Scientific objects and Legal Objectivity

Bruno Latour (kindly translated by Alain Pottage, revised by the author) 2004 : Scientific Objects and Legal Objectivity (un chapitre de a chapter of La Fabri ue du droit traduit par translated by lain !ottage" in lain !ottage and #artha #ondy (editors" in La!, Anthro"ology and the #onstitution of the Social $ %aking Persons and &hings$ pp%&'())'%(translated by lain !ottage" 'arning$ those te(ts are )ade available for "rivate acade)ic use only* there )ight be huge differences bet!een this version and the final "ublished one, es"ecially concerning footnotes* al!ays re"ort to the author and "ublisher for any other use *+hose are the facts$ li,e it or not*- *.e have reached our decision$ .hether it pleases you or not*: the solidity of facts and the rigor of the la. are t.o ,inds of hardness to .hich one can only sub/it% 0hat /a,es a co/parison bet.een the .orld of science and that of la. all the /ore interesting is that both do/ains e/phasise the virtues of a disinterested and unprejudiced approach$ based on distance and precision- in both do/ains participants spea, esoteric languages and they reason in carefully cultivated /odes- both scientists and judges see/ to attract a ,ind of respect that is un,no.n in other hu/an activities% 1n this paper$ 1 shall atte/pt to establish a relation$ not bet.een *science* and *la.*$ but bet.een t.o laboratories$ that of /y friend 2ean 3ossier at the 4cole de !hysi5ue(6hi/ie$ and that of the 6onseil d*4tat%7)8 3ather than base /y co/parison on .hat scientists and la.yers say about the/selves$ 1 shall$ as has beco/e /y habit$ rely on the results of ethnographic en5uiries$ .hich pay close attention to places$ for/s of life$ conditions of speech$ and to all those /inor details .hich together$ little by little$ by /inor brushstro,es$ allo. one to redefine science and la.% 1n developing this approach$ .e shall see that episte/ology has adopted a nu/ber of the features of its elder sister$ justice$ and that the la. often clothes itself in po.ers that only science can provide% 9ar fro/ confir/ing established clich:s$ a syste/atic co/parison of practices allo.s us to /a,e a /ore differentiated portrait by distinguishing scientific objects fro/ legal objects% !erhaps the anthropologist of science$ having spent so /uch ti/e hanging around in laboratories$ .ill find in the 6onseil d*4tat those celebrated virtues of objectivity that he sought in vain in the laboratory% lthough the 6onseil d*4tat is not a public place$ .hile the court is in session the public is ad/itted to certain areas at certain ti/es% ;shers and receptionists police the other.ise invisible distinction bet.een those places .hich are open to the public and those (rather /ore nu/erous" places .hich are reserved for the .or, of the conseillers$ for their offices$ and for the absolutely secret process of deliberation% <ere$ at the 4cole de !hysi5ue(6hi/ie$ no area is really a public place$ but$ once one has been granted ad/ission by one of the neuroscientists$ no area is out of bounds728% 1n each building$ there is an entirely different distribution of space: anyone can attend the hearings of the 6onseil$ but only at certain ti/es$ in certain seats$ and restricted areas- beyond that$ no outsider has access to the .or, of the la. ( only trainees$ govern/ent co//issioners .ith the appropriate credentials$ or a so/e.hat nosey ethnographer% +he laboratories of /y friend 3ossier are open only to scientific personnel$ but no area is barred to the authori=ed visitor% 0hereas the presence of a stranger in judicial deliberations .ould corrupt the nature of the activity and vitiate the judg/ent on grounds of procedural i/propriety$ the presence of a visitor in the laboratory /ight get in the .ay of the researchers* .or,$ but it .ould have no influence on the nature of their .or, on the brains of .hite /ice$ into .hich they have inserted fine glass tubes% +he t.o laboratories therefore have a very different relation bet.een public and private: although >ignorance of the la. is no e?cuse*$ the last stages of its flo.ering re/ain co/pletely secretby contrast$ although laboratories are closed to anyone .ho is not an e/ployee$ in principle anyone could understand .hat goes on inside$ .hich is in no .ay /ysterious: >.e have nothing to hide*% fter /any /onths at the 6onseil$ the ethology of our friends in the laboratory see/s 5uite astonishing% <ere$ no(one is for/ally dressed$ there are no serious tones of voice$ no sole/n gait$ no refined and s/oothly intoned turns of phrase$ no elegant conversation- instead$ one finds raised voices$ incongruous laughter$ casual dress in the > /erican* style$ the occasional outburst$ or tirades launched against oscilloscopes .hich do not describe their phosphorescent curves as they should$ against guillotines .hich are too blunt to lop off the heads of laboratory rats$ against /icro(pipettes .hose incisions do not allo. the researcher to probe a neuron held under the /icroscope$ or against so/e especially obtuse referee% 0hereas in the 6onseil speech flo.ed effortlessly fro/ silver(tongued conseillers$ here it is interrupted$ hesitant$ e/barrassed ( so/eti/es to the point of beco/ing gibberish% +hat is not to say that visitors are unable to understand .hat is being said$ but rather that gestures can ta,e the place of .ords$ and that$ at nu/erous points in their discourse$ researchers replace speech .ith a finger pointed at the pheno/enon produced by an instru/ent$ a pheno/enon that reveals itself only hesitantly because it is dependent on the visibility of an individually isolated neuron$ and hence on a technical and scientific pro.ess that often /isfires$ and .hich constantly has to overco/e obstacles such as bloc,ed pipettes$ inaccessible neurons$ or unintelligible results% 0hereas the conseillers sound li,e boo,s because they /ove fro/ the te?t of Lebon to the te?t of their arr@t$ and thence to the te?t of the /e/oranda and responses that co/pose the stratified layer of the file$ al.ays re/aining .ithin the .orld of te?ts$ laboratory researchers are forever crossing the deep chas/ that separates a rat*s neuron$ pulsating under a /icro(pipette$ fro/ the hu/an phrases that are spo,en in relation to that neuron7'8% 1t is hardly surprising that they should so often hesitate$ begin again$ or re/ain in suspense$ du/b for several /inutes$ or that the ho/ogeneity of their speech acts should be disrupted by e?cla/ations such as: >1*ve got itA*$ >that*s itA*$ >1*ve lost itA*$ or >silly buggerA*% +he 5uestion of ho/ogeneity or heterogeneity bet.een te?ts and things /ar,s a contrast .hich .ould stri,e even the /ost inattentive visitor% One can cli/b fro/ the cellars of the !alais 3oyal$ in .hich linear ,ilo/eters of archives lie in hibernation$ to the attics .hich house the offices of the co//issaire du gouverne/ent and the docu/entation service$ .ithout finding any real difference bet.een the objects that are essential to each

branch of the .or, of the 6onseil: files$ /ore files$ nothing but files$ to .hich one should add cupboards$ tables and chairs ( .hich differ in price$ depending on the ran, of the e/ployee ( varying nu/bers of boo,s$ and$ last but not least$ a profusion of elastic bands$ paper clips$ folders$ and rubber sta/ps% Besides the telephones and staplers$ all of these tools have an inti/ate connection .ith te?tual /atter$ and the co/puter database$ .hich allo.s the arr@ts of ad/inistrative la. to be vie.ed online$ cannot be considered as an instru/ent748% But in the laboratory$ no roo/ loo,s li,e any other$ because the differentiation of space is effected by the distribution of the /achines .hich allo. the co/petences of the physiologist$ the neurophysiologist$ the /olecular biologist$ the peptide che/ist$ the radiographer$ and the bio(infor/atics e?pert to be co(ordinated in the conte?t of a single e?peri/ent% 0hen the conseillers /eet in debate$ they all loo, li,e one another$ the differences bet.een the/ being /ade only in ter/s of ho. /uch e?perience each has ofad/insitrative la.: no one voice carries /ore .eight than another (if one overloo,s the fine gradations of prestige"% 0hen e?peri/enters get together$ they /ight .ell have no understanding of the instru/ents$ co/petences$ or difficulties of a neighbor .ith .ho/ they have .or,ed for years$ but they ,no. precisely .hen he or she can ta,e over fro/ their o.n ,no.(ho.$ and to .hat e?tent they can trust this e?pertise i/plicitly% 0hereas by definition conseillers only judge cases of .hich they have no ,no.ledge$ and to .hich they are being introduced for the first ti/e$ using no instru/ents other than their /e/ory and a fe. notes$ each researcher only deals .ith that part of a rat*s >file* .ith .hich they are perfectly ac5uainted$ than,s to the narro. .indo. opened by an instru/ent$ discipline$ or speciality that it .ill have ta,en the/ years to /aster% +herefore$ the nature of the 6onseil does not depend on its e5uip/ent$ but on the ho/ogeneity of the .orld of files that are ,ept$ ordered$ archived$ and processed$ and upon the ho/ogeneity of a staff that is rene.ed$ /aintained$ and disciplined% +he 6onseil can deal .ith a high turn over of cases precisely because its conseillers are largely interchangeable$ and because there is only a li/ited division of labour7C8% +he nature of the laboratory is crucially dependent upon the heterogeneity of its e5uip/ent$ on their rapid rene.al$ and on the diversity of co/petences grouped together in one place% 0hereas an inventory of the 6onseil*s furniture and files .ould yield no e?planation of .hat it actually does$ an inventory of the laboratory and its tools$ noting their age and cost$ their distribution in space$ their sensitivity$ and the acade/ic 5ualifications of their operators$ .ould tell you al/ost anything you .ished to ,no. about the nature of the place% >tell /e .hat your instru/ents and specialities are$ and 1*ll tell you .ho you are and .here you are placed in the hierarchy of the sciences*% +he sa/e co/parison can be su//ari=ed in the observation that the 6onseil costs a lot in ter/s of brain(po.er$ but al/ost nothing in ter/s of e5uip/ent other than paper- a laboratory costs a lot in ter/s of .et.are$ but even /ore in ter/s of e5uip/ent and soft.are% 1f so/e ne. 6o//une .ere once again to ra=e the !alais 3oyal to the ground$ but leave the conseillers a co/plete collection of Lebon$ the follo.ing day they could render judg/ent al/ost e?actly as they had done before- if the /ob .ere to chase 3ossier fro/ his laboratory and pillage his e5uip/ent$ he .ould be unable to say anything at all precise about rats* brains% Let us pay closer attention to the shared bodily attitudes of the inhabitants of these t.o places% #ore often than not$ laboratory researchers are found gathered in a concentric circle around an e?peri/ent$ at the center of .hich lies the particular pheno/enon .hich is being sub/itted to a ,ind of proof or ordeal (in the present case$ the electrical sti/ulation of a particular neuron$ .hich enables the neurotrans/itters e?pressed by the neuron to be collected at the other end of the a?on"7D8% +hey are constantly tal,ing$ so/e.hat enig/atically$ about the sta//ering being .hich they have coa?ed into a ,ind of hiccupping speech$ or at least .hich they have coa?ed into indicating$ by /eans of oscillations and che/ical outputs$ .hat it thin,s of the proof to .hich it has been sub/itted% +hey rese/ble a group of ga/blers huddled around a coc,fight on .hich each has sta,ed his fortune- they /ay not be shouting or screa/ing li,e /ad/en$ but there can be no 5uestion but that they are passionately interested in the fate of their neuron$ and in .hat it /ight have to say for itself% EOn the other hand$ passion is the least appropriate ter/ to describe the attitude of judges in the course of a hearing% +here is no libido sciendi% Fo .ord is pronounced /ore loudly than another% Leaning bac, in their chairs$ attentive or asleep$ interested or indifferent$ the judges al.ays ,eep the/selves at a distance% Only the clai/ant suffers to any degree% lthough he is often (but not al.ays" present$ he understands no /ore of .hat is being said about his case that the rat understands of the cla/oured observations /ade about the structure of its brain% 1n any event$ the passion of the clai/ant is .hat is of least interest in the procedure of the case: it does not count- or rather$ it no longer counts or does not yet count% 0hereas in court judges are entirely un/oved by a case in .hich only the clai/ant is passionately engaged$ the objects studied in a laboratory do not understand ho. their judges can be so passionately interested in /atters to .hich they the/selves are entirely indifferent% One thing is sure the libido judicandi is very specific% +his /ar,ed difference is even found in the .riting activities to .hich scientists also devote the/selves$ although they spend less ti/e .riting than the conseillers% s .e ,no. very .ell$ instru/ents$ e5uip/ent$ che/ical reagents$ or ani/als are not the end products of laboratory activity% research tea/ .hich .as content to conduct research of the highest 5uality$ but .hich never produced a scientific article$ .ould soon lose its reputation$ unless it gave up basic research in order to develop industrial applications% 1n ter/s of the production of .riting$ a scientific institution rese/bles the 6onseil d*4tat$ and in both cases one could co/pile a statistical inventory of the nu/ber of pages produced by each of the /e/bers of the institution$ and even of the nu/ber of citations of their respective .or,s% <o.ever$ this rese/blance is dispelled as soon as one loo,s at the nature of scientific articles$ .hich are 5uite unli,e a legal arr@t% 3esearchers .rite >continus* rather than >arr@ts*- in fact$ to boro. a legal ter/$ they produce clai/s in .hich the author figures /ore as a clai/ant than judge% +hat is$ each scientific article functions as a judg/ent passed on clai/s /ade by colleagues$ or as a >plaint* /ade to those sa/e colleagues on behalf of a pheno/enon .hose e?istence is clai/ed by the article% 1n other .ords$ the objectors to .ho/ a scientific article is addressed are not true judges because (a" they are of the sa/e professional category as their author (b" they cannot bring discussion to an end (c" they the/selves are judged (so/eti/es very harshly" by the clai/ant (d" .ith .ho/ they share the sa/e rights to e?tend$ re(open$ or close the discussion% 0hatever the /echanis/s .hich bring a scientific controversy to an end$ they are necessarily very different fro/ those .hich .ere invented by the 6onseil to close cases7&8%

<o.ever surprising it /ight see/$ scientific articles are /uch /ore passionate than ad/inistrative la. te?ts% +hat is because they push a clai/ as far as possible$ by thro.ing everything into the pot in order to /eet all possible objections$ by ignoring so/e objections$ or by highlighting those objections .hich allo. the/ to e/phasise a particular e?peri/ent or result% ll of this passion$ energy$ all of these rhetorical flourishes$ .hich /a,e even the /ost theoretical or esoteric of scientific articles /ore beautiful than any opera$ are absent fro/ the arr@ts of the 6onseil$ .hich have to reference all of the relevant te?ts (i/agine a scientist being obliged to cite each of the sources he used"$ to ans.er each of the argu/ents invo,ed (i/agine a researcher being forced to avoid none of his referee*s objections"$ and only those argu/ents (i/agine ho. horrified a scientist .ould be if he .ere as,ed to address only to those 5uestions as,ed of hi/ by others rather than the hundreds he has as,ed of hi/self"$ to add as fe. innovations as possible to the ,no.ledge established by their predecessors (all scientific authors drea/ of trigger a scientific revolution" and to do all of this in such a .ay as to close the discussion once and for all (.hereas researchers drea/ only of re(opening the discussion$ or$ if they are the ones .ho bring it to an end$ to do so in their o.n ter/s and to their o.n advantage"7G8% +he point is that researchers .rite for other researchers .hose invisible but constraining presence infor/s everything they .rite$ .hereas judges$ above all if they are judges in a court of last instance$ .rite only for the clai/ant*s la.yer$ and$ secondarily$ for their colleagues and the .riters of legal doctrine% +hey have different addressees% +here are of course situations in .hich science assu/es the air of the courtroo/% One e?a/ple is given by the celebrated 6o//issions of the cad:/ie des Sciences .hich .ere set up in the )Hth century to settle (on behalf of scientists" disputes arising bet.een those particularly irascible researchers .ho .ere i/pervious to any of the nor/al /eans of resolution (short of a duelA"% +oday$ .e have juries$ public foru/s$ or televised debates in .hich one researcher in the field of gene therapy is set against another$ in the presence of an audience .hich is supposed to decide bet.een the/7H8% +here are also large areas in .hich scientists cast as e?perts appear before judges in order to give evidence about /atters .ithin their area of e?pertise (the insanity of the defendant$ the source of IF ta,en fro/ the scene of the cri/e$ the validity of a patent application$ the ris,s of a particular product$ and so on"% But each of these situations bears the i/print of la. rather than that of science% 1n the )Hth century the cad:/ie .as able to issue 5uasi(arr@ts in respect of scientific controversies only because its authority .as al/ost li,e that of the la.$ and because$ even then$ its decisions .ere only 5uasi(decisions .hich .ere not binding upon anyone$ and .hich could not prevent disputes fro/ resurfacing else.here$ in other foru/s or in other laboratories% 1n science$ there is no such thing as >the authority of the adjudicated case (res judicata"*% On the other hand$ .hen an e?pert gives evidence in court$ the judge and the la. ta,e all precautions to ensure that .hat the e?pert says should be neither a judg/ent nor a .arrant for judg/ent$ but that it should serve only as a for/ of testi/ony .hich does not usurp the role of the judge7)08% +hese hybrid situations sho. 5uite clearly that each activity$ each for/ of .riting$ is as different as oil and .ater$ re/aining separate even .hen they have been /i?ed 5uite violently% 0hat should one call the very distinctive grouping of .hite coats gathered passionately around the ordeal to .hich so/e ne. entity (in this case an isolated neuron that has been /ade visible as a distinct individual" has been subjected$ and .hich allo.s the scientists$ by /eans of a chaos of hesitant observations and in a flourishing of partial (in both senses" te?ts .hich are published as 5uic,ly as possible$ to generate clai/s that are fiercely defended$ and .hich at the sa/e ti/e judge that clai/s previously published by the/selves or by their colleagues are invalid$ obscure$ false$ unfounded$ or 5uite si/ply banal and uninteresting$ all of this having been deter/ined .ithin a do/ain (laboratory$ discipline$ literature" that is both jealously guarded and yet open to all$ and .hose boundaries /ight be challenged by any outsiderJ re they judges deciding clai/s /ade by other judgesJ +hat .ould be unthin,able% #ight they then be so/e ,ind of gang or /afiaJ Scientific activity so/eti/es loo, suspiciously li,e these associations$ especially in its blend of e?tre/e rigour and co/plete la.lessness% nd yet the ans.er again has to be >no*$ because there is a third party in all disputes$ a judge .ho is /ute but .ho nevertheless deter/ines the issue$ to .ho/ all parties agree to defer .ithout discussion (.hile discussing incessantlyA" and of .hose role one finds traces in the archaic legal practices of the ordeal and divine judg/ent: na/ely$ the very objects that are subjected to the ordeal of proof in order that they /ight say so/ething about that .hich is said of the/ ( so/ething at once inaudible and conclusive$ the celebrated aita$ res$ causa$ thing$ or chose that the history of science in 4uropean languages borro.ed fro/ the .orld of la.7))8% 1n order to understand the very special /ode of enunciation that one finds in the core of the laboratory$ one has to loo, to torture$ to the history of interrogation$ or the subtle arts of the 1n5uisitionthat is$ to the very practices that /odern la. no. regards as sha/eful and archaic and fro/ it is at once proud and asha/ed to have escaped% >0e have .ays 7/oyens8 of /a,ing you tal,* /ight say the physiologist$ betraying the trace of sadis/ .hich is present in even the /ost innocent e?peri/ents% But the .ord >/eans* 7/oyens87)28 doesn*t have the /eaning it has in la.$ because the neuron that is subjected to 5uestioning /a,es no co/plaint$ for/ulates no clai/$ and the process to .hich it is subjected is not regarded as an offence (e?pect by ani/al rights activists$ .ho regard laboratory e?peri/ents as just as cruel as the ancient ordeals$ and therefore .orthy of vigorous prosecution before the courts"% +he non(hu/an .hich is sub/itted to the ordeal ( the rat$ neuron$ IF or neuropeptide ( occupies both the position of a judge of last instance$ in the sense that it passes judg/ent on .hat it is said about it$ and that of the plaintiff$ because it is represented by an inter/ediary$ the i/passioned scientist .ho has ta,en on its case$ and .ho contributes article after article to the scientific literature arguing for the recognition of his o.n right of e?istence and that of his thing 7chose8$ his object 7cause8$ and its o.n particular causality$ before a tribunal of judges co/posed of his o.n colleagues$ .ho are never in a position to pass final judg/ent$ unless they defer to the uncontestable (but al.ays contested" evidence of /atters of fact$ .hich the/selves spea, clearly only if scientists have unfolded their properties in a /ore or less public display that they have collectively agreed to treat as final%%% One can see that it is i/possible$ in depicting the .ay in .hich even the /ost banal e?peri/ents stage the scientific ordeal of truth$ to base ourselves on the prevailing idea that the sciences are pure$ objective$ disinterested$ distant$ cold$ and self(assured% 1t is also i/possible to /a,e a direct co/parison bet.een science

and la.$ .ithout first describing those aspects in .hich each bears features that see/ to have co/e fro/ its counterpart% 1n both practices one finds speech$ facts$ judg/ents$ authorities$ .riting$ inscriptions$ all /anner of recordings and archives$ reference .or,s$ colleagues$ and disputes$ but their distribution is at once too si/ilar to .arrant a distinction bet.een la. and fact$ and too different for the/ to be seen as a single function% 1n order to /a,e sense of this overlap 1 shall$ as ever$ proceed cautiously$ feeling /y .ay for.ards% 9or no.$ the essential point is that the facts$ contrary to the old adage$ obviously do not >spea, for the/selves*: to clai/ that they do .ould be to overloo, scientists$ their controversies$ their laboratories$ their instru/ents$ their articles$ and their hesitant$ interrupted$ and occasionally deictic speech$ .hich is only audible and visible% On the other hand$ nothing of .hat goes on in the laboratories of the !hysi5ue(6hi/ie .ould be co/prehensible .ithout noticing .hat the people in .hite coats say is constantly being observed$ validated$ understood$ and interrupted$ both by the o/nipresent speech of even the /ost distant colleagues$ and by those /atters of fact .hose centrality is ac,no.ledged by all$ and to .ho/ all scientists defer as their sole appellate court% +o say that scientists si/ply reach an agree/ent bet.een the/selves as to .hat the things they*re tal,ing about are saying$ .ould be to understand nothing of the peculiar force of their activity$ and even less of their /otivating passion% +hirdly$ the speech that circulates in the laboratory bet.een scientists$ their colleagues$ and their objects$ and in respect of .hich each is at once judge and party$ spea,ing and /ute$ audible and inaudible$ beginning and end$ doesn*t only have the for/ of a legal action or case- it also has an inti/ate connection .ith the 5uestion of .hat things are$ or rather .hat they do to clai/s that have already been lodged% !ropositions are transfor/ed into a >case* that can be judged by the peculiar interaction of disciplines: >if the e?peri/ent is properly constructed$ says researcher $ .e should be able to get object B to transfor/ the published clai/ 6 into /ediu/ I$ yielding either a better(established certainty or a /agnified doubt$ at least fro/ the point of vie. of colleagues fro/ discipline 4 (as defined by us"$ to .ho/ .e have addressed our latest article 9*% 9inally$ .e should notice that this intervention .ill further enlarge a corpus of docu/ents and clai/s the future develop/ent of .hich .ill supply the criteria by .hich this .hole procedure .ill be either validated or invalidated% 1/passioned scientists$ having pro/oted their object as /uch as possible in their articles$ leave it to history$ to the court of history$ and thus to future scientists$ to judge .hether they .ere right or .rong in /a,ing a particular assu/ption% Strangely$ as .e shall see$ judges ( real judges ( cannot place their faith in this Last 2udg/ent of <istory% <o.ever slo. or tardy they /ight be$ they si/ply don*t have the ti/e to let others decide for the/% <o. to produce detach/ent Let us return to the 3ight Ban,$ cross the courtyard of the Louvre$ and return to the !alais(3oyal$ .ith its orna/ental gold and /arble$ its grand staircase$ its historical paintings$ and its republican frescoes% fter his stay in the laboratory$ the ethnographer finds hi/self both /ore at ease and /uch /ore a.,.ard% /idst the /en in .hite coats$ he stood$ ar/s dangling helplessly$ not ,no.ing 5uite .hat to do .ith hi/self$ finding hi/self obliged to ta,e notes in all sorts of unco/fortable postures$ just as distanced fro/ the researchers he .as studying as the latter .ere fro/ their headless rats% Fevertheless$ he could at least tal, to his scientific colleagues$ .ith .ho/ he shared a .ish to ,no.- no. and then he could as, for e?planations$ even suggest hypotheses$ and his o.n sta//ers hardly see/ed out of place in the concert of hesitations$ reprises$ e?cla/ations$ and surprises .hich acco/panied the spectacle of proof and de/onstration% <e too could point to the pheno/ena in 5uestion$ cloa,ing the/ in the fragile .eb of his /etaphors$ allusions$ and appro?i/ations% <e .as$ of course$ clu/sy and inco/petent% But having agreed to stand aside a little to let hi/ see the perfor/ance they had staged and .hich they .ere describing$ his colleagues the researchers allo.ed hi/ to share their passion and even$ on occasion$ grasped his o.n false$ naKve$ or badly for/ulated ideas$ because even a child could spea, aptly in the face of the pheno/ena undergoing interrogation% Bac, in the 6onseil$ the observer ta,es his invisible place .ithout ruining the unifor/ity of the courtroo/- he is seated .riting at a table a/idst people .ho have seated the/selves at the sa/e table to .rite% Let he is no /ore their colleague than he is their co/panion at dinner% Fot only do they not share his libido sciendi$ but even the interested observer has to re/ain as du/b as a carp$ incapable of uttering any .ell(turned phrases$ valid judg/ents$ or plausible hypotheses% <e could of course sta//er so/ething or other$ but the .hole point is that the judges don*t sta//er: the /o/ent he opened his /outh it .ould beco/e obvious that he .as not a /e/ber of this group% 0e have left behind the a/iable confusion of the laboratory$ .ith its scattered journals$ bo?es of sa/ples$ its dripping pipes$ purring centrifuges$ overflo.ing dustbins$ its raised voices$ and the general agitation that precedes$ acco/panies$ and follo.s the tension and e/otion of an i/portant e?peri/ent% +here are indeed so/e signs of disorder in the 6onseil$ but they are strictly confined to the tables overladen .ith files$ behind .hich one can barely /a,e out the heads of the for/ally but elegantly dressed conseillers% 1n any case$ this disorder is only te/porary$ because inside each file one finds a very precise order$ prescribed by the plan d*instruction$ .hich re5uires that each ite/ be ordered$ na/ed$ sta/ped$ in accordance .ith a procedure .hich .ould be rendered invalid by any ,ind of /odification% +he i/pression of disorder is due only to the accu/ulation of pending cases- or$ once a file has regurgitated its contents$ to the abundance of legislative te?ts .hich have to be addressed$ to the nu/ber of technical anne?es$ or to the .eight of docu/entation and the intensity of the e?change .hich generated so /any for/al replies% Once the dossier has been replaced in its bo? file$ once the case has been dealt .ith$ order is i//ediately restored$ and that is precisely ho. conseillers and la.yers deal .ith things% Once the file has been closed$ they give it no /ore thought- they /ove on to another case$ another file% case is so/ething that is opened and closed li,e a bo? file% 1t /ight be said that even in the laboratory$ disorder is /ore apparent than real$ because each object$ instru/ent$ or e?peri/ent depends on an ordered docu/ent called the protocol boo,$ .hich is /ore rigorous than any plan d*instruction% 1t is a sort of general audit of scientific activity in the laboratory$ in .hich

researchers note do.n .hat they propose to do$ the ra. results they obtained$ and provisional hypotheses suggested by those results% 1ndeed$ this great boo, has recently been given a 5uasi(legal status as a result of the spread of cases of fraud and of patents% Fevertheless$ there is a .orld of difference bet.een these t.o ,inds of accounting$ because the protocol boo, doesn*t contain the activity of the laboratory in the .ay that a file 5uite literally or physically contains cases referred to the 6onseil% +he laboratory could never be described by an unity that is as precise$ as defined$ as calibrated$ and as ho/ogenous as the nu/ber$ nature$ and place/ent of the 6onseil*s files% Fo clai/ has the closed$ round$ and polished for/ of a grey cardboard folder$ .hich is easily transportable$ in .hich everything is held and .hich for/s the s/all .orld to .hich the judge has to restrict hi/self$ on pain of a penalty% +he .or, of the laboratory spills over at all points$ depending as it does upon the future action of colleagues$ the progress of technology$ the co/ple? play of inter(citation$ industrial production$ public reaction% Only the bo? of tric,s of sciento/etrics has /anaged to describe laboratory .or, in /ore or less coherent and standardi=ed ter/s7)'8% By contrast$ there /ust be so/ething in the file itself$ in its closure$ that supplies an essential reason for la.*s difference fro/ the sciences% +o understand this difference$ the file has to be seen in the conte?t of the attitude of the conseillers .ho analyse$ supple/ent$ or discuss it% 6o/ing fro/ the laboratory$ the ethnographer is i//ediately struc, by the indifference .ith .hich /e/bers of the 6onseil treat the docu/ents .hich they have in front of the/% 1n 3ossier*s laboratory$ the act of .riting .as al.ays an intensely passionate /o/ent$ and the re(.riting of articles prior to publication involved heated discussions about .hat could or could not be said$ about ho. far one could go .ithout going too far$ or about .hat had to be concealed for tactical or political reasons% +hey see/ed /ore li,e la.yers preparing a case on behalf of their client than judges drafting their arr@ts% 3ather$ /e/bers are as a rule indifferent to their file$ and this indifference is punctuated by pulled faces$ sighs$ lapses of /e/ory$ a .hole he?is of disinterest .hich contrasts very sharply .ith the obligation that laboratory researchers should be deeply$ bodily$ and passionately engaged in their observations about a /atter of fact% 1n science$ as in religion$ it is necessary to display an attitude that declares a profound and sincere adherence to .hatever one is saying$ an adherence that .ill only be renounced .hen one is forced to do so by one*s colleagues or (.hich a/ounts to /ore or less the sa/e thing" by the facts% t the 6onseil$ on the other hand$ it is essential to sho.$ by /eans a subtle body language$ that one is 5uite indifferent to the argu/ent one is /a,ing: >1f you don*t accept /y argu/ent$ you .ill accept to clai/*$ /ight say a judge .ith Oly/pian cal/$ before e/bar,ing only a fe. /inutes later on a line of reasoning that is dia/etrically opposed to the first% n observation /ade by a conseiller about a colleague .ho used to be a physicist reveals this difference 5uite nicely : >Li,e a true scientist$ he adheres too closely to his solution$ contrary to /yself*% 9or this particular conseiller$ the libido sciendi displayed by his colleague .as 5uite inco/patible .ith the .or, of a judge% 1n the procedures of the 6onseil d*4tat$ especially .hen they are contrasted .ith the scientific /ode of attach/ent$ one finds an accu/ulation of /icro(procedures .hich /anage to produce detach/ent and to ,eep doubt at bay% +he rapporteur 0hen in the course of a instruction session 7s:ance d*instruction8 the rapporteur is as,ed to re(read his notes$ he .ill have no recollection of the/$ several /onths having gone by since his e?a/ination of the file7)48% 1/agine ho. e/barrassed a scientist .ould be if he .ere as,ed to present a research report .hich he had .ritten si? /onths or a year earlier$ .hich he had not read again since then$ and .hose contents he had entirely forgotten% 0hat is even /ore astonishing is that at the ti/e of his initial e?a/ination of the file$ the rapporteur .ould have prepared t.o contradictory drafts of decisions 7projets de juge/ent8$ one arguing for a rejection of the re5uest$ the other for cancellation$ should his colleagues not adopt his reasoning% So$ not only does he have no recollection of the case$ but he arrives at the hearing prepared for one course Eand its opposite% 9or a scientist$ this .ould be 5uite scandalous- it .ould be li,e deciding at the last /o/ent$ in the light of his colleagues* reactions$ .hether the pheno/enon he .as tal,ing about e?isted or not$ .hich .ould /ean preparing t.o articles$ t.o posters$ t.o sets of transparencies$ one for$ and one against its e?istence% 0orse still$ once the discussion has co/e to an end$ the president of the asse/bly can as, the rapporteur to draft a third project% nd$ far fro/ ta,ing u/brage at this e?pression of bad faith$ the rapporteur politely gets on .ith job$ i//ediately setting about .riting a projet ( .hich /ight even be contrary to that .hich he .ill vote for later% scientific researcher .ould be /ade /ince/eat of if he .as re5uired to .rite an article that .ent against his o.n beliefs$ on the prete?t that the colleagues in his research tea/ had for/ed a consensus opinion that contradicted those beliefs- he .ould insist that his /inority vie. .as represented in the final report$ and .ould sla/ the door behind hi/ if it .asn*t% 1n any case$ for hi/ it .ould be a /atter of conscience% 1t is not that judges don*t have consciences$ but that they place their scruples else.here% 0e should not assu/e that the conseillers are disinterested in the sense of being indifferent$ blas:$ or bored by the cases that they deal .ith$ or that they are detached in the /anner of an auto/aton% Muite the contrary$ they have plenty of interests$ other.ise no one .ould stay at the 6onseil for /ore than a couple of .ee,s% +here is the legal co/ple?ity of the case itself$ the structure of ad/inistrative la.$ the social$ political$ econo/ic$ or govern/ental i/plications of cases$ the peculiarity of certain clai/ants$ the scale of the injustices that are so/eti/es co//itted$ the prestige of the State$ the intellectual pleasure ta,en in e?tracting si/ple argu/ents fro/ an obscure case$ the pleasure of standing out a/idst colleagues of one*s o.n intellectual level$ to say nothing of the gentle/an*s club(li,e environ/ent in .hich future careers are plotted and past failures repaired% +here are /any sources of interest$ but every effort is /ade to ensure that they are not attached to the file$ to the bodies of opinion(givers$ or to solutions adopted in /uch the sa/e .ay as they are in everyday life$ because they are held apart fro/ the /atter at hand$ the object itself$ by a distance that progressively beco/es al/ost infinite% 1t is at this point that one can best gauge the abyss that separates la. fro/ science: .hereas in the laboratory every effort is /ade to /a,e a connection bet.een the particularities of the object in 5uestion and .hat is being said about it$ in the 6onseil$ by contrast$ everything is done to ensure that the final deter/ination is distanced fro/ the particularities of the case%

+he r:viseur Fo.here clearer is this contrast clearer than in the procedural phase .here r:viseur re(presents the rapporteur*s note of the case% 9ro/ the perspective of the scientist$ this procedure is 5uite absurd% <aving just spent half an hour listening to so/eone reading in a /onotone voice a te?t .hich e?plains the .hole case$ the r:viseur$ .ho is /ore highly placed in the hierarchy of the 6onseil$ ta,es up the story again fro/ the beginning$ this ti/e in oral for/% +he process of revision is nevertheless an essential /o/ent in the process of judg/ent because the r:viseur is the only person to have re(read the file the previous day$ or the day before that$ and .ho has retained all of the details of the case in his /ind% Fone of the others is fa/iliar .ith the case and none of the/ .ill read the file again$ .ith the e?ception of the co//issaire (see belo.( .ho .ill later beco/e fa/iliar .ith the case for the first ti/e% +his is another procedure that .ould see/ out of place in science: the /ore the case progresses$ lingers$ or /a,es its .ay up the hierarchy of judg/ent$ the /ore it is dealt .ith by people .ho are distanced fro/ the file and .ho have no ,no.ledge of it% 1n science$ this .ould be li,e as,ing the advice of people .ho had fe.er and fe.er co/petences in the specific aspects of the subject to allocate clai/s about controversial discovery- or as though$ in relation to a difficult 5uestion concerning invisible gala?ies$ one .ere to as, certain people$ chosen precisely because they ,ne. nothing .hatsoever about gala?ies$ to deter/ine the 5uestion$ on the basis of no infor/ation other than an account of case given by people /ore co/petent than the/selves% But of course the procedure of revision is neither bi=arre nor especially incongruous% s .e shall see$ .hat is in issue is not infor/ation- judges do not e?actly deter/ine the particularities of the case- there is /ore to the r:viseur*s reprise than a si/ple process of repetition% 1n the guise of a si/ple process of repetition$ the r:viseur effectively transfor/s the case by altering the respective proportions of fact and la.$ placing /ore e/phasis than did the note on strictly legal 5uestions% +he particular case is less i/portant than the point of la. into .hich it is subsu/ed or than the particular refor/ of ad/inistrative la. pro/pted by the case% +herefore$ the r:viseur has less to say about the facts (less$ that is$ than the rapporteur$ .ho in turn had less to say about the/ than the la.yer$ .ho had less to say than the clai/ant$ .ho$ of course$ tal,s /ainly about the factsA" and /ore to say about the la.% 0hen the judg/ent is delivered$ nothing .ill re/ain other than the celebrated green slip$ .hich su//arises the .hole case in a single sentence- such as$ for e?a/ple: >0here a prefectural authority refuses to ta,e cogni=ance of the pere/ption of a licence to .or, a 5uarry$ /ade pursuant to article )0D of the code of /ines$ can that order be revie.ed on the grounds that it is ultra viresJ* Fothing re/ains of the particular case$ .hose detailed facts can be discovered only by loo,ing up the case on the co/puter database% +here is no path relaying the green slip to the precise nature of the case$ and yet$ for the judges to .ho/ this lapidary sentence is addressed$ the essentials of the e?perience are indeed su//ari=ed in a single sentence% +he .ord >fact*$ .hich is used in both science and la.$ /ight .ell have led us astray in our co/parison$ because the sa/e .ord is used so differently in each do/ain that it see/s al/ost to be a ho/ony/$ or a fau?( a/i% +he >facts* in a legal file constitute a closed set$ .hich is soon /ade un5uestionable by the sheer accu/ulation of ite/s$ and to .hich it soon beco/es unnecessary to return% 9acts are things that one tries to get rid of as 5uic,ly as possible$ in order to /ove on to other things$ na/ely the particular point of la. that is of interest$ and to .hich the judges .ill be entirely devoted fro/ that point on% 1n the laboratory$ on the other hand$ a fact occupies t.o so/e.hat contradictory positions: it is si/ultaneously that .hich is spo,en of$ and that .hich .ill deter/ine the truth of .hat is being said about it% +herefore$ one can never really dispose of the facts in order to /ove on to so/ething /ore i/portant% ;nless$ that is$ one confuses laboratory facts$ as 1 have described the/$ .ith the >sense data* of the e/piricist tradition .hich .as invented by Loc,e and <u/e for reasons that .ere /ore political than episte/ological$> sense data* being the incontrovertible basis of our sensations$ .hich the hu/an /ind co/bines in such a .ay as to develop /ore general ideas% But$ as .e shall see$ the .ay in .hich this ,ind of fact distinguishes that .hich is debatable fro/ that .hich is not has nothing to do .ith the /ode of speech of researchers% 1t o.es /ore to la. than to science7)C8% 3ather than confuse the t.o$ .e should sharpen the contrast: .hen it is said that the facts are there$ or that they*re stubborn$ that phrase doesn*t have the sa/e /eaning in science as it does in la.$ .here$ ho.ever stubborn the facts are$ they .ill never have any real hold on the case as such$ .hose solidity depends on the rules of la. that are applicable to the case% Fevertheless$ it should not be assu/ed that there is a crisp distinction bet.een the scientist*s >respect for the facts* and the la.yer*s e/phasis on for/ or indifference to the clai/ant*s de/ands% 1n the laboratory$ the particular facts don*t count either: the rat .hich gave its brain to the e?peri/ent thereby donates its body to science$ and the body .ill be su//arily incinerated- a particular neuron$ having ceased to live$ .ill be abandoned in /uch the sa/e .ay- also$ ra. data .ill be very 5uic,ly forgotten% +he pheno/ena put to the proof of an e?peri/ent are interesting only because they are the instantiation of a proble/$ the e?e/plification of a theory$ the point of an argu/ent$ or the proof of a hypothesis% But ho. does this differ fro/ the /ove/ent of la.$ because both regi/es drop the substance they tal, about in order to address that .hich it e?e/plifies% +he difference consists entirely in the possibility that a theory$ if it is a good one$ has to be able to generate the fact by a process of retroaction: the theory includes all the i/portant details of the fact$ other.ise it .ould not be the theory of that particular fact and .ould be no /ore than an unfounded hypothesis$ pure speculation$ or a si/ple proposition .hich had never been put to an e/pirical test% +his retrodictive path doesn*t e?ist in la.$ .here$ in any case$ it .ould be 5uite /eaningless% 0hat /a,es our friend 3ossier such a good neuroscientist is that his theory of the e?pression of neurons is able to retrace the precise path of each of the neurons he has sacrificed throughout the e?peri/ental process$ or of any other neuron included in his e?peri/ental protocol% 1n la.$ so long as you have grasped the point of la.$ you don*t have in your grasp a fact .hich is liable to e/erge unpredictably to surprise you at any /o/ent- in science$ if you have grasped the theory you should be able to return to the facts fro/ .hich you began$ and even anticipate ne. facts%

+he co//issaire du gouverne/ent +here are yet other /inor procedures .hich co/pel even the /ost interested$ passionate$ or e?peditious of conseillers to beco/e indifferent$ objective$ fair$ and dispassionate% 6ould one i/agine anything in science rese/bling the co//issaire de gouverne/ent7)D8$ .ho re/ains silent throughout the .hole s:ance d*instruction$ ta,ing notesJ 1s this person the secretary to the /eetingJ <ardly$ because his notes are /ade for his o.n use only$ in that they help to prepare hi/ for his reading of the file$ .hich he .ill go over fro/ beginning to end% #ight he then be the ulti/ate e?pert to .ho/ less s,illed conseillers have entrusted the tas, of finding the right solutionJ Fo$ because he is often younger than the president of the asse/bly$ .ho .ill subse5uently pass judg/ent on his co//entary% Fo.$ he ,eeps 5uiet$ and they do the tal,ing- to/orro.$ or in a fe. days ti/e$ he .ill spea,$ and they .ill ,eep 5uiet7)&8% 1n that case$ .hy not get it over .ith$ and as, hi/ to give his opinion there and thenJ Because although the object is to get things over .ith$ but to do so .ith all the appropriate for/s$ having once again e?plored the relationship bet.een this particular case and the la.$ the case in its entirety and the la. in its entirety% One /ight say that the conseiller du gouvern/ent has been entrusted .ith a particular tas, of 5uality control$ in that he is as,ed to retrace the course ta,en by the clai/ant$ the la.yers$ the judges of first instance$ the rapporteur$ and the r:viseur$ before going on to revie. the vast accu/ulation of t.o centuries of ad/inistrative la.$ in order to ensure that the .hole thing is properly and securely bound together% <e is the person .ho tests connections and ensures coherence$ and .ho reassures his colleagues that the daily process of stitching things together has not corrupted ad/inistrative la. in any .ay% +he silence of the conseiller du gouverne/ent throughout the s:ance d*instruction$ the for/al reading of his conclusions during the audience$ his return to silence throughout the stage of the deliberation (in .hich$ it should be re/e/bered$ the judges have no obligation to adopt his reasoning"$ then the separate publication of his conclusions$ .hich /ight or /ight differ fro/ those of the judg/ent$ .hich is itself published$ function as a set /echanis/s invented entirely .ithin the 6onseil d*4tat so as to produce a /ode of detach/ent .hich in science .ould see/ incongruous$ not to say co/ic% 1n science$ the role of the conseiller du gouverne/ent could be replicated only by entrusting a scientist .ith the over.hel/ing tas, of revie.ing his entire discipline fro/ the beginning$ in order to test its coherence and to ensure its relation to the facts$ before proposing the e?istence or non(e?istence of a given pheno/enon in a for/al deposition$ although the final decision .ould not be his$ and although he .ould have to .or, alone$ guided only by his o.n ,no.ledge and his o.n conscience$ being content to publish his conclusions 5uite independently% lthough so/ething li,e this role can be found in the for/ of scientific revie. articles7)G8$ .hich are co//issioned fro/ e?perienced scientists in /id(career$ .ho are e?pected to su//arise the state of the art for their peers$ revie. articles don*t have this peculiar /i?ture of authority and absence of authority% 4ither the conseiller du gouverne/ent is li,e a scientific e?pert$ in .hich case his greater authority should relieve his peers of their obligation to doubt ( he ,no.s /ore about the issue than they do ( or he is si/ply not laying the role of the e?pert$ in .hich case .hy place on his shoulders the crushing burden of having to revie. the .hole case in order to enlighten the process of judg/entJ +he role of the conseiller du gouverne/ent rese/bles that of a scientist only to the e?tent that he spea,s and publishes in his o.n na/e- si/ilarly$ there is so/ething of the conseiller du gouverne/ent in all scientists$ .ho see the/selves as enlightening the .orld% +he conseiller du gouverne/ent is$ then$ a strange and co/ple? hybrid$ .hich has so/ething of the sovereignty of le? ani/ata$ la. e/bodied in a /an$ but .hose pronounce/ents bind no(one but hi/self$ .hereas in the old .orld sovereigns al.ays had the last .ord% 1n that case$ .hat does he doJ 0hat is his functionJ <e gives the .hole tea/ the occasion to doubt properly$ thereby avoiding any precipitously(reached solution$ or any cheaply(bought consensus% <e is$ in a sense$ an airtight cha/ber for the avoidance of certainty$ a ,ind of injunction to avoid agree/ent$ an obstacle deliberately placed along the entire length of the path of judg/ent$ a grain of sand$ occasionally a scandal$ but in all cases an irritant$ or a resistance- the conseiller du gouverne/ent is the /ost peculiar e?a/ple of a producer of objections$ or of objectivity% +he i/portance and the a/biguity of his role are clearest in those cases in .hich he argues for the overruling of e?isting precedents$ this being the legal e5uivalent of the process (.hich so e?cites researchers" by .hich scientific paradig/s are overthro.n% Because he$ unli,e is colleagues$ is not bound to reach final judg/ent$ he can allo. hi/self ( .ith one eye on the case itself$ and another on the corpus of la. ( to suggest substantial alterations to this vast structure$ .hose coherence is produced by a ,ind of an ongoing balancing act$ si/ilar to that .hich ,eeps a cyclist in the saddle% !recisely because he is not obliged to do anything but pro/pt the la. in the /o/ent$ .ithout hi/self having to pass judg/ent$ he can allo. hi/self to indulge in the sort of audacious develop/ents or deepenings .hich .ould terrify the conseillers$ .ho are al.ays ,ept in harness$ bearing on their shoulders the .eight of ad/inistrative realities% +here is al.ays a certain freshness to conseillers du gouverne/ent$ and they are in any case .orn out after a fe. years7)H8% But unli,e scientists$ .ho drea/ of overturning a paradig/$ of putting their na/es to a radical change$ a scientific revolution$ or a /ajor discovery$ conseillers du gouverne/ent invariably present their innovations as the e?pression of a principle that .as already in e?istence$ so that even .hen it is transfor/ed co/pletely the corpus of ad/inistrative la. is >even /ore* the sa/e than it .as before% +his pro.ess is re5uired by the essential notion of legal predictability 7s:curit: juridi5ue8$ .hich .ould see/ 5uite out of place to a researcher% 2ust i/agine the effect of a notion of scientific certainty on research: .hat .as discovered .ould have to be e?pressed as a si/pler and /ore coherent refor/ulation of an established principle$ so that no one could ever be surprised by the e/ergence of a ne. fact or a ne. theory% +he for/ation de juge/ent Let*s get it over .ithA 0e*ve had enoughA 0e ,no. enough to pass judg/entA 1t is as plain as day that clai/ant is in bad faith$ drug dealer B a toad$ and clai/ant 6 a fussy nit(pic,er$ that /inister I is plain inco/petent$ decree 4 a tissue of absurdities$ and police prefect 9 a public /enace$ so .hy prolong the discussionJ +he facts are blindingly obvious% 0e have already read the open(ended note of the rapporteur$ heard the r:viseur$ spent t.o hours in the s:ance d*instruction discussing the case$ the president has consulted

on the /atter .ith the !r:sident du 6ontentieu?$ .e have heard the conclusions of the conseiller du gouverne/ent$ and still you haven*t finishedJ Fo sooner has the conseiller du gouverne/ent sat do.n that you resu/e your deliberations again$ this ti/e .ith a ne. set of discussants$ that is$ a fresh set of people .ho are ignorant about the case$ .ho have heard neither the rapporteur nor the r:viseur$ .ho have heard nothing of the discussion$ and as, the sa/e old naKve 5uestions% 1sn*t that all e?tre/ely dishearteningJ 0hy not give the file to the conseiller du gouverne/ent and close the case for good% Let*s say no /ore about it% 4nough prevarication% Let$ it is essential to hesitate and doubt$ precisely so as not to rush to.ards blindingly obvious truths% +he tedious succession of revie.s and revisions$ the /eticulous verifications of bureaucratic sta/ps$ and the repetition of prea/bles ensures that blind$ stu/bling$ justice can .al, in a straight line and say e?actly the right thing% ll these procedures of detach/ent allo. the la. to ensure that it has doubted properly$ .hereas al/ost all the ele/ents of a laboratory tend to the speediest possible ac5uisition of certainty% 1f 2ustice holds a balance in hand$ it is not because she .eighs e?actly$ but because the balance has sha,ed a bit% 6o//on sense finds the slo.ness of both la. and science inco/prehensible: .hy ta,e so /uch trouble to judgeJ it as,s% 0hy go to so /uch hassle to ,no.J it as,s$ astonished% Io .e really need all these distancing procedures in order to deal .ith a case about dustbins$ pigeons$ planning per/issions$ or appoint/ent proceduresJ 1s it really necessary to spend so /uch /oney$ to /obili=e the best and the brightest$ and to spend years on clai/s .hich could easily be resolved .ith a bit of co//on sense and a /easure of good faith7208J 1s it really necessary to sacrifice hundreds of rats$ to /obili=e an elite of /en in .hite coats$ or to invest in e?tre/ely e?pensive instru/ents in order to learn ho. our brains .or, or ho. /any stars there are in the s,yJ 0hat a .aste of ti/eA <o. slo.A 1f the production of doubt in la. and of ,no.ledge in science .ere critici=ed in these ter/s by ordinary co//on sense$ judges and scientists .ould i//ediately join forces to celebrate ti/e$ slo.ness$ care$ e?pense$ elitis/$ 5uality$ or respect for procedure% Both scientists and judges .ould e?clai/ that co//on sense$ .ith its crude /ethods$ could produce neither this effect of slo.ness of judg/ent nor confidence in certainty: it .ould reach a conclusion too 5uic,ly$ too hastily and on the basis of superficial first i/pressions- .e depend vitally on these costly and ponderous institutions$ .hich re5uire the co/ple? elaboration of an esoteric vocabulary and the application of procedures that are e?asperatingly /eticulous$ because these are the only /eans .e have to avoid arbitrariness and superficiality% nd yet co//on sense is right: things have to be brought to an end% nd here$ once again$ science and la.$ .hich see/ed for a /o/ent to be united in their defence of their procedures$ rather than their privileges$ are sho.n to be 5uite different% t the 6onseil d*4tat$ every effort is /ade to sustain doubt for as long as possible$ but .hen a decision is reached it is /ade once and for all% 1n the laboratory$ every effort is /ade to reach certainty$ but in the end it is left to others$ to colleagues$ to a point in the future$ to the dyna/ic of the scientific field$ to decide on the truth value of .hat is said% +his attitude is the co/pletely opposed to .hat one finds in la.: suddenly$ after /onths or years of .aiting$ the case has to be concluded% nd this is not just a possibility but an obligation$ .hich is inscribed in the la.: a judge has to decide$ other.ise he abuses his authority% lthough he has gone to all this trouble to slo. things do.n$ to observe for/ality$ to collectivise$ to beco/e detached and indifferent$ to distance hi/self$ judg/ent /ust no. be issued% +hat is the object of the process of deliberation% +he only available escape route lies in deciding that the decision cannot be ta,en alone$ that the case is too serious$ so that one has to re/ove the case to a stage further up the hierarchy72)8% But this change of direction only puts off the inevitable% +he 6onseil d*4tat .ill have to /a,e the decision% 1t is the ulti/ate tribunal% +he only .ay to get judg/ent over .ith is to pass judg/ent% laboratory .or,s in 5uite the opposite .ay: it has gone to considerable trouble to cover its bac,$ to /ultiply its data$ to verify its hypotheses$ to anticipate objections$ to choose the best e5uip/ent$ to recruit the best specialists- it has drafted the /ost co/bative article$ chosen the best journal$ organi=ed the /ost s,illful lea,s to the press$ and then suddenly$ at the last /o/entE e?cept that there is no last /o/entA Muite unconcernedly$ the researchers$ having passionately pursued the truth$ and no. being unable to control the fate of their clai/s$ leave it to others to ta,e care of verifying the/% >0e*ll soon see .hat they have to saythe future .ill say .hether .e .ere right or not*% +he tribunal of history is a strange sort of court because it lac,s the /ost essential 5uality of a court: the absolute obligation to pass judg/ent no.$ .ithout putting it off until later$ and .ithout delegating the tas, to so/eone in the future$ .ho /ight be better 5ualified or superior in ran, to oneself% <aving accu/ulated their proofs of /odesty and distance$ the judges abruptly$ and .ith the greatest arrogance$ ta,e on the .rath of sovereignty: they decide the issue% Scientists$ having e?ercised all the passions of ,no.ledge and every pretension to certainty$ suddenly beco/e /odest and hu/bly defer to others% 6hains of references and chains of obligations But to distinguish passion on one side$ and detach/ent on the other$ scientists* interest and la.yers* disinterest$ /odesty and authority$ or closure and openness$ is to /a,e .hat is still only a surface co/parison$ lying in the indeter/inate =one bet.een psychology and ethology$ bet.een procedure and content% 1n order to deepen the analysis$ .hich ai/s to distinguish scientific and legal activity$ .hich are so often confused$ .e should no.$ at the ris, of tiring the reader$ trace out the .or,ings of these t.o /odes of enunciation even /ore closely$ by distinguishing the chains of reference .hich anthropologies of science have studied very closely fro/ legal chains of reference$ .hich are very difficult to describe7228% <o.ever$ the tas, is not i/possible$ because the fabrication and processing of files reveal the traces of these t.o .ays of establishing relations$ .hich in one case are /ade of infor/ation$ and$ in other$ of .hat can only be called obligation% But .hat does that /eanJ 1 shall try to describe .hat is transported fro/ one layer of inscription to another in the course of an e?peri/ent$ and .hat happens to a file .hen it undergoes the process through .hich legal grounds are e?tracted fro/ it% #y hypothesis is that /ost of the superficial features that .e have set out so far are e?plained by the differences bet.een these t.o orders of circulation% Before e?ploring these differences$ .e should recall the co//on origin of both legal and scientific practices$ the ancestral learning that still constitutes the basic apprenticeship of scientists and la.yers$ na/ely$ the

/anipulation of te?ts$ or of inscriptions in general$ .hich are accu/ulated in a closed space before being subjected to a subtle e?egesis .hich see,s to classify the/$ to critici=e the/$ and to establish their .eight and hierarchy$ and .hich for both ,inds of practitioner replace the e?ternal .orld$ .hich is in itself unintelligible% 9or both la.yers and scientists$ it is possible to spea, confidently about the .orld only once it has been transfor/ed ( .hether by the .ord of Nod$ a /athe/atical code$ a play of instru/ents$ a host of predecessors$ or by a natural or positive la. ( into a Nreat Boo,$ .hich /ight e5ually .ell be of nature or culture$ .hose pages been ripped out and rearranged by so/e diabolical agency$ so that they have no. to be co/piled$ interpreted$ edited$ and rebound% 0ith scientists as .ith judges$ .e find ourselves already in a te?tual universe .hich has the double peculiarity of being so closely lin,ed to reality that it can ta,e its place$ and yet unintelligible .ithout an ongoing .or, of interpretation72'8% nd both for scientists and la.yers this incessant activity generates ne. te?ts$ .hose 5uality$ order$ and coherence .ill$ parado?ically$ increase the co/ple?ity$ disorder$ and incoherence of the corpus they leave to their successors$ .ho .ill the/selves have to ta,e on this labour of Sisyphus or !enelope% Stitching$ .eaving$ revie.ing$ and revising of 4?egesis$ /other of both science and la.% +he co//on e?egetical role of the good researcher and the good la.yer can be seen in the .ay that they both evaluate stac,s of heterogeneous docu/ents by attributing a different value of trust to each% 2ust as the e?pression >Mui sera publi: au recueil* carries /ore .eight than >au? tables* in the description of a precedent$ so an article published in Fature or Science .ill elicit a greater degree of attach/ent than a preprint posted on a .ebsite% Both scientists and la.yers have great respect for e?isting publications ( .hich in both disciplines can be trac,ed do.n by a coded sche/e of citation and references ( and yet both have a certain distance$ defiance$ or even disrespect for too close a lin,age of references% 2ust as a conseiller du gouverne/ent .ill say$ 5uite politely$ that >+his decision see/s to /e to be 5uite isolated$ and$ in truth$ 5uite unrepresentative of the case la.*$ so a researcher .ill have no hesitation in .riting that > lthough there a nu/ber of e?peri/ents .hich assu/e the e?istence of this pheno/enon$ no conclusive proof has ever been provided*% Both differentiate very subtly bet.een those docu/ents .hich are assured and those .hich leave enough gaps and contradictions on .hich to hang the argu/ent$ or to suggest alternative for/ulations% Both ,inds of practitioner .or, collectively$ and .ithout the close collaboration of their colleagues they .ould be 5uite unable to say anything at all% 1n both do/ains$ everything /ay already have been .ritten$ but still nothing has yet been .ritten$ so that it is necessary to begin again$ collectively$ .ith a ne. effort of interpretation% <o.ever$ .hereas in the 6onseil d*4tat the act of .riting is al.ays e?plicit$ in a laboratory such as that of 3ossier$ it al.ays see/s to be a /ere appendage of scientific .or,$ or perhaps even a ,ind of chore% 9or e?a/ple$ on arrival at the 6onseil$ each ne. /e/ber receives t.o docu/ents: the #e/ento du rapporteur devant les for/ations ad/inistratives du 6onseil d*4tat$ and the Nuide du rapporteur de la Section du 6ontentieu?% +hese substantial volu/es$ .hich e?plain in detail ho. to draft notes and arr@ts$ are essentially style /anuals paying as /uch attention to the for/ of bureaucratic sta/ps and endorse/ents as they do to the proper layout of paragraphs or correct punctuation% lthough there are (especially in the ;nited States" courses .hich provide future scientists .ith a training in .riting s,ills$ /ost laboratory .or,ers .ould be surprised to find their activity described as a .or, of e?egesis% ;ntil this character .as revealed by the anthropology of science$ scientific te?ts .ere assu/ed to be nothing /ore than supports for infor/ation$ .hose only virtue .as transparency$ and .hose only defect obscurity% 1n order to reconnect the sciences .ith their ancient roots$ these te?ts had to be seen in the light of the output of laboratory instru/ents and the i/portant role of inter(citation% Only then could scientific authors once again appear as her/eneuts$ as .riters or scholars$ e?cept that the te?ts they co/pare incorporate te?tual proofs e?tracted fro/ pheno/ena put to an e?peri/ental trial% 6onseillers$ on the other hand$ are al.ays tal,ing about their .riting activities$ and 5uite often spea, in for/ulaic phrases /ade up of citations% 9or the/ a te?t is never just a support for infor/ation$ and is never evaluated on the basis of its clarity alone- indeed$ that /uch beco/es obvious if one reads any of their .ritingsA 1f 1 re/ind ourselves of their co//on roots$ it beco/es i/possible (.hatever /ight be said in the vast body of .riting on the subject" to distinguish scientific te?ts$ .hich are supposed to be factual and i/personal$ fro/ legal te?ts$ .hich are supposed to have the special property of doing .hat they say$ or$ depending on the circu/stances$ of saying .hat should be done% +here are of course a nu/ber of differences$ but .e should hesitate to understand these in ter/s of the conventional distinction bet.een fact and la.$ or bet.een declarative and perfor/ative state/ents% Scientific te?ts$ as 1 have already suggested$ rese/ble neither the /ythical state/ents of rhetoricians or philosophers of language (>.ater boils at )00 degrees*" nor affir/ations (>the decision /ade on the )&th pril )HH2 by the ad/inistrative court of Nrenoble is hereby overturned*"% ;nli,e the /anuals or encyclopedias .ith .hich they are so often confused$ the scientific or research te?t that e/erges straight fro/ the laboratory deals not so /uch .ith a fact that has to be described$ but .ith a profound transfor/ation$ .hich the .ord Oinfor/ation* does not really describe% ;nless$ that is$ the ter/ is understood ety/ologically$ to /ean placing .ithin a for/$ the latter being understood 5uite literally or /aterially$ as consisting in a graph$ e5uation$ or table% Fo in(for/ation can be produced .ithout a cascade of these sorts of trans(for/ations7248% #oreover$ no scientific article .ould /a,e do .ith a single such transport$ .ith just one representation in the for/ of a graph$ but has instead to orchestrate do=ens$ each lin,ed to the other so as to co/pose a dra/a or a chain of reasoning$ each one being precarious in the sense that it see,s to carry over all of the relevant ele/ents of the preceding layer .hile at the sa/e ti/e thoroughly /odifying the/ so as to give added force to the particular theory$ for/ula or interpretation% 9inally$ as 1 have observed$ this .hole process of transfor/ation ta,es the for/ of a clai/ or petition$ .hich is characterised by uncertainty and danger$ and .hich the authors release into the /ass of e?isting publications72C8% +he truth value of the state/ent .ill be attributed retroactively$ fro/ the treat/ent that the clai/ or petition receives at the hands of other authors$ supporters as .ell as detractors%

+his sort of te?tual trail$ or co/ple? alche/y$ has no /ore to do .ith the co//on sense notions of a factual state/ent than it does .ith legal te?ts% 1f the very particular (but not defining" ,ind of activity that one finds in laboratories is understood as the ha=ardous construction of referential chains$ one can find nu/erous traces of that process in judicial files$ but far fro/ defining the nature of judicial activity$ it /erely organi=es a fe. of its seg/ents$ the re/ainder being characteri=ed by activities that are /ore properly legal% 9or e?a/ple$ the 5uestion .hether a /ap .as anne?ed to a file /ight be ans.ered by the referential gesture of pointing to the file$ or the /ap /ight be adjudged to have been anne?ed by connectivity72D8% 1n this /anoeuvre$ the furro. of one referential chain is abandoned in favour another$ .hich .e have still to define% +he differences bet.een la. and science are clearly revealed in the clash or interruption of these t.o furro.s% 9or e?a/ple$ if the 5uestion .hether an ac,no.ledge/ent of receipt .as actually sent is raised in the course of a hearing$ and the file contains the appropriate post office for/$ signed and dated by the clai/ant$ the 5uality of the reference is un5uestionable- si/ilarly$ .hen the asse/bly is convinced$ having ta,en a co//on sense approach in reading tracts anne?ed to a file$ that a candidate defa/ed his opponent to so/e degree on the eve of the election- or$ again$ .here an aerial photograph attached to file allo.s the/ to establish .hether or not a par, is fully enclosed by a .all$ this being the point at issue$ the judges retrace a short referential chain by doing .hat geographers$ geologists$ or surveyors /ight do$ that is$ by superi/posing layer upon layer of docu/ents and tracings$ .hich are very different in ter/s of their /ateriality (photographs$ graphs$ docu/ents$ and plans" but .hich by their nature ,eep infor/ation intact across a play of transfor/ations% But the judges* confidence .ould soon evaporate if$ instead of having to /a,e the fe. referential steps .hich they ta,e .hen they trac, a /ap$ graph$ signature$ or opinion through their files$ they had to cross the do=ens of transfor/ations that are necessary for scientists to establish a reasonably solid proof in a so/e.hat speciali=ed field% 0ould a judge agree to entrust his judg/ent to an electronic /icroscope .hich re5uires a hundred or so adjust/ents$ each of .hich co/pletely transfor/s the initial sa/ple72&8J judge .ould e?clai/ indignantly that he needed a /ore Odirect contact* .ith reality% On the other hand$ .ould a researcher agree to /a,e a decision on the basis of a fra/e that .as as narro.ly defined as >.hat is contained .ithin the file*J +he short referential chains .hich are contained in the folder .ould soon be disrupted by slippages$ dislocations$ and changes of register .hich .ould be horrifying to scientific researchers% 0hen a judge says that there is nothing in the file to the effect that a foreigner e?pelled fro/ 9rance had children born in 9rance$ he satisfies hi/self .ith the li/its defined by the antagonistic logic of the case$ and settles for an in5uiry as to .hether any defence sub/ission had disputed the fact$ using the phrase$ >and that point .as not contested*% procedure of this sort$ .hich re5uires that one ,eep to the traces accu/ulated in the file$ .ould free=e the blood of a scientist% <e too$ li,e his judicial critic$ .ould de/and a /ore direct$ richer$ and /ore living$ contact .ith realityA >Let*s put the file to one side and go and see .hat*s happening for ourselves$ let*s do so/e field.or,$ 5uestion the .itnesses$ forget the pathetic argu/ents of the la.yers$ and escape fro/ the straightjac,et of this paper .orld$ .hich is unable to capture reality*% +he point is that the researcher confuses the suppl:/ent d*instruction .ith the process of judg/ent% <is objective is al.ays to ,no. /ore$ and he .ould e?pect there to be a t.o(.ay path bet.een the offices of the 6onseil and the facts$ .hich .ould allo. the transportation of (appropriately transfor/ed" infor/ation to be continually i/proved% But$ as a result$ he .ould accu/ulate /ore and /ore infor/ation .ithout yet being able to pass judg/ent% +he process of instruction .ould be inflated to 5uite fearso/e proportions$ and no decision .ould ever be reached% <e .ould$ in fact$ be engaging in research$ not judg/ent% La.yers and scientists are each scandali=ed by the other*s for/s of enunciation% +hey both spea, truth$ but each according to a 5uite different criterion of truth% 2udges consider that scientists have access to .hat is only a pale version of reality$ because they .rite articles .hich have a relation to the facts they describe that is so indirect that there are do=ens of steps in their reasoning$ and as /any leaps fro/ each graphic representation to the ne?t% Scientists$ on the other hand$ don*t understand ho. judges can be content .ith .hat is .rapped in their files$ or ho. they can apply the ter/ >incontrovertible fact* to a sub/ission that has been contradicted by a counter(sub/ission% Scientists$ by contrast$ /easure the 5uality of their referential grip in ter/s of the /ediate character of their instru/ents and their theories% 0ithout /a,ing this long detour$ they .ould have nothing to say other than .hatever fell i//ediately before the senses$ .hich .ould be of no interest$ and .ould have no value as infor/ation% 2udges$ for their part$ hold that the 5uality of their judg/ents is closely dependent on their ability to avoid the t.o ha=ards of ultra petita and infra petita: that is$ issuing a judg/ent that either goes beyond or falls short of that .hich the parties have as,ed for% 0hat see/s to judges to be a /ajor failing is considered by scientists to be their greatest strength- yes$ they can only attain precision by progressively distancing the/selves fro/ direct contact% nd that .hich scientists regard as the greatest defect of la. is ta,en as a co/pli/ent by the conseillers: they do indeed stic, to .hat can be elicited fro/ the file$ .ithout addition or subtraction% <ere$ .e have t.o distinct conceptions of e?actitude and talent$ or of faithfulness and professionalis/% 1t /ight be argued that these differences are 5uite /inor by co/parison .ith .hat both have in co//on$ na/ely the reduction of the .orld to paper% 9ro/ this overly general perspective$ both scientific inclusivity and the inclusivity of the file rese/ble stuffing a 5uilt into an envelope% But these are t.o very different /odes of reduction$ and the .hole ai/ of this section is to distinguish the/% +he i/portant thing is to understand ho. the relation bet.een the legal file and the particular case is unli,e the relation bet.een a /ap and the territory$ if /aps are ta,en as both a sy/bol and an e?a/ple of chains of reference% Legal reduction see,s to constitute a do/ain of un5uestionable fact as 5uic,ly as possible (.hich /eans only that there should be no sub/ission fro/ the defence contesting those facts"$ so that it can then subsu/e the facts into a rule of la. (.hich is in practice a te?t" in order to produce a judg/ent (.hich is$ in reality$ a decree$ a te?t"% Scientific reduction effects the sa/e astonishing econo/y because it too replaces the richness and co/ple?ity of the .orld in all its di/ension .ith paper and te?ts% But the approach it establishes is utterly different because$ once one is in possession of a piece of paper$ a docu/ent$ or a /ap$ it is al.ays possible to retrace ones steps$ returning to the territory to pic, up the trail$ once one has found the signposts$ the

surveyor*s sta,es$ or the right perspectives and calculations of angles% t each point$ the reasoning process ta,es hold on the superposition of instru/ents$ graphs$ theodolites$ /ar,ers$ graduations$ and /easure/ents .hich enable reasoning to act as though it .as al.ays /oving fro/ li,e to li,e above the abyss of the transfor/ation of /atter% But in la.$ even .hen rese/blance or precedent is invo,ed$ .hat is involved is never a precise superposition% 0hen the rapporteur says: POne of the argu/ents alleges a procedural i/propriety$ on the basis that the plan .as neither initialed nor nu/bered by the co//issaire en5u@teur- this allegation is not supported by the facts because although the register .as initialed only on every other page$ this is not serious because the cases define a leaf as a folded sheetQ% +he /inuscule portion of reference that enables hi/ to verify the signature is i//ediately diverted$ or$ /ore precisely$ relayed$ by the legal definition of .hat is Oa leaf*% +his does indeed involve tracing a path$ but in this case it binds a factual ele/ent to .hat la.yers call a >5ualification*: >is this a leaf in the sense that the ter/ is used in article )'(2C of the procedural code of the d:claration d*utilit: publi5ueJ* So/eone .ho holds a /ap in their hands also holds the territory$ or at least a t.o(.ay path that .ould allo. hi/ to learn /ore on the occasion of the ne?t iteration$ or on the occasion of his ne?t visit to the territory- so/eone .ho holds a file has established a connection that /eans that he .ill no longer have to learn anything /ore fro/ the fact$ and .hich$ on his return$ .ill allo. hi/ to transport an un5uestionable decision% +he difference bet.een reference and 5ualification is clearly e?e/plified in a case in .hich an asse/bly had to decide .hether the illustrator of a gardening /aga=ine$ .ho had been refused a highly coveted press card on the grounds that she did not deal .ith current affairs$ could have the decision of the journalists* professional body overturned% s one /ight e?pect$ there .as so/e discussion of the distinction bet.een current affairs and seasonal affairs: are this year*s peonies$ peach trees$ or ,i.i fruit Ocurrent affairs*J 1s the person .ho illustrates the/ Oa reporter*J But this 5uestion of substance .ould lead no.here$ because the 5uestion is not .hether an illustrator of current affairs is really$ truly$ funda/entally$ or referentially a reporter$ but .hether$ as against the professional body$ she is able to establish that 5uality >.ithin the /eaning of article L &D)(2 of the e/ploy/ent code*% +here is si/ply no relation bet.een this and a definition of essence$ nature$ truth$ or e?actitude% Or rather there is$ but the relation is one of si/ple connectivity: it is not necessarily the case that progress in one di/ension advances things in the other di/ension$ or vice versa% P1t being the case that #/e 4yraud clai/s the status of a professional journalist as an illustrator(reporter- and pursuant to the provisions of the third subsection of article L%&D)(2 of the labour la. code$ .hich states that >+he follo.ing participants in the editorial process shall be treated as professional journalists: translator( editors$ stenographer(editors$ sub(editors$ illustrator(reporters$ photographic reporters$ e?cept advertising agents$ and those .ho are participate in the editorial process only occasionally- given that according to the facts of the case the duties of #/e 4yraud$ .ho is e/ployed by the /aga=ine 3ustica as an illustrator$ consist in the illustration of sheets .hich are designed to describe /ethods and techni5ues of gardening- and given that in this case these illustrations are sufficiently lin,ed to current affairs as to characteri=e their illustrator as a reporter in the /eaning of the foregoing provisions- #/e 4yraud is therefore able to clai/ the benefit of article L%&D)(2 of the labour la. code%Q 4ven in this very si/ple case$ the t.o for/s of discourse$ that of the dispute itself and that of la.$ re/ain absolutely heterogeneous% 0hat does it /ean to say that >in this case these illustrations are sufficiently lin,ed to current affairs*J <o.ever /uch you play .ith the /eaning of article L &D)(2$ it .ill not provide you .ith the ans.er to that 5uestion% +he te?t says nothing other than that$ in this particular case$ the judges considered #/e 4yraud to be a reporter .ithin the /eaning of the article% 9ull stop% >Les$ but is she really a reporterJ*$ one /ight as,% 0hat does the notion of a >sufficient lin,* /eanJ +hat 5uestion .ould carry us all the .ay along a referential chain$ distancing us fro/ another chain$ that .hich ensures the fragile and provisional lin,age bet.een a te?t and a particular case% h$ you /ight say$ but this is a very fa/iliar ,ind of operation: this is just a process of classification% 1n /uch the sa/e .ay as a post/an uses the depart/ental postcodes .ritten on envelopes to sort letters into bo?es ordered by R1! codes$ so a legal file allo.s one to order the facts of the particular case according to the relevant categories$ such as$ for e?a/ple$ legal error$ ultra vires$ or public .or,s% But the .ord >classification*$ li,e the .ords >reduction*$ >fact*$ >reasoning*$ >judg/ent*$ or >5ualification*$ changes its /eaning depending on the ,ind of enunciation that .e*re trying to characteri=e% process of scientific classification .ould allo. one to subsu/e each particular instance .ithin the category in such a .ay that$ having established that is an instance of B$ anyone .ho had B in their possession could obtain $ or at least all of the relevant features of % 1f is an instance of an acetylcholin receptor$ given a ,no.ledge of acetylcholin receptors$ 1 .ould ,no. all that there is to be ,no.n about % But this is not ho. particular facts are 5ualified by legal rules: nothing in article L &D)( 2 tells one .hether the facts of the ne?t case .ill or .ill not disclose a sufficiently close connection to current affairs% +he rule contains no ,no.ledge or infor/ation about the particular facts$ e?cept in the /ost superficial sense- one /ight say$ for e?a/ple$ that such and such a case is a case of ultra vires$ .hich .ould /ean that the Service des analyses should steer it to.ards a particular asse/bly speciali=ed in those topics% But this ,ind of ordering is of assistance in logistics rather than in judg/ent% #inor referential chains ( is an instance of B" are subordinated to .hat$ fro/ the point of vie. of the la.$ is the only true ,ind of chain: is an instance of B as it is defined by article 6% 0hereas in science the relation bet.een the instance and category is ta?ono/ic$ in la. this is only superficially true% 1n both cases one finds lin,ages and path.ays establishing nu/erous relations bet.een te?ts and events$ but in each case the grids differ as /uch as a grid of fibre optic cables differs fro/ an urban gas supply net.or,% +o enter a referential chain is to approach things 5uite differently fro/ a legal file% +he cascade of transfor/ations .hich produces infor/ation is such as to oblige the protagonists to produce that rarest of co//odities: ne. infor/ation about ne.ly(forged beings$ .hich have co/e into contact .ith science and

.hich have to be recogni=ed$ ta,en into account$ ordered$ and 5ualified in such a .ay that$ once these re5uire/ents have been satisfied$ one /ight return to the/ in order to gather supple/entary infor/ation or fresh ,no.ledge$ until eventually they have been so thoroughly disciplined$ understood$ trained$ do/esticated$ and /astered that they can be put in a >blac, bo?*$ at .hich point they can be considered as ,no.n$ and used as the pre/ises of ne. processes of argu/entation or e?peri/entation72G8% +his dyna/ic of ,no.ledge patterns the .orld .ith t.o(.ay paths .hich eventually saturate the territory that is being /apped$ thoroughly confusing the t.o registers in a single truth(telling discourse% +hose .ho are recogni=ed by their colleagues as the fortunate producers of ne. and reliable infor/ation .ill be re.arded .ith epony/y- their na/e .ill forever be associated .ith a particular discovery$ such as Fe.ton*s la.s or Boyle*s la.% Strangely$ epony/y e?ists in la. but it re.ards not the judge but the clai/ant$ .hose na/e .ill forever be associated .ith an i/portant decision .hich$ as they say$ a >land/ar, decision*% lthough the na/e of the conseiller du gouverne/ent is so/eti/es attached to a decree$ above all if his conclusions are published$ no( one re/e/bers the na/e of the author of a land/ar, decision$ .hich is necessarily anony/ous- and$ as .e ,no.$ every effort is /ade to ensure that change is presented in ter/s of legal continuity: the phrase >plus Sa change$ plus c*est pareil* is absolutely applicable to a corpus of la.% 0hereas in science everything is done to ensure that the i/pact of ne. infor/ation upon a body of established ,no.ledge is as devastating as possible$ in la. things are arranged in such a .ay as to ensure that the particular facts are just the e?ternal occasion for a change .hich alters only the la. itself$ and not the particular facts$ about .hich one can learn nothing further$ beyond the na/e of the clai/ant% 1n la. too$ paths are traced across the .orld$ .eaving nu/erous relations bet.een clai/ants$ legislative acts$ decrees$ and codes$ but these lin,s do not produce any infor/ation or novelty: they are traversed by /oyens$ vehicles that are every bit as original as infor/ation$ but .hich are 5uite different$ and .hich .e have to study further if .e are to describe the/ properly% +he difference is clearest in the situation .here a conseiller$ addressing a difficult point$ e?clai/s that >Since last .ee,$ .e ,no. thatE* +he ,no.ledge in 5uestion does not rest on a ne.ly established connection bet.een a fact and a theory$ across the ha=ardous passage of a referential chain- rather$ it /eans that >0e have decided the 5uestion$ and there is therefore nothing /ore to be discussed*% 3es judicata pro veritate habetur Fo bond is stronger than legal obligation or certainty as to facts% +hat .as .hat led /e to /a,e this (occasionally daring" co/parison bet.een t.o activities .hich are entirely different$ but .hose precise and intricate /anufacture is un,no.n to the broader public% But$ as .e have seen$ popular representations of la. and science confuse the features of the t.o activities so /uch that they are of no assistance in elaborating this co/parison% <o.ever stri,ing the differences$ and ho.ever /uch those differences are accentuated at each stage of the co/parison$ they are difficult to pin do.n because$ on the one hand$ judges appropriate the scientist*s .hite coat in order to represent their role$ .hile$ on the other$ scientists borro. the judge*s robes of purple and er/ine in order to establish their authority% t the ris, of /o/entarily abandoning ethnography to engage in philosophy$ 1 shall conclude by dra.ing up an inventory of these e?changes$ so as to render unto 6aesar that .hich is 6aesar*s$ and to render unto Nalilee that .hich is Nalilee*s% #ost of the 5ualities that are co//only attributed to scientists are dra.n fro/ the /icro(procedures invented by la.yers to produce their fragile ethos of disinterest72H8% 1ndifference to the outco/e of a case$ the distance established bet.een the /ind and the object that is being spo,en about$ the coldness and rigour of judg/ent$ in short$ everything that .e associate .ith objectivity$ belongs not to the .orld of the laboratory or of calculation$ but to the judicial bench% Or rather$ .e should distinguish objectivity as the basis of a /ood of indifference and serenity as to the solution$ fro/ .hat /ight be ter/ed >objectity*: the ordeal by /eans of .hich a scientist binds his o.n fate and that of his speech to the trials undergone by the pheno/enon in the course of an e?peri/ent% 0hereas objectivity pertains to the subject and his interior state$ objectity pertains to the object and its peculiarly judicial role% +he sa/e adjective ( >he has an objective /ind* ( can therefore point to t.o 5uite different virtues$ one of .hich is essentially just a particular for/ of subjectivity (distance$ indifference$ disinterest" and the other a very specific for/ of subjectification in .hich the researcher subjects hi/self to an e?peri/ental object% Ioesn*t this co//on(sense ad/iration for the objectivity of scientists i/ply that they should sit as judgesJ nd .hen$ on the other hand$ co//on sense co/plains about the fragility of its la.yers$ doesn*t this i/ply that they should display the sa/e ,inds of objects as laboratory researchersJ +he strange thing about legal objectivity is that it 5uite literally is object(less$ and is sustained entirely by the production of a /ental state$ a bodily he?is$ but is still 5uite unable to resign its faculty of judg/ent by appealing to incontrovertible facts% 1t therefore depends entirely on a 5uality of speech$ deport/ent$ dress$ and on a for/ of enunciation$ and therefore on all of those e?ternal appearances that have been derided since !ascal$ .ithout recogni=ing that this respect for appearances is a for/ of objectivity that is unattainable for scientists% Scientists spea, inarticulately about precise objects$ la.yers spea, in precise ter/s about vague objects% +hat is because judges have no superiors to .ho/ they /ight refer the tas, of judg/ent (unless$ of course$ they are judges of first instance"% Scientific objectity$ on the other hand$ is distinguished by the fact that it is subject(less because it acco//odates all sorts of /ental states$ and all for/s of vice$ passion$ enthusias/$ speech deficiencies$ sta//ers$ or cognitive li/itations% <o.ever unfair$ e?cessive$ e?peditious$ or partial researchers /ight be$ they .ill never lac, an object% bove each of the/$ li,e the s.ord of Ia/ocles$ hang the facts ( or rather the strange hybrid produced by the encounter bet.een incontrovertible facts and controversial colleagues ( and this threat is sufficient to call even their /ost e?tre/e enthusias/s or injustices to order% Suspended above researchers$ there is al.ays a third object that is appointed judge and charged .ith deciding on their behalf$ to .hich scientists delegate the tas, of judging$ .ithout .orrying .hether they the/selves$ in their o.n consciences$ are >objective*7'08% s for judges$ they have no(one else to judge on their behalf$ and they can beco/e >objective* only by constructing an intricate and co/ple? institution .hich detaches and isolates their consciences fro/ the ulti/ate solution% <aving rendered unto judges an objectivity that is a for/ of subjectivity$ and unto scientists an objectity

predicated upon the guaranteed presence of the object$ .e can no. locate the second feature that co//on sense surreptitiously displaces fro/ the real/ of la. to the real/ of science$ na/ely$ the ability to have the last .ord% +he invention of the role of the e?pert .itness has allo.ed t.o 5uite opposing functions to be confused$ because it re5uires that scientists$ having been diverted fro/ their roles$ occupy the throne of supre/e court judges$ cloa,ing their testi/ony in the incontrovertible authority of the facts as judged (res judicata"% But there is a difference bet.een e?pert and researcher7')8% 9or the latter$ there is no such thing as the authority of science >as judged*$ and if she .ere to co/e across a set of propositions that the current$ fragile$ state of scientific controversy had /ade un5uestionable$ .hat .ould she doJ 0hy$ of course$ she .ould i//ediately 5uestion the/A She .ould return to her laboratory$ carry out ne. e?peri/ents$ re(open the blac, bo? that her colleagues had just sealed closed$ change the protocols$ or$ if she herself shared their conviction$ she .ould use this guaranteed output to construct a ne. e?peri/ent and to engender ne. facts% 1n science$ incontrovertibility is al.ays the high point of a /ove/ent by .hich the .or, of infor/ationTtransfor/ation is continually rene.ed% 0hen discussion co/es to an end$ it does so only so as to inaugurate a ne. phase of intense discussion about entities .hich have only recently co/e into e?istence% 0hen the e?pert scientist is given the po.er to decide or not decide$ he is lent the regalia of a /ode of sovereignty that belongs e?clusively to la.% +his confusion .ould be especially har/ful because .hat the judges call >having the last .ord* rese/bles neither the authority of the e?pert nor the scientists* endless rene.al of discussion7'28% 1ndeed$ ho.ever forceful the authority of res judicata in la.$ .hat is involved is al.ays$ as la.yers say$ the >e?haustion* of the available channels of appeal% +he end of a case never reaches a li/it that is any /ore grandiose that this particular ,ind of e?haustion: >it*s reported in the Lebon*$ >the issue has been decided*$ >as the la. no. stands*$ >unless the 4uropean 6ourt of <u/an 3ights rules to the contrary*% Fothing said in the 6onseil d*4tat is /ore juicy$ or /ore subli/e$ than these sorts of e?pression% 0hen they reach the >end* of a hearing$ judges ta,e care to ensure that this ending is not clothed in the grandiose for/s of 1ncontrovertibility% 0hen 3o/an la.yers intoned the celebrated adage >res judicata pro veritate habetur*$ they .ere declaring that .hat had been decided should be ta,en as the truth$ .hich /eans$ precisely$ that it should in no .ay be confused .ith the truth% +he estee/ed role of the e?pert corresponds neither to the /odel of scientific research$ .hich re( opens a discussion that had been closed too 5uic,ly$ nor that of the judge$ because the latter de/ands of closure nothing /ore transcendent than a si/ple end to the discussion% +his ,ind of i//anence is a /odest$ constructive$ or even constructivist solution: given that there is no(one above us$ and that the case is si/ply stopped by the decision .hich is 9rench is precisely called and arr@t$ that is$ a stop: that .hich .e ,no. .ithout engaging in further discussion$ .e ,no. because$ 5uite si/ply$ .e have e?hausted the discussion% +here is no further appeal% 9ull stop% 1t /ight be said that in this respect judges offer to scientists .hat episte/ologists have described as Science*s night/are: the e?a/ple of a /ode of unfettered arbitrariness in .hich a closed asse/bly decides$ .ithout reference to any e?ternal arbiter$ .ith no tools other than .ords$ and by si/ple consensus$ .hat should be held as the truth% On that basis$ they .ould be entirely free to call a cat a dog$ to consider a slave a free /an$ to say that a contractual clause .as a separate agree/ent$ or to e?tract fro/ silent te?ts a set of >general principles of la.* .hose .riting no(one had ever .itnessed- in short$ to e?ercise all the prerogatives of the techni5ue of fictio legis .hich$ by /eans of >praetorian glosses*$ ensured that the citi=enry /istoo, bladders for lanterns7''8% 6learly$ nothing could be /ore disturbing fro/ the point of scientists$ .ho are concerned to build as /uch reality as possible into their state/ents$ than this capacity to invent everything ane.% One can see in this /odel the fa/ous notion of >social construction*$ a spectre su//oned up by sociologists so as to scare episte/ologists by threatening that all 5uests for the truth end up in a loc,ed roo/ .here a secret ballot is held to decide .hat .ill henceforth count as the truth% But$ in the sa/e .ay as an e?pert .itness has nothing in co//on .ith real scientific .or,$ so social construction /anufactured behind closed doors has nothing in co//on .ith real legal elaboration% Once again$ the advantages of not confusing the distinct features of these 5uite specific for/s of enunciation beco/e clear% 2ust as scientists can indulge in all ,inds of /oods$ being as passionate or partial as they li,e$ because the laboratory object occupies the sa/e place as a legal te?t or a binding precedent$ so$ by contrast$ la.yers can indulge a po.er to invent fictions$ and to introduce .hat they call >constructive solutions*$ because$ precisely$ in /a,ing their decisions they have no object$ or no objectity$ to deal .ith% 0hat is so shoc,ing about the fantas/atic i/age of >social construction* is that it applies a /odel of legal decision(/a,ing to scientific objects: in .hich case$ of course the special pro.ess of adjudication does indeed turn into a cynical night/are of arbitrariness% But the point is precisely to avoid confusing the t.o things% 1ndeed$ /y atte/pt at clarification see,s to re/ove fro/ science the po.er to have the last .ord .hich .as entrusted to it in error or through co.ardice$ and to encourage it to resu/e the construction of those referential chains .hose continual /ove/ent loads the/ .ith infor/ation that is /ore and /ore reliable$ /ore and /ore precise$ and /ore and /ore capable of sustaining discussion% On the other hand$ if legal enunciation is relieved of the i/possible tas, of transporting infor/ation and uttering the truth$ it is left free to circulate through the fine channels of that very particular ,ind of vehicle$ .hich is the only one capable of freighting and transporting those priceless co//odities that are ,no.n as >/oyens*$ >5ualifications*$ >obligations*$ and >decisions*% 1t .ould$ ho.ever$ be 5uite .rong to dra. a contrast bet.een science$ set against an intangible reality that resists all atte/pts to /anipulate it$ and .hich cannot be t.isted in accordance .ith our desires$ and la.$ .hich$ because it consists only in .ords and consensus interpretations reached in a closed hearing$ can say .hatever it li,es so long as it is authorised to have the last .ord7'48% La. has its o.n resistance$ its o.n solidity $ rigidity$ or positivity$ and even its o.n objectivity$ .hich$ despite the ad/ission that it is constructed$ has no need to be envious of scientific realis/% 0e ,no. that scientists spea, the truth about pheno/ena precisely because they can /anipulate$ transfor/$ and test the/ in thousands of .ays$ and because they can use e?peri/ent techni5ues to insinuate the/selves into the /ost inti/ate details of their /aterial e?istence% 1t is precisely because reality is not intangible$ and because it bears no relation to the >/atters of fact* i/agined by episte/ology$ that science can spea, 5uite faithfully about reality% 1t is therefore pointless to distinguish

science and la. in ter/s of the differences bet.een objects and signs$ hard and soft$ un5uestionable and arbitrary% 1f res judicata are not to be (/is"ta,en for the truth$ the point is not that this justifies so/e for/ of cynicis/$ but that it has better things to do than /i/ic or appro?i/ate to the truth: it has to produce justice$ and declare the la.$ in accordance .ith the e?isting state of the te?ts$ ta,ing into account the precedent$ .ith no arbiter other than the judges$ .ho have no(one to judge for the/% 1t /ight be said that this si/ply revives the old distinction bet.een judg/ents of fact and judg/ents of value% 9or /y part$ 1 .ould be /ore inclined to see this distinction itself as the echo of so/ething invented by the great )&th century 4nglish philosophers$ .ho$ for reasons .hich .ere largely political$ inappropriately crossed la. .ith the e/erging laboratory sciences% 1ndeed$ it is strange to note that the scenography of e/piricis/ borro.s the definition of a fact fro/ judges so as to apply it to science$ .hereas$ as .e have seen$ it in no .ay defines the articulation bet.een researchers and their objects% 1n the e/piricists* i/agination$ ra. facts$ the essential >data* or >sense data*$ have the peculiar virtue of being both insignificant and incontrovertible% +hey constitute the ra. /aterial of judg/ent$ .hich gets under .ay by ordering the/$ associating and co/bining the/ in the hu/an /ind% But isn*t this precisely the relationship that la.yers have to the facts$ .hich have to be defined as 5uic,ly as possible so as to /ove on to .hat really /atters$ na/ely$ processes of 5ualification or scholarly e?planationJ But in .hat laboratory .ould one find a researcher dealing .ith si/ple >sense data*J Only an e/piricist could i/agine that the articulation bet.een a scientific article and .hat it describes could be anything li,e this e?travagant division bet.een that .hich is 5uestionable and that .hich is un5uestionable% Once it is recognised that the very definition of >ra. facts* is a strange hybrid of la. and science$ it beco/es easier to understand ho. the virtues of distance$ indifference$ detach/ent$ or disinterestedness$ .hich characterise the .or, of judges$ ca/e to /igrate to the scientist$ or to the 5uite i/probable and highly politicised historical figure of the >e?pert*$ .ho has the capacity to bring discussion to an end by arrogating to hi/self the po.er to bind or unbind by delegating the issue to >/atters of fact*% +his is a deviation fro/ the careful .or, of scientific research$ but it is an even greater derailing of la.$ .hich only allo.ed itself to bring discussion to an end precisely because it could not delegate the tas, of ending a dispute to any authority other than its o.n fragile i//anence% By /eans of this spectacular /anoeuvre$ e/piricis/ led us to confound the virtues of politics$ science and la. in a Nordian ,not$ thereby turning those virtues into vices% +he )&th century representation of /atters of fact .as based on the suppression of so/ething .hich is no. being brought to our attention /ore and /ore insistently$ na/ely the co//on ety/ology that lin,s things and cases$ causes to causes$ thing and Iing%7'C8 By a strange inversion$ and as a result of being bo/barded by things that are alien to the social .orld$ scientific objects have once again beco/e cases that are subject to co//on discussion in a parlia/ent or a courtroo/% <aving e/erged fro/ the courtroo/$ or at least fro/ those e?traordinary foru/s .hich preceded courts$ the t.o ety/ological genealogies had gradually beco/e separated by the supposed distinction bet.een the arbitrary discussions of judges and the supre/e tribunal of e?perts spea,ing in the na/e of incontrovertible facts$ beyond any hu/an affair$ trial$ or plea% But$ having e?tended laboratory life to all of our collective e?istence$ it see/s that$ as the project of /odernis/ gradually e?hausts itself$ there is no. no fact that is not also a cause or a clai/% +he thing has once again beco/e a +hing or a Iing% +hat is .hy it is all the /ore i/portant$ no. that objects have been restored to their co//on origins$ not to confuse the characters of science and la.% 6learly$ in order to deal .ith states of affairs that are so inter/eshed$ it is hopeless to characterise the .or, of scientists in ter/s of .hat .as nothing /ore than the usurpation of legal or political authority$ just as it is i/possible to de/and that la.yers replace scientific enunciation% 1n dra.ing the distinction bet.een incontrovertible facts and negotiable values$ /odernis/ referred to the nature of objects$ .ithout paying proper attention to the different tas,s of the scientists and la.yers$ but that distinction should no. be /ade differently$ by reference to the nature of the t.o jobs$ .hich address causes$ or cases in co//on% 1t is no. essential that science should not be as,ed to judge$ and that la. should not be as,ed to pronounce truth% +hat .ould be to confuse the last of the features .hich distinguishes these t.o /odes of attach/ent: .hereas scientific research can engage .ith turbulent or violent history of innovation and controversy$ a history that continually being rene.ed$ la. has a ho/eostatic 5uality .hich is produced by the obligation to ,eep the fragile tissue of rules and te?ts intact$ and to ensure that one is understood by everyone at all ti/es% pre/iu/ is put on legal predictability 7s:curit: juridi5ue8 but there is no such thing as scientific security% Scientists$ once they have added their o.n particular pebble to the edifice of a discipline$ /ight .ell see the/selves in the role of Sa/son sha,ing the colu/ns of te/ple$ overturning paradig/s$ overthro.ing co//on sense$ and ban,rupting old theories% La.yers$ even .hen they /a,e an especially daring argu/ent for overturning established precedents$ have to secure the integrity of the legal edifice$ continuity in the e?ercise of po.er$ and s/oothness in the application of the la.% Science can tolerate gaps$ but the la. has to be sea/less% Science can dra. on lively controversy$ but the la. has to restore an e5uilibriu/% lthough one /ight spea, ad/iringly of >revolutionary science*$ >revolutionary la.s* have al.ays been as terrifying as courts .ith e/ergency po.ers% s one of /y intervie.ees suggested$ >Our first concern is for stability- .e have to plough a furro. that is as straight and as deep as possible$ because litigants e?pect coherence and transparency*% ll those aspects of la. that co//on sense finds so irritating ( its tardiness$ its taste for tradition$ its occasionally reactionary attitudes ( are essential to la.*s functioning% Li,e the 9ates$ the la. holds in its hand the fine thread of the .hole set of judg/ents$ te?ts$ and precedents$ .hich cannot be bro,en .ithout lapsing into a denial of justice% 0hereas the scientist can satisfy herself .ith partial infor/ation because she ,no.s that the po.er of her instru/ents .ill enable other scientists$ at so/e point in the future$ to refine the science and e?tend the chains of reference$ a judge has to ensure that holes are repaired i//ediately$ that tears are darned .ithout delay$ gaps filled$ and cases resolved% 0hereas the fabric of science e?tends every.here but leaves a lot of voids$ rather li,e a lace cloth$ the fabric of la. has to cover everything co/pletely and sea/lessly% ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

7)8 +his paper is a revised version of chapter C of a /uch longer ethnography La fabri5ue du droit ( ;ne ethnographie du 6onseil d*4tat$ La I:couverte$ !aris 2002% +he 6onseil plays the role of judge for ad/inistrative la. (this is called the 6ontentieu?( and also the role of legal advisor for the governe/ent (this is called$ rather enig/atically Sections ad/insitratives% 1t is part of the e?ecutive not the legislative branch% 1n its judiciary function$ it deals .ith all the relations bet.een the State and the individual% 9or a co/parison .ith British la.$ see <arlo.$ 6arol (2000"% P*La huronne au !alais(3oyal* or a Faive !erspective on d/inistrative La.%Q 2ournal of La. and Society 2&(2": '22('2& and the /uch older full boo, treat/ent in 9reed/an$ 6harles 4 ()HD)"% +he 6onseil d*4tat in #odern 9rance% Fe. Lor,$ 6olu/bia ;niversity !ress% 728 Ophir$ di$ Steven Shapin$ et al% ()HH0"% P+he !lace of Uno.ledge: +he Spatial Setting and its 3elation to the !roduction of Uno.ledge%Q Science in 6onte?t 4()"% 7'8 +he Lebon is the yearly selection of the /ost i/portant arr@ts of the 6onseil% 4nglish spea,ing readers have to reali=e that 9rench ad/inistrative la. is a case based corpus of la.$ /uch li,e co//on la.$ and is entirely different fro/ the code based legal syste/ .hich deals in 9rance .ith private and cri/inal affairs (and that is called le judiciaire"J 9rance$ li,e /any countries invaded by Fapoleon$ are endo.ed .ith t.o co/pletely different and parallel branches of la.% But 4ngland did not have this chance%%%although the La. Lords fulfill in part the sa/e function as the 6onseil% 748 On .hat is an instru/ent$ see Latour$ Bruno ()HG&"% Science 1n ction% <o. to 9ollo. Scientists and 4ngineers through Society% 6a/bridge #ass$ <arvard ;niversity !ress% 7C8 One of the /any peculiarities of the 9rench judges in ad/inistrative la. is that they go bac, and forth bet.een business$ active ad/istration$ elective function and their job at the 6onseil% +hus at any given /o/ent$ about half of the /e/bers are actually out of the 6onseil% 7D8 Lynch$ #ichael ()HGG"% PSacrifice and +he +ransfor/ation of +he ni/al Body 1nto Scientific Object: Laboratory 6ulture and 3itual !ractice in Feuroscience%Q Social Studies of Science )G: 2DC(2GH% 7&8 2asanoff$ Sheila ()HH2"% P0hat 2udges Should Uno. 2ournal('2": '4C('CH% bout the Sociology of Science%Q 2uri/etrics

7G8 #yers$ Nreg ()HH0"% 0riting Biology% +e?ts and the Social 6onstruction of Scientific Uno.ledge% ;niversity of 01sconsin !ress% 7H8 2asanoff$ Sheila ()HHC"% Science at the Bar% La.$ Science and +echnology in <arvard ;niversity !resss% /erica% 6a/bridge$ #ass$

7)08 +his is the fa/ous Iaubert case$ see http:TTla.s%findla.%co/TusTC0HTC&H%ht/l% 7))8 +ho/as$ Lan ()HGO"% P3es$ chose et patri/oine (note sur le rapport sujet(objet en droit ro/ain"%Q rchives de philosophie du droit 2C: 4)'(42D% 7)28 P#oyenQ in 9rench legal parlance designates an argu/ent .hich /ay be articulated in front of a court/oyens /ay Oprosper* or Odry*$ Othrive* or Obear no fruit*% 7)'8 6allon$ #ichel$ 2ean(!ierre 6ourtial$ et al% ()HH'"% La sciento/:trie% !aris$ !;9 Mue sais(jeJ nV2&2&% 7)48 +he s:ance d*instruction precedes the deliberation properly spea,ing$ it is a .ay to rehearse the argu/ents before sub/itting the case to colleagues% 7)C8 !oovey$ #ary ()HHH"% <istory of the #odern 9act% !roble/s of Uno.ledge in the Sciences of 0ealth and Society% 6hicago$ 6hicago ;niversity !ress% 7)D8 +he .ord Oco//issaire* is even /ore confusing in 4nglish and in 9rench% +his govern/ent Oco//issar* is e?actly the opposite of a co//issar sent by the govern/entA since he is totally independent% +he .ord has been ,ept for obscure reason of legal conservatis/% 7)&8 One feature of 9rench ad/insitrative la. is that the .hole procedure is .ritten .ithout any oral argu/ent e?cept the presentation read outloud and standing by the co//issaire and .hich is called his conclusions for

the reason that they do not conclude the judg/entE la. is really 5ueer% 7)G8 Bastide$ 9%$ #% 6allon$ et al% ()HGH"% P+he ;se Of 3evie. Sciento/etrics )C(C(D: C'C(CD2% rticles 1n +he nalysis Of 3esearch rea%Q

7)H8 +here are about 20 co//issaires for the 200 conseillers at .or, in the 6onseil% 7208 1n addition to political appointees$ the bul, of the 6onseil is for/ed by young graduates fro/ the very prestigious 4cole nationale d*ad/inistration% 72)8 +here are five different levels inside the sa/e 6onseil d*4tat$ to judge cases fro/ the least to the /ost i/portant case% 6ontrary to 4nglish spea,ing syste/s$ the 6onseil occupies the position of first and last instance depending on the topics% 1t is also at the top of a long chain of ad/inistrative tribunals for first instance and appeal courts% 7228 On chains of reference$ see Latour$ Bruno ()HHH"% !andora*s <ope% 4ssays on the reality of science studies% 6a/bridge$ #ass$ <arvard ;niversity !ress% 72'8 +his is the /ain thrust of !ierre Legendre fro/ ()HG'"% L*e/pire de la v:rit:% 1ntroduction au? espaces dog/ati5ues indutriels (LeSons 11"% !aris$ 9ayard to ()HHH"% Sur la 5uestion dog/ati5ue en Occident% !aris$ 9ayard% 7248 Lynch$ #i,e et Steve 0oolgar$ 4ds% ()HH0"% 3epresentation in Scientific !ractice% 6a/bridge$ #ass$ #1+ !ress% 72C8 See 9lec,$ Lud.ig ()H'C"% Nenesis and Ievelop/ent of a Scientific 9act% 6hicago$ +he ;niversity of 6hicago !res for a classic analysis of this alche/y% 72D8 1n one of their decisions$ the 6onseil had judged that a /ap for a building authori=ation is Osaid to be* anne?ed to the e?pulsion procedure file even though it is not physically present in the anne?$ provided it can be consulted so/e.here at the /ayor*s office% 72&8 Nalison$ !eter ()HH&"% 1/age and Logic% 6hicago !ress% #aterial 6ulture of #icrophysics% 6hicago$ +he ;niversity of

72G8 9or t.o recent /arvelous e?a/ples see 3heinberger$ <ans(2org ()HH&"% +o.ard a <istory of 4piste/ic +hing% Syntheti=ing !roteins in the +est +ube% Stanford$ Stanford ;niversity !ress$ Unorr(6etina$ Uarin ()HHH"% 4piste/ic 6ultures% <o. the Sciences #a,e Uno.ledge% 6a/bridge$ #ass$ <arvard ;niversity !ress% 72H8 9or reasons .hich have been studied in Shapin$ Steven et Si/on Schaffer ()HGC"% Leviathan and the !u/p% <obbes$ Boyle and the 4?peri/ental Life% !rinceton$ !rinceton ;niversity !ress% ir(

7'08 1n the for/ulation given by Stengers Stengers$ 1sabelle ()HH'"% L*invention des sciences /odernes% !aris$ La I:couverte$ an e?peri/ent is the invention of a po.er to grant things the po.er to grant the e?peri/enter the po.er to spea, in their na/es** (p%)02" (Stengers$ 1sabelle (2000"% +he 1nvention of #odern Science$ +he ;niversity of #innesota !ress%% 7')8 9or a recent presentation of the difference$ see 6allon$ #ichel$ !ierre Lascou/es$ et al% (200)"% gir dans un /onde incertain% 4ssai sur la d:/ocratie techni5ue% !aris$ Le Seuil - see also 2asanoff$ Sheila ()HH0"% +he 9ifth Branch: Science dvisers as !olicy/a,ers% 6a/bridge #ass$ <arvard ;niversity !ress% 7'28 9or a /arvelous e?a/ple see Lynch$ #ichael et 3uth #cFally ()HHH"% PScience$ 6o//on Sense and 6o//on La.: 6ourtroo/ 1n5uiries and the !ublic ;nderstanding of Science%Q Social 4piste/ology )'(2": )G'( )HD% 7''8 But fictio has in la. a very precise /eaning$ see +ho/as$ Lan ()HHC"% P9ictio Legis L*e/pire de la fiction ro/aine et ses li/ites /:di:vales%Q Iroits 2): )&(D'% 7'48 +his is the .ea,ness of the ter/ Olegiti/ate* overused by sociologists to /isunderstand and la. and

society$ see 9avereau$ Olivier (200)"% L*:cono/ie du sociologue ou penser (l*orthodo?ie" W partir de !ierre Bourdieu% Le travail sociologi5ue de !ierre Bourdieu% Iettes et criti5ues% 4dition revue et aug/ent:e% Bernard Lahire% !aris$ La I:couverte: 2CC(')4% 7'C8+he icelandic ealiest parlia/ent .as$ and still is$ called a +hing% 9or a full treat/ent of the argu/ent$ see Latour$ Bruno ()HHH"% !oliti5ues de la nature% 6o//ent faire entrer les sciences en d:/ocratie% !aris$ La I:couverte (to be published by <arvard"%