Robert Hooke & Science in the 21st Century

Dr Gary Kerr

Issac Newton & Robert Hooke had dispute over credit for Hooke’s work on understanding gravity

Isaac Newton, PRS, failed to preserve (or destroyed) Royal Society portrait of Hooke

Artist’s impression of Hooke

Robert HookeA polymath: architecture, mechanics, gravitation, microscopy,

palaeontology, astronomy, human memory 1635: Born, Isle of Wight1653: Christ Church, Oxford

Chemical Assistant to Thomas Willis1655: Technical Assistant to Robert Boyle1661: RS Curator of Experiments (demonstrate experiments

by his own methods, or at suggestion of the Fellows)1663: Elected FRS1664: Professor of Geometry at Gresham1677: Becomes Secretary of RS1703: Dies at Gresham

Lodgings at Gresham CollegeMeeting Place of Royal Society from 1660 – 1666 and 1674 – 1710 Lodgings of Robert Hooke

1664 – 1703

His quarters contained:

• Pneumatical, mechanical and optical workshop

• Small astronomical observatory

Private life of Hooke“lived like a rather bohemian scientific fellow of a college”

• Shared his quarters (and bed) with Grace (his niece, age 11).

• Had sexual relations with his Housekeeper Nell Young (and her successors)

• Intimate relations with his technicians

• The extent to which his domestic circumstances were known amongst RS Fellows is unclear

• Possible that there was some connection between these circumstances and the relative privacy of his rooms

• He lived a public life but his quarters were a relatively private place

“A place fit for Hooke to live and work; it was not a place fit for the reception and entertainment of gentlemen”

The Private becomes the Public• 1660: Hooke invited committee of RS to his private residence to witness

experimental show

• Wear-and-tear of experimental apparatus being moved from Hooke’s quarters to the temporary home of the RS

• He reversed the normal pattern of movement in c17 science

• Those who wanted to witness knowledge in the making went to where the instruments permanently lived, rather than the instruments going to where the witnesses lived

• The showing of experimental knowledge in a public space to “gentlemen witnesses” was obligatory for the construction of scientific knowledge

21st Century Place of Science• Clear separation between laboratory and house

• Public assent to scientific claims is no longer based upon familiarity with the claim/phenomena or upon acquaintance with those who make the claim

• We believe scientists because of their expertise and because they are vouched for (peer-reviewed) by other experts that we do not know

• We now believe scientists not because we know them, and not because of our direct experience of their work

• The legitimacy of experimental knowledge used to depend on a public presence; it used to be created in the ‘private’ (experimental knowledge) and be demonstrable in the ‘public’ (realised knowledge)

• Because we ‘trust’ the place, people and practice of science, science no longer needs to be demonstrated in public

Life Sciences Research Institutes• Lewis Thomas Laboratory, Princeton (Gieryn 2002)• Identical laboratories• Two types of cloning – molecular cloning v architectural cloning• Standard site of experiment – an ignorable space• Conditions of knowledge-production (material, social & cultural)

are ubiquitous (?)• Place (a unique spot) no longer adds credibility; only credible

because those places have been built identically• Scientists trust publications from other institutes based on

common knowledge of the place• Generally private places i.e. closed to the publics. Security,

door access cards etc. • Can be public place: “We come as visitors, as guests in a

house where nobody lives”

What can c21 learn from c17 place of science?

c17 c21Experiments open and observed by ‘the’ (a) public (gentlemen)

Laboratories largely closed to the public.

Public demonstrations/shows a vital part of knowledge making

Demonstrations/shows not part of the knowledge-making process

No clear distinction between the private and the public

Very clear distinction between laboratory and home

Public/Public (Boyle, early years) or Private/Public (Boyle, later years)

Private / Private

Discussion• Can c21 science learn any lessons from c17 science?• Is understanding the private life of Hooke (and others) essential in

our understanding of the place of science?• Is there any general rule policing what a laboratory is/should be?• Is Shapin's use of private/public dichotomy comparable with

Latour's inside/outside?• In c17 England, circulation of knowledge was achieved through

testimony; according to Latour, knowledge is nowadays circulated through inscriptions. What is the difference between these two key concepts?

• The applicability of blurred 'outside/inside' duality in other settings like an organisation or university?

• Given we accept his argument, is his point against pragmatism? Can a label of 'secret labs' bring a sort of 'disciplinary' for those working in it?