何引发对物理学机构变革的新解释。
