2015 - Gross - GIve Me An Experiment and I Will Raise A Laboratory

Original Article
Science, Technology, & Human Values

1-22
The Author(s) 2015
Give Me an Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Experiment DOI: 10.1177/0162243915617005
sthv.sagepub.com
and I Will Raise

a Laboratory
Matthias Gross1,2
Abstract
Bruno Latour once argued that science laboratories actively modify the
wider society by displacing crucial actors outside the laboratory into the
field. This article turns this idea on its head by using the case of geo-
thermal energy utilization to demonstrate that in many cases it is the
experimental setup outside the laboratory that is there first, with the
activities normally associated with a laboratory setting only being decided
upon and implemented post hoc. As soon as the actors involved perceive
unknowns and uncertainties, these are relocated to various kinds of closed
laboratories to be dealt with in a more controlled environment. This is
done, for instance, by inviting stakeholders to laboratory-like settings or by
analyzing the geochemical composition of fluids in laboratories. Thus, the
risk-laden production of new knowledge by means of real-world experi-
mentation amounts to a practice of relocating the context of discovery in
society to laboratories of justification sometimes defined as such post hoc.
Experimental processes in society can then be conceptualized as real
1
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany
2
Institute of Sociology, University of Jena, Jena, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Matthias Gross, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ, Permoserstr. 15,
04318 Leipzig, Germany.
Email: matthias.gross@ufz.de
Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at CHINESE UNIV HONG KONG LIB on November 22, 2015
2 Science, Technology, & Human Values
experiments and laboratory activities as merely temporarily subordinated

components of the larger experiment.
Keywords
energy transition, geothermal engineering, laboratory, participation,
ignorance, nonknowledge, real-world experiments, risk
Introduction
In his now classic article Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the
World, Bruno Latour (1983) argued that science laboratories are key loca-
tions in which the activities of the scientists who work there trigger changes
in the wider society.1 His observations are based on a study of Louis
Pasteurs work with anthrax in late nineteenth-century France. Latours
argument is that Pasteurs laboratory served as a lever to change the French
society of the time, or, as one critical commentator phrased it, Pasteurs
laboratory became an obligatory point of passage (Scott 1991, 9). Instead
of propagating the transformation of France into a vast laboratory (as Latour
did in 1983) or extending this notion to the whole world (as he did more
recently, Latour 2011), the current article will assume that increasingly the
laboratory is drawn to, established, or in some cases defined in retrospect as
a special (micro) case of the corresponding large-scale social experiment
happening in society. To illustrate this view, the article takes as a case study
recent developments in energy transition and, in particular, the development
and establishment of geothermal heat and electricity. In the course of this,
Latours metaphor will be turned on its head. In Latours view, the success
of scientists can be attributed to their ability to transfer their findings out of
the laboratory and apply them to the outside world.2 I will argue that
increasingly experimental processes are planned and set up outside the
laboratory and that the definition of what constitutes (or even raises) a
laboratory is determined retrospectivelyif at all.
This trend can also be illustrated by recent steps in geoengineering such
as the generation of ocean iron fertilization experiments or other attempts in
climate engineering trials in underground transportation systems and isola-
tion of nuclear and hazardous wastes (Tollefson 2012; Macnaghten and
Owen 2011; Stilgoe 2015). Real-world experiments thus have been estab-
lished as important sites of scientific knowledge production since there is
an increasing interest in establishing experimental processes in society,
Gross 3
especially as debates on urban labs or living laboratories show where the

risks of urban restructuring are managed by publicly demonstrating proof
of concept before scaling up (Bulkeley et al. 2013; Karvonen and van Heur
2014; Konig 2013).3 Increasingly it seems as if scientists and engineers feel
a need to translate their findings from the real world back to correspond-
ing laboratory settings. Such laboratories are raised, for instance, by
inviting stakeholders to laboratory-like settings in order to demonstrate par-
ticipation (Bogner 2012) or by testing the geochemical composition of
fluids in controlled spaces (Huenges 2012)after the real-world experi-
ment has started. In this way, the context of justification is relocated to the
laboratory.
Twentieth-century philosophers often described the laboratory as the
context of discovery, whereas the context of justification was understood
as the implementation of scientific findings, that is, a location somewhere
else, most often the wider society. Put most simply, at the beginning some-
thing is discovered in the laboratory that subsequently needs to be justified
outside of it. This, of course, is a simplification undertaken only in order to
illustrate my argument.4 However, although the distinction between context
of discovery and context of justification has lost importance in recent
decades, as Schickore and Steinle (2006) show, implicitly it still informs
debates on how laboratory science in relation to the world outside should
be conceived. It may be compared with the popularity of criticizing the lin-
ear model of innovation, which in official rhetoric might not exist anymore
but that at the level of belief is still alive.
In addition, the view that there is the laboratory that needs to be justified
outside correlates well with contemporary observations that many of the
risks entailed by research processes are increasingly being displaced onto
society, causing the societys citizens to become part of large-scale experi-
ments (Gromme 2015; Levidow and Carr 2007; van de Poel 2009). If we go
one step further in this line of logic and switch Latours metaphor around by
saying that the experiment is conducted in the wider society, then we have a
shift that decenters the laboratory as the privileged location of science. Such
a view suggests that the laboratory experiment can be understood as a sub-
ordinated extension of the real-world experiment taking place in society.
Rather than excluding outside influences and ensuring control of boundary
conditions, a real-world experiment is only useful when it is open to new
surprises: these are to be understood as a key part of the experiment taking
place in the real world (Gross 2009). The question as to what is part of the
experiment and thus what is inside or outside the space where the experiment
takes place is something to be defined in the course of the experimental
process. In this understanding, the experimental processes taking place in

and with society should be considered the normal, or the real-world, experi-
ment. Thus, experiments in the real world are, in a sense, the real and true
experiments, and the laboratory experiment is a temporarily postpositioned
variant of it. This is also in line with an interpretation of Francis Bacon by
Wolfgang Krohn (2009). Bacon, generally regarded as a philosopher who
reflected upon the relation between the experimental method and society,
was also influential in the formation of the Cartesian worldview. This view
distinguished the experimenters realm from the world of objects experi-
mented upon and accorded human beings a privileged status as masters
of the world to which they essentially do not belong. However, perhaps
Bacons most important proposal in relation to our case here was that
approval of the experimental method would turn society (the experimental
society) itself into an experiment (Gross and Krohn 2004). This view cor-
relates well with twenty-first-century debates on the laboratorization of
neighborhoods (Allen 2011), experiments in living (Marres 2009), govern-
ance experiments (Hoffmann 2011; Doorn 2015), the geography of wild
experiments (Lorimer and Driessen 2014), experimental performances
in agriculture (Ramisch 2011), open-air experiments (Rojas 2015), and,
as I will call it here, as real-world experiments (Gross and Hoffmann-
Riem 2005).5 If it is true that society has become a place for experimental
practices (Gross, Hoffmann-Riem, and Krohn 2003; Schwab 2013; Schwarz
2014), then we may want to look for examples of how to deal successfully
with the issues that arise in experimental settings.
To do this, I will reconstruct recent research processes connected with
geothermal energy to illustrate that experimental practices occur in many
places and that much of the laboratory research conducted takes place only
once the experiment is underway and it has become apparent what kind of
research is required. The case appears to be important because, given
geothermal energys relative novelty as a source of electricity generation
in many countries, it is a field characterized by unavoidable unknowns
and uncertainties. The question then arises how to move forward. In a first
step, I will suggest that the experiments conducted outside the laboratory
can essentially be understood as a way of making strategic use of well-
defined ignorance. I will build on the idea of locating the unexpected ele-
ments of experiments at the core of geothermal technologies. In contrast
to approaches that externalize ignorance by analyzing risk assessments,
I will suggest, in a second step, how the unexpected aspects of knowledge
production can be analyzed using the notion of experimentality. In a third
step, I will discuss issues connected to perceived ignorance that are
Gross 5
transferredrelocatedto closed laboratories. Finally, I will argue that the

risk-laden production of new knowledge via real-world experimentation
correlates with a practice of transforming the context of discovery in society
into post hoc defined laboratories of justification.
The cases I focus on in the following are based on two interdisciplinary
projects on geological substrata.6 The summaries I present are based on
field notes and interviews conducted during excursions to drilling sites,
geothermal energy workshops and focus group discussions, and meetings
with decision makers and stakeholders.7
Risk, Nonknowledge, and Experiment

The main purpose of concepts of risk developed from the second half of the
twentieth century onward has increasingly been to make the future predict-
able by means of probability calculations, thereby rendering it amenable to
human intervention and planning. Understood thus, risk can be seen as a
way of rationalizing an uncertain future. Although many different concep-
tions of risk are available, risk is most widely understood as the probability
of a harmful event multiplied by the amount of harm the event is expected to
inflict (Fischhoff et al. 1981; Sjoberg 2004). Classical risk assessments
assume that the probabilities of the events in question occurring in a certain
area under consideration are known, whereas the uncertainty is incalcul-
able. This distinction was popularized by Frank Knight (1921).8 In these
terms, dealing with ignorance differs from taking or limiting risks, since the
risk of a certain event occurring presupposes knowledge of both the charac-
ter of events that may occur and the probability that they will do so. As
Hansson (2009) has illustrated, decision making under situations of
unknown probabilities can be exemplified by a decision whether to enter
a jungle that may contain unknown dangers.
Although many other notions of risk exist (for recent overviews, see
Aven 2014 and Burgess, Alemanno, and Zinn 2016), I hypothesize that
when either scientists or laypeople talk about risks, in many cases it would
be empirically and theoretically more useful and meaningful to frame deci-
sions, utterances, and practices in terms of different shadings of ignorance.
In other words, it can be argued that it is more often things that are not
known that are most important for decision makers and thus more important
for empirical analysis.9 This position departs from the view that sees ignor-
ance as necessarily detrimental and points instead to the broader challenges
and (in some cases) the merits of not knowing as well as to the ways in
which ignorance might even serve as a productive resource. This idea can
be linked nicely with the notion of experiments taking place in the world
outside the traditional sphere of science. Taking this line of thought further,
in order to be able to act in an experimental setting, the actors involved need
to agree on what is not known and to take this into account for future plan-
ning. They need to decide to act in spite of (sometimes) well-defined ignor-
ance or what has been called nonknowledge (Gross 2010) to indicate the
symmetry between the known and the unknown.10 The aim here is therefore
to specify ignorance so that it can be used in a meaningful and constructive
way. Whereas having faith in total control and complete knowledge of eco-
logical systems and social processes implies an ability to act only when
everything is known in advance, an experimental approach makes it pos-
sible to accommodate different factors despite the presence of gradations of
the unknown. This calls for a notion of the experimental society that is
based on a conceptualization of social processes as experimental endeavors
undertaken to cope with the structural complexity and surprising dynamics
of modern social lifein other words, a modern society conducting experi-
ments on itself. Whereas experimentation used to be a term that did not have
a clearly positive connotation when referred to learning in policy making,
recent observers seem to detect a change toward a more experimental type
of political regulation and decision making, sometimes referred to as
European experiments (Nordmann 2009) or as a new mode of experimen-
talist governance (Sabel and Zeitlin 2010). However, a truly experimental
approach needs to be understood as one that knowingly moves into the
unknown by trying first to specify what is unknown (e.g., hypothesis build-
ing) as clearly as possible and then using unavoidable failures or mishaps as
a basis for learning. Viewed in this way and put provocatively, especially
those experiments that fail can be called successful experiments. To put
it in more general terms, sudden unexpected changes that make the experi-
menters aware of their own ignorance (a falsified hypothesis) provide the
impetus for new knowledge. The difference is that such abruptness in a
laboratory experiment is welcomed, whereas in the everyday world of mod-
ern society it normally is not.
In the next section, I will outline how actors cope with unavoidable non-
knowledge and surprising events while moving downward through the geo-
logical layers of the Earth.
Geothermal Heat and Unavoidable Uncertainty

Although the use of geothermal energy represents but one small part of
many countries energy transitions from fossil fuel and/or nuclear based
Gross 7
to renewable forms of energy production, its experimental context could

be seen as a model for other areas of the much larger experiment of shift-
ing toward sustainability. Some of the uncertainties involved in tapping
geothermal energy are especially prevalent when it comes to probing
downward into geothermal reservoirs several kilometers below the Earths
crust using new drilling technologies. After all, for most deep wells there
are no preexisting data on which to base reliable modeling. In this spirit, a
popular science book on renewable energies states quite bluntly that in
locating suitable sites for geothermal energy sources theres no way of
measuring with any accuracy the true potential. So investments inevitably
take some guesswork, and this increases the financial risk (DeGunther
2009, 214). In this sense, moving forward and downward in geothermal
engineering can only be done under conditions of nonknowledge where
experience, intuition, and perhaps even good guesswork skills may be cru-
cial. Furthermore, geothermal energy is different from any other energy
source because at the beginning of a geothermal power project the invest-
ment costs are the main source of unknowns. The exploration phase
and the test drillings are based on processes of probing gingerly toward
successor indeed failure. After an initial stage of investigation (often
involving geological studies conducted by the company involved but more
usually involving data available only from the literature), the relevant
developer [ . . . ] will have to decide whether to continue developing the
project or not and whether to assume the risks of the next phase (Bloom-
quist, Lund, and Gehringer 2013, 253, emphasis added). Bloomquist,
Lund, and Gehringer (2013, 266) go on to note, Computer models that
accurately take into account this source of uncertainty to quantify the tra-
deoffs with competing resources have yet to be developed. Conse-
quently, the assessment of local geothermal potential (both for deep and
shallow sources) is for the most part based on values taken from the liter-
ature and not in situ from the sites (Vienken et al. 2014). Giardini (2009,
849) succinctly sums up the current situation of geothermal energy utili-
zation in the following terms: From their outset, EGS [enhanced geother-
mal system] projects need to be thought of both as pilot projects with
scientific unknowns and as commercial ventures with technological and
financial risks. Despite many uncertainties and unknownswhich
include the contamination of groundwater due to drilling, the question
of long-term liabilities, and other technical hurdlesthe prospects of
achieving new knowledge by conducting research on new remote control
technologies and simulation tools designed for use in the geological sub-
strata are increasing (Huenges et al. 2013; Kolditz et al. 2013).
Establishing Laboratory Sites during the Experiment

Let us now consider two examples of raising a laboratory after the
experiment has already started. The first example is drawn from the context
of geothermal drilling practices and the associated testing of component
behaviors in geochemical fluids carried out in laboratories separated from
the actual real-world experiment in society. The second example is drawn
from focus group meetings involving stakeholders associated with geother-
mal projectsan example of relocating human subjects to a laboratory-like
setting.
In many drilling operations for geothermal wells, the drilling assembly
(as in gas and oil drilling) is crammed full with electronic devices for con-
trolling the direction of the drilling. The high-tech electronics and opera-
tional tools, however, only work well up to about 150 Celsius.
Furthermore, the drilling technologies that have been adapted from gas and
oil drilling need to convey much greater volumes of liquid than in conven-
tional oil drilling so that the diameter of the boreholes is much larger. Thus,
the drilling equipment is subject to a high rate of failure at high tempera-
tures (Finger and Blankenship 2010; Glassley 2010, 135-52). However,
economically efficient geothermal power plants in countries not as favor-
able as Hawaii or Iceland in terms of geothermal sources only become a
sensible option at temperatures above 150 (Reich 2009, 134-35). In the
Handbook of Best Practices for Geothermal Drilling, this problem reads
like this, The difficulties inherent in directional drilling are aggravated
in geothermal wells because both the electronic tools used to control and
survey the well trajectory and elastomer elements in the motors are suscep-
tible to malfunction at high temperatures (Finger and Blankenship 2010,
46). In cases such as these, drilling is often continued with corrections made
ad hoc during operations. These include decisions with regard to determin-
ing the exact position of the measuring instrument in the drilling assembly
(close to the bit at the bottom of the string or further away), when exactly
the measurements should be done (given that each measurement is not only
a cost factor but also an important issue that affects the general usability of
the data), and finally safeguarding the electricity supply to the measuring
devices. Scientists and engineers often point to the experience-based pro-
cesses involved in such decisions, where adjustments in one area of the
drilling operation prompt change in another. Tapping geothermal energy can
thus be seen as taking place in a realm that is beyond existing knowledge
(e.g., peer-reviewed publications) of the scientists and engineers involved;
then, however, they turn into successful projects without anyone knowing
Gross 9
exactly why. Such knowledge can only be produced after a successfully

failed experiment. Much of this knowledge is indeed produced later on in
closed laboratory settings and by means of computer simulations (Gramels-
berger 2010; Lenhard, Kuppers, and Shinn 2006). However, scientists them-
selves often talk about their real-world laboratories or their in situ
geothermal labs (Henninges et al. 2012; Huenges 2012). In some cases, it
may be that it is an iterative process between in situ and lab investigations,
but in geothermal drilling operations described here, the laboratory itself has
been set up post hoc.
The exploration phase of a geothermal project (when the geology and the
geophysical condition of the subsurface are investigated) and the access
phase involving drilling and logging both take place beneath the surface
of society per se. Geothermal projects are associated with nuisance levels
of noise as well as with risks relating to seismic activity triggered by the
disturbance of rocks through reservoir engineering. These can affect build-
ings and infrastructure above the ground (Grimm et al. 2014; Mukuhira
et al. 2013) and thus public protests have led to cancelations of projects and
a general decline in social acceptance and media presentation of the tech-
nology in recent years (Pellizzone et al. 2015; Romanach, Carr-Cornish,
and Muriuki 2015; Stauffacher et al. 2015).
During a drilling project involving geothermal water loops, hydraulic
experiments are performed in the well to assess the long-term functionality
of the engineered reservoir. Any measurements are carried out in situ in
order to observe the performance of the modified zones. However, only a
few meters away from the real-world experiment an on-site laboratory is set
up, a classical science laboratory designed for detailed geochemical inves-
tigations in the case of unusual finds or obstacles faced underground. Thus,
the real-world experiment does not seem to be able to exist without the
laboratory experiment. Indeed, all the novel experimental processes taking
place in the world of engineering are then downscaled back into the closed
world of the laboratory. The activities done there include the classification
of fluids in terms of their geological aspects, determination of the chemical
composition of the geothermal fluid during operation, and analyses of the
accompanying gases (Cherubini et al. 2013; Huenges 2012). Other in situ
laboratories are used to test hydraulic stimulation techniques in different
sedimentary and volcanic rocks. In other words, in order to be able to make
any statements about geothermal engineering to a concerned public, the sys-
tematic investigation required to do so can only be done post hoc in the
laboratory. In the case of geothermal drilling, then, the debate about possi-
ble risks and knowledge gaps is shifted from the real world to the context of
the laboratory. This often means, for instance, that a group of engineers is
asked to lay bare to a concerned public what is known and what is not
known about how a real-world experiment close to residential buildings
might be influencing the soil and groundwater tables and the like. This is
a difficult but crucial issue.11
This brings us to the second example where stakeholders (concerned cit-
izens, engineers, and decision makers) are moved into a laboratory deli-
neated as distinct from the real-world experiment. Alexander Bogner had
referred to these types of participatory experiments as a form of participa-
tion organized by professional participation specialists, taking place under
controlled conditions and largely without reference to public controversies,
political participation demands, or individual concerns (Bogner 2012,
519). Whereas Bogner focused on citizen conferences on stem cell research,
I will point to a study on citizen involvement in a small town in Saxony
close to the borders of the German state of Thuringia and the Czech Repub-
lic in the Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge). Here, a real-world experiment in
geothermal drilling and the plan to build an adjacent power plant led to the
laboratory-like isolation of concerned citizens in a location well away
from their everyday lives (a conference hall in a small health resort)
designed to ensure that the participants are able to speak and act freely and
without consequences in the participation laboratoryjust as their natu-
ral scientist counterparts used to do in the classical idea of the laboratory
where the consequences of lab activities are only noticeable inside the
laboratory.12
One reason for organizing such a participatory process was that major
knowledge gaps exist in public perceptions of the subterranean environ-
ment. The invisibility of geothermal operations deep in the ground espe-
cially has the potential to foster suspicion and fear, which is often seen as
an obstacle for geothermal drilling and technology diffusion as well as the
communication of benefits of the new technology. Invisibility is thus
intended to be made known through representations in a lab-like situation,
and investors and engineers aim to strategically reveal the drilling and heat
exchanging technologies and bring the debate into the light of day. The
actual participatory process was organized by experts from two major
German research institutions. The invitation to this laboratory was sent out
via the local and regional media and advertised it as a place to get firsthand
information on geothermal drilling and power generation. The participants
who eventually agreed to take part were not selected by any method that
guaranteed representativeness but on a first come, first served basis. This
basically meant that everybody who felt he or she needed some information
Gross 11
or wanted to discuss issues of concern and their way of seeing was wel-
comed. In this way, the laboratory was set up not to pacify protest (although
this was a possibility that could have happened) but rather to look at how
publics react to problematic issues such as knowledge gaps and how they
consider issues of uncertainty in such settings (Bleicher and David 2015).
A newspaper clipping in the major daily of the region, the Freie Presse
(with over 250,000 copies sold on a subscription basis alone, it is the largest
newspaper in Saxony), reported on the laboratory. One such story was head-
lined Study aims to Foster Enthusiasm for Geothermal Energy (Studie
soll Begeisterung wecken fur Geothermie, Freie Presse, January 29, 2014;
www.freiepresse.de). Although this was not the intention of the organizing
expert group, such a headline clearly points to the information-based char-
acter of such an event, even to the extent of banging the drum for the topic.
The exact purpose of assembling this group thus was not clearly communi-
cated but it was intended to inform people and to debate jointly acceptable
and unacceptable uncertainties. The actual laboratory meeting, which lasted
almost a full day, followed the focus group method. This method recently
has been praised as a way of providing specific data on social groups and
is framed as a process involving natural interactions in artificial situa-
tions; thus, focus groups can be regarded as social experiments conducted
in a sealed-off laboratory (Demant 2012).
In the laboratory-like participatory situation studied here, the topics dis-
cussed were straightforward. They mainly focused on perceptions of seis-
mic risks, the relation of geothermal drilling to contemporary fracking
technologies, the possible economic incentives for the region, and the role
of geothermal energy in the overall plan to establish renewable energy
sources in Germany and Europe. Thus, although protest-based civil society
interventions continue to play a role in governance processes related to
engineering, ecology, and technology (Wehling 2012), in this case we see
a form of invited participation, where potential participants have to be
convinced by local media (newspapers, advertisements, and information
on bulletin boards) to participate in a lab-like situation in which they are
allotted a place sitting down at roundtable discussions; here, then, partic-
ipation involves retreating from society into the lab (Bogner 2012, 522).
This lab may then become a place where stakeholders sit together around a
table and discuss whether the procedures in question are worth trying out
(a term often used among stakeholders in geothermal drilling operations) or
not. This also includes explaining to stakeholders and decision makers why
in a certain situation things cannot be known any better within a certain time
frame, which in turn requires making it clear that it is important to start
work in order to not fritter away time. Waiting for a risk analysis often
means doing exactly this, however. In other words, acknowledging
ignorance must not be misunderstood as a failure of expertise but as a
normal process in experimental knowledge production (Gross 2010) that
is constantly in-the-making (Pallett and Chilvers 2015). Needless to
say, a critical public may not be prepared to accept this in many cases,
and, as Bogner (2012, 510) has shown, sometimes citizens are simply
not interested and they almost have to be dragged into the laboratory
because their input and knowledge are needed. Indeed, as Krzywos-
zynska and Maywin (2014) have reported, an increasing number of cases
in the United Kingdom show that the official rhetoric of a stronger
demand for participation stands in opposition to the reality where in
some cases not even a single citizen showed up in the laboratory. The
organizing social scientists and engineers present then discussed among
themselves.13
The participation procedure in the case discussed here, however, can be
understood as a lab activity since the results of this engagement process (so
far) did not have real consequences for policy making in the world outside
the laboratory. Perhaps this is yet another case of what Armin Grunwald
(2004) called the unavoidable separation between internal communication
among the participants and external communication with the real world.
In short, the participation in the lab contributed to legitimizing the larger
real-world experiment simply by setting up the lab.14 However, it can be
said that without the laboratory-like participation process in a democratic
society the real-world experiment of geothermal energy operation would
not be complete.
In order to engage meaningfully in such experiments and to cope with
nonknowledge and uncertainty, the stakeholders involved need to develop
an openness toward the possibility of redefining goals in the course of itera-
tive discussions. Experiments of this kind are most likely to be conducted
when knowledge gaps are clearly defined. This may refer to phases in the
drilling process during which a judgment must be made about whether any
of the perceived knowledge gaps can be reduced with more geological
investigations or new data for modeling or if only a learning while doing
strategy is conceivable. In this way, decision making that is based on a stock
of nonknowledge discussed in participatory lab experiments would not be
considered mere irresponsible tinkering but would rather be based on a
shared sense of justifiable (reasonable) ignorance, which has been acknowl-
edged and clearly defined (and perhaps even consensually agreed upon) so
that the experiment can continue.
Gross 13
Taking the Experiment (Back) into the Laboratory?

As we have seen by looking at the example of geothermal energy, the idea
that it takes a laboratory to raise the world outside it can reasonably be called
into question, as in many cases the converse seems to apply: an experiment
seems to be there first while the components that signal the existence of asso-
ciated laboratories are determined post hoc. In the realm of geothermal
energy utilization, it can be shown that experimental practices occur in many
places while the laboratory and the social actors from outside the institutional
spheres of science come into the picture only after the start of the experiment
when, for instance, stakeholders are invited to participate in laboratory-like
settings or the geochemical specificities of fluids are tested. In real-world
experiments, hazards and obstacles often become apparent only after the
technology has been tested or stakeholders have been invited to the labora-
tory. In this lab-like context, actors are able to harness the great potential
entailed in moving forward along an experimental path.
Experts conversations with stakeholders in laboratory settings can thus
be understood as just important a part of real-world experiments as are the
laboratory investigations of the scientists involved. Certainly, it is an impor-
tant part of harnessing geothermal energy and perhaps of the energy transi-
tion from fossil fuels to renewable ones in general. Such a transition entails
altering permits (administration) and changing plans (engineering compa-
nies and research institutes). This seems to encourage the development of
innovative strategies and to make full use of the potential and resources
of the actors involved to achieve a common goal. Furthermore, new knowl-
edge may emerge from unexpected events, which in post hoc defined
laboratories can help to further specify ignorance so that the limits and the
boundaries of knowing are consciously taken into account when acting or
planning. Thus, real-world experiments are designed to cope with
unknowns by anchoring themalbeit sometimes only brieflyin a tradi-
tional laboratory. It sometimes seems that to legitimize the real-world
experiment some critical components are moved into the laboratory so that
they remain without consequences. If the laboratory part of the real-world
experiment fails, then the overall process may not continue at all (e.g., if
the stakeholders cannot agree on a decision, the analysis of organic carbon
and metals is useless). Thus, the trial world (Krohn and Weyer 1994) of
the classical science laboratory and the necessary containment of this
world behind laboratory wallswhether for stakeholder workshops or
for scientists activitiesstill exists today, albeit initiated by a real-world
experimental process that includes, among other things, geothermal energy
companies, scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens. Only the traditional

sequence from laboratory research to application in the real world seems to
have been switched around, that is, the experimental setup is there first and
is sometimes even independent of a clearly defined laboratory that comes into
play later.
The unavoidable unknowns and uncertainties from such experiments
are relocated to corresponding laboratories outside them. Depending on
the type of uncertainties and unknowns, these may be traditional science
labs or a laboratory-like participation of stakeholders outside the realm of
scienceor both. It can be said, then, that alternative energy research on the
subterranean environment, as discussed in this article, demonstrates a trend
whereby research processes are started in the real world and the issues they
throw up are displaced from the real-world experimental context into the
more closed world of a (variously configured) laboratory. Real-world experi-
ments thus provide justification for lab activities. From this perspective, lab
experiments are postpositioned microvariants of real-world experiments in
and with society. Thus understood, the risk-laden production of new knowl-
edge via real-world experimentation fosters a practice of shifting the context
of discovery in society into post hoc defined laboratories of justification.
Acknowledgment
I am grateful to Alena Bleicher for preparing some of the internal reports and tran-
scripts from meetings and workshops available to me.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Notes
1. At the time of writing his article, Latours argument was part of a wider debate
on the micromacro link in sociology and science studies (Knorr Cetina and
Cicourel 1981).
2. For insightful criticisms of Latours notion of raising laboratories, which focus on
different issues than I do here, see Doing (2007) or Scott (1991). For an example
of using Latours metaphor in the area of urban planning in attempts to analyze
the city of Manchesters carbon footprint, see Evans and Karvonen (2014).
Gross 15
3. Counting the frequency of the terms experiment and laboratory experi-

ment in relation to field, real world, social, or real-life experiment
between 1945 and the current date in the Web of Science relative to the total of
publications in the database shows that up until the early 1970s the term experi-
ment was mainly (>90 percent) used in the natural science laboratory sense. From
then on, other meanings became increasingly important. From 2006 onward,
more articles on experiments outside the laboratory have been published than
on laboratory experiments. I thank Sophia Kluge for doing this survey.
4. While the idea behind the distinction between the context of discovery and the
context of justification has a long history, the classical treatise on the topic is
Reichenbachs Experience and Prediction (1938). For an update on the numer-
ous critical debates on the distinction and the argument that it still represents a
useful point of departure for discussion, see Koertge (2003), Schickore and
Steinle (2006), and Swedberg (2012).
5. A crucial question, however, is whether recent debates on experiments outside
the laboratory indicate a real change or whether there have been real-world
experiments from the seventeenth century onwardand only now we talk about
them in this way. From a historical point of view, it is too early to make any
definite claims since, as Sven Ove Hansson (among others) has argued, the early
experiments in the seventeenth century were not driven by curiosity or by aca-
demic interests but by practical needs (Hansson 2015). In addition, in the nine-
teenth century it was rendered unethical to subject society to experimental
strategies (Brown 1997). Helen Tilley (2011), for instance, has reconstructed
colonialism in tropical Africa between 1870 and 1950 as a living laboratory
since a range of new scientific methods were tried out that drew attention to
unavoidable ignorance and uncertainty. One anonymous reviewer of this article
suggested that the idea of the laboratory only became plausible at a point in time
when experimentation with, and the calculation of, an uncertain future became
important social practice in everyday life. This is a fascinating idea that needs to
be addressed in another paper.
6. The projects are EnergyLandUse and Helmholtz Portfolio Theme: Geother-
mal Energy funded by the German Helmholtz Association. EnergyLandUse
is one of the so-called Integrated Projects at the Helmholtz Centre (UFZ) in Leip-
zig where natural and social scientists analyze the possibilities of transforming the
energy system to a more decentralized supply with renewable energies.
7. Most of the original material used in the writing of this article stems from drill-
ing meetings and participation activities between November 2011 and July
2015. The transcribed interviews from the participation experiments and the
interviews with drilling experts were codified using a qualitative text analysis
program (MaxQDA).
8. Although over the decades Knight has been heavily criticized for his distinction
(for a recent overview, see Aven 2014, 13-15), it still remains dominant in many
disciplines today.
9. Recently, a number of scholars have begun exploring the ways in which ignor-
ance is not simply the obverse of knowledge. For an overview, see Gross and
McGoey (2015).
10. For a different notion of nonknowledge, see Boschen et al. (2010). For uses con-
gruent with the ones used here, see recent work done from different disciplinary
perspectives by Bleicher (2012), Carriere (2014), Decoteau and Underman
(2015), Gottschick (2015), Hess (2015), and Wagner (2015).
11. For a more detailed discussion on the adventurous utilization of geothermal
energy, such as the integration of different technologies in one drilling opera-
tion and other sociotechnical strategies for probing into unfathomed depths, see
Gross (2015).
12. Krohn and Weyer (1994, 174) identified the seventeenth century as the histor-
ical point at which scientific activities in the laboratory came to be morally
exempted from the social consequences of error and failure.
13. Even in cases where the invitation has been more successful, participants often
have completely different expectations compared to those of the organizers and
they often lead to major adjustments of the process. The literature on these
topics is huge, but helpful are, for instance, Bellamy and Lazaun (2015), Callon
and Rabeharisoa (2008), Felt et al. (2009), Krabbenborg and Mulder (2015), or
Lezaun and Soneryd (2007).
14. As of October 2015, any activities for further drilling and the establishment of a
geothermal power plant have been stopped (e-mail from a representative from
the Saxon State Ministry of the Environment and Agriculture). The official rea-
son why the project came to a halt was the questionable economic feasibility of
the project (Freie Presse, June 24, 2015)no word about public participation
or scientific uncertainties.
References
Allen, Barbara. 2011. Laboratorization and the Green Rebuilding of New
Orleanss Lower Ninth Ward. In The Neoliberal Deluge: Hurricane Katrina,
Late Capitalism, and the Remaking of New Orleans, edited by Cedric Johnson,
225-44. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Aven, Terje. 2014. Risk, Surprises and Black Swans: Fundamental Ideas and Con-
cepts in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. London, UK: Routledge.
Bellamy, Rob, and Javier Lezaun. 2015. Crafting a Public for Geoengineering.
Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662515600965.
Gross 17
Bleicher, Alena. 2012. Entscheiden trotz Nichtwissen: Das Beispiel der Sanierung
kontaminierter Flachen. Soziale Welt 63 (2): 97-115.
Bleicher, Alena, and Martin David. 2015. Keine Angst vor der O ffentlichkeit:
Beteiligungen im Rahmen der Energie- und Rohstoffgewinnung in Deutsch-
land. In Proceedings of the Conference Bergbau, Energie und Rohstoffe
2015, 44-58. Freiberg, Germany.
Bloomquist, Gordon, John Lund, and Magnus Gehringer. 2013 Geothermal
Energy. In The World Scientific Handbook of Energy edited by Gerard M.
Crawley, 245-73. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.
Bogner, Alexander. 2012. The Paradox of Participation Experiments. Science,
Technology & Human Values 37 (5): 506-527.
Boschen, Stefan, Karen Kastenhofer, Ina Rust, Jens Soentgen, and Peter Wehling.
2010. Scientific Nonknowledge and its Political Dynamics: The Cases of
Agri-biotechnology and Mobile Phoning. Science, Technology & Human Val-
ues 35 (6): 783-811.
Brown, Robert. 1997. The Delayed Birth of Social Experiments. History of the
Human Sciences 10 (2): 1-21.
Bulkeley, Harriet, Vanesa Castan Broto, Mike Hodson, and Simon Marvin, eds.
2013. Cities and Low Carbon Transitions. London, UK: Routledge.
Burgess, Adam, Alberto Alemanno, and Jens Zinn, eds. 2016. Routledge Handbook
of Risk Studies. London, UK: Routledge.
Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. 2008. The Growing Engagement of
Emergent Concerned Groups in Political and Economic Life: Lessons from the
French Association of Neuromuscular Disease Patients. Science, Technology,
& Human Values 33 (2): 230-61.
Carriere, Kevin R. 2014. Culture Cultivating Culture: The Four Products of the
Meaning-made World. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 48
(3): 270-82.
Cherubini, Yvonne, Mauro Cacace, Magdalena Scheck-Wenderoth, Inga Moeck,
and Bjorn Lewerenz. 2013. Controls on the Deep Thermal Field: Implications
from 3-D Numerical Simulations for the Geothermal Research Site Gro Scho-
nebeck. Environmental Earth Sciences 70 (8): 3619-42.
Decoteau, Claire Laurier, and Kelly Underman. 2015. Adjudicating Non-
knowledge in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings. Social Studies of Science 45
(4): 471-500.
DeGunther, Rik. 2009. Alternative Energy for Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Demant, Jakob. 2012. Natural Interactions in Artificial Situations: Focus Groups
as an Active Social Experiment. In An Ethnography of Global Landscapes and
Corridors, edited by Loshini Naidoo, 57-72. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. Accessed
June 5, 2015. http://www.intechopen.com.
Doing, Park. 2007. Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise a Discipline: The Past,
Present, and Future Politics of Laboratory Studies in STS. In The Handbook of
Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amster-
damska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 279-96. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Doorn, Neelke. 2015. Governance Experiments in Water Management: From
Interests to Building Blocks. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/
s11948-015-9627-3.
Evans, James, and Andrew Karvonen. 2014. Give Me a Laboratory and I Will
Lower Your Carbon Footprint! Urban Laboratories and the Governance of Low
Carbon Futures. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38 (2):
413-30.
Felt, Ulrike, Maximilian Fochler, Annina Muller, and Michael Strassnig. 2009.
Unruly Ethics: On the Difficulties of a Bottom-up Approach to Ethics in the
Field of Genomics. Public Understanding of Science 18 (3): 354-71.
Finger, John, and Doug Blankenship. (2010). Handbook of Best Practices for
Geothermal Drilling. Report No. SAND2010-6048. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia
National Laboratories.
Fischhoff, Baruch, Sarah Lichtenstein, Paul Slovic, Steven L. Derby, and
Ralph Keeney. 1981. Acceptable Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Giardini, Domenico. 2009. Geothermal Quake Risks Must be Faced. Nature
462:848-49.
Glassley, William E. 2010. Geothermal Energy: Renewable Energy and the Envi-
ronment. London, UK: CRC Press.
Gottschick, Manuel. 2015. How Stakeholders Handle Uncertainty in a Local Cli-
mate Adaptation Governance Network. Climatic Change 132 (3): 445-57.
Gramelsberger, Gabriele. 2010. Computerexperimente: Wandel der Wissenschaft im
Zeitalter des Computers. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.
Grimm, Manuel, Ingrid Stober, Kohl Thomas, and Philipp Blum. 2014. Schadens-
fallanalyse von Erdwarmesondenbohrungen in Baden-Wurttemberg. Grund-
wasser 19 (4): 275-86.
Gromme, Francisca. 2015. Turning Aggression into an Object of Intervention: Tin-
kering in a Crime Control Pilot Study. Science as Culture 24 (2): 227-47.
Gross, Matthias. 2009. Collaborative Experiments: Jane Addams, Hull-House, and
Experimental Social Work. Social Science Information 48 (1): 81-95.
Gross, Matthias. 2010. Ignorance and Surprise: Science, Society, and Ecological
Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gross, Matthias. 2015. Journeying to the Heat of the Earth: From Jules Verne to
Present-day Geothermal Adventures. Engineering Studies 7 (1): 28-46.
Gross 19
Gross, Matthias, and Holger Hoffmann-Riem. 2005. Ecological Restoration as a

Real-world Experiment: Designing Robust Implementation Strategies in an
Urban Environment. Public Understanding of Science 14 (3): 269-84.
Gross, Matthias, Holger Hoffmann-Riem, and Wolfgang Krohn. 2003. Realexper-
imente: Robustheit und Dynamik okologischer Gestaltungen in der Wissensge-
sellschaft. Soziale Welt 54 (3): 241-57.
Gross, Matthias, and Wolfgang Krohn. 2004. Science in a Real World Context:
Constructing Knowledge through Recursive Learning. Philosophy Today 48
(5): 38-50.
Gross, Matthias, and Linsey McGoey, eds. 2015. The Routledge International
Handbook of Ignorance Studies. London, UK: Routledge.
Grunwald, Armin. 2004. Participation as a Means of Enhancing the Legitimacy of
Decisions on Technology? A Sceptical Analysis. Poiesis & Praxis 3 (1): 106-22.
Hansson, Sven Ove. 2009. From the Casino to the Jungle: Dealing with Uncer-
tainty in Technological Risk Management. Synthese 168 (3): 423-32.
Hansson, Sven Ove. 2015. Experiments before Science: What Science Learned from
Technological Experiments. In The Role of Technology in Science: Philosophical
Perspectives, edited by Sven Ove Hansson, 81-110. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Henninges, Jan, Wulf Brandt, Kemal Erbas, Inga Moeck, Ali Saadat, Thomas
Reinsch, and Gunter Zimmermann. 2012. Downhole Monitoring During
Hydraulic Experiments at the In Situ Geothermal Lab Gro-Schonebeck. Paper
presented at the 37th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford,
CA, January 30 - February 1, Proceedings SGP-TR-194.
Hess, David J. 2015. Beyond Scientific Controversies: Scientific Counterpublics,
Countervailing Industries, and Undone Science. In The Public Shaping of Med-
ical Research, edited by Peter Wehling, Willy Viehover, and Sophia Koenen,
151-71. London, UK: Routledge.
Hoffmann, Matthew J. 2011. Climate Governance at the Crossroads: Experiment-
ing with a Global Response. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Huenges, Ernst. 2012. Aufschluss, Erschlieung und Nutzung tiefer sedimentarer
geothermischer Lagerstatten. Presentation at the 23rd Conference of the
Schweizerische Vereinigung fur Geothermie (SVG), November 2, 2012.
Huenges, Ernst, Thomas Kohl, Olaf Kolditz, Judith Bremer, Magdalena Scheck-
Wenderoth, and Thomas Vienken. 2013. Geothermal Energy Systems:
Research Perspective for Domestic Energy Provision. Environmental Earth
Sciences 70 (8): 3927-33.
Karvonen, Andrew, and Bas van Heur. 2014. Urban Laboratories: Experiments in
Reworking Cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research
38 (2): 379-92.
Knight, Frank H. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Knorr Cetina, Karin and Aaron V. Cicourel, eds. 1981. Advances in Social Theory
and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-sociologies.
London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Koertge, Noretta. 2003. Gender and the Genealogy of Scientific Discoveries. In
Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science,
edited by Cassandra L. Pinnick, Noretta Koertge, and Robert F. Almeder,
47-64. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kolditz, Olaf, Leslie A. Jakobs, Ernst Huenges, and Thomas Kohl. 2013. Geother-
mal Energy: A Glimpse at the State of the Field and an Introduction to the Jour-
nal. Geothermal Energy 1 (1): 1-2.
Konig, Ariane, ed. 2013. Regenerative Sustainable Development of Universities and
Cities: The Role of Living Laboratories. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
Krabbenborg, Lotte, and Henk A. J. Mulder. 2015. Upstream Public Engagement
in Nanotechnology: Constraints and Opportunities. Science Communication 37
(4): 452-84.
Krohn, Wolfgang. 2009. Francis Bacons literarische Experimente. In Es ist nun
einmal zum Versuch gekommen: Experiment und Literatur I, 15801790, edited
by Martin Gamper, Martina Wernli, and Jorg Zimmer, 33-52. Gottingen,
Germany: Wallstein.
Krohn, Wolfgang, and Johannes Weyer. 1994. Society as a Laboratory: The Social
Risks of Experimental Research. Science & Public Policy 21 (3): 173-83.
Krzywoszynska, Anna, and Jose Maywin. 2014. Community Energy Transitions:
We Are Ready to Go but Who Are We and Where Are We Off to? Paper pre-
sented at the 2nd Energy & Society Conference, Jagiellonian University,
Krakow, Poland, June 4-6.
Latour, Bruno. 1983. Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World. In Sci-
ence Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by Karin
Knorr Cetina and Michael Mulkay, 141-70. London, UK: Sage.
Latour, Bruno. 2011. From Multiculturalism to Multinaturalism: What Rules of
Method for the New Socio-scientific Experiments? Nature Culture 6 (1): 1-17.
Lenhard, Johannes, Gunter Kuppers, and Terry Shinn, eds. 2006. Simulation: Prag-
matic Construction of Reality. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Levidow, Les, and Susan Carr. 2007. GM Crops on Trial: Technological Develop-
ment as a Real-world Experiment. Futures 39 (4): 408-31.
Lezaun, Javier, and Linda Soneryd. 2007. Consulting Citizens: Technologies of
Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics. Public Understanding of Science 16
(3): 279-97.
Lorimer, Jamie, and Clemens Driessen. 2014. Wild Experiments at the Oostvaar-
dersplassen: Rethinking Environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions
of the Institute of British Geographers 39 (2): 169-81.
Gross 21
Macnaghten, Phil, and Richard Owen. 2011. Environmental Science: Good Gov-
ernance for Geoengineering. Nature 479 (7373): 293.
Marres, Noortje. 2009. Testing Powers of Engagement: Green Living Experi-
ments, the Ontological Turn and the Undoability of Involvement. European
Journal of Social Theory 12 (1): 117-33
Mukuhira, Yusuke, Hiroshi Asanuma, Hiroaki Niitsuma, and Markus O. Haring.
2013. Characteristics of Large-magnitude Microseismic Events Recorded Dur-
ing and after Stimulation of a Geothermal Reservoir at Basel, Switzerland.
Geothermics 45:1-17.
Nordmann, Alfred. 2009. European Experiments. In National Identity: The Role
of Science and Technology, edited by Carol E. Harrison and Ann Johnson,
278-302. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pallett, Helen, and Jason Chilvers. 2015. Organizations in the Making: Learning
and Intervening at the Science-policy Interface. Progress in Human Geography
39 (2): 146-66.
Pellizzone, Anna, Agnes Allansdottir, Roberto De Franco, Giovanni Muttoni, and
Adele Manzella. 2015. Exploring Public Engagement with Geothermal Energy
in Southern Italy: A Case Study. Energy Policy 85:1-11.
Ramisch, Joshua J. 2011. Experiments as Performances: Interpreting Farmers
Soil Fertility Management Practices in Western Kenya. In Knowing Nature:
Conversations at the Intersection of Political Ecology and Science Studies, edi-
ted by Mara Goldman, Paul Nadasdy, and Matthew Turner, 280-304. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Reich, Matthias. 2009. Auf Jagd im Untergrund: Mit Hightech auf der Suche nach
Ol, Gas und Erdwarme. Bad Salzdetfurth, Germany: Verlag add-books.
Reichenbach, Hans. 1938. Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Founda-
tions and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rojas, David. 2015. Environmental Management and Open-air Experiments in
Brazilian Amazonia. Geoforum 66 (November): 136-145.
Romanach, Lygia, Simone Carr-Cornish, and Grace Muriuki. 2015. Societal
Acceptance of an Emerging Energy Technology: How Is Geothermal Energy
Portrayed in Australian Media? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
42 (C): 1143-50.
Sabel, Charles F., and Jonathan Zeitlin, eds. 2010. Experimentalist Governance in
the European Union: Towards a New Architecture. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Schickore, Jutta, and Friedrich Steinle, eds. 2006. Revisiting Discovery and Justifi-
cation: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Schwab, Michael, ed. 2013. Experimental Systems: Future Knowledge in Artistic

Research. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.
Schwarz, Astrid. 2014. Experiments in Practice. London, UK: Pickering & Chatto.
Scott, Pam. 1991. Levers and Counterweights: A Laboratory that Failed to Raise
the World. Social Studies of Science 21 (1): 7-35.
Sjoberg, Lennart. 2004. The Methodology of Risk Perception Research. Quality
& Quantity 34 (4): 407-18.
Stauffacher, Michael, Nora Muggli, Anna Scolobig, and Corinne Moser. 2015.
Framing Deep Geothermal Energy in the Mass Media: The Case of Switzerland.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 98 (September): 60-70.
Stilgoe, Jack. 2015. Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation. Science and
Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9646-0.
Swedberg, Richard. 2012. Theorizing in Sociology and Social Science: Turning to
the Context of Discovery. Theory and Society 41 (1): 1-40.
Tilley, Helen. 2011. Africa as a Living Laboratory: Empire, Development, and the Prob-
lem of Scientific Knowledge, 1870-1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tollefson, Jeff. 2012. Ocean-fertilization Project off Canada Sparks Furore.
Nature 490 (7421): 458-59.
van de Poel, Ibo. 2009. The Introduction of Nanotechnology as a Societal Experi-
ment. In Technoscience in Progress: Managing the Uncertainty of Nanotech-
nology, edited by Simone Arnaldi, Andrea Lorenzet, and Federica Russo,
129-42. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
Vienken, Thomas, Sophie Schelenz, Karsten Rink, and Peter Dietrich. 2014. Sus-
tainable Intensive Thermal Use of the Shallow Subsurface: A Critical View on
the Status Quo. Groundwater 53 (3): 356-61.
Wagner, Aleksandra. 2015. Shale Gas: Energy Innovation in a (Non-)Knowledge
Society: A Press Discourse Analysis. Science & Public Policy 42 (2): 273-86.
Wehling, Peter. 2012. From Invited to Uninvited Participation (and back?):
Rethinking Civil Society Engagement in Technology Assessment and Develop-
ment. Poiesis & Praxis 9 (1-2): 43-60.
Author Biography
Matthias Gross is professor of environmental sociology at the University of Jena
and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, where he is also
head of the Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology. His recent research
is on the sociology of engineering, innovation and failure, risk and ignorance, as
well as experimental practices in science and society.

2015 - Gross - GIve Me An Experiment and I Will Raise A Laboratory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 - Gross - GIve Me An Experiment and I Will Raise A Laboratory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Original Article

Science, Technology, & Human Values

and I Will Raise

experiments and laboratory activities as merely temporarily subordinated

especially as debates on urban labs or living laboratories show where the

process. In this understanding, the experimental processes taking place in

transferredrelocatedto closed laboratories. Finally, I will argue that the

Risk, Nonknowledge, and Experiment

Geothermal Heat and Unavoidable Uncertainty

to renewable forms of energy production, its experimental context could

Establishing Laboratory Sites during the Experiment

exactly why. Such knowledge can only be produced after a successfully

Taking the Experiment (Back) into the Laboratory?

companies, scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens. Only the traditional

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

3. Counting the frequency of the terms experiment and laboratory experi-

Gross, Matthias, and Holger Hoffmann-Riem. 2005. Ecological Restoration as a

Schwab, Michael, ed. 2013. Experimental Systems: Future Knowledge in Artistic

You might also like