The Sounds of Science: Listening to Laboratory Practice Author(s): Cyrus C. M.

Mody Source: Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring, 2005), pp. 175-198 Published 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 support@jstor.org.

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 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Sounds of Science: Listeningto LaboratoryPractice

Cyrus C. M. Mody ChemicalHeritage Foundation

Works in science and technologystudies(STS)have repeatedly pointedto the importance of the visual in scientificpractice. STShas also explicatedhow embodiedpracticegenerates scientific knowledge.I aim to supplementthis literatureby pointing out how sound and hearing are integralaspects of experimentation. Soundhelps define how and when lab work is done, and in what kinds of spaces. It structuresexperimentalexperience.It that are richer than could be affordsinteractionsbetween researchersand instruments obtainedwith vision alone. And it is a sitefor tacit knowledge,providinga resource for the replicationof results, and the transmissionof knowledge,and the constructionof social boundarieswithininstrumental communities.

Keywords: ethnography;surface science; hearing; instrumentation

"Picturing knowledge"has long been a way of speakingin epistemology thathas colored the claims of science studies.The "oculocentrism" of mainstreamphilosophyhas been critiquedat least since WilliamJamesand John Dewey complainedof the "mirror theoryof knowledge."'In contestingtraditional views of scientific knowledge, science studies often reproducesthis privilegingof the visual. Manyof the field's termsof artdisplaya clearorientationto looking, gazing, reading,andotherthingsdone withthe eyes: 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 Edgerton 1988), Rudwick on "visual language"(Rudwick 1976, 1992), Cambrosio
AUTHOR'S NOTE: The authorwishes to thank the NSF and the IEEE for graduatefellowships that supportedthis work. He also wishes to thank Heidi Voskuhl, Mike Lynch, Arne Hessenbruch, ArynMartin,two anonymousreviewers,andotherswho reador heardpreliminary versions of this article. & Human Vol.30 No. 2, Spring 2005 175-198 Science, Values, Technology, DOI:10.1177/0162243903261951 ? 2005SagePublications 175

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

176 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

and Keatingon "beautiful pictures"(Cambrosio,Jacobi,and Keating 1993), ShapinandSchafferon "virtual witnessing"(ShapinandSchaffer1985), and Galison on "image and logic" (Galison 1997). The importanceof the visual in these works sprang, in part, from an attemptto bringempiricalstudies of scientific practiceto bearon notions in logical empiricism and other strandsof philosophy of science relating to "observation" and "sensedata"(Boyd 1991a, 1991b;Hacking 1983). Where muchanalyticphilosophyof science emphasizedthe reductionof knowledge to formal,symbolic termsandreliedon decontextualized notionsof observation and perception,the new science studies literaturedescribed scientific it (re)introseeing as richly rooted in the practicesof field and laboratory; duced the concept of tacit knowledge, an embodiedkind of know-how irreducibleto symbolicterms;it highlightedthe complex workdone by scientific pictures, charts, micrographs,and other "traces";and it added empirical depthto the claims of Fleck, Wittgenstein,Kuhn,and othersthatperception and social settings (including visual observation)is rooted in "paradigms" Lenoir Fleck 1998; Polanyi 1967; (Collins 1992; 1979; Wittgenstein1958; Kuhn 1996). Although recent works in science and technology studies continue to highlight the visual aspects of scientific practice (Henderson 1999; Kaiser 2000; Latour1998), nonvisualdimensionshave increasinglyenteredthe mix in recent analyses of embodied knowledge, scientific tools, and distributed cognition (Goodwin 1995; Hutchins and Palen 1997; Pinch, Collins, and Carbone1997). We arebeginningto see the materialnatureof these tools, the ways in which they circulateand become partof embodiedwork in the field andthe lab (Latour1999). Wecan discernthe whole physicalpresenceof laboratory workers, not just their eyes-how they comport themselves, how they inhabitspecially constructedlab spaces, how they interactwith instruments and artifacts,how they shape and move their bodies to be perceived anddisciplinedby the gaze of others,andhow theirbodily experiences(their illnesses and exertions) are insinuated into their craft (Amann 1994; Francoeur 1997; Hirschauer 1991; Knorr-Cetina1999; Lawrence 1998; Lynch 1988b; Merz 1998; Ochs, Jacoby, and Gonzales 1994; Rasmussen 1997; Sibum 1995; Thorpeand Shapin2000). Along these lines, I want to provide here some remarks-based on an ethnographic and historical study of surface scientists and instrument makers-on how listening,hearing,attuning,andotherear-workareintegral to much that goes on in laboratories.Labs are full of sounds and noises, wantedand unwanted,many of which are coordinatedwith the bodily work of moving through space, looking at specimens, and manipulatinginstruments. Sounds are fully woven into the knowledge that emerges from

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

Practice 177 Mody / Listening to Laboratory

experimental practice.Whatfollows in this articleis an invitationto practitioners of lab studiesto stage performancesof JohnCage's 4' 33" at the sites of scientific work and listen to laboratory practice.2 WhenI talkaboutexaminingthe soundsof science, my concernis primarily not with those sciences that take acoustic phenomenaas theirobjects of study,their"epistemicthings"(Rheinberger1997)-subspecialties of physics (acoustics, sonoluminescence), medicine and psychology (psychoacoustics),biology (studies of animalsongs and communication),engineering (recording and amplification technology), instrumentation(acoustic microscopy, ultrasound), linguistics (phonetics), and computer science (speech-recognitiontechnology). A few sociologists and historians have begunexploringthese fields andmappingthe epistemologicalparticularities of sound-oriented sciences (Bijsterveld2001; Brain 1998; Pinch andTrocco 2002; Thompson1997, 1999;Voskuhl2004). Theyhave shown,for instance, thatthe boundarybetweendesirablesoundandunwantednoise is very much a constructed, contingent, and historically variable one. They show that sound and space are inextricableand that communally held views on the andpublic space is engipropernatureof soundhelp shapehow architectural and These authors show how the lived neered, constructed, experienced. of the rise to experience experimentalsubject gives contextually specific notions of what sounds areworthinvestigatingand how to capturethe world of sound in the abstractedlanguages of science. And finally, they describe how auditory phenomena are often importantingredients in the debates aboutsimilarity, difference,andfamily resemblancethattypify scientificand technologicalcontroversies. In what follows, I hope to show that auditoryphenomenahave similar contextswherethey arenot epistemologicalconsequenceseven in laboratory the primaryobjects of study. I open with an examinationof the sometimes undesirable effects of laboratory sounds.Noise can shakeanddisturblaboratory tools and personnel, and, as a consequence, auditoryconcerns shape much of the when and where of experimentation.By being aware of the sound environment,science studies can gain new insights into the ways experimental spaces areconstituted.Next, I describesome of the soundsproduced and/orattendedto by surfacescientists and the ways these are folded into experimental practice.I attemptto show thatsoundis an integral(if often overlooked)ingredientin tacit knowledge. Surfacescientistscarefullymanage auditory(as well as visual and haptic)cues to liberatedifferentkinds of informationfrom their experiments.And finally, these same surfacescientists call on theiraudience'spersonalauditory(andothersensory)experience to more powerfully convey their ideas.

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

178 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

The empirical material of this study was drawn from three years of and interviewwork with researchers and engineersworkingin ethnographic and aroundmaterialsscience and surface science.3 Some are graduatestudents, undergraduates,and professors working in research labs; others consultantsand safety inspectors)constructandinspectexper(architectural imental spaces; and yet others design, manufacture, and oversee scientific instruments,particularlytransmission electron microscopes (TEMs) and scanning probe microscopes (SPMs). I refer those interested in my ethnographicmethodsto an earlierarticleon cleanliness and contamination in materialsscience andsurfacescience (Mody 2001). There,I outlinedsome of the actorswho come togetherin these experimental settings,andthe ways their differing ideas about contaminationare progressivelynegotiatedand (occasionally) harmonized.

Sound as Contaminant
It is no coincidence thatlooking at experimental practicesof understandand even leads in turnto an investiing, containing, co-opting contamination gation of laboratorysounds since auditoryphenomena-along with heat, light, dust, oil, air,watervapor,dander,and so on-are an importantsource of contaminationin experimentalsurfacescience: If we lookat... manufacturing microelectronics ... a lotof theseprocesses are to bothvibration andnoise.... [I]fyoushinenoise,sound, veryverysensitive atmany of thesetools,that alsomakes themshake, because isjusta flucsound in theatmosphere andthat willactonthe tuating pressure fluctuating pressure
structure of the machineor the tool to makeit shake.So both soundandvibra-

tionarewhatwe generally Whenpeoplearedoing classifyas contaminants.

measurementsin laboratories. . . they're using tools that are sensitive to all ations . . . humidity can affect the measurements,and so can vibrationand

sorts of contamination-particulates intheatmosphere... fluctutemperature

noise.So the wholeclass of physical canbe grouped under the phenomena namecontamination. with ColinGordon, acoustical (Interview consultant, ColinGordon March Associates, 12,2001)4 Gordonis a leading consultantto architectural firms specializing in the building of laboratories,clean rooms, and semiconductormanufacturing plants.As this quotehints,his life's workis to help shapethese spacesto minimize sounds that can disrupt the functioning of labs and fabrication facilities. Many generalobservationsfrom anthropologicalstudies of pollutionritual (most notablyMaryDouglas's 1966 celebratedPurityand Danger) hold

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

Practice 179 Mody / Listening to Laboratory

truein analyzingnoise, sound, and vibrationas contaminants.5 Forinstance, the natureof pollutionis momentaryand contingent.Althoughmany in surface science projecta rhetoricof high cleanliness and purity,the patchwork of experimental life meansthatwhatcounts as pollutionone minutemightbe a key ingredientor tool (or side effect thereof) the next. In nanofabrication facilities and other clean rooms (which the semiconductorindustryclaims arethe cleanestplaces on Earth),for example,fans andductworkcover most of the ceiling, pulling away the minuteparticlesof dustthatmightruinsemiconductorprocessing;at the same time, these fans create an intense racket thatmakesit difficultfor techniciansto communicatewith each other,endangers their health, and rattlesthe instrumentsused to inspect semiconductor materials. Also, soundacts as whatmightbe called an even thoughfilter-that is, an experimentthatworks even though some potentialdirtis presentis takento be more powerfulthanan experimentthatworks only in the absenceof contamination. In the early 1980s, for instance, when scanning tunneling microscopy(STM) was still an unproventechnique,many of the first STMs were initially constructedin noisy, unpromisinglocations (often nearelevators shafts), until they had achieved an important milestone (such as atomic resolution)and could thereforebe seen as viable instrumentsand moved to some lab with fewer ambientsounds.6Even today,probemicroscopistsmost often run their instrumentswith laboratorydoors open and with air conditioners and other sources of noise running.If a featurecan be seen with the microscope despite these auditorycontaminants,then it is probablyrealand if it appearsto be both real and interesting,then the microscopistwill often close the doors and turnoff the pumps to peer at it more closely. life in a varietyof ways. The Auditorycontamination shapesexperimental humanbody,for instance,can be botha sourceanda sinkfor variouscontaminating sounds. There is an intricatecare of the self needed for operating instrumentsso as not to produceperturbing noises (Knorrmany laboratory Cetina 1996). In transmissionelectronmicroscopy,for instance,those in the TEMroommustconstantlybe awareof theirbodily habitus-how theyposition themselves,when they addresseach other,how they move-so as not to producesoundsor vibrationsthatmightdisturbthe instrument by talkingtoo loudly at the wrong time or accidentallybumpingthe microscope console. This is particularlytrue duringthe taking of micrographs,when air conditioners and pumps and even telephones may be temporarilyturnedoff. In probe microscopy, habitus is usually more casual, although the effects of sound on the instrumentare more directlyperceived-a clap or other sharp noise can immediatelybe seen as a streakon the scan, and conversationcan be seen as a tracein an oscilloscope measuringthe movementof theprobe.

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

180 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

At the same time, experimentalsoundshave complex effects on the experience of laboratory life. TEMsrunbest with the lights off anda minimumof noise fromboth experimenters andapparatus, so thatmaintaining this proper self-discipline can be quite tiring. Researchersoften emerge from a microscope runbleary-eyed,and instrumentmanagersoccasionally find students the case since human asleep in front of the microscope. This is particularly trafficwithinandaroundthe laboratory can be a majorsourceof contaminating sounds-thus, many experimentsinvolving sensitive instrumentstake place at night, or in special locations away from the main lab building.Take, for instance,this story from the early days of STM, in which worriesabout noise and vibration funneled experimentalwork into unusual places and times:
We decidedwe were going to trythis on a Sundaymorning,it was nice working nightsandweekendsbecauseit was very quiet in the building.So on a Sunday morning,I'd be, you know, we were tunneling,we could see that it worked because every scan you could see those I-V curves dance up and down.... [B]ecauseit wasjust too noisy,you could reallyonly do experimentsin the evenings andon the weekends.Right, so we would workfor a couple days, [creating] software,tryingto get analysis stuff ready and analyze datathat we had, andthenwe'd go into a streakwherewe just workednightsandget data.And of courseeverybodywas strugglingwith that,at Bell Labsthey hadbuilta special buildingto do theirSTM in becausethey couldn'tlive in theirmainbuilding,it was too noisy, andwe workedat night, at Cambridge, they builta special environmentalroom with big, you know,foam-paddedwalls and everythingto do the-if you see these instruments now, right,you can plunkthem on the table here andit worksjust fine. But it was very differentthenbecause we, you were reallyjust learningand discoveringhow to do this stuff. (Interviewwith Ruud at a corporate 23,2001) Tromp,anearlySTMresearcher laboratory, February

Sound and Space

Many proceduresin surface science (such as characterizingspecimens with a probe microscope) requireclose attentionover very long periods of time, often alone andat night,resultingin extremetedium.While the eyes are in engagedin monitoringinstruments, auditoryphenomenacan be important circumventingboredom. Consequently,conversationand music are much morepervasivephenomenain labs thanhas been noticedin the lab studiesliterature.Many labs have a radioor stereo and a large stack of CDs and tapes to choose andplay music usuallyrestswith the graduate (wherethe authority students, postdocs, and technicians who occupy the lab most of the time, ratherthan with the head of the lab group). At the same time, music and

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

Practice 181 Mody / Listening to Laboratory

conversation may be seen as interfering with experimental results (one woman told me she plays music in her lab continuously, but when she encountersa problem with her microscope and calls the manufacturer, the company's supportstaff immediately ask her if she has a stereo on-suppressing sounds is a routine first step in clearing up problems with some instruments). Auditoryphenomenacan be noxious for people as well as instruments, both inside and outside the lab. Cleanrooms, for example, can be extremely in partbecauseof ambientnoise levels. Muchlab equipment uncomfortable, producesdangerousamountsof noise, some continuouslyand some only on occasion. Like othercontaminants,such noises are partof the checklist for local Environmental Health and Safety inspectors.With clean rooms, such "nuisancenoise"comes aboutbecauseof the greatamountof workneededto constructa space in which the epistemic things of surface science (which often have dimensionsof only a few nanometersor even angstroms)can be bodies andthe pollution protectedbothfromthe dirtexudedby experimental outside world.7 oozing in from an ostensibly hostile and contaminating At the same time, threateningsounds travelboth ways; the hardwork of crafting a clean laboratoryspace creates many sounds and other contaminants that can pollute the lab's surroundings.Moreover, the boundary between lab and world always remainssomewhatflexible and contestable, where sound environmentsboth constrainand enable this ambiguity.The chemicals used in cleaning and manufacturingthe specialized tools and materialsof surfacechemistry,for instance,have to leave the laboratory and be disposed of. The way this is done results in the characteristicdroning soundof manyhigh-techoutdoorspaces.One professordescribedfor me the problemsof forcingwaste chemicalsout of labs throughrooftopvents, while avoiding noise pollution: You've fanson theroomwhichtryto launch theairoutof there, got exhaust drift to shootit upand youdon't justlettheexhaust upandmoveoff.Youwant

andspread overmiles.But whenfansreallykickout all, it's way diffused exhaust withhighvelocity, likejet engines theysound upontheroof.... [A]ll thosewet labs,youhearthebzzzzzzzrunning all thetime.Andwe'rea little concerned thatwhenyouget a lot moreof those,it wouldbe possible youget the wholequadwhereyou get thisconstant, drone.(Interview unacceptable withan academic electrical for construction of engineer, facultyconsultant newcleanroomfacility, April25, 2000) Thatsoundand space, particularly builtspace, areboundup in interesting is one of the first observations of ways any phenomenologyof sound (Ihde

get it high so thatwhen it finally comes downto the ground,if it comes down at

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

182 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

literature 1976, 60; Sterne 1997). Thereis, of course, an already-burgeoning on place, built environment,and science (Knowles and Leslie 2001; Lynch aims to show how scien1991; Schaffer 1998; Shapin 1988). This literature tific spaces are designed and engineered;how particular kinds of behavior and social organizationflow throughthose spaces; and how the particular kindsof knowledgeproducedin those spacesis affordedby, andreflectiveof, their constitution.With the exception of the studies by Karin Bijsterveld has paid (2001) and Emily Thompson(1997, 1999), however,this literature to For in little attention issues of sound. the relatively participants laboratory design, though, such issues are often presentand occasionally they become urgent.Indeed, a subindustryof acoustical consultantshas arisen over the pastthirtyyearsdedicatedto helping teams of architectsandengineerswork aroundissues of sound, makingsurethe rightkinds of sound stay in the lab, while contaminatingones are kept out. The construction of laboratory andmaintenance spacescan itself generate unwantedsounds. The heavy machineryand occasional drilling and exploaroundthem) prosions thatattendthe buildingof labs (andotherstructures duce noises thatlimit the lengths of some experimentsand the times of day when they can be conducted. The in-and-outof traffic and deliveries, and even the footfalls of people walkingaroundlaboratory buildings,also generate disturbingsounds that vary throughoutthe day and week. But experimentersshow remarkable resourcefulnessaboutspace and often redrawthe line between lab and nonlab so that they can conduct experimentsin more suitablesoundenvironments. The following is a storyaboutthe flexibility of in of the STM: space early days we moved to theground flooratsomepoint it wasjusttoonoisy because Yeah, Youknow, theelevator's andit's a big freight uphere,right. rightbackthere, elevator thatgoes up anddownall day.Yeah,at somepoint,CSS,youknow where thebig CSSelectronics thegarden shopusedto be?Sortof underneath in theback.Theygotnewspace,andso theymoved outandwe squatted there fora while.It wasthishugespace,youknow, thisenormous lab,andwejust a tinylittlecorer in there andwe dida bunch of goodexperiments. occupied Andthenatsomepoint, wewerekicked outof there. Andso wefound anempty officeonAisle 1.Thiswasallpretty informal. Andso onenight, we youknow, hadspotted thisemptyoffice so we tookall ourstuff,ourSTM,you know, which wasoncasters, andtheelectronics, andwejust,atnight wewheeled it to thebacklabandwe started in that office.Andtheofficeactually is, it squatting never backto anofficeagain, it became ourlab.Andthere's still gotconverted an STMtheretoday.So, yeah, so it was, but ground floor was important because onbedrock there so it'sa lot morestable than youknowyou're being withTromp, 23, 2001) uphereis. (Interview February

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

to Laboratory Practice 183 Mody/ Listening

The same scrounging of space continues today, as evidenced by this recentadvice on how to deal with noise problemsin settingup modem probe microscopes: Wehavea Nanoscope on the seventh [a kindof scanning probe microscope] floorof a steel-framed andhavehadsomevibration also. building problems Forwhatit's worth, herearesomethingsthatworked forus: 1. Acousticnoisescausedby the ventilation systemwerea big problem. we moved theinstrument from thelabto anofficethat hadlessairflow Finally, anda quieter ductsystem,andlinedtheofficecumlabwithSonexfoam.It's nowlikeananechoic chamber andyoucanhear beat.(Posting to an yourheart
e-mail listserv for scanningprobe microscopeusers, November26, 1995)

Therearemany strategieslike these for protectingscanningprobemicroscopes from vibrationsand acousticnoise. One possibility is to buy acoustic hoods and vibrationisolation tables from manufacturers. Manyresearchers, though,choose to cobble solutions from materialsfound at hardwarestores or garagesales. A perusalof an e-mail forumdedicatedto these instruments yields some of the following vibrationisolation equipment:pails of sand; blank headstones;disused refrigerators; old acoustic hoods for noisy dotmatrixprinters; innertubes;and,probablythe most popular,bungeecords or surgicaltubing, used to hang the microscope from the ceiling or a stand or even the legs of an upturned table.8 One qualitythatmanyprobemicroscopistsdesirein such vibrationisolation systems is portability. As BrunoLatourhas madeclear,one crucialway to enrollallies andwin scientificcontroversiesis to transform moreandmore bits of the worldinto laboratories, to makethe epistemicthingsof a discipline hardenough, and the world gentle enough, for them to survive outside the confines of the lab (Latour1988c). One partof this is makingsurethe world sounds like the lab. Not doing so can lead to trouble.For instance,an instrument designed and developedin one place may unexpectedlyfail to work if the premises of the company that buys it do not sound like those of the it: companythatmanufactured usewould thetoolintheir ownlaboratory... their develop typically laboratory would beona slabongrade floor[where theeffectsof sound andvibration can be minimized]....Andyou'dgetallthebitsandpiecesandputa tooltogether andgetit to work inthelaboratory andthendeliver it to Beltronix andmuch to Beltronix's andtheirsurprise, it wouldn't workbecauseBeltronix' surprise floorwasonthesecond orthethird theeffects [where story storyof a building
of sound and vibrationare a bigger problem].(Interviewwith Gordon,March 12, 2001) the majormanufacturers of the tools thatwe People like LMB andMatterTech,

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

184 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

Anotherarenain which sound affects the ability to move instruments out of the lab is the worldof conferencetradeshows, whereinstrument manufacturersand potential customers mingle noisily in crowded and acoustically suspect places such as gymnasiums,cafeterias,and hotel ballrooms.It is a to have a workinginstrumentin his or crucial advantagefor a manufacturer her booth to show to interestedresearchers.Yet the tradeshow environment and vibrationisolation systems that soundsquite unlike the lab. Instruments are portableenough and robust enough to work at trade shows are highly prized. One way to avoid noise pollution is to move the lab to quiet, suburban locales farawayfromthe noisy bustlingof academiccampusesandindustrial research parks. Today's probe microscopes are small enough and cheap surfaceanalyenoughthatmanufacturer's applicationslabs andindependent sis companiescanbe set up almostanywhere.Quiteoften, these smalllaboratories springup in comfortableand quiet locations:abandonednavalair stations, deeply rural New Jersey hamlets, ski chalets in Lake Tahoe resort towns, andhomes in the suburbsof midwesternmetropolises.To turnBruno Latour'sfamous phrase on its head, "give me a suburband I will raise the world"(Latour1983). That is, althoughLatouris right in pointing out that can be expensiveandpowerfultools in winningtechnoscientific laboratories the lab is not an ultimatelystableconstruct.Scientistsandtechniarguments, cians are adept at cobbling resources to constitute laboratoriesin seemingly unlikely places. What counts as a laboratoryspace is highly contextdependent,and often it is the soundscapeof a place thatshapeswhat knowledge can be createdthere.

Sound Effects Let us considerwhatsoundsinhabitthe spacesof surfacescience andhow and when they become relevant.The task of preparingand maintainingthe epistemic materialsof surfacescience, andof bringingthem underthe disciand specplining gaze of instrumentssuch as microscopes,diffractometers, troscopes,is mechanicallycomplex and noisy. Pipes bringin and take away gurgling water; spray cans of compressed air blow dust away; sonicators shakeoff contaminants; chill acids andotherchemicals;centrirefrigerators fuges whirl specimens around;and fume hoods siphon off dangerousgases. Vacuumpumps,especially,aboundin these labs, preservinguncontaminated environmentswhere metals and semiconductorswill not oxidize. Many of the most fundamentaltechniques of surface science (electron microscopy, low-energy electron diffraction,mass spectrometry)require some sort of

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

Practice 185 Mody / Listeningto Laboratory

vacuum,often an ultrahighvacuum,to work.Thus, vacuumpumpsprovidea constant background hum in many surface science laboratories. These pumps, though, can also shake and disruptinstrumentsand interferewith experiments. of mateOthersounds areonly indirectlyassociatedwith the preparation rials. Cartspush equipment(often large, heavy bottles of compressedgas) throughhallways;timersalertlab workerswhen to begin the next step of an experiment;radiosplay; people talk;and doors ("manyof which are heavy, spring-loaded,self-closing doors") slam shut.9One particularlyloud and often disruptive(although vital) set of sounds is heavy machinery(drills, lathes, grinders)used for making experimentalapparatus. Many academic departmentsand researchlabs have associated machine shops where tools or tinkeredwith. Often, machineshops are and equipmentare manufactured located in the centerof a complex of lab rooms, and the occasional buzzing and shriekingof these tools can be heardthroughoutthe experimentalday. When using some characterization instruments, especially probeor electron microscopes, these sounds can be directly seen as streaks in images that correspondto the startingof a grinderor a press. Othersounds stem from the need to preserveexperimental bodies as well as experimentalmaterials.Air conditionersrun constantly since many lab spaces have no windows (and open windows are discouraged anyway because they let in dustandothercontaminants). In TEMlabs, airconditioners are often turnedoff just when a micrograph is being recorded,so thatthe inscriptionsproducedby the microscopeareless contaminated by the sound of the air conditioningpumps.Fans for computerprocessors,and the sound of keyboards,typewriters,copiers, and telephones are also audiblein many for at least one TEMlab I saw,therewas partsof lab buildings.Interestingly, a telephonepresentin the microscopyroom, but its ringerwas turnedoff so thatthe operationof the microscopewould not be impaired.Finally,various alarms are needed in any building that contains dangerousmachineryand chemicals. The sound of these alarmshas to be carefullycoordinated-if a very alarmingklaxon is used for only a small, localized danger,unnecessary disruptionwill occur.On the otherhand,not enoughpeople will respondto a widespreadhazardif an alarmis too quiet andlocal. In manycases, different levels of alarmsounds must be used. 0

Sound Knowledge The list above is by no meansexhaustive,butit lets us ask a morecompelling question:do sounds merely surround knowledge makingin labs, or are

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

186 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

they also bound up in the knowledge that gets made?It should be clear that to experiments-where they are done, when they sound helps lend structure aredone, whatthey look like. But is it epistemologicallyrelevantthatthe rich visual world describedin early laboratorystudies (the world of inscriptions, diagrams,golden images, and so forth)is imbued with sound? In asking these questions, we move from confronting sound-asIn surface science, where the contaminantto sound-as-experimental-cue. entitiesof interestcan be of atomic(or even subatomic)dimension,any stray dirt, radiation,or vibrationcan be disastrous.Yet experimentersare often able to co-opt these same contaminatingnoises to yield new kinds of data and phenomena.If straysounds aredeleteriousto an instruaboutapparatus as we shall see, more controlledsounds (e.g., the humanvoice) ment, then, can be useful in its diagnosis or operation.And even contaminatingsounds can be richly instructive.The line between disruptingsounds and enabling ones has to be negotiatedmomentby moment. Certainly,the soundscapeof the lab is importantin the accruingof tacit knowledge.'1 Many instrumentsin surface science and materials science have partsand mechanismsthatmake specific sounds-the whirrof micrographplatesbeing moved inside a TEM,the chuk-chukof a probebeing lowered on an atomic force microscope (AFM), the sproing and click of a coil When things runsmoothly,these being shoved into place on a microprobe.12 sounds unfold regularly,marking out the running of a clean experiment. rhythmthey indicate,is partof Learningthese sounds, and the experimental instrument. the use of the ManyTEMsandhome-builtSTMs learning proper resemble organconsoles, with a varietyof knobs and dials and visual readusers often coordinatevisual and Instrument outs spreadbefore the operator. of information before them. The tacit to the cues manage variety auditory to another to on from one of such sounds is difficult operator pass knowledge Withsuch andusuallycomes only with long experiencewith the instrument. experiencealso comes the tacitknowledgeof the soundsmadewhen tools are not operatingsmoothly.Much of the machineryassociatedwith instruments such as TEMs and vacuum chambers is balanced to minimize the backcan tell an groundnoise it produces.Attendingto changesin this background is such sounds can thatsomething wrong.Furthermore, experiencedoperator mechanisms hidden inside with be used to diagnose problems,particularly the instrument. One instrumentthat both emits and measures lab sounds is the experimenter'sbody. Diagnosing problemswith microscopes and other tools can involve not only listening for sounds but also producingthem and watching their effect. Sometimes this involves highly idiosyncratic practices. One

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

to Laboratory Practice 187 Mody/ Listening

in herlab when they are informant told me thatshe sings to the spectrometers not working, and that,dependingon the choice of song, this often seems to help. This resembles the local practices KathleenJordanand Mike Lynch found among plasmid prep technicians,where the "translucent box" of the to local throughinformal reinterpretation technique was continually open andLynch 1992). Like the practices (Jordan recipes,tricks,andsuperstitions Jordanand Lynch observed, singing has its informal yet technical rationale-my informantclaimedthatsinging may slightly warmthe air nearthe instrument,improvingperformance. In probe microscopy, the use of singing, talking, and other embodied sounds has a long history for diagnosingproblems:
We'reon a noisy floor, so we had plenty of noise problems.I rememberHenri Piper [co-inventorof STM] at one point walking into the lab while we were struggling,and ... he has this big booming voice, andso he walkedinto the lab and saw the tunnelingtracein the oscilloscope which was, you know,dancing up and down as he was talking, and he was telling us "guys, you still have a problem."(Interviewwith Tromp,February23, 2001) It was amazing.Literallyat times you know we wonderedif therewere acoustic vibrationsthatwere hittingso literallyyou'd see people tryingto sing to the microscope.Just,you know,looking at an oscilloscope seeing thatif they hit a certain note it excited a resonantfrequencyin the acoustic spectra-if they could see that in the noise on the oscilloscope. (Interviewwith Fred Leibsle, academicsurfacescientist,describingexperiencesbuildingSTMs as a graduate student,January1, 2001; emphasisin originalconversation) Acoustic noise is the next issue to consider.... [Gettingrid of it] can be fun. It can also be frustrating. Again, only do what you need to do. Look aroundfor easy solutions.If thereis otherequipmentaround,tryturningit off. If you have morethanone choice of location,trythemall. Clapyourhandsandstompyour feet to see whatnoise is yourenemy (Yourcoworkerswill forgetby next week). 9, (Postingto an email listservfor scanningprobemicroscopeusers,February 2000)

As this last quote indicates,stompingand clappingare common ways of testing the acoustic isolation of probe microscopesbecause the short, sharp sound of the clap shows up readily on the visual outputof the instrument. When I visited one STM lab, the head of the groupraninto the roomhousing the microscope while his technicianand I watched the visual outputin the next room-we could hear him clapping and stomping, and then he ran aroundto us and shouted"Did you see me? Is thatme?"pointingto a streak on the STM image. Often when researchersdemonstratetheir microscopes

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

188 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

they clap or rapon a tableto show thatsomethingis reallygoing on, indexical proof that the instrumentis churning away and is sensitive enough to be disturbedby such sounds. Another index of the microscope's operationcomes from reversingthe flow of sound. Some STM and AFM researchersand designers convertthe into an auditorysignal andlisten to it scanningat the outputof the instrument it form an image. There are a numberof rationales watch same time they breakdowns,it is claimed, are more easily given for this. Some instrumental heardthan seen-a crashingtip, for instance, makes a loud, distinct sound (when audibilizedin this way) that is less easily noted in the visual output. Operatorsof these instrumentsgain tacit knowledge about what certain sounds mean and develop an aestheticrelationshipto these acoustic indicators(justas most microscopistsalso developan aestheticsensibilityaboutthe images they see). In particular,some operators describe listening to the microscope as bringingthem more in tune with its operation: seethan much better Youcanlistento periodicity it,than seeing.Youcanhear It'sreallya littlebit ing. Andhe got also somefeelingforthemeasurement. that it likethis,thenI know if I hear buthecouldsay,"Well, it,it sounds mystic, microwithRobert is nowreally atthebestresolution." Sum,probe (Interview a colleaguefromgraduate school,November 9, describing scopedesigner, 2001) where earlearns andyoucantellwhat, Your youare.Itgivesyou veryquickly earsinvolved. more assoonasyouhaveyour much senseof beinginthesystem at a corporate withan STMresearcher lab,November 12,2001) (Interview Variousostensibly technicalreasonsfor using sound this way run alongside the aestheticones-the ears, it is said, are an extrachannelfor information, a logarithmicsensorthatcan processcertainkindsof databetterthanthe eyes can. But also, listening to the microscope is felt to increase embodied interactionwith the instrument,giving more room for experimentalhands The experimenterswho choose to audibilize their or Fingerspitzengefiihl. microscope's output are often those that build their own STMs or AFMs. These same experimenters usually include variousknobs and dials and analog controlson theirmicroscopes,ratherthanjust the digital computercontrols found on most commercialinstruments.Both the analog controls and the audibilizedoutputareseen as offeringa richerplay for the experimenter's body in operatingthe instrument:
Interviewee: We are analog guys.... [T]his feeling of having in your handwhat

knobmuch better than if youtypein "current should youdo,is withananalog

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

to Laboratory Practice 189 Mody/ Listening tracefrom500 picoamperesto 503 picoamperes."... This is differentto having betweenyourfingers,the feeling of makingthis tip go a little bit further or a little back or shakingthe tip a little bit. Youhave a muchmoredirectlink to what you'redoing. You... arepartof this setup,as the humanbeing, as being the operatorof these knobs. ... You have more senses if you do it this way. Mody: Wereyou listening to the outputas well? Interviewee: Yes, of course.... [T]his is a second conscious channel which is complementaryto eyes, is the ear, and the ear is a logarithmicinstrument.... there,which all the time is wooshhh,andyou [W]e always have a loudspeaker get practice.I mean,if you'resittinghoursandhours,Uli [a very earlySTMresearcher]will tell me "Oh,did you hearthat,I thinksome"-not even looking at the screen. "Youshould a little bit move this and then go to where it sounds better." Then we go to whereit soundsbetterandall of a sudden,mysteriously, it's still a mysteryin a sense, these molecules shine up. (Interviewwith an academic surfacescientist, November 14, 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, precisely because 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 that are "beautiful," "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: Youjust takewhatlooks at the time like a bunchof noise andtransform it-you can see the spectrum.It turnsout thatfor the cantileverswe use, that all happens sort of below 20 kHz, so you can actuallylisten to it. It's kind of neat. I mean, as you approach this surface, you get damping effects happening between the tip and the surface,so the spectrumwill shift and you can shoop [rising noise] shoop [falling noise], so as you pull up and down, if you don't have anythingtetheredto it, it actuallysoundskind of like a wave crashingon shorewith the shift of the frequencies,the emphasissortof moves in the spectrum.It's kind of interesting.And then as you pull things you can hear,as the domainpops open you can hearthe domainsnap,it gives a little poppingsound or a crackling sound.... Clint ... uses the headphonesto trackdown these problems of getting aroundquantizationissues in the software. In terms of

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

190 Science, &Human Values Technology, actual doneanyscienceusingtheheadscience,I don'tknowthatanybody's I think it'sjusta diagnostic tool.Maybe a sanity check. Andit's phones. mostly fun to listento, it's actually withDanBocek,probe prettyneat.(Interview March 23, 2001) microscope designer, in the science studies literature Yet as is amply demonstrated on images, and other visual to in aesthetics science areusumaterial, diagrams, appeals bound with the details of The sounds ally up pragmatic knowledge making. of the microscope may be "cool"or "mystical," but it is difficult to sort the aesthetic appeal of these sounds from their ability to help solve particular experimental problems.The same microscopecan be tinkeredwith to appeal to-and providecues for-different senses (visual, auditory,andhapticoutputs areall used), so thatdifferentkinds of sensoryexperiencesatisfy different experimental ends. Listeningis most important for taskswherethe instrument must be monitoredor manipulatedin some way over time. Operators orient to sound's temporal aspects in such cases. When the temporal is downplayed, as for example in the creation of static images that can be Even for printedout, published,and circulated,the visual becomes primary. some dynamic processes, sound fades into the background-for instance, when the microscopeis runningsmoothly and automatically, operatorsusuIndeed,labally orientmoreto changesin the visual field thanthe auditory.13 oratoryworkersarekeenly awareof which senses serve them best for which tasks. When, for example, surfacescientistsput differentkinds of molecules down onto a substrateand watch them diffuse or react with each other,they use videotapes to recordthe reactions,often playing these recordingslater for otherlab workersor duringconferencepresentations. Even here, though, soundprovidescues for understanding-duringthe recordingof these tapes, it is common to hook up a microphoneand describe what is being seen and done, so thatlaterviewers will be ableto see the microscopeimage andheara of its creationand matchchanges in the visual field with the drama narrative of the storytelling: Therewasthis ... video-frame-capture andit wouldtakeinputs technology likethisandthengo through oneof Heinrich Liechti's boxes [apostdoc] magic andthenappear, ona TVmonitor andgetsaved to videotape. Andit youknow, wassortof a livefeedto videotape andin factwe wouldhooktheaudio in and we wouldnarrate as we werecapturing theseimages.We wouldsay,"OK, we'redoingAFMinfluid,we'vegotfibrinogen onmica,andnowwe'regoing to injectthe,you know,blahblahblahto polymerize thefibrinogen andOH MY GODLOOK ATTHAT, IT'S POLYMERIZING!" Andthenwe would haveother andplay peoplein thelabwholaterwouldweartheseheadphones backthetapeandthere wasthisvideotransfer module thatcouldthentransfer

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

to Laboratory Practice 191 Mody/ Listening

oneframe offto a computer, andso they'd sitthere andwait'tilltheyheard the andhitEnter thepicture over. withCraig "Oh andtransfer (Interview myGod" schoolexperiences Prater, designer, describing graduate probemicroscope in original March 19,2001;emphasis interview) Many sciences dealing with phenomenathat occur at audible frequenWhile researchersusually cies transformtheir data into acoustic signals.14 as addingnothingscientific,it is notablethatthey describethese translations are taken to be more publicly convincing than verbal explanations.STM researchers,for instance, sometimes play tapes of their microscopes scannoise throughout theirtalks,andreport ning an arrayof atomsas background that this is an easy way to get audiences excited and interested.One AFM designertold me how soundcan seem to offer moreunmediatedaccess to the workings of the instrument,particularlyin settings such as trade shows wherepotentialcustomersneed to be quicklyoffereda glimpse of the instrument's capabilities: if you're the showstoo,because It'sactually introducing really goodat [trade] it to noiseforexample, it'sonething toexplain to somebody-thermal subject thisis to handthema pairof headphones andsay,"Look, them,it's another of damping andthings like what thermal noiseis."Youcanexplain theconcept
how the spectrumshifts because it's just totally obvious when you just hearit,

with Dan of course,that'swhat'shappening." it's like, "Yeah, (Interview Bocek,March 23, 2001) This raises a few final points about the uses of audibilization.As Emily ThompsonandRobertBrainhave pointedout, in sciences where soundis an objectof study,the strugglefor morethana centuryhas been to turninformative sounds into readableinscriptions(Brain 1998; Thompson 1997, 1999). As KarinKnorr-Cetina (1999) has noted,the senses play a diminishedrole in today's experimental(particularlylaboratory)sciences. A whole host of tools and instruments intercedebetween the experimenter and the specimen transform the feel, sound, taste, smell, and being studied;these instruments look of the sample(as well as otherproperties) into new (usuallyvisual)qualities thatcan thenbe packagedinto Latourian immutablemobiles (diagrams, graphs,charts,etc.). In none of the examplesI havegiven so faris it the sound of an actual surface that is of interest to the surface science. Rather,they attendto the sounds of buildingsor people or instruments. As I have triedto access to informashow, sound is vitally importantin giving experimenters tion aboutthe tools andinstruments thatmediatebetweenthemandthe materialsthey study.As such, soundis often a site for local, tacitknowledge.But I have also tried to show ways in which sound is public and communal,and

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

192 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

thereforethe groundsfor forging sharedknowledge. We should not assume that only visual inscriptionsare public. Sound surroundsall of us, and for it is a matterof everyday,embodiedexperience.By hearingexperimentalists sound to communicate using knowledge, researchersappeal to audience members'personal,tacit,embodiedexperience,which is seen as makingformal knowledge more easily understood. Listening to an AFM image is thoughtof as puttingthe listenerin the surfacebeing scanned, in much the same way thatthree-dimensional renderingsoftwareis used to give imagesin which the viewer's perspectiveis thatof someone walking on a nanometerscale surface.15 into soundandthe appealto auditoryexpeThe translation of information to listeningto instruments. rienceis not restricted Auditoryexperienceis personal yet common, so that framing explanationsin terms of acoustic phenomena can be a powerful bridge for transferring knowledge. In areas of physics and engineeringthatdeal with periodicor wave phenomena,explanationsarecommonly framedin termsof soundsthatthe audiencemay have AFM), for example, are freexperienced.Probe microscopes (particularly andtheirimages likenedto the sounds quentlycomparedto the phonograph, of vinyl records (Anonymous 1992). In public presentations,researchers often draw on sound as an explanatoryresource. For instance, at a recent probemicroscopyconference,I saw a speakertryingto explainthe difference between imaging with a hard and a soft cantileverin AFM-to do so, he showed the audiencea gong and askedthem to imagine thatit was a surface being imaged.He struckthe gong with the soft end of a mallet,andthenagain with the wooden handleof the mallet,and askedthe audienceto listen to the difference in the sounds producedand imagine the differentringings of the gong as similarto the differentinteractionsbetween a surfaceand a hardor soft probe. In general,the talkof probemicroscopistsis saturated with uses of sound as a metaphoricalresourcein relatingtechnical information-they refer to cantilevers ringing, they measure deflections with tuning forks, and they amplify signals to reduce noise. The role of gesture and other visually orientedinteraction is well-knownin discus(suchas impromptu diagramming) sions of scientific communication(Goodwin 1994, 1996; Ochs, Gonzales, andJacoby 1996;Ochs, Jacoby,andGonzales 1994). But littlehas been written concerningauditoryequivalents,even thoughmuch of the talk of scientists is riddled with appeals to sound as a metaphor,and imitations of the sounds of instrumentsand equipment.

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

Practice 193 Mody / Listeningto Laboratory

Conclusion life and impinges on experimental Sound, then, is pervasivein laboratory in and often experience surprising epistemologicallysignificantways. What of what this should point to, I hope, is the need for a fuller understanding seen one We have how this embodied knowledge might entail. aspect of in embodiment-sound andhearing-is implicated the metaphorsscientists use; the spaces they design, build, and work in; and the ways they pass the time, communicatewith each otherand theirpublics, markout social roles, diagnose technical problems,performexperimentalrituals,and use instruments and experimentsto createknowledge. I conclude with some recommendations for furtherwork. On one hand,I would highlight the intrinsicimportanceof 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 many findings to extend to otherexperimentalsettings.I would also expect, however,thatother sciences would use sound in quite differentways, and I hope thatfuturestudieswill investigatethe diversemeaningsof the auditory. At the same time, sound has featuresthatmake it a powerfulanalysts'category. For instance, sound fills and demarcatesspace, so that studies of the social constructionof experimentalplaces would do well to listen to the experimentalsoundscape;as we have seen, the auditoryapproachaids in the distinctionbetween the inside and outside of the lab, and deconstructing in demonstratingthe malleability of scientific space. Also, sound extends over time, and constructionsof time have long been of interestto lab studies (Traweek 1988). Listening to laboratorypractice gives a good entree to the microscale constructionsof time in science. In conjuncunderstanding tion, sound has an immediacy (Jakobson1990) that allows it to powerfully convey meaning and context; while many lab studies open with an ethnothese arealmostalways visual descripgraphicdescriptionof the laboratory, tions thatneglect much of the sensible setting of ethnography.'6 By keeping our ears open and writing the sounds of science into our texts, laboratory can convey even moreof the richnessof experimental life and ethnographers to readers closer the worlds described. bring being My second recommendationis to take sound as one of many sites for exploring concerns in science studies, particularlyissues of situated and embodied knowledge. One motivationfor talking about embodied or tacit knowledge is that it varies (from person to person, lab to lab, discipline to

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

194 Science, Technology,& HumanValues

discipline) but in hidden and often problematicways (where variabilitycan contradictinvariant and universalscientific truthclaims). At the same time, the presumed commonality of much embodied experience is used as a resource (for instance, in conveying abstractideas by appeal to gesturalor auditory metaphors).Examining hearing and the other senses can focus attentionon these issues. How, for example,does embodiedknowledgevary with the body in question?One lacuna of this piece is that I have not confrontedthe experience of deaf and hard-of-hearing scientists. What are the of deaf and epistemological particularities hard-of-hearing experimenters? Whatis theirexperienceof laboratory life? We know thatmanywell-known scientistsandtechnologistshave been or became deaf, butwe have as yet little understanding of what that meant for their practicesand the knowledge they produced.And whatof the othersenses? How, for example,do different disciplinesdrawon differentkinds of sensation?Geology, for one, is famous for its use of taste, and medicine and chemistryoften deal with smell. After all, chemical work can resemble a quotidianactivity-cooking-in which smell andtasteareimportant, andmanyspecimenpreparation techniquesare referredto as recipes. Science studies has yet to trackthese variationsand give them a thick description,however.When it does, we shall understand better how scientific knowledge is forged by all the senses, and how all experimentalsense data-taste, touch,hearing,and smell, as well as sightare ineluctablyculturalproducts. NOTES
1. See Rorty(1979, Introduction and259-305) for a descriptionof JamesandDewey's position. See also the contributions to Levin (1993), manyof which arguethatWesterncultureprivileges the visual and thatthe gaze providesthe channelfor power anddesire in ways thatconstitute modernsubjectivity. 2. Cage's most notoriouspiece (a "silent"workin which the pianistperformsa recitalwithout playingany notes) was an attemptto breakthe frameof artandincite audiencesto notice the visual, auditory,and embodiedcontext surrounding performances. 3. Relatively little has been writtenaboutsurfacescience or materialsscience in STS. See Groenewegenand Peters (2002), Hessenbruch(2004), Hoddeson(1992), and Leslie (1993). 4. Where requestedby interviewees,places and personaland corporatenames are pseudonyms or have been elided. 5. AnthonyJackson(1968), referencingMaryDouglas's (1966) work on pollution,puts it well: "Noise or unpatterned soundsreflectuncontrolled situationsor transitional statesor threats to the patternedsocial order"(p. 295). 6. Scanningprobemicroscopes(SPMs) workby bringinga small solid probevery close (to within the diameterof an atom) to a surface and measuringa varietyof interactionsbetween of the interactions at probeandsurface.Theprobeis scannedoverthe surface,andmeasurements

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

Practice 195 Mody / Listening to Laboratory each pointareconvertedinto pixels in an image, giving a pictureof (somethinglike) the topography of the surface.SoundandvibrationdisruptSPMs by displacingthe proberelativeto the surface in an uncontrolled manner,therebyblurringor streakingthe image. The scanningtunneling microscope(STM), inventedaround1982, andthe atomicforce microscope(AFM), inventedin 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 personal communicationfrom TS, August 6, Health and Safety officer at Cornell. 2001, an Environmental 8. A good example of scientific bricolage. See Knorr-Cetina (1981, 34). 9. Quote is fromTS (August6, 2001, personalcommunication). I owe muchof this section to TS. 10. Again, thanksto TS. Also, thanksto Bob Creasefor pointingout this phenomenon. 11. I rely on the Collins versionof tacitknowledgehere.ForCollins's latest statementon the subject, see Collins (2001). 12. For a good instance of technoscientistslistening to a technology,see Orr(1996, 98). 13. Thanksto Arne Hessenbruchfor conversations on this topic. 14. See, for instance,Sagan(1985, 43-44), where the heroinelistens to the outputof a radio telescope: "She heard,as always, a kind of static, a continuousechoing randomnoise. Once, when listeningto a partof the sky thatincludedthe starAC + 79 3888 in Cassiopeia,she felt she hearda kind of singing, fadingtantalizinglyin andout, lying just beyondher abilityto convince herself that there was somethingreally there."See 27 and 52-63 of Dennis (forthcoming)for otherexamples. 15. The rhetoricaboutrenderingsoftwareis similaras well-it is describedas aesthetically pleasing and publicly convincing,but scientists are wary aboutaccordingit epistemic status. 16. My thanksto Heidi Voskuhland Kevin Connelly for discussions on this topic.

REFERENCES
Amann, K. 1994. Menschen, Mause und Fliegen [Men, Mice and Flies]. Zeitschriftfur Soziologie 23:22-40. Anonymous. 1992. Revenge of the gramophone.TheEconomist324:96. Bijsterveld,K. 2001. The diabolicalsymphonyof the mechanicalage: Technologyand symbolism of soundin European andNorthAmericannoise abatement campaigns,1900-40. Social Studies of Science 31:37-70. of scientific semantics,andthe interpretation Boyd, R. 1991a. Introductory essay (confirmation, theories).In Thephilosophyof science, editedby R. Boyd, P. Gasper,andJ. D. Trout,3-36. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. . 1991b. Onthe current statusof scientificrealism.In Thephilosophyofscience, editedby R. Boyd, P. Gasper,and J. D. Trout,195-222. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. andsemiotics. In Inscribingscience: Scientifictextsand the materialBrain,R. 1998. Standards editedby T.Lenoir,249-84. Stanford, CA: Stanford ityof communication, UniversityPress. andthe controverCambrosio,A., D. Jacobi,andP.Keating.1993. Ehrlich's"BeautifulPictures" sial beginningsof immunologicalimagery.Isis 84:662-99. Collins, H. M. 1992. Changingorder:Replicationand inductionin scientificpractice. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

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

196 Science, Technology,& HumanValues .2001. Tacitknowledge,trust,andthe Q of sapphire. Social Studiesof Science 31:71-86. Dennis,M. Forthcoming. Changeof state: Politicalculture,technicalpractice,and theorigins of Cold WarAmerica.Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversityPress. Douglas, M. 1966. Purityand danger:An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge. E. 1997. The forgottentool: The design and use of molecularmodels. Social Studies Francoeur, of Science 27:7-40. Galison, P. 1997. Image and logic: A material cultureof microphysics.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. 96:606-33. Goodwin, C. 1994. Professionalvision. AmericanAnthropologist 1995. Seeing in depth.Social Studies of Science 25:237-74. vision. In Interactionand grammar,edited by E. Ochs, 370-404. 1996. Transparent UK: CambridgeUniversityPress. Cambridge, Groenewegen,P.,andL. Peters.2002. The emergenceandchangeof materialsscience andengiand Human Values27:112-33. neering in the United States. Science, Technology, and intervening: Introductory topics in thephilosophyof natural Hacking,I. 1983.Representing science. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress. visualculture,and computer Henderson,K. 1999. On line and onpaper: Visualrepresentations, graphics in design engineering.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. A. 2001. Historyof recentscience and technology:Materialsresearch:Scanning Hessenbruch, MA: DibnerInstitutefor the Historyof tunnelingmicroscope(STM).Vol. 2002. Cambridge, Science and Technology.http://hrst.mit.edu/hrs/materials/public/STM_intro.htm . 2004. History of recentscience and technology:Materials research.Vol. 2002. Cambridge,MA: DibnerInstitutefor the Historyof Science andTechnology.http://hrst.mit.edu/ hrs/materials/public/ of bodies in surgery. S. 1991.The manufacture Social StudiesofScience 21:279-319. Hirschauer, Hoddeson, L. 1992. Out of the crystal maze: Chapters from the history of solid-statephysics. Oxford,UK: OxfordUniversityPress. Hutchins,E., andL. Palen. 1997. Constructing meaningfromspace,gesture,andspeech.In Discourse, tools, and reasoning:Essays on situatedcognition, edited by 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. Brainand language.In On language, editedby L. WaughandM. MonvilleBurston,498-514. Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress. Jordan,K., and M. Lynch. 1992. The sociology of a genetic engineeringtechnique:Ritual and of a "plasmidprep."In Theright toolsfor thejob: At workin rationalityin the performance the twentieth-century 77-114. Princelife sciences, editedby A. E. ClarkeandJ. H. Fujimura, ton, NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. Kaiser,D. 2000. Stick-figurerealism:Conventions,reification,andthe persistenceof Feynman 70:49-86. diagrams,1948-1964. Representations K. 1981. Themanufacture Knorr-Cetina, of knowledge:An essay on the constructivistand contextualnatureof science. Oxford,UK: PergamonPress. . 1996. The care of the self andblind variation: The disunityof two leading sciences. In The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power, edited by P. Galison and D. J. Stump,287-310. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress. . 1999.Epistemiccultures:How thesciences makeknowledge.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

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

Practice 197 Mody / Listening to Laboratory Versailles"-Eero Saarinen'scorporate camKnowles, S. G., andS .W.Leslie. 2001. "Industrial puses for GM, IBM, and AT&T.Isis 92:1-33. and I will raise the world.In Science observed,edited by Latour,B. 1983. Give me a laboratory K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, 141-70. London:Sage. 1988a. Drawingthings together.In Representationin scientificpractice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar,19-68. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. .1988b. Openingone eye while closing the other... a note on some religiouspaintings.In Picturingpower: Visualdepictionsandsocial relations,editedby G. Fyfe andJ. Law, 15-38. London:Routledge KeganPaul. 1988c. Thepasteurizationof France.Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress. 1998. How to Be iconophilicin art,science, andreligion?In Picturingscience,producing art, edited by C. Jones and P Galison, 418-40. London:Routledge. .1999. Circulating reference:Samplingthe soil in the Amazonforest.In Pandora'shope: MA: Harvard Essays on the realityof science studies,24-79. Cambridge, UniversityPress. Latour,B., andS. Woolgar.1986. Laboratory life: Theconstructionof scientificfacts.Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. Lawrence,C. 1998. Medical minds, surgicalbodies: Corporealityand the doctors. In Science incarnate: Historical embodimentsof natural knowledge, edited by C. Lawrence and S. Shapin, 156-201. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. of communication. In Inscribingscience: Lenoir,T. 1998. Inscription practicesandmaterialities edited by T. Lenoir, 1-19. Stanford, Scientific texts and the materialityof communication, CA: StanfordUniversityPress. comLeslie, S. W. 1993. Thecold war andAmericanscience: Themilitary-industrial-academic plex at MITand Stanford.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress. Levin, D. M., ed. 1993. Modernityand the hegemonyof vision. Berkeley:Universityof California Press. Lynch,M. 1985a.Artand artifactin laboratoryscience: A studyof shop workand shop talk in a researchlaboratory.London:Routledge KeganPaul. . 1985b.Discipline and the materialform of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studiesof Science 15:37-66. .1988a. The externalized retina:Selectionandmathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. In Representationin scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar,153-86. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. 1988b.Sacrificeandthe transformation of the animalbody into a scientificobject:Labcultureandritualpracticein the neurosciences.Social StudiesofScience 18:265-89. oratory .1991. Laboratoryspace and the technological complex: An investigationof topical contextures.Science in Context4:51-78. Lynch, M., and S. Y. EdgertonJr. 1988. Aesthetics and digital image processing:Representational craft in contemporary astronomy.In Picturingpower: Visualdepictions and social relations, edited by G. Fyfe and J. Law. 184-220. London:Routledge KeganPaul. Merz,M. 1998. "Nobodycan force you when you areacrossthe ocean"-Face to face ande-mail themesin exchangesbetweentheoreticalphysicists.InMakingspacefor science: Territorial the shaping of knowledge,edited by C. Smith and J. Agar,313-29. London:Macmillan. andcontamination in materiMody,C. 2001. A little dirtneverhurtanyone:Knowledge-making als science. Social Studiesof Science 31:7-36. Ochs, E., P.Gonzales,andS. Jacoby.1996. "WhenI come down I'm in the domainstate":Grammar and graphicrepresentation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In Interactionand grammar,edited by E. Ochs, 328-369. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversityPress.

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

198 Science, Technology,& HumanValues Ochs, E., S. Jacoby,andP. Gonzales. 1994. Interpretive journeys:How physiciststalk andtravel 2:151-71. throughgraphicspace. Configurations Orr,J. E. 1996. Talkingabout machines.Ithaca,NY: Cornell UniversityPress. Pinch,T., H. M. Collins, andL. Carbone.1997. Cuttingup skills: Estimatingdifficultyas an elementof surgicalandotherabilities.In Betweencraftand science: Technicalworkin U.S.settings, edited by S. R. Barley and J. E. Orr,101-12. Ithaca,NY: Cornell UniversityPress. Pinch,T., and F. Trocco.2002. Analog days: Theinventionand impactof the Moog synthesizer. Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress. Polanyi, M. 1967. Thetacit dimension.GardenCity, NY: DoubledayAnchor. Rasmussen,N. 1997. Picture control: The electronmicroscopeand the transformation of biology in America, 1940-1960. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress. H.-J. 1997. Toward a historyof epistemicthings: Synthesizing proteins in the test Rheinberger, tube. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress. NJ:Princeton UniversityPress. Rorty,R. 1979.Philosophyandthe mirrorof nature.Princeton, Rudwick,M. 1976. The emergenceof a visual languagefor geological science, 1760-1840.History of Science 14:149-95. .1992. Scenesfrom deep time: Earlypictorial representations of the prehistoricworld. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Sagan, C. 1985. Contact.New York:Simon and Schuster. andthe Victoriancountryhouse. InMakingspacefor sciSchaffer,S. 1998. Physics laboratories ence: Territorial themesin theshapingofknowledge,editedby C. SmithandJ. Agar,149-80. London:Macmillan. Shapin,S. 1988. The house of experimentin seventeenth-century England.Isis 79:373-404. Shapin,S., and S. Schaffer.1985. Leviathanand the air-pump:Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress. of precisionand gesSibum,H. 0. 1995. Reworkingthe mechanicalvalue of heat:Instruments turesof accuracyin early VictorianEngland.Studies in the History and Philosophyof Science 26:73-106. music and the architectonicsof Sterne,J. 1997. Sounds like the Mall of America:Programmed commercialspace. Ethnomusicology 41:22-50. of Thompson,E. 1997. Dead roomsandlive wires:Harvard, Hollywood, andthe deconstruction architectural acoustics, 1900-1930. Isis 88:597-626. 1999. Listeningto/formodernity: Architectural acousticsandthe developmentof modernspaces in America.In Thearchitecture ofscience, editedby P.GalisonandE. Thompson, 253-80. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Charisma andcomplexorgaThorpe,C., andS. Shapin.2000. Who was J. RobertOppenheimer? nization.Social Studiesof Science 30:545-90. Traweek,S. 1988. Beamtimesand lifetimes: The world of high energyphysicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress. An ethnographic Voskuhl,A. 2004. Humans,machines,andconversations: studyof the making of automaticspeech recognitiontechnologies.Social Studies of Science, 34.

CyrusC. M. Mody is the GordonCain Fellow in Technology, Policy, and EntrepreneurHe is currentlywritinga bookon the developship at the ChemicalHeritageFoundation. ment and commercialization of scanningprobe microscopyand researchingtheformation of the nanotechnologycommunity.

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