What ‘Signature’ Means in the Sciences

Abstract

Some actions of social life are so ubiquitous and ordinary that they evade sociological approaches that might threaten to problematize them. The world of science is no exception. Until the 1970s, the sciences were widely studied by epistemologists following 'out-of-contexť and idealist approaches. Since then, the practices of scientists have attracted anthropologists and sociologists. But, despite this extra scrutiny, and the light it has shed on the life of science, many questions remain. In particular, there are questions surrounding the activity that forms the focus of this book: 'a fundamental gesture still remaining widely neglected': the practice of 'signing' (p. 1 1). In recent years, with the development of 'entrepreneurial universities' and rising concern with intellectual propriety, the notion of 'scientific authorship' has changed.1 Thinking about authorship from the point of view of 'signature' highlights the ways in which its scientific usage is unusual. For example, contrary to literary practice, in science, writing is not a condition for signing; in biology, and even more in physics, articles are commonly signed by ten or more people, and sometimes, hundreds. And scientific statements become valid only when separated from their local conditions of production and the personal characteristics of authorship. Recognizing such differences prompts several questions about the meaning of 'signing' in science and the 'functions' vested in the scientific signature. To answer these questions, Pontille takes the reader from the workspaces where data are produced, to publication where empirical results and names are merged. His material includes interviews, observations, statistics, and texts across three disciplines biology, law, and sociology. His aim is to 'account for