mody_the sounds of silence-listening to laboratory practice (2005).pdf

7/27/2019 Mody_The Sounds of Silence-Listening to Laboratory Practice (2005).pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/modythe-sounds-of-silence-listening-to-laboratory-practice-2005pdf 1/25

The Sounds of Science: Listening to Laboratory PracticeAuthor(s): Cyrus C. M. ModySource: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring, 2005), pp. 175-198Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558034 .

Accessed: 30/09/2013 05:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science,

Technology, &Human Values.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.170.129.228 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 05:33:16 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558034?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558034?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage



The Soundsof Science:

Listeningto

LaboratoryPractice

Cyrus C. M. ModyChemicalHeritageFoundation

Worksn science andtechnology tudies(STS)haverepeatedly ointedto theimportance

ofthe visualin

scientificpractice.STShas also

explicatedhow

embodiedpracticegener-ates scientificknowledge. aim to supplement his literaturebypointingout how sound

andhearingare integralaspectsof experimentation. oundhelps definehowandwhen

lab workis done, and in what kindsof spaces. It structuresexperimental xperience.It

affords nteractionsbetween researchersand instruments hat are richerthan could be

obtained with vision alone.Andit is a sitefor tacitknowledge,providinga resourceorthe replication of results,and the transmissionof knowledge,and the constructionofsocial boundarieswithin nstrumental ommunities.

Keywords: ethnography; urface science; hearing;instrumentation

"Picturingknowledge"haslong been a way of speaking n epistemologythathascolored the claims of science studies.The"oculocentrism" f main-

streamphilosophyhas been critiquedatleast since WilliamJamesandJohn

Dewey complainedof the "mirrorheoryof knowledge."' ncontesting radi-

tional views of scientificknowledge, science studies often reproduces hisprivilegingof thevisual.Manyof the field'stermsof artdisplaya clearorien-

tation olooking, gazing, reading,andother hingsdonewiththeeyes:Latour

on "inscriptions"and "drawingthings together"(Latour 1988a, 1988b,

1998; Latour and Woolgar 1986), Lynch on "art and artifact"and the

"externalizedretina"(Lynch 1985a, 1985b, 1988a; Lynch and Edgerton1988), Rudwick on "visuallanguage"(Rudwick 1976, 1992), Cambrosio

AUTHOR'S NOTE:The authorwishes to thank the NSF andthe IEEE for graduate ellow-

ships that supported his work. He also wishes to thank Heidi Voskuhl,Mike Lynch, Arne

Hessenbruch,ArynMartin, woanonymous eviewers,andotherswho readorheardpreliminaryversions of this article.

Science,Technology, Human alues,Vol.30 No.2, Spring 005 175-198DOI:10.1177/0162243903261951? 2005SagePublications

175







176 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

andKeatingon "beautifulpictures" Cambrosio,Jacobi,andKeating1993),

ShapinandSchafferon "virtualwitnessing" Shapinand Schaffer1985),and

Galison on "imageandlogic" (Galison 1997).The importanceof the visual in these works sprang,in part, from an

attempt o bring empiricalstudies of scientificpractice o bear on notionsin

logical empiricismand other strandsof philosophyof science relatingto

"observation"nd "sensedata" Boyd 1991a, 1991b;Hacking1983).Where

muchanalyticphilosophyof scienceemphasized he reductionof knowledgetoformal,symbolictermsandrelied ondecontextualizednotions of observa-

tion andperception,

the new science studies literaturedescribed scientific

seeing as richlyrooted in the practicesof field andlaboratory;t (re)intro-ducedthe conceptof tacitknowledge,an embodiedkind of know-how irre-

ducibleto symbolicterms; thighlighted hecomplexworkdoneby scientific

pictures, charts,micrographs,and other "traces";and it added empirical

depthto theclaims of Fleck,Wittgenstein,Kuhn,andothersthatperception

(includingvisual observation) s rooted in "paradigms" nd social settings(Collins 1992;Lenoir 1998;Polanyi 1967;Fleck 1979;Wittgenstein1958;

Kuhn1996).Although recent works in science and technology studies continue to

highlightthe visual aspectsof scientificpractice(Henderson1999; Kaiser

2000;Latour1998),nonvisualdimensionshaveincreasinglyentered hemix

in recentanalysesof embodiedknowledge,scientifictools, anddistributed

cognition (Goodwin 1995; Hutchins and Palen 1997; Pinch, Collins, and

Carbone1997).Wearebeginning o see thematerialnatureof thesetools,the

ways in whichtheycirculateandbecomepartof embodied work in thefield

andthe lab(Latour1999).We candiscern hewholephysicalpresenceof lab-oratoryworkers,not just their eyes-how they comportthemselves, how

they inhabitspeciallyconstructedab spaces,how they interactwith instru-

mentsandartifacts,how they shapeand move theirbodies to be perceivedanddisciplinedby thegazeof others,andhowtheirbodily experiences theirillnesses and exertions) are insinuated into their craft (Amann 1994;Francoeur1997; Hirschauer1991; Knorr-Cetina1999; Lawrence 1998;

Lynch 1988b;Merz 1998; Ochs, Jacoby,and Gonzales 1994; Rasmussen

1997;Sibum 1995;ThorpeandShapin2000).

Along these lines, I want to providehere some remarks-based on an

ethnographic and historical study of surface scientists and instrument

makers-on howlistening,hearing,attuning,and otherear-workare ntegralto much that goes on in laboratories.Labs are full of sounds and noises,wantedandunwanted,manyof whicharecoordinatedwith thebodily workof moving throughspace, looking at specimens, and manipulating nstru-ments. Sounds are

fullywoven into the

knowledgethat

emergesfrom







Mody/ Listeningto LaboratoryPractice 177

experimentalpractice.What ollows inthisarticle s an invitation opractitio-ners of lab studies to

stageperformancesof John

Cage's4' 33"atthe sites of

scientificwork andlisten to laboratorypractice.2When I talk aboutexamining he soundsof science,myconcern s primar-

ily not with those sciences thattakeacousticphenomenaas theirobjectsof

study, heir"epistemic hings" Rheinberger1997)-subspecialties of phys-ics (acoustics, sonoluminescence), medicine and psychology (psycho-

acoustics),biology (studiesof animalsongs andcommunication), ngineer-

ing (recording and amplification technology), instrumentation acoustic

microscopy, ultrasound),linguistics (phonetics), and computer science(speech-recognition technology). A few sociologists and historianshave

begunexploring hese fields andmapping heepistemologicalparticularitiesof sound-oriented ciences (Bijsterveld2001; Brain1998;Pinch and Trocco

2002;Thompson1997, 1999;Voskuhl2004). Theyhaveshown,forinstance,that heboundarybetween desirablesoundandunwantednoise is verymuch

a constructed,contingent,and historicallyvariable one. They show that

sound and space are inextricableand thatcommunallyheld views on the

propernatureof soundhelp shapehow architectural ndpublic spaceis engi-neered, constructed,and experienced.These authors show how the lived

experienceof the experimentalsubjectgives rise to contextually specificnotionsof what soundsareworth nvestigatingand how to capture he world

of sound in the abstractedanguagesof science. And finally,they describe

how auditoryphenomenaare often important ngredientsin the debates

aboutsimilarity,difference,andfamilyresemblance hat ypifyscientificand

technologicalcontroversies.

In what follows, I hope to show thatauditoryphenomenahave similar

epistemologicalconsequenceseveninlaboratoryontextswheretheyarenot

the primaryobjectsof study.I open with an examinationof the sometimes

undesirable ffectsof laboratoryounds.Noise can shakeanddisturbabora-

tory tools and personnel,and, as a consequence,auditoryconcernsshapemuch of the when and where of experimentation.By being awareof the

sound environment,science studies can gain new insights into the ways

experimental pacesareconstituted.Next,Idescribesome of the soundspro-ducedand/orattended o by surface scientists andtheways theseare folded

intoexperimental ractice.Iattempto showthatsound s anintegral if often

overlooked) ngredient n tacitknowledge.Surfacescientistscarefullyman-

age auditory as well as visual andhaptic)cues to liberatedifferentkinds of

information rom theirexperiments.And finally,these same surface scien-

tistscall on theiraudience'spersonalauditory andothersensory)experienceto morepowerfully conveytheir ideas.








The empirical materialof this study was drawn from three years of

ethnographicndinterviewwork with researchers ndengineersworking n

and aroundmaterialsscience and surfacescience.3Some aregraduatestu-

dents, undergraduates,and professors working in research labs; others

(architecturalonsultantsandsafetyinspectors)constructand nspectexper-imentalspaces;andyet othersdesign, manufacture,and oversee scientific

instruments,particularly ransmissionelectron microscopes (TEMs) and

scanning probe microscopes (SPMs). I refer those interested in my

ethnographicmethods to anearlierarticleon cleanliness andcontamination

inmaterials cienceandsurfacescience(Mody2001). There,

Ioutlinedsomeof theactorswho cometogether n theseexperimental ettings,andtheways

theirdifferingideas aboutcontaminationareprogressivelynegotiatedand

(occasionally)harmonized.

Sound as Contaminant

It is no coincidence that ookingatexperimentalpracticesof understand-ing, containing,and evenco-optingcontaminationeads inturn o aninvesti-

gation of laboratorysounds since auditoryphenomena-along with heat,

light,dust,oil, air,watervapor,dander,and so on-are animportant ource

of contamination n experimental urfacescience:

Ifwe lookat... manufacturingicroelectronics.. alotoftheseprocessesre

veryverysensitiveobothvibrationndnoise.... [I]fyoushinenoise,sound,

atmany f these ools, hat lsomakes hem hake, ecauseoundsjusta fluc-tuating ressurentheatmospherend hat luctuatingressure ill actonthestructure f themachineor thetool to make it shake.So both soundandvibra-tionarewhatwegenerallylassifyascontaminants. henpeoplearedoingmeasurements n laboratories . . they'reusing tools thatare sensitive to allsortsofcontamination-particulatesntheatmosphere...emperatureluctu-ations . . . humiditycan affect the measurements,and so can vibrationandnoise. So the wholeclass of physicalphenomenaan be grouped nder henamecontamination.InterviewwithColinGordon, coustical onsultant,ColinGordon

Associates,March

2,2001)4

Gordonis a leadingconsultant o architecturalirms specializingin the

building of laboratories,clean rooms, and semiconductormanufacturingplants.As thisquotehints,his life's work s tohelpshapethesespacesto min-imize sounds that can disrupt the functioning of labs and fabricationfacilities.

Manygeneralobservations romanthropological tudies of pollutionrit-ual

(mostnotablyMaryDouglas's 1966celebratedPurityandDanger)hold








true n analyzingnoise, sound,and vibrationas contaminants.5 orinstance,thenatureof pollutionis momentaryandcontingent.Althoughmanyin sur-

face science projecta rhetoricof high cleanliness andpurity, hepatchworkof experimentalife means thatwhatcountsaspollutiononeminutemightbe

a key ingredientor tool (or side effect thereof)the next. In nanofabrication

facilities and other clean rooms (which the semiconductor ndustryclaims

are the cleanestplacesonEarth), orexample,fans and ductworkcover most

of theceiling, pulling awaytheminuteparticlesof dustthatmightruin semi-

conductorprocessing;at the same time, these fans create an intense racket

thatmakes t difficult or technicians ocommunicatewith eachother,endan-gers theirhealth,and rattlesthe instrumentsused to inspectsemiconductor

materials.

Also, soundacts as whatmightbe calledaneventhoughfilter-that is, an

experiment hatworks even thoughsomepotentialdirt s present s takento

be morepowerfulthan anexperiment hatworksonly in the absence of con-

tamination. In the early 1980s, for instance, when scanning tunneling

microscopy(STM)was still anunproven echnique,manyof the first STMs

wereinitiallyconstructedn noisy, unpromising ocations(oftenneareleva-torsshafts),untiltheyhadachieved an importantmilestone(suchas atomic

resolution)and could thereforebe seen as viable instrumentsand movedto

somelabwithfewerambientsounds.6Eventoday,probemicroscopistsmost

often run their instrumentswith laboratorydoors open andwith aircondi-

tioners and othersources of noise running.If a featurecan be seen with the

microscope despite these auditorycontaminants,hen it is probablyreal-

andif it appears o be both real andinteresting,then the microscopistwill

often close the doors and turnoff thepumpsto peerat it moreclosely.

Auditorycontaminationhapesexperimentalife in avarietyof ways.The

humanbody,forinstance,can be bothasourceandasink forvariouscontam-

inatingsounds. There is an intricatecare of the self needed for operating

many laboratorynstruments o as not to produceperturbingnoises (Knorr-Cetina1996).Intransmission lectronmicroscopy, orinstance, hosein the

TEMroommustconstantlybeawareof theirbodilyhabitus-how they posi-tion

themselves,when

theyaddresseach

other,how

theymove-so as notto

producesoundsor vibrations hatmightdisturb heinstrument y talking oo

loudly at the wrongtime or accidentallybumpingthe microscopeconsole.

This is particularlyrueduringthe takingof micrographs,when aircondi-

tioners and pumps and even telephonesmay be temporarily urnedoff. In

probe microscopy,habitus is usually more casual, althoughthe effects of

sound on the instrumentare moredirectly perceived-a clapor othersharpnoise can immediatelybe seen as a streakon the scan,andconversation an

be seen asatrace n anoscilloscope measuring hemovementof theprobe.








At the sametime,experimental ounds havecomplexeffects on theexpe-rience of laboratoryife. TEMs runbest with thelightsoff and aminimumof

noise from bothexperimenters ndapparatus,o thatmaintaininghisproper

self-disciplinecan be quitetiring.Researchersoften emergefrom a micro-

scope runbleary-eyed,and instrumentmanagersoccasionallyfind students

asleep in front of the microscope.This is particularlyhe case since human

trafficwithin andaround helaboratory an be amajorsourceof contaminat-

ing sounds-thus, many experiments nvolving sensitive instruments ake

placeatnight,orin speciallocationsawayfrom the main labbuilding.Take,

for instance,this storyfrom the early days of STM, in whichworriesaboutnoise and vibration funneled experimentalwork into unusualplaces and

times:

We decidedwe weregoingtotrythis on aSundaymorning, twas niceworking

nightsand weekendsbecauseit wasvery quietin thebuilding.So on a Sundaymorning,I'd be, you know,we were tunneling,we could see that it worked

because every scan you could see those I-V curvesdanceup anddown....

[B]ecause t wasjusttoonoisy,youcouldreallyonlydoexperimentsnthe eve-

ningsand on the weekends.Right,so we would workfor acouple days, [creat-ing] software,tryingto get analysisstuffreadyandanalyzedata that we had,andthenwe'dgo into a streakwherewejustworkednightsandgetdata.And ofcourseeverybodywasstrugglingwiththat,at Bell Labstheyhadbuilt a specialbuilding o do theirSTMinbecausetheycouldn't ive in theirmainbuilding, twas too noisy,and we workedatnight,atCambridge, heybuilt a specialenvi-ronmental oom withbig, you know,foam-paddedwalls andeverything o dothe-if you see these instrumentsnow,right, you canplunkthem on the tablehere and t works ustfine. But it wasverydifferent hen becausewe, you were

reallyjust learninganddiscoveringhow to do this stuff.(Interviewwith RuudTromp,anearlySTMresearcher t acorporate aboratory, ebruary 3,2001)

Sound and Space

Many procedures n surface science (such as characterizing pecimenswith a probe microscope)requireclose attentionover very long periodsof

time,often alone and atnight,resulting n extreme edium.While theeyes areengaged n monitoringnstruments, uditoryphenomena an be importantn

circumventingboredom.Consequently,conversationand music are much

morepervasivephenomenanlabs thanhas beennoticed n thelab studies it-

erature.Manylabshave a radio or stereoand a largestack of CDs andtapes(wheretheauthorityo choose andplaymusicusuallyrests withthegraduatestudents,postdocs, and technicians who occupy the lab most of the time,ratherthanwith the head of the lab group).At the same time, music and








conversationmay be seen as interferingwith experimentalresults (onewoman told me she plays music in her lab continuously,but when she

encountersa problemwith her microscopeand calls the manufacturer,he

company's supportstaff immediatelyask her if she has a stereo on-sup-

pressing sounds is a routinefirst step in clearingup problemswith some

instruments).

Auditory phenomenacan be noxious for people as well as instruments,bothinside and outside the lab. Cleanrooms,forexample,canbe extremelyuncomfortable,npartbecauseof ambientnoise levels. Much labequipment

producesdangerousamountsof

noise, somecontinuouslyandsomeonly onoccasion.Like othercontaminants, uchnoises arepartof the checklist for

local EnvironmentalHealth and Safety inspectors.With clean rooms, such

"nuisancenoise"comesaboutbecause of thegreatamountof workneededto

construct a space in which the epistemicthings of surfacescience (whichoften have dimensions of only a few nanometersor even angstroms)can be

protectedboth from the dirtexudedby experimentalbodies andthepollution

oozing in from anostensiblyhostile andcontaminatingoutside world.7

At the sametime, threatening oundstravelbothways;the hardworkofcraftinga clean laboratory pace createsmany sounds and othercontami-

nants that can pollute the lab's surroundings.Moreover, the boundarybetween lab andworldalwaysremainssomewhat flexible andcontestable,where sound environmentsboth constrainand enable this ambiguity.The

chemicals used in cleaning and manufacturing he specialized tools and

materialsof surfacechemistry, or instance,have to leave thelaboratory nd

be disposed of. The way this is done results in the characteristicdroning

soundof manyhigh-techoutdoorspaces.Oneprofessordescribed or methe

problemsof forcingwastechemicalsout of labsthrough ooftopvents,while

avoidingnoise pollution:

You've otexhaustanson theroomwhich ry o launch heairoutof there,youdon'tust ettheexhaust riftupandmoveoff.Youwant o shoot tupandget ithighso thatwhen it finallycomes downto theground, f it comesdown at

all, it's waydiffusedandspread vermiles.But whenfansreallykickout

exhaustwithhighvelocity, heysound ike etenginesupon theroof.... [A]llthosewetlabs,youhear hebzzzzzzz unningllthetime.Andwe'realittleconcernedhatwhenyougeta lotmoreofthose, t wouldbepossible ougetthewholequadwhereyougetthisconstant, nacceptablerone. Interviewwithanacademic lectrical ngineer,aculty onsultantorconstructionfnewcleanroom acility,April25,2000)

Thatsoundandspace,particularly uiltspace,areboundupin interestingways is one of the firstobservationsof any phenomenologyof sound(Ihde








1976,60; Sterne1997).There s, of course,analready-burgeoningiterature

on place, builtenvironment,andscience (Knowlesand Leslie 2001;Lynch1991;Schaffer1998;Shapin1988). This literature ims to show how scien-

tific spaces aredesignedandengineered;how particularkinds of behavior

and social organization low throughthose spaces;and how the particularkinds of knowledgeproducednthosespacesis affordedby,andreflectiveof,their constitution. With the exception of the studies by KarinBijsterveld

(2001) andEmilyThompson(1997, 1999), however, his literaturehaspaid

relatively ittle attention o issues of sound.Fortheparticipantsn laboratory

design, though,such issues are oftenpresentandoccasionallytheybecomeurgent.Indeed,a subindustryof acoustical consultantshas arisenover the

pastthirtyyearsdedicated o helpingteamsof architectsandengineerswork

around ssues of sound,makingsure therightkinds of soundstayin the lab,

while contaminatingones arekeptout.

Theconstruction ndmaintenance f laboratorypacescanitselfgenerateunwantedsounds. The heavy machineryand occasionaldrillingandexplo-sions that attend hebuildingof labs(andother structures round hem)pro-

duce noises thatlimit the lengthsof some experimentsand the times of daywhen they can be conducted. The in-and-outof traffic anddeliveries,and

even the footfalls of peoplewalkingaroundaboratory uildings,alsogener-ate disturbingsounds thatvary throughout he day and week. But experi-mentersshow remarkable esourcefulnessaboutspaceand oftenredraw he

line between lab andnonlabso thatthey can conductexperiments n more

suitablesoundenvironments.Thefollowingis a storyabout heflexibilityof

spacein the early days of STM:

Yeah,we moved o thegroundlooratsomepointbecausetwas ust oonoisyuphere, ight.Youknow,heelevator'sightback here, nd t's abig freightelevatorhatgoes upanddownallday.Yeah,at somepoint,CSS,youknowwhere hebigCSSelectronicshopused o be?Sortofunderneathhegardenintheback.Theygotnewspace,and otheymovedoutandwesquattedherefora while.It wasthishugespace,youknow,hisenormousab,andwejustoccupied tiny ittlecorer inthereandwe dida bunch fgoodexperiments.And henatsomepoint,we werekicked utofthere.And o wefound nemptyofficeon Aisle 1.Thiswasallprettynformal. nd o onenight, ouknow,wehadspottedhisemptyoffice so we tookallourstuff,ourSTM,youknow,whichwasoncasters,nd heelectronics,ndwe ust,atnightwewheeledttotheback abandwe startedquattingnthat ffice.And heofficeactuallys,itnever otconvertedack o anofficeagain,tbecame ur ab.And here's tillan STMthere oday.So, yeah,so it was,butgroundloorwasimportantbecause ouknowyou'reonbedrockhere o it'salotmore table hanbeinguphere s. (Interview ithTromp, ebruary3,2001)







Mody ListeningoLaboratoryractice 183

The same scroungingof space continues today, as evidenced by this

recentadvice on how to deal with noiseproblems

nsettingup

modemprobemicroscopes:

Wehavea Nanoscopeakindof scanning robemicroscope]n the seventhfloorof a steel-frameduilding ndhavehadsomevibrationroblemslso.Forwhat t'sworth, erearesome hings hatworked orus:

1.Acousticnoisescausedbythe ventilationystemwerea big problem.Finally,wemoved he nstrumentromhe ab o anoffice hathadess air lowandaquieter uct ystem,and ined heofficecum abwithSonex oam. t's

now ikeananechoichamber ndyoucanhear ourheart eat. Postingoane-mail listserv for scanningprobemicroscopeusers,November26, 1995)

Therearemany strategies ike these forprotecting canningprobemicro-

scopesfrom vibrationsandacoustic noise. Onepossibilityis tobuyacoustic

hoods and vibration solation tables frommanufacturers.Manyresearchers,

though,choose to cobble solutions frommaterials ound athardware tores

orgaragesales. A perusalof an e-mail forumdedicated o these instruments

yields some of the following vibration solationequipment:pails of sand;blankheadstones;disused refrigerators; ld acoustic hoods for noisy dot-

matrixprinters;nner ubes;and,probably he mostpopular,bungeecords or

surgicaltubing,used to hangthe microscopefromthe ceiling or a stand or

even the legs of an upturnedable.8

Onequalitythatmanyprobemicroscopistsdesire in such vibration sola-

tionsystemsis portability.As BrunoLatourhasmadeclear,one crucialwayto enroll alliesandwin scientificcontroversies s to transformmore andmore

bitsof the world ntolaboratories,o maketheepistemicthingsof adisciplinehardenough,andthe worldgentleenough, for them to surviveoutside the

confines of the lab(Latour1988c).Onepartof this is makingsuretheworld

sounds like the lab. Not doingso can lead to trouble.Forinstance,an instru-mentdesignedanddevelopedin one placemayunexpectedly ail to work if

the premises of the companythat buys it do not sound like those of the

companythatmanufacturedt:

Peoplelike LMBandMatterTech,hemajormanufacturers f thetools thatweusewoulddevelophe ool ntheir wn aboratory...ypicallyheiraboratorywouldbe ona slabongradeloor whereheeffectsofsound ndvibrationanbeminimized]....Andyou'dgetallthebitsandpiecesandputa tooltogetherandget t towork nthe aboratorynd hendelivertto BeltronixndmuchoBeltronix'surprisendtheirsurprise,t wouldn'tworkbecauseBeltronix'floorwason thesecond tory rthe hirdtoryof abuildingwhereheeffectsof sound andvibrationare a bigger problem].(InterviewwithGordon,March

12, 2001)








Anotherarena n which sound affects theabilityto move instruments ut

of the labis the worldof conference radeshows,where instrumentmanufac-

turers andpotentialcustomersmingle noisily in crowded and acoustically

suspectplaces such as gymnasiums,cafeterias,and hotel ballrooms. It is a

crucialadvantage or a manufacturero have a working nstrumentn his or

herboothto show to interestedresearchers.Yet thetradeshow environment

soundsquiteunlike the lab. Instruments ndvibration solationsystemsthat

areportableenough and robustenough to work at trade shows are highly

prized.

One way to avoid noise pollutionis to move the lab to quiet, suburbanlocales farawayfromthenoisy bustlingof academiccampusesand ndustrial

researchparks. Today's probe microscopes are small enough and cheap

enoughthatmanufacturer'spplicationsabsand ndependent urfaceanaly-siscompaniescanbe setupalmostanywhere.Quiteoften,these small labora-

toriesspringupin comfortableandquietlocations:abandonednavalair sta-

tions, deeply rural New Jersey hamlets, ski chalets in Lake Tahoe resort

towns,andhomes in thesuburbsof midwesternmetropolises.ToturnBruno

Latour'sfamousphraseon its head, "giveme a suburbandI will raise theworld"(Latour 1983). Thatis, althoughLatour s rightin pointingout that

laboratories an be expensiveandpowerful ools inwinningtechnoscientific

arguments,he lab is not anultimatelystableconstruct.Scientistsandtechni-

cians are adept at cobbling resources to constitute laboratories n seem-

ingly unlikelyplaces. What counts as a laboratory pace is highly context-

dependent,and often it is thesoundscapeof aplacethatshapeswhat knowl-

edge can be createdthere.

Sound Effects

Let us considerwhatsounds nhabit hespacesof surfacescience andhow

and when theybecome relevant.The task of preparingandmaintaining he

epistemicmaterialsof surfacescience,and of bringing hem under hedisci-

plining gaze of instruments uch asmicroscopes,

diffractometers, ndspec-troscopes,is mechanicallycomplexandnoisy.Pipes bringin and takeaway

gurglingwater;spraycans of compressedair blow dust away; sonicators

shake off contaminants;efrigeratorshill acids and otherchemicals;centri-

fuges whirlspecimensaround;and fume hoods siphonoff dangerousgases.Vacuumpumps,especially,abound n theselabs,preservinguncontaminated

environmentswheremetals and semiconductorswill not oxidize. Manyof

the most fundamental echniquesof surface science (electronmicroscopy,

low-energyelectron

diffraction,mass spectrometry)requiresome sort of







Mody / Listeningto LaboratoryPractice 185

vacuum,often anultrahighvacuum, o work.Thus,vacuumpumpsprovidea

constant backgroundhum in many surface science laboratories.These

pumps, though,can also shake and disrupt nstrumentsand interferewith

experiments.Othersoundsareonly indirectlyassociatedwith thepreparation f mate-

rials. Cartspush equipment(often large,heavy bottles of compressed gas)

throughhallways;timers alert ab workerswhen to beginthe nextstepof an

experiment; adiosplay; people talk;anddoors("manyof which areheavy,

spring-loaded,self-closing doors")slam shut.9One particularly oud and

often disruptive(althoughvital) set of sounds is heavy machinery(drills,lathes,grinders)used for makingexperimentalapparatus.Manyacademic

departmentsand research abs have associated machineshops where tools

andequipmentare manufactured r tinkeredwith.Often,machineshopsare

locatedin the center of a complexof labrooms,andtheoccasionalbuzzingandshriekingof these tools can be heardthroughout he experimentalday.Whenusingsome characterizationnstruments, speciallyprobeorelectron

microscopes, these sounds can be directly seen as streaksin images that

correspond o the startingof a grinderor a press.Othersounds stem from the need to preserveexperimentalbodies as well

as experimentalmaterials.Air conditionersrunconstantlysince many lab

spaces have no windows (and open windows are discouraged anywaybecausetheylet industandothercontaminants).n TEMlabs,aircondition-

ers are oftenturnedoffjust when a micrographs beingrecorded,so thatthe

inscriptionsproducedby themicroscopeare less contaminated y the sound

of the airconditioningpumps.Fans forcomputerprocessors,and the sound

of keyboards, ypewriters, opiers,andtelephonesare also audible n many

partsof labbuildings.Interestingly,or atleast one TEM labI saw,therewas

a telephonepresent n themicroscopyroom,but its ringerwas turnedoff so

thattheoperationof themicroscopewould not be impaired.Finally,various

alarms are needed in any buildingthat containsdangerousmachineryand

chemicals. The sound of these alarmshas to be carefullycoordinated-if a

very alarmingklaxon is used foronly a small,localizeddanger,unnecessary

disruptionwill occur.On the other

hand,not

enough peoplewill

respondo a

widespreadhazard f an alarm s too quietandlocal. Inmanycases,different

levels of alarmsoundsmustbe used. 0

Sound Knowledge

Thelistabove is by no meansexhaustive,but it lets us ask amorecompel-

ling question:do soundsmerelysurroundknowledgemakingin labs,or are








they also boundup in theknowledgethatgets made?It should be clear that

soundhelpslend structureo experiments-where theyaredone,whentheyaredone,whattheylooklike. Butis itepistemologicallyrelevant hat he rich

visualworld described n early laboratory tudies(theworldof inscriptions,

diagrams,golden images, and so forth)is imbuedwith sound?

In asking these questions, we move from confronting sound-as-

contaminant o sound-as-experimental-cue.n surface science, where the

entitiesof interestcan be of atomic(orevensubatomic)dimension,any stray

dirt,radiation,or vibrationcan be disastrous.Yet experimentersare often

able to co-opt these same contaminatingnoises to

yieldnew kinds of data

aboutapparatus ndphenomena. f straysoundsare deleterious o aninstru-

ment, then,as we shall see, more controlledsounds(e.g., the humanvoice)

can be useful in its diagnosisor operation.And even contaminating ounds

can be richly instructive.The line betweendisruptingsoundsandenablingones has to be negotiatedmomentby moment.

Certainly, he soundscapeof the lab is importantn the accruingof tacit

knowledge.'1 Many instruments n surface science and materials science

havepartsandmechanisms hat makespecific sounds-the whirrof micro-graphplatesbeingmovedinside aTEM,thechuk-chukof aprobebeinglow-

eredon an atomicforce microscope(AFM), the sproingand click of a coil

beingshovedintoplaceon a microprobe.12Whenthingsrunsmoothly, hese

sounds unfold regularly,markingout the runningof a clean experiment.

Learning hesesounds,and theexperimental hythm heyindicate, s partof

learning heproperuse of theinstrument.ManyTEMs andhome-builtSTMs

resembleorganconsoles, with a varietyof knobs and dials andvisual read-

outsspreadbeforetheoperator.nstrument sers often coordinatevisualand

auditorycues to managethe varietyof informationbefore them. The tacit

knowledgeof such sounds s difficulttopasson from oneoperatoro another

andusuallycomes only withlong experiencewith the instrument.With such

experiencealso comesthe tacitknowledgeof thesoundsmadewhen tools are

notoperating moothly.Muchof themachineryassociatedwithinstruments

such as TEMs and vacuum chambers is balanced to minimize the back-

groundnoise itproduces.Attending o changes nthisbackground an tell an

experiencedoperatorhatsomething s wrong.Furthermore,uch soundscan

be used to diagnose problems,particularlywith mechanismshidden inside

the instrument.

One instrument hat both emits and measures lab sounds is the experi-menter'sbody. Diagnosing problemswith microscopesand other tools can

involvenot only listeningfor sounds but also producing hem andwatchingtheir effect. Sometimes this involves highly idiosyncratic practices. One








informant oldme thatshesingsto thespectrometersn herlab whentheyare

notworking,

andthat,depending

on the choice ofsong,

this often seems to

help. This resembles the local practicesKathleenJordanand Mike Lynchfoundamong plasmidpreptechnicians,where the "translucent ox" of the

techniquewas continuallyopen to local reinterpretationhrough nformal

recipes,tricks,andsuperstitionsJordan ndLynch1992).Like thepracticesJordanand Lynch observed, singing has its informalyet technical ratio-

nale-my informant laimed thatsingingmay slightlywarm heair nearthe

instrument,mprovingperformance.

In probe microscopy,the use of singing, talking, and other embodiedsounds has a long historyfor diagnosing problems:

We'reon a noisy floor,so we hadplentyof noiseproblems.I rememberHenri

Piper[co-inventorof STM] at one point walkinginto the lab while we were

struggling,and... he has thisbig boomingvoice, and so he walked ntothe lab

and saw thetunneling race n theoscilloscope whichwas,you know,dancing

up and down as he was talking,and he was telling us "guys, you still have a

problem." InterviewwithTromp,February23, 2001)

Itwasamazing.Literallyat timesyouknow we wondered f therewere acous-

tic vibrations hatwerehittingso literallyyou'dsee people trying o singto the

microscope.Just,youknow, ookingatanoscilloscope seeing that f theyhit a

certainnote it excited a resonantfrequencyin the acoustic spectra-if theycould see thatin the noise on the oscilloscope. (Interviewwith FredLeibsle,academic surfacescientist,describingexperiencesbuildingSTMs as a gradu-ate student,January1, 2001; emphasisin originalconversation)

Acousticnoise is the next issue to consider.... [Gettingridof it] can be fun. Itcan also be frustrating.Again,only do whatyou need to do. Look around or

easy solutions.If there s otherequipmentaround, ryturningtoff. Ifyouhavemorethanone choiceof location,trythemall.Clapyourhandsandstompyourfeet to see whatnoiseis yourenemy(Yourcoworkerswill forgetbynextweek).

(Postingto anemail listservforscanningprobemicroscopeusers,February ,

2000)

As this lastquoteindicates,stomping

andclapping

are commonways

of

testingthe acoustic isolation of probemicroscopesbecause the short,sharpsoundof the clap shows up readilyon the visual outputof the instrument.

When I visited one STMlab,the head of thegroupran ntotheroomhousingthe microscopewhile his technician and I watched the visual output n the

next room-we could hear him clapping and stomping, and then he ran

around o us andshouted"Didyou see me?Is thatme?"pointingto a streak

on the STMimage. Oftenwhenresearchersdemonstrate heirmicroscopes








theyclaporrapon a tableto show thatsomething s really goingon, indexical

proofthatthe instrument s

churning awayand is sensitive enough to be

disturbedby such sounds.

Anotherindex of the microscope'soperationcomes from reversingthe

flow of sound. Some STM andAFM researchersanddesignersconvertthe

outputof the instrumentnto anauditory ignaland istento it scanningatthe

same time they watch it form an image. There are a numberof rationales

givenfor this. Some instrumental reakdowns,t is claimed,are moreeasilyheard thanseen-a crashingtip, for instance,makesa loud, distinct sound

(when audibilized n this way) that is less easily notedin the visual output.Operatorsof these instrumentsgain tacit knowledge about what certain

sounds mean anddevelopan aestheticrelationship o these acousticindica-

tors(justasmostmicroscopistsalsodevelopan aestheticsensibilityabout he

images they see). In particular, ome operatorsdescribe listening to the

microscopeas bringingthemmorein tunewith its operation:

You an isten operiodicity uchbetterhan eeing.You anheart,than ee-

ing.Andhegotalso some eeling orthe measurement.t'sreallya littlebitmystic,buthe could ay,"Well,f I heart,it soundsike his, hen knowhat tis nowreally tthebestresolution."InterviewithRobert um,probemicro-

scopedesigner, escribing colleague romgraduatechool,November ,2001)

Yourar earns eryquickly ndyoucan ellwhat,where ouare. tgivesyoumuchmore enseofbeingnthesystem s soonasyouhaveyour ars nvolved.

(Interview ithan STMresearchert acorporateab,November2,2001)

Variousostensiblytechnicalreasons for using sound this way runalong-side the aestheticones-the ears,it is said,are an extrachannelfor informa-

tion,alogarithmic ensorthatcanprocesscertainkinds of databetter han he

eyes can. But also, listeningto the microscopeis felt to increase embodied

interactionwith the instrument,giving more room for experimentalhands

or Fingerspitzengefiihl.The experimenterswho choose to audibilize their

microscope's outputare often those that build their own STMs or AFMs.

These sameexperimentersusuallyinclude variousknobs and dials and ana-

log controls on theirmicroscopes,rather han ust thedigitalcomputercon-

trols found on most commercial nstruments.Both the analogcontrols and

the audibilizedoutputare seen asofferinga richerplayfor theexperimenter's

body in operating he instrument:

Interviewee: We areanalog guys.... [T]hisfeeling of havingin yourhand what

youdo, s withananalogknobmuchbetter han f youtype n "currenthould








trace rom500 picoamperes o503 picoamperes."...This is different ohavingbetweenyourfingers,thefeelingof making histip go alittle bit further ra lit-

tle backorshaking hetipa littlebit.Youhave a much more direct inkto whatyou're doing.You... arepartof thissetup,asthe humanbeing,asbeingtheop-eratorof these knobs. ... Youhavemore senses if you do it this way.

Mody: Wereyou listeningto the outputas well?

Interviewee: Yes, of course.... [T]his is a second conscious channelwhich is

complementaryo eyes, is theear,and the ear is a logarithmic nstrument....

[W]ealwayshavea loudspeakerhere,which all the time is wooshhh,andyougetpractice. mean, f you'resittinghoursandhours,Uli [averyearlySTMre-

searcher]will tell me "Oh,didyou hearthat,I thinksome"-not evenlooking

at the screen."Youshould a little bit move this and thengo to where it soundsbetter."Then we go to where t soundsbetterand all of a sudden,mysteriously,it's still amystery n a sense,these moleculesshineup.(Interviewwithanaca-

demic surfacescientist,November14, 2001)

Thus, many of those who choose to build their own probe microscopes

orient positively to embodied knowledge, in all its mystic and aesthetic

aspects; for these researchers, sound facilitates the acquisition of knowledge,

preciselybecause of its aesthetic

qualities.At the same

time,aesthetics is an

important boundary-drawing tool for instrument builders. Scientists and

engineers who make their own instruments, or who design them for others,

are today a small minority in the probe microscopy community.

Aestheticizing the operation or output of their microscopes imbues their

work with a kind of craft status, justifying the difficult work of building an

instrument, and separating their research from that of the majority who run

mass-produced commercial instruments (and who rarely listen to their

microscopes).Thus, audibilizing the output of the probe produces sounds thatare "beau-

tiful," "cool," "neat"-in one case, I even heard them described as "ugly" in

the same manner as avant-garde music. As this quote shows, such sounds are

readily seen as intriguing, but their utility is more ambiguous:

You usttakewhat ooks at the time like abunchof noise andtransformt-youcan see the spectrum. t turnsout that for the cantileverswe use, thatall hap-

pens sort of below 20 kHz, so you can actuallylisten to it. It'skindof neat.Imean, as you approachthis surface, you get damping effects happeningbetween the tip and the surface,so the spectrumwill shift andyou can shoop[risingnoise] shoop [fallingnoise], so as you pull up anddown,if you don'thaveanything ethered o it, it actuallysoundskindof like a wavecrashingonshore withtheshift of thefrequencies, heemphasissort of moves in the spec-trum.It's kind of interesting.And then as you pull thingsyou canhear,as thedomainpopsopenyoucan hear he domainsnap, tgives a littlepoppingsoundor a cracklingsound.... Clint ... uses the headphones o trackdown these

problemsof getting aroundquantization ssues in the software. In terms of







190 Science,echnology,Humanalues

actual cience, don'tknow hatanybody'soneanyscienceusing hehead-

phones.thinkmostlyt's ustadiagnosticool.Maybe sanity heck.And t's

fun to listento, it's actuallyprettyneat.(InterviewwithDanBocek,probemicroscopeesigner,March 3,2001)

Yet as is amplydemonstratedn the science studies literature n images,

diagrams,andother visualmaterial,appealsto aesthetics n science areusu-

ally boundup withthepragmaticdetails of knowledge making.The sounds

of the microscopemaybe "cool" or "mystical,"but it is difficult to sortthe

aestheticappealof these soundsfrom theirability to help solve particular

experimentalproblems.The samemicroscopecan be tinkeredwith to appealto-and providecues for-different senses (visual,auditory,andhapticout-

putsare allused),so thatdifferentkinds of sensoryexperiencesatisfydiffer-

entexperimental nds.Listening s mostimportantortaskswheretheinstru-

ment must be monitoredor manipulatedn some way over time. Operatorsorient to sound's temporal aspects in such cases. When the temporalis

downplayed,as for example in the creation of static images that can be

printedout,published,andcirculated, he visualbecomesprimary.Even for

some dynamicprocesses, sound fades into the background-for instance,when themicroscope s runningsmoothlyandautomatically, peratorsusu-

allyorientmoreto changesinthe visual field than heauditory.13ndeed, ab-

oratoryworkersarekeenlyawareof whichsenses serve them best forwhich

tasks.When,forexample,surfacescientistsputdifferentkinds of molecules

downonto a substrateandwatchthem diffuse orreact with each other, heyuse videotapesto record the reactions,often playingthese recordings ater

for other abworkersorduring

conferencepresentations.

Evenhere,though,soundprovidescues forunderstanding-duringtherecordingof thesetapes,

it is commonto hook up a microphoneanddescribe what is being seen and

done,so that aterviewerswill beable to see themicroscope mageandheara

narrative f its creationand matchchangesin thevisual field withthedrama

of the storytelling:

Therewas this... video-frame-captureechnology nd t would ake nputslike hisand hen

go throughne

of Heinrich iechti'sapostdoc]magicboxesand henappear,ouknow, na TVmonitor ndgetsavedovideotape. nd twassortof alivefeedtovideotapend nfactwewouldhook heaudio nandwe wouldnarrate s we werecapturinghese mages.We wouldsay,"OK,we'redoingAFM nfluid,we'vegotfibrinogennmica,andnowwe'regoingto inject he,youknow,blahblahblah opolymerizehefibrinogenndOHMY GODLOOKATTHAT,T'SPOLYMERIZING!"ndthenwe wouldhaveotherpeoplen the abwho aterwouldwear heseheadphonesndplayback he apeand herewas hisvideo ransfermodule hat ould hen ransfer








oneframe ff to acomputer,nd othey'd itthere ndwait tilltheyheardhe"OhmyGod" ndhitEnter nd ransferhepicturever. InterviewithCraig

Prater, robemicroscope esigner, escribing raduatechoolexperiencesMarch 9,2001;emphasisnoriginalnterview)

Many sciences dealing with phenomenathat occur at audiblefrequen-cies transform heir data into acoustic signals.14While researchersusuallydescribethese translations s addingnothingscientific,it is notablethat heyare taken to be more publicly convincing than verbalexplanations.STM

researchers, or instance,sometimesplay tapesof theirmicroscopesscan-

ninganarrayof atoms asbackgroundnoisethroughoutheir alks,andreportthat this is an easy way to get audiencesexcited and interested.One AFM

designer old me how soundcan seem to offer moreunmediatedaccess to the

workings of the instrument,particularly n settings such as trade shows

wherepotentialcustomersneed to be quicklyoffered aglimpseof theinstru-

ment'scapabilities:

It'sactuallyeallygoodat[trade]hows oo,becausefyou'rentroducinghe

subjectosomebody-thermaloise orexample,t'sonethingoexplaint tothem, t's anotherohand hema pairof headphonesndsay,"Look,his swhat hermal oise s."You anexplainheconcept fdampingnd hingsikehowthespectrum hiftsbecauseit'sjust totallyobviouswhenyoujusthear t,it's like, "Yeah, f course, hat'swhat'shappening."InterviewwithDan

Bocek,March 3,2001)

This raisesa few finalpointsabout the uses of audibilization.As Emily

Thompsonand RobertBrainhave

pointedout,in scienceswhere sound s an

objectof study, hestruggle ormorethanacenturyhas been to turn nforma-

tive soundsinto readable nscriptions Brain1998;Thompson1997, 1999).As KarinKnorr-Cetina1999) hasnoted,the sensesplaya diminishedrole in

today's experimental(particularly aboratory)sciences. A whole host of

tools andinstruments ntercedebetweentheexperimenter nd the specimen

being studied; hese instruments ransform hefeel, sound, taste,smell, and

look of thesample(aswell as otherproperties)nto new(usuallyvisual)qual-

ities thatcan then be packaged ntoLatourian mmutablemobiles(diagrams,graphs,charts,etc.).In none of theexamplesIhavegivenso far s itthesound

of an actual surface that is of interestto the surface science. Rather, heyattend o thesounds of buildingsorpeopleor instruments.As I havetriedto

show, sound is vitally importantn giving experimentersaccess to informa-

tion about he tools and nstruments hatmediatebetween them andthe mate-

rialsthey study.As such,sound s often a site forlocal, tacitknowledge.ButI

have also tried to show ways in which sound is publicandcommunal,and








therefore he groundsfor forgingsharedknowledge.We should not assume

thatonly

visualinscriptions

arepublic.

Sound surroundsall of us, andfor

hearingexperimentalistst is a matterof everyday,embodiedexperience.By

using sound to communicateknowledge, researchersappeal to audience

members'personal, acit,embodiedexperience,which is seen asmaking or-

mal knowledge more easily understood.Listening to an AFM image is

thoughtof as puttingthe listenerin the surfacebeing scanned,in much the

samewaythat hree-dimensionalendering oftware s used togiveimagesin

whichthe viewer'sperspective s that of someonewalkingon a nanometer-

scale surface.15The translation f informationnto soundandtheappeal o auditory xpe-

rience s notrestrictedolisteningto instruments.Auditoryexperience sper-sonal yet common, so thatframingexplanations n terms of acousticphe-nomena can be a powerful bridgefor transferringknowledge. In areas of

physicsandengineering hat dealwithperiodicorwavephenomena,expla-nationsarecommonlyframed n termsof soundsthat he audiencemayhave

experienced.Probemicroscopes (particularlyAFM), for example,are fre-

quentlycompared o thephonograph,and their mageslikened to the soundsof vinyl records (Anonymous 1992). In public presentations,researchers

often draw on sound as an explanatoryresource.For instance,at a recent

probemicroscopyconference,I saw aspeaker rying oexplain he difference

between imaging with a hardand a soft cantilever in AFM-to do so, he

showedthe audience a gong andasked themto imaginethat t was a surface

being imaged.Hestruck hegongwith the softendof amallet,andthenagainwith thewoodenhandleof themallet,and asked the audienceto listen to the

difference in the soundsproducedandimaginethe differentringingsof the

gong as similarto thedifferent nteractionsbetween a surfaceand a hardor

soft probe.Ingeneral,the talk of probe microscopists s saturatedwithuses of sound

as a metaphorical esource in relatingtechnicalinformation-they refer to

cantileversringing, they measure deflections with tuning forks, and they

amplify signals to reduce noise. The role of gestureandothervisually ori-

ented nteractionsuch

asimpromptu iagramming)

s well-known ndiscus-

sions of scientificcommunication Goodwin 1994, 1996; Ochs, Gonzales,andJacoby1996; Ochs,Jacoby,andGonzales1994).Butlittle has been writ-

ten concerningauditoryequivalents,even thoughmuch of the talk of scien-

tists is riddled with appealsto sound as a metaphor,and imitations of the

sounds of instrumentsandequipment.








Conclusion

Sound, then,is pervasive n laboratoryife andimpingeson experimental

experience n surprisingand oftenepistemologicallysignificantways.What

this shouldpoint to, I hope, is the need for a fullerunderstanding f what

embodiedknowledgemight entail. We have seen how this one aspect of

embodiment-sound andhearing-is implicated n themetaphors cientists

use; the spaces they design, build,and workin; andthe ways theypass the

time,communicatewith each other andtheirpublics,markout social roles,

diagnosetechnicalproblems, performexperimentalrituals,anduse instru-mentsandexperiments o createknowledge.

I conclude with some recommendations or furtherwork. On one hand,I

wouldhighlightthe intrinsic mportanceof sound. As I have shown, sound

and noise arefrequentlyactors'categories;while this studyhas been limited

to experimentalsurface science (and some allied fields), I would expect

manyfindingsto extend to otherexperimental ettings.I would also expect,

however,thatother sciences would use soundin quitedifferentways, andI

hopethatfuturestudies will investigate he diversemeaningsof theauditory.At the sametime, soundhas features hatmakeit a powerful analysts'cate-

gory.For instance,sound fills and demarcatesspace, so thatstudiesof the

social constructionof experimentalplaces would do well to listen to the

experimentalsoundscape;as we have seen, the auditoryapproachaids in

deconstructinghe distinctionbetween the inside and outsideof thelab,and

in demonstratinghe malleabilityof scientific space. Also, sound extends

overtime,and constructionsof time havelong beenof interest o labstudies

(Traweek 1988). Listening to laboratorypractice gives a good entree to

understandinghe microscale constructionsof time in science. In conjunc-

tion, soundhas an immediacy(Jakobson1990) thatallows it to powerfully

convey meaningand context;while manylab studiesopen with an ethno-

graphicdescriptionof thelaboratory,hese are almostalwaysvisualdescrip-tions thatneglectmuch of the sensiblesettingof ethnography.'6 y keepingour ears open and writingthe sounds of science into our texts, laboratory

ethnographersanconveyeven more of therichnessof experimentalife andbringreaderscloser to the worldsbeing described.

My second recommendation s to take sound as one of many sites for

exploring concerns in science studies, particularly ssues of situated and

embodiedknowledge. One motivationfor talkingabout embodied or tacit

knowledgeis that it varies(frompersonto person,lab to lab, disciplineto








discipline)but in hiddenandoftenproblematicways (wherevariabilitycan

contradict nvariantand universalscientific truthclaims).At the sametime,the presumed commonality of much embodied experience is used as a

resource(for instance,in conveyingabstract deas by appealto gesturalor

auditory metaphors).Examining hearing and the other senses can focus

attentionon these issues. How,forexample,does embodiedknowledgevarywith the body in question?One lacuna of this piece is thatI have not con-

frontedthe experienceof deaf andhard-of-hearingcientists. What arethe

epistemological particularities f deaf andhard-of-hearing xperimenters?

What s theirexperienceof laboratoryife? We knowthatmanywell-knownscientists andtechnologistshave been orbecamedeaf,butwe have asyet lit-

tle understanding f what thatmeant for theirpracticesand the knowledge

theyproduced.Andwhatof the othersenses?How,forexample,do different

disciplinesdrawon differentkindsof sensation?Geology,forone, is famous

for its use of taste,and medicine andchemistryoften deal with smell. After

all, chemical workcan resemble a quotidianactivity-cooking-in which

smellandtasteare mportant, ndmany specimenpreparationechniquesare

referred o as recipes.Science studies has yet to trackthese variationsandgive them a thickdescription,however. When it does, we shallunderstand

better how scientific knowledge is forged by all the senses, and how all

experimental ensedata-taste, touch,hearing,andsmell,as well as sight-areineluctablyculturalproducts.

NOTES

1.See Rorty 1979, Introduction nd259-305) foradescriptionof JamesandDewey's posi-tion.See also thecontributions oLevin(1993), manyof whichargue hatWestern ultureprivi-

leges thevisualand thatthegaze providesthechannel orpowerand desirein ways thatconsti-

tutemodernsubjectivity.2. Cage'smostnotoriouspiece (a"silent"work nwhich thepianistperformsarecitalwith-

outplaying anynotes)was anattempt o break he frameof artand nciteaudiences onotice the

visual, auditory,andembodiedcontextsurrounding erformances.3. Relativelylittlehas beenwrittenaboutsurfacescience ormaterials cience in STS. See

Groenewegenand Peters(2002), Hessenbruch 2004), Hoddeson(1992), andLeslie (1993).4. Whererequestedby interviewees,places andpersonalandcorporatenames arepseud-

onymsor have been elided.

5. AnthonyJackson(1968), referencingMary Douglas's (1966) workon pollution,putsitwell: "Noise orunpatternedoundsreflectuncontrolled ituationsortransitionaltatesorthreatsto thepatterned ocial order" p. 295).

6. Scanningprobemicroscopes SPMs)workbybringinga smallsolidprobeveryclose (towithin the diameterof an atom)to a surface andmeasuringa varietyof interactionsbetween

probeandsurface.Theprobe s scannedoverthesurface,andmeasurements f theinteractions t








eachpointareconverted ntopixelsinanimage, givingapictureof (something ike) thetopogra-

phyof thesurface.Sound andvibrationdisruptSPMsby displacing heproberelative o the sur-

face in an uncontrolledmanner, herebyblurringorstreaking heimage.Thescanning unnelingmicroscope(STM),inventedaround1982,and the atomicforcemicroscope AFM),invented n

1986, are the two most common SPMs. See Hessenbruch 2001) for some backgroundon the

historyof probe microscopy.7. The term nuisance noise comes from a personalcommunication rom TS, August 6,

2001, anEnvironmentalHealth andSafetyofficer at Cornell.

8. A good exampleof scientificbricolage.See Knorr-Cetina1981, 34).

9. Quoteis fromTS (August6, 2001, personalcommunication). owe muchof thissection

to TS.

10. Again,thanksto TS. Also, thanksto Bob Creasefor pointingout thisphenomenon.11. Irelyon the Collins versionof tacitknowledgehere.ForCollins's latest statementon the

subject,see Collins (2001).

12. For a good instanceof technoscientists isteningto a technology,see Orr(1996, 98).

13. Thanksto Arne Hessenbruch orconversations n this topic.14.See, forinstance,Sagan(1985, 43-44), where the heroine istens to theoutputof aradio

telescope: "Sheheard,as always, a kindof static,a continuousechoing randomnoise. Once,

whenlisteningto apartof theskythat ncluded he starAC+ 79 3888 inCassiopeia,she felt she

hearda kind of singing,fading tantalizingly n andout,lyingjust beyondherabilityto convince

herself that therewas something really there."See 27 and 52-63 of Dennis (forthcoming) or

otherexamples.15. The rhetoricaboutrendering oftware s similaras well-it is describedas aesthetically

pleasingandpubliclyconvincing,butscientistsarewaryaboutaccording t epistemicstatus.

16.My thanksto Heidi VoskuhlandKevinConnellyfor discussions on this topic.

REFERENCES

Amann, K. 1994. Menschen, Mause und Fliegen [Men, Mice and Flies]. Zeitschrift ur

Soziologie23:22-40.

Anonymous.1992. Revengeof the gramophone.The Economist324:96.

Bijsterveld,K. 2001. The diabolicalsymphonyof the mechanicalage:Technologyandsymbol-ism of sound n European ndNorthAmericannoiseabatement ampaigns,1900-40. Social

Studiesof Science 31:37-70.

Boyd,R. 1991a.Introductoryssay (confirmation,emantics,andtheinterpretationf scientific

theories).In Thephilosophy of science, editedby R. Boyd, P.Gasper,and J. D. Trout,3-36.

Cambridge,MA: MITPress.

. 1991b. On thecurrent tatusof scientificrealism.In Thephilosophyofscience, editedbyR. Boyd, P.Gasper,andJ. D. Trout,195-222.Cambridge,MA: MITPress.

Brain,R. 1998. Standards ndsemiotics. InInscribing cience:Scientific extsand thematerial-

ity ofcommunication,ditedbyT.Lenoir,249-84. Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Cambrosio,A., D.Jacobi,andP.Keating.1993.Ehrlich's"BeautifulPictures" nd hecontrover-

sial beginningsof immunological magery. sis 84:662-99.

Collins,H. M. 1992. Changingorder:Replicationandinduction nscientificpractice.Chicago:

Universityof ChicagoPress.








.2001. Tacitknowledge, rust,and heQof sapphire.Social StudiesofScience 31:71-86.

Dennis,M.Forthcoming.Changeofstate: Politicalculture, echnicalpractice,and theorigins of

Cold WarAmerica. Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Douglas,M. 1966.Purityanddanger:Ananalysis of theconceptsofpollutionand taboo. Lon-

don:Routledge.

Francoeur,E. 1997.Theforgotten ool: Thedesignand use of molecularmodels. Social Studies

of Science 27:7-40.

Galison,P. 1997.Imageand logic: A material cultureof microphysics.Chicago: Universityof

ChicagoPress.

Goodwin,C. 1994. Professionalvision. AmericanAnthropologist 6:606-33.

1995. Seeing in depth.Social Studiesof Science 25:237-74.

1996. Transparent ision. In Interactionand grammar,edited by E. Ochs, 370-404.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Groenewegen,P.,andL. Peters.2002. Theemergenceandchangeof materials cience andengi-

neeringin the United States.Science, Technology, nd Human Values27:112-33.

Hacking,I. 1983.Representing ndintervening: ntroductoryopicsinthephilosophyofnatural

science. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Henderson,K. 1999. Online and onpaper: Visualrepresentations, isualculture,andcomputer

graphics in design engineering.Cambridge,MA: MITPress.

Hessenbruch,A. 2001. Historyof recentscience andtechnology:Materials research:Scanning

tunnelingmicroscope STM).Vol.2002. Cambridge,MA:DibnerInstitute or theHistoryof

Science andTechnology.http://hrst.mit.edu/hrs/materials/public/STM_intro.htm. 2004. History of recent science and technology:Materials research.Vol. 2002. Cam-

bridge,MA: DibnerInstitute or theHistoryof Science andTechnology.http://hrst.mit.edu/

hrs/materials/public/

Hirschauer, . 1991.Themanufacturef bodies insurgery. ocial StudiesofScience 21:279-319.

Hoddeson,L. 1992. Outof the crystalmaze: Chapters rom the history of solid-statephysics.

Oxford,UK: OxfordUniversityPress.

Hutchins,E., andL. Palen.1997.Constructingmeaning romspace, gesture,andspeech.In Dis-

course, tools, and reasoning:Essays on situatedcognition,editedby L. Resnick,R. Saljo,

C. Pontecorvo,and B. Burge,23-41. Berlin,Germany:Springer-Verlag.

Ihde,D. 1976.Listeningand voice:Aphenomenologyofsound.Athens:OhioUniversityPress.

Jackson,A. 1968. Sound and ritual.Man-New Series 3:293-99.

Jakobson,R. 1990.Brainandlanguage.In Onlanguage,editedby L. Waughand M. Monville-

Burston,498-514. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Jordan,K., and M. Lynch. 1992. The sociology of a genetic engineering echnique:Ritual and

rationalityn theperformance f a "plasmidprep." n Therighttoolsfor the ob: At work n

thetwentieth-centuryifesciences,editedbyA. E.ClarkeandJ. H.Fujimura, 7-114.Prince-

ton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Kaiser,D. 2000. Stick-figure ealism:Conventions, eification,andthepersistenceof Feynmandiagrams,1948-1964.Representations 0:49-86.

Knorr-Cetina,K. 1981. Themanufacture f knowledge:Anessay on the constructivistand con-

textualnatureof science. Oxford,UK: PergamonPress.

. 1996.Thecare of the self and blind variation:The disunityof two leadingsciences. In

Thedisunityof science: Boundaries,contexts,andpower, edited by P. Galison and D. J.

Stump,287-310. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress.

. 1999.Epistemiccultures:Howthe sciences makeknowledge.Cambridge,MA:Harvard

UniversityPress.








Knowles,S. G.,andS .W.Leslie. 2001. "IndustrialVersailles"-Eero Saarinen's orporate am-

puses for GM, IBM, andAT&T. sis 92:1-33.

Latour,B. 1983. Give me a laboratory ndI will raisethe world. InScienceobserved,editedbyK. Knorr-Cetina nd M. Mulkay,141-70. London:Sage.

1988a.Drawingthings together.InRepresentationn scientificpractice, editedby M.

LynchandS. Woolgar,19-68.Cambridge,MA: MITPress.

.1988b. Openingoneeye whileclosingtheother... anote on somereligiouspaintings. n

Picturingpower: Visualdepictionsand social relations,editedbyG.FyfeandJ.Law,15-38.

London:Routledge KeganPaul.

1988c. Thepasteurizationof France.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

1998. How to Be iconophilic nart,science,andreligion?InPicturingscience,produc-

ing art, editedby C. Jonesand P Galison,418-40. London:Routledge..1999. Circulating eference:Sampling he soil inthe Amazonforest.InPandora'shope:

Essaysontherealityofsciencestudies,24-79.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Latour,B., and S. Woolgar.1986.Laboratoryife: Theconstructionof scientificfacts.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Lawrence,C. 1998. Medical minds, surgicalbodies:Corporealityand the doctors. InScience

incarnate: Historical embodimentsof naturalknowledge,edited by C. Lawrence and S.

Shapin,156-201.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Lenoir,T. 1998.Inscriptionpracticesandmaterialities f communication. nInscribing cience:

Scientifictexts and the

materialityof communication,dited

byT.

Lenoir,1-19.

Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress.

Leslie, S. W. 1993. Thecold warandAmericanscience: Themilitary-industrial-academicom-

plex at MITand Stanford.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Levin,D. M., ed. 1993.Modernityand thehegemonyof vision.Berkeley:Universityof Califor-

nia Press.

Lynch,M. 1985a.Art andartifact n laboratory cience:A studyof shopworkandshoptalkina

research aboratory.London:Routledge KeganPaul.

. 1985b.Disciplineand the material ormof images:An analysisof scientificvisibility.Social Studiesof Science 15:37-66.

.1988a. Theexternalized etina:Selectionandmathematizationnthevisualdocumenta-tion of objects in the life sciences. In Representation n scientificpractice, edited by M.

LynchandS. Woolgar,153-86. Cambridge,MA: MITPress.

1988b.Sacrificeandthetransformationf theanimalbodyinto a scientificobject:Lab-

oratory ultureandritualpractice ntheneurosciences.Social StudiesofScience 18:265-89.

.1991. Laboratory pace and the technologicalcomplex: An investigationof topicalcontextures.Science in Context4:51-78.

Lynch,M., andS. Y. EdgertonJr. 1988. Aestheticsanddigitalimageprocessing:Representa-tionalcraft in contemporary stronomy. n Picturingpower: Visualdepictionsand social

relations,editedby G. Fyfe and J. Law.184-220. London:Routledge KeganPaul.Merz,M. 1998."Nobodycan forceyouwhenyouareacrosstheocean"-Face toface ande-mail

exchangesbetweentheoreticalphysicists.InMaking pacefor science: Territorialhemes ntheshapingof knowledge,editedby C. Smithand J. Agar,313-29. London:Macmillan.

Mody,C. 2001. A little dirtneverhurtanyone:Knowledge-making ndcontaminationnmateri-als science. Social Studiesof Science 31:7-36.

Ochs, E.,P.Gonzales,andS. Jacoby.1996."When come down I'minthedomainstate":Gram-marandgraphicrepresentationn the interpretive ctivityof physicists.InInteractionand

grammar, ditedby E. Ochs, 328-369. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.








Ochs,E., S. Jacoby,and P.Gonzales. 1994.Interpretiveourneys:Howphysiciststalk andtravel

throughgraphicspace. Configurations :151-71.

Orr,J. E. 1996. Talkingabout machines.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.Pinch,T.,H. M. Collins,andL.Carbone.1997.Cuttingupskills:Estimatingdifficultyas an ele-

mentof surgicalandotherabilities.InBetweencraftand science: Technicalwork n U.S.set-

tings, editedby S. R. BarleyandJ. E. Orr,101-12. Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Pinch,T.,andF.Trocco. 2002. Analog days: The inventionand impactof theMoog synthesizer.

Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Polanyi,M. 1967. The tacit dimension.GardenCity,NY:DoubledayAnchor.

Rasmussen,N. 1997. Picture control: The electronmicroscopeandthe transformation f biol-

ogy inAmerica,1940-1960. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress.

Rheinberger,H.-J. 1997. Toward

historyof epistemicthings: Synthesizingproteinsin the test

tube.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress.

Rorty,R. 1979.Philosophyandthe mirrorofnature.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Rudwick,M. 1976.Theemergenceof a visuallanguage orgeologicalscience, 1760-1840.His-

toryof Science 14:149-95.

.1992. Scenes rom deep time:Earlypictorial representations f theprehistoricworld.

Chicago: Universityof ChicagoPress.

Sagan,C. 1985. Contact.New York:Simon and Schuster.

Schaffer,S. 1998.Physicslaboratories ndtheVictorian ountryhouse.InMaking pacefor sci-

ence: Territorialhemes ntheshapingofknowledge,editedbyC. SmithandJ.Agar,149-80.

London:Macmillan.

Shapin,S. 1988. The house of experiment n seventeenth-century ngland. sis 79:373-404.

Shapin,S., and S. Schaffer.1985. Leviathanand theair-pump:Hobbes,Boyle,and theexperi-mentallife. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress.

Sibum,H. 0. 1995.Reworking he mechanicalvalue of heat:Instruments f precisionandges-turesof accuracy n earlyVictorianEngland.Studiesin theHistoryand Philosophy of Sci-

ence 26:73-106.

Sterne,J. 1997. Sounds like the Mall of America:Programmedmusic andthe architectonicsof

commercialspace. Ethnomusicology 1:22-50.

Thompson,E. 1997. Dead roomsand ive wires:Harvard,Hollywood,andthedeconstruction farchitectural coustics, 1900-1930.Isis 88:597-626.

1999.Listening o/formodernity:Architectural coustics andthedevelopmentof mod-

ernspacesinAmerica.In Thearchitecture fscience, editedbyP.GalisonandE.Thompson,253-80. Cambridge,MA: MITPress.

Thorpe,C.,andS. Shapin.2000.Whowas J.RobertOppenheimer?Charisma ndcomplexorga-nization.Social Studiesof Science30:545-90.

Traweek,S. 1988. Beamtimesand lifetimes:The worldof high energyphysicists. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Voskuhl,A. 2004. Humans,machines,andconversations:An ethnographic tudyof themakingof automaticspeech recognition echnologies.Social Studiesof Science, 34.

CyrusC.M.Modyis the GordonCainFellowin Technology,Policy,andEntrepreneur-

shipat the ChemicalHeritageFoundation.He is currentlywritinga bookon thedevelop-ment andcommercialization f scanningprobemicroscopyand researching he orma-tionof thenanotechnology ommunity.

mody_the sounds of silence-listening to laboratory practice (2005).pdf

Documents