National Profile France

530

An historical and political overview of PUS issues in France Philippe Chavot, Anne Masseran

We have opted to draw the main lines of certain aspects of the evolution which led to the current concepts of CST in France. Thus this study provides a number of elements which may appear fragmented and should be considered as being part of a far more complex environment. In France, there is no word for ”Public Understanding of Science” except the rather recent notion of Culture Scientifique et Technique (CST, Scientific and Technical Culture). Realisations in this domain take little into account IN the way the various publics take over or negotiate the scientific and technical knowledge with which they are faced in exhibitions or through direct experiments. 740 Of course, assessments are TP

PT

made through surveys or quantitative studies. However, the way the public (with its knowledge and culture) put scientific or technical knowledge into perspective – give it a meaning – is often of secondary concern. Instead, most studies insist on the purposes of the actors who have made CST exist, who give it shape, as well as the new ways of designing and considering CST spaces. In fact, everything is as if the necessity to develop CST was taken for granted, as is the idea that "the public needs scientific and technological information". 741 This a priori TP

PT

hides a shade of meanings that becomes perceptible when one studies the terms used to describe CST actions. A first set of words refers to a very linear idea of the transmission

and

the

acquisition

of

knowledge:

"Transmission",

"diffusion",

"communication", "popularisation" of sciences and technology. These terms are generally used by ministries or research institutions, but also by some science societies of amateurs. A second set includes expressions such as "putting science in culture" or "sharing knowledge". They are used by actors carrying out actions and realisations that have their roots in the science criticism movement of the 1970's. These actors share both a will to put science, technique and society into close contact and an interest for the studies that highlight the perverse effects of scientific popularisation and of the

740

Even though numerous studies have been carried out in France in museology, sometimes with an historical or theoretical stance (See the bibliography at the end of the report). These questions have been addressed during a symposium: Les nouveaux territoires de la CST, international workshop, Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie, Paris, 8-9 December 2000. 741 Ulrike Felt has analysed the interrelation and the social consequences of the following a priories: "the public is ignorant about science" and "the public wish to know more about science". Cf. FELT U., "Why should the public "understand" science? A historical perspective on aspects of the public understanding of science", in DIERKES M. & VON GROTES C.(Dir.), Between understanding and trust - The public, science and technology, Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 1999.

National Profile France

531

"widening knowledge gap". However, this approach remains problematic: in "putting science in culture" there is the aim to democratise science and to soften scientific authority. But are these actions concerned by the issue of public understanding of science at all? Finally, the complexity of the matter is further strengthened when one considers that most of the French CST actors privilege highly individual definitions of CST, or of what it should be. Indeed, many of them have difficulties accepting this very notion. In order to understand the actions taken in the field of CST in France it is necessary to know the background. Let us make a detour through the history of science politics and look at the current context.

A – Historical elements In France, CST actions are not merely attempts to spread or communicate (some) knowledge. What matters in the French case is to make science meaningful and arouse, in the public space, interest in and support for a pÍarticular value system based on and founded by science. This approach arises from the idea that, if the public benefits from a facilitated access to science, it will be in a position to judge and truly appreciate things or events. That presupposes that, on one hand, science is in a preeminent position in relation to the other means of understanding the world. On the other hand, to communicate science also means to promote science and the scientists (who are often represented as charismatic personalities such as, in France, Hubert Reeves or Pierre-Gilles de Gennes). This idea of CST is easily identifiable in current CST actions. In the history of science politics, four key periods may be distinguished, during which the characteristics of present French scientific culture have progressively appeared. The ideals at the core of conceptions of communication of science and technology have been both stable and variable. Stable because, until today, the equation between scientific progress and social progress has hardly been questioned; variable because this equation has always been subject to redefinition. This can be linked to the fact that the notion of social progress has had different meanings according to the context: !

progress of living conditions in the 1930s;

!

technical progress adapted to daily life and to the construction of a national identity during "les trente glorieuses" (the years 1945-1975);

!

progress of the power of criticism in the 1970s;

!

and, finally, progress of citizenship from the 1980s onwards.

In consequence, the evolution of the politics of diffusion of science and technology in France is directly bound – at the level of institutions, ideologies and actors – to the

National Profile France

532

evolution of the more general political context. Below is a broad outline of this process. 742 TP

PT

1 – Science and enlightenment The diffusion of scientific and technological knowledge belongs to a long tradition that began in France towards the end of the 17th century. Personalities such as Fontenelle wished to give people from the wealthy classes and aristocrats a scientific education through the diffusion of treaties handling scientific and philosophic principles that he considered important. The public was well defined: gentlemen who wanted to participate in intellectual conversations, and women whose education needed to be widened by "non futile" subjects. Thereby, women would be able not only to converse pleasantly about "serious" subjects with cultivated men, but also, due to "their charm", attract the latter to science. 743 At that time, an important issue was also to assure TP

legitimacy to the "sciences",

PT

744 TP

PT

by defending their virtues before the public. During the

second half of the 18th century, this trend was reinforced, leading to communication being considered inseparable from the production of knowledge. The Encyclopaedists, particularly Denis Diderot, considered the diffusion of knowledge – of all knowledges that fitted in with their philosophic principles – as a fight: they needed to justify its legitimacy faced with religious conservatism. In this context, the issue of the aptness of the new "sciences of life and of nature" had to be addressed in the public space in order to make it acknowledged together with the true philosophers who carried this knowledge. 745 TP

PT

2 – Science for the prosperity of all The late 19 th century and the early 20 th century form an important stage of this history P

P

P

P

of the diffusion of science and technology. Impressive projects of science popularisation were conceived under the leitmotiv "free access to knowledge for all". With the collapse of the Second Empire in 1870, room was left for movements of revolt of an increasingly exploited population who – in those years of Industrial revolution –

742

Of course, these developments are more complex. They are bound to the international context as well, a process that we cannot describe here. 743 FONTENELLE Le Bovier de, Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes, éditions de l'aube, la Tour d'Aigue, 1990. Préface. On scientific popularisation intended for women under the ancient regime, see, for instance, PEIFFER J., "L'engouement des femmes pour les sciences au XVIIIème siècle", in HAASEDUBOSQ D. & VIENNOT E. (dir.), Femmes et pouvoirs sous l'Ancien Régime, Rivages, Paris, 1991. 744 The term "science" with its modern meaning appeared in France only at the end of the 18th century. The knowledge of Fontenelle mixed philosophy, "physical appearance" ("physics"), astronomy, history, and even "literature". 745 On the formation of boundaries between science and religion in the Encyclopaedia, see: DARNTON R., "Philosophers trim the tree of knowledge", in The great cat massacre and other episodes in French cultural history, Basic books, New York, 1984. On the general context of this transformation see: ROGER J., Les sciences de la vie dans la pensée française du XVIIIème siècle. La génération des animaux de Descartes à l'Encyclopédie, (3ème édition, complétée), Albin Michel, Paris, 1993.

National Profile France

533

were looking for new marks. As Charles Longuet put it in the Official Journal of the Commune (March 30th 1871): "This is the revenge of science and work, freedom and order, whose advent had been put off for nearly a century by government routine." After the defeat of the worker's revolt of the Commune (1871) and the government of MacMahon, the first Republic came to power in 1877 and made the education of citizens a priority. Jules Ferry opened schools for ordinary people, who would perceive the access to knowledge, especially to science, as a means to free themselves from an authoritarian regime and as the basis of an equalitarian society. 746 Furthermore, TP

PT

science education allowed the working class to find an alternative to and escape from the religious reference, to improve their condition of life, and to adapt themselves to the fast evolution of techniques that was taking place in the working world. This movement involved new spaces of knowledge such as the Natural History Museum being opened to the public. The first popular newspapers dedicated to science appeared (La Nature, La Presse scientifique des deux mondes, and later on Science et Vie) and scientific articles of high standard were more and more present in popular newspapers. 747 Authors specialised in science popularisation, such as Camille TP

PT

Flammarion or Louis Figuier, published books intended for both the layman and the more cultivated members of the public. Finally, science made its appearance in novels and fictions, written by authors that were convinced of its social utility, such as Émile Zola (or, for a different literary genre, Jules Verne). This intricacy of science and fiction had contributed to the diffusion of values connected to science and their reappropriation by various categories of public. 748 At the same time, the first societies for TP

PT

the popularisation of science were established, such as the French Society of Astronomy, founded by Camille Flammarion in 1897. At least, the radical political movements – especially those connected to International Socialism – based their argumentation not only on scientific contents (such as evolutionism, often used as a political argument), but also on scientific rationality. 749 TP

PT

Soon after the First World War, science entered a "moral crisis". It was accused of having permitted a systematisation of massacres. So, the confidence that links science 746

See, for instance, TERRAL H., Les savoirs du maître. Enseigner de Guizot à Ferry, l'Harmattan, Paris, 1998 747 BENSAUDE-VINCENT B. & RASMUSSEN A. (dir.), La science populaire dans la presse et l'édtition, 19ème et 20ème siècles, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 1997. In particular PANET E., "Les éditeurs et le marché : la vulgarisation scientifique dans l’édition française", P. 33/50. 748 B Beguet asks interesting questions on the readership of the various forms of scientific popularisation at the time where borders were built to protect the "serious and scientific”popularisation from fanciful works. See BÉGUET B., "Lecture et vulgarisation scientifique au XIXème siècle en France", in BENSAUDEVINCENT B. & RASMUSSEN A. (dir.), La science populaire dans la presse et l'édtition, 19ème et 20ème siècles, op. cit., P. 51/68 749 See Raichvarg D. & JACQUES J., Savants et ignorants, Une histoire de la vulgarisation des sciences, Paris, 1991 and BÉGUET B. (dir), La science pour tous. Sur la vulgarisation scientifique en France de 1850 à 1914, CNAM, Paris, 1990. Particularly: BÉGUET B., "La vulgarisation scientifique en France de 1850 à 1914. Contexte, conceptions et procédés", P. 6 /29 ; and BÉGUET B., "La science mise en scène : les pratiques collectives de vulgarisation au XIXème siècle", P. 129/147

National Profile France

534

to its public needed to be restored. During this period, there was a significant increase in the number of popularisation magazines, together with the development of technologies supposed to improve working conditions and daily life. Moreover, politicians displayed an unshakeable confidence in rationality and in the beneficial progress of science. The State became active in providing grants for science, justifying its support by the efficiency that science had during the times of war. In 1929, the economic crisis struck France along with most European countries. Hence, science appeared as a means to attain a more deserving and better life (thanks to hygiene and health care) and a symbol of the prosperity of a nation. In this context, science was positively opposed to the values of capitalism, which has forgotten the essentials, the well being of each individual. Hence, Science appeared as the symbol of the good social order and as the guarantee of the prosperity of the individual. Moreover, scientific progress was often presented as the model of the necessary progress of humankind. This peculiar ideology was intensely present in the left wing political movement. So, with the victory of the Popular Front of Léon Blum, the 1930s became the theatre of a revival of science education through the mobilisation of scientists, the creation of numerous associations, and the institution of new sites devoted to knowledge. The Palais de la Découverte, in Paris, was established with Blum's support, within the framework of the international exhibition Science et art. His designer, the physicist Jean Perrin, conceived it as a means to promote science, to make it closer to society by insisting on the values which he attributed to scientific research: beauty, indifference and purity. 750 Science was being considered as a "source of moral and social values, TP

PT

of democracy", 751 and popularisers thought that they could push aside the obscurantist TP

PT

theories that hinder social progress. As underlined by Petitjean, "There was in the 1930s a resurgence of an ostentatious neo-positivism, which presented itself as the modernisation of the Enlightenment." 752 TP

PT

During the second world war, the positive, or even positivist, the various anti-Nazi political movements shared definition of “true”science and of “progressive”technologies. In this context, scientists had contributed to the war effort in the name of two irreproachable causes: the defence of science against its "ideological", dangerous and corrupted avatars and the defence of the free nation. The consensus that existed between left and right over the value of science lasted and would constitute a solid basis for CST actions after WW II.

750

See BENSAUDE VINCENT B., "In the name of Science", in KRIGE J., PESTRE D. (ED), Science in the twentieth century, Harwood Academic Publisher, Amsterdam, 1997, P. 319-338 751 PETITJEAN P., "La critique des sciences en France", Alliage, n°35-36, automne 1998, P. 121 752 Ibid, P. 121

National Profile France

535

3 – Science for the development of the nation After the end of the Vichy regime, the democratic political tendencies of both the left and the right wings thought that scientific and technological developments would help reconstruct France. Big programs were implemented – nuclear, computer, aeronautical and spatial... – that would be pursued up to the 1980s. Science was being perceived as one of the main factors of economic and social development, working for the prosperity of all. A wide social consensus was being formed on the legitimacy of science and technology, whose validity, truth, utility, and integrity was not questioned. Hence, when the first criticisms appeared, they would not focus on science, but on the use of science. In the 1950s and 1960s, supported by French communist party (PCF) members who gained power within scientific institutions, left wing movements got more and more involved in a criticism of the expansion of capitalism. They considered that scientific findings were diverted from a "just" cause, and that only those likely to be "profitable" were selected. Hence, liberal capitalism was accused of ruining the development of "good science". Nonetheless, the legitimacy of science remained uncontested. It was the uses that the capitalists put science to which were considered as perverse, and so there was a need to purify science and assure its autonomy. 753 In this context, most TP

PT

CST actions brought criticism over the politico-economic system – as was the case in the Maisons de la Jeunesse et de la Culture (MJC, Youth and culture houses), created in 1944, and within the Association Nationale Science Technique Jeunesse (ANSTJ) created in 1962. In the public space, science benefited from such a positive consensus that it was totally protected from political debates, or even from public debates.

4 – Science in the public space. The consensus over the legitimacy of science started to weaken in the late 1960's. At that time, the dominant status of science, its working and also existing hierarchies within it were directly questioned. This criticism was first made by the radical left movement and then by ecologists. Both were struggling to make science and scientists responsible for the social, cultural and environmental consequences of scientific research 754 . They opposed communist scientists who, on behalf of their egalitarian TP

PT

ideology, accommodated well with existing hierarchies and defended the dominant position of science. This movement, carried by young research workers influenced by the 1968 revolt, expressed its opinion through trade unions, several journals (Impasciences, Labocontestation, Survivre et vivre...) and aimed at giving an international dimension to the 753

See DOLBY R.G.A., "On the Autonomy of Pure Science: The Construction and Maintenance of Barriers between Scientific Establishment and Popular Culture", in ELIAS, N., MARTINS H. and WHITLEY R., Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, Reidel, London 1982. P. 267 – 292. 754 See LEVY-LEBLOND J.M. & JAUBERT A. (textes réunis par), (Auto)critique de la science, Le Seuil, Paris, 1973.

National Profile France

536

criticism. In the late 1970's the movement softened: the PCF regained power within trade-unions and the newly established Union de la Gauche domesticated social contestation by making it a positive force within institutions. Although this science criticism movement lasted ten years or so, it would leave its fingerprint on CST actions. For the first time, debates over scientific development had taken place in the public space. In addition, while some actors of this movement launched the first critical studies on science popularisation, others inspired today's initiatives to promote CST. Indeed, most initiatives that have taken place since the 1980's are often directly or indirectly connected with this critical inheritance: the Centres de Culture Scientifique, Technique et Industrielle (CCSTI), The Association nationale des petits débrouillards (ANPD, National society of small copers), the Boutiques des sciences (Science shops).

5 – Enhancing the social acceptance of science. By the 1980s, the economic and social crisis had set in. The Minister of Research of the recent socialist government, Jean-Pierre Chevènement, diagnosed a crisis in the relationship of trust that should link science to its public as well as a growth of irrationality. Hence, his objective had been to defend the "true" science by assuring its promotion in the public space. In this fight, the identity of left-wing ideology, scientific rationality, progress and social order was perfect. Science appeared as a means to get over the economic crisis. The order progressively returned, especially because the government benefited from a peculiar protection against criticism. The critical movements became progressively institutionalised and lost some of their radicalism. Indeed, several committees were created over this period to manage the confrontation between science and society, such as the Office parlementaire d'évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (OPECST, Parliamentary Office for Scientific and Technological Choices) or the ethics committees. These new committees, and particularly the ethics committees had to assess the "good”and the ”bad" uses of science. Hence, the core, made up of "neutral and objective”science, remained unquestioned. The great programs aiming at promoting CST in France are to be understood within this frame: La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie de la Villette and the Galerie de l'évolution. These were established as majestic spaces, "cathedrals" built to celebrate products of science and technology, but they were never to become places for debate. Hence, the debate on scientific and technological development once more abandoned the public space.

B – The present context

National Profile France

537

The critical debate surrounding science and technology resurfaced during the last decade. Scandals such as the contaminated blood scandal in the late 1980s or, more recently mad-cow disease..., and pressure from the public (such as AIDS activists aiming at establishing an equalitarian relationship between physicians and patients and making the patients participate in decisions related to clinical trials), show that a reflective democracy is progressively taking root in France. 755 The equation scientific TP

PT

progress / progress of human condition is also being questioned. In public controversies, citizens' voices are also being heard that do not base their legitimacy on scientific authority. Other types of knowledge counterbalance the knowledge of experts and the debates on scientific and technological developments are no longer limited to the scientific sphere, they are becoming political too. This gradual change of the place of science in society affected the CST actions of the 1990s. On one hand, there are some attempts to restore the confidence of the public, by asserting the transparency, the integrity and the independence of science (mainly with regard to economics). In that case, institutions try "to domesticate" these activists' movements by offering them new spaces, which are also spaces aiming at promoting science and technologies (the so-called Fête de la science (science days) constitutes the best example, cf. infra). On the other hand, critics are forcing open the doors of the institutional spaces to get their points of view admitted by the institution. That has happened during the recent public debates on GMOs that were aimed at collecting the "point de vue citoyen" but that were literally colonised by anti-GMO critics. 756 In that TP

PT

case, science is equated with other knowledges, and its status as an ultimate resource is negated. At least, new spaces have appeared that permit scientists and citizens to confront each other, for example, the Cafés des Sciences (Science Cafés). In brief, the spaces where science and society interact have been largely redefined during the last years, and some of them are constantly colonised by different pressure groups. Also, after a long history in which science was both protected and kept at a distance from critics, science is finally questioned in the public space. Hence, if these debates are sometimes so intense, 757 it is maybe because they were not able to take TP

PT

place before. CST may therefore be a considered a changing environment, trying to adapt to the social mutations of the image of technoscience even if, quite often, it chooses to use very traditional means and actions.

755

For an introduction on the concept of reflexive modernity, see BECK U., "Risk Society and the Provident State", in LASH S. & al., Risk, Environment & Modernity, Towards a New Ecology, Sage, London, 1996, pp. 27-43. 756 Marylise Lebranchu who was in charge of the consummation issue in the French Government called on consumerist associations to organise public debates on GMO. During the fall 2000, forums were organised in 60 cities in order to collect citizen’s opinion on GMO. However most forums were colonised by activists of several environmental organisations. 757 Hence, if one follows the logic that wants that only the scientific rationality is able to propose technical solutions, one may only qualify the reactions of the French public faced with the Mad-Cow crisis as "psychotics" or "irrational".

National Profile France

538

Selective bibliography on CST in France ABIR-AM P.G. (dir), La mise en mémoire de la science. Pour une ethnographie historique des rites commémoratifs, Editions des archives contemporaines, 1998 ALBERT P. (dir.), Histoire générale de la presse française, Paris, 1967 ANDLER M., ”La science dans la culture”, Esprit, juillet 1987, n°128, p.50-72 Anthropologie et actions culturelles, actes des journées d’études d’Athis Mons, 23-24 novembre, publication de la Maison de banlieue d’Athis-Mons, 1998. AUGUERAU J.F "La Fête de la science veut réconcilier les jeunes avec la recherche", in Le Monde, 17-10-2000 BACON E., Les scientifiques et le spectacle de la science, Actes de la IV° rencontre internationale du groupe d’étude et de recherche sur la science de l’Université Louis Pasteur, Finakmatt impression, 1993. BECQ A. (éd.), L'Encyclopédisme, Actes du colloque de Caen 12/16-01-1987, Klincksieck, Paris, 1991 BÉGUET B. (dir), La science pour tous. Sur la vulgarisation scientifique en France de 1850 à 1914, CNAM, Paris, 1990 BÉGUET B., ”Lecture et vulgarisation scientifique au XIXème siècle en France”, in BENSAUDEVINCENT B. et RASMUSSEN A. (dir.), La science populaire dans la presse et l'édtition, 19ème et 20ème siècles, P. 51/68 BENSAUDE-VINCENT B. et RASMUSSEN A. (dir.), La science populaire dans la presse et l'édtition, 19ème et 20ème siècles, Paris, CNRS Éditions, 1997 BENSAUDE-VINCENT B., "In the name of Science", ", in Science in the twentieth century, Krige J., Pestre D. (ed), Harwood Academic Publisher, Amsterdam, 1997, P. 319-338 BENSAUDE-VINCENT B., "La science populaire, ancêtre ou rivale de la vulgarisation", Protée, vol. 16, n°3, Bibliothèque nationale du Québec, automne 1988, pp. 85/91. BERGERON

A.,

”Chercheur

et

muséologue, quelques

conséquences

d’une

double

appartenance”, Musées et recherche, actes du colloque 30 nov et 1 déc 1993, musée des ATP, OCIM, 1996 BERGERON A., BOURDIEU P. Les règles de l’art, Minuit, Paris, 1992 BOY D., ”Ouvrir, une première et indispensable étape”, Les défis du C.E.A., Mensuel d’informations scientifiques et techniques, n° 83, décembre 1999, p.5. BOY D., Les attitudes des français à l’égard de la science, rapport de synthèse, juillet 1989, Centre d’étude de la vie politique française. BOY D., Le progrès en procès, Paris, Presses de la Renaissance, 1999 SCHROEDER-GUDEHUS B., La société industrielle et ses musées. Démarche sociale et choix politiques, 1890-1990, Editions des Archives Contemporaines, 1992

National Profile France

539

CACERES, B, Histoire de l’éducation populaire, Seuil, 1964 CALLON M., ”Défense et Illustration des recherches sur la science, Revue Alliage, n°35-36, 1998. CASSEN B., Quelles langues pour la science ?, La Découverte , 1990 CHARMASSON T., ”Archives institutionnelles et archives personnelles”, Sciences et archives contemporaines, n°3, Les cahiers de l’école nationale du patrimoine, Paris 1999 CHARTIER R., MARTIN H.J et al., Histoire de l'édition française, Tomes 3 et 4, Fayard, 1990 et 1991 CHARTIER, R. (dir), Les usages de l'imprimé. XVème-XIXème siècles, fayard, 1987 CHOFFEL-MAILLFERT M.J., ROMANO J. (dir), Vers une transition culturelle. Sciences et techniques en diffusion. Patrimoines reconnus, cultures menacées, Presses Universitaires de Nancy, 1991 CLIN V., ”Le musée d’histoire de la médecine ou l’évolution d’un patrimoine professionnel”, La lettre de l’OCIM, n°51, 1997. P.14-17 CNE, "Avis sur les questions éthiques posées par la transmission de l'information scientifique relative à la recherche biologique et médicale", report n°45, 31 mai 1995 CRHST, L’étude sociale des sciences, journée d’étude du 14 mai 1992. CUENCA-BOULAT C., ”A l’université de Nantes, premiers repérages du patrimoine santé”, La lettre de l’Ocim, n°53, 1997. DAHAN DALMEDICO A., PESTRE A., “Comment parler des sciences aujourd'hui ?”, Revue Alliage, numéro 35-36, 1998. DARNTON R., "Philosophers trim the tree of knowledge", in The great cat massacre and other episodes in french cultural history, Basic books, New York, 1984. DE CHEVEIGNÉ S., VERON E., "Nobel on the front page: the Nobel physics prizes in French Newspapers", Public Understanding of Science, 3 (1994), pp. 135-154. DEMEULENAERE-DOUYIÈRE C., Le patrimoine scientifique et technique une réalité complexe, multigr. DREYFUS A., ”Science, Technologie et Société: un nouveau domaine d’enseignement”, La lettre de l’OCIM, n°58, 1998, pp 3-10. DURANT D., ”Qu’entendre par culture scientifique”, Revue Alliage, n°16-17, 1993, pp 204-210. EIDELEMAN J. ”The Cathedral of french science. The early years of the ”Palais de la découverte”, in SHINN, T. and WHITLEY R., Expository Science. Forms and Functions of Popularisation, P. 195-207 EIDELEMAN J., GABLOT G., Benoît S., Parcours des sciences, multigr., décembre 1996. EIDELEMAN J., La création du Palais de la Découverte, professionnalisation de la recherche et culture scientifique dans l’entre-deux-guerres, thèse de doctorat, 1988, Paris V. Etats Generaux de la CSTI, Colloque national, 4,5, 6 décembre 1989. ERNST S., "La main à la pâte, qu'est-ce que c'est ?", INRP, Académie des sciences, 1997. FAYARD P., La communication scientifique publique. De la vulgarisation à la médiatisation, Lyon, Chronique Société, 1988.

National Profile France

FOX R., ”The scientist and his public in 19

540

th

century France”, in Social Science Information, vol.

21, 1982, P. 697-718 FOX R., The culture of science in France, 1700-1900, Aldershot, 1992 GLYKOS A., “Art(s) et science(s) au risque des musées”, La lettre de l’OCIM, n°54, novdéc1997, p.12-14 GUESNERIE R., HARTOG F.(dir), Des sciences et des techniques : un débat, Cahier des annales N °45, Editions de l’école des Hautes Etudes en sciences sociales, Armand Colin, 1998. HÉRITIER-AUGÉ F., Les musées de l’éducation nationale. Mission d’étude et de réflexion, La documentation française, Hopital et musée, Actes de la Rencontre Internationale de Charlieu, 26-27 septembre 1997, Saint Etienne, Publications de l’Université de St Etienne, 1999. JACOBI D., La communication scientifique – Discours, figures, modèles, PUG, Grenoble, 1999 JACOBI D., Textes et images de la vulgarisation scientifique, Recherches en Sciences de l’Education, Berne, 1987 JANSEN R., JOUARY J.P., “Entrevue avec Jean-Paul Jouary”, Cybersciences, mars 1997. JEANNERET Y., Ecrire la science – Formes et enjeux de la vulgarisation, Paris, 1994 JURDANT KRIGE J., “L’image publique du CERN”, Revue Alliage, n°16-17, 1993, pp290-297. KUNTH D., La place du chercheur dans la vulgarisation scientifique, rapport demandé par la Délégation à l’information scientifique et technique, septembre 1992, Ministère de la recherche et de l’espace. LASZLO P., La vulgarisation scientifique , PUF, Paris, 1993 Le patrimoine écrit scientifique et technique, Actes du Colloque Roanne 5-6 octobre 1993, coédition FFCB ARALD Bibliothèque municipale de Roanne LECOURT D., L’enseignement de la philosophie des sciences, rapport remis au ministre, septembre 1999. ”Les publics des musées scientifiques”, La lettre de l’OCIM n° 55, janvier-février 1998 LEVY-LEBLOND J.M, “Défisciences”, Revue Alliage, n°22, 1995. LEVY-LEBLOND J.M. & JAUBERT A. (dir.), (Auto)critique de la science, Le Seuil, Paris, 1973. MAIGRET J., “Pour une politique du Patrimoine scientifique”, Musées et collections publiques de France, n°215, 1997, pp 74-75. MASSERAN A., "Rupture dans l’image médiatique du VIH", GIORDAN A., MARTINAND J.L., RAICHVARG D. (dir.), Les sciences, les techniques et leurs publics (Actes des XVIIIe journées internationales sur la communication, l’éducation et la culture scientifiques et industrielles), 1996, pp. 63/70 LEVY-LEBOND J.M , “De la Culture à la Science”, Culture et Sciences,9ème colloque de l’AMCSTI, (Bourges, juin 1991), Paris, AMCSTI, 1992.

National Profile France

541

MORTUREUX M.F., ”Linguistique et vulgarisation scientifique, Information sur les Sciences Sociales, vol. 24, n°4, 1985, P. 825-845 MORTUREUX M.F., La formation d'un discours de la vulgarisation scientifique au XVIIIe siècle à travers l'oeuvre de Fontenelle, Didier erudition, Paris, 1983. ”Musées et collections scientifique”, Musées et collections publiques de France, n°206, 1995 PANET E., ”Les éditeurs et le marché : la vulgarisation scientifique dans l’édition française”, in BENSAUDE-VINCENT B. et RASMUSSEN A. (dir.), La science populaire dans la presse et l'édition, 19ème et 20ème siècles, P. 33/50. PEIFFER J., "L'engouement des femmes pour les sciences au XVIIIème siècle", in HAASEDUBOSQ D., VIENNOT E. (dir.), Femmes et pouvoirs sous l'Ancien Régime, Rivages, Paris, 1991. PESTRE D., Physique et physiciens en France, 1918-1940, archives contemporaines, Paris, 1992 PETITJEAN P., "La critique des sciences en France", Alliage, n°35-36, automne 1998, P. 118133 PETITJEAN P., “La critique des sciences en France ”, Revue Alliage, numéro 35-36, 1998 POULOT D. (éd), Patrimoine et modernité, Dominique Poulot, L’Harmattan, 1998, pp 279-290. POULOT D., “Bilan et perspectives pour une histoire culturelle des musées”, Public et Musées, n°1, mai 1992, p.121-145 PROCHASSON C. Les années électriques 1880-1910, La découverte, Paris, 1991 PROCHASSON C., Les intellectuels, le socialisme, et la guerre, Seuil , 1993 QUIN M., “Clones hybrides ou mutants. ? L’évolution des grands musées scientifiques européens”, Revue Alliage, n°16-17, 1993, pp 264-272. RAICHVARG D. & JACQUES J., Savants et ignorants, Une histoire de la vulgarisation des sciences, Paris, 1991 RASSE P., Les musées à la lumière de l’espace public. Histoire, évolution, enjeux, L’Harmattan, 1999. REVEL J. ”Forms of expertise : Intellectuals and popular culture in France 1650-1800”, in KAPLAN S. (dir.), Understanding popular culture, The Hague, 1984. ROGER J., Les sciences de la vie dans la pensée française du XVIIIème siècle. La génération des animaux de Descartes à l'Encyclopédie, (3ème édition, complétée), Albin Michel, Paris, 1993. ROQUEPLO P., Le partage du savoir, Seuil, Paris, 1974 ROQUEPLO P., Entre savoir et decision, l'expertise scientifique, INRA Editions, 1997 Science technique culture société, Ministère de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Ministère de la Culture et de la communication, 1993, p.32 ROTH C., Etude sur le patrimoine scientifique : les enjeux culturels de la mémoire scientifique, report for the Mission du Patrimoine Ethnologique, novembre 2000. SCHIELE B. (dir), Faire voir, faire savoir, la muséologie scientifique au présent, Musée de la civilisation, 1989

National Profile France

542

SCHIELE B., KOSTER E. (dir), La révolution de la muséologie des sciences, Editions Multimondes, 1988 Sciences et technique en spectacle, de la représentation théâtrale à l’expérience de démonstration, Actes des XV journées internationales sur la communication, l’éducation et la culture scientifiques et techniques, 1993. SHEETS-PYENSON S. ”Popular science periodicals in Paris and London: the emergence of a low scientific culture, 1820-1875”, Annals of Science, Vol. 42, 1985, P. 549-572. SHINN, Terry and Richard WHITLEY (1985): Expository Science. Forms and Functions of Popularisation, Sociology of the Sciences – Yearbook IX, Dordrecht: Kluwer. TERRAL Hervé, Les savoirs du maître. Enseigner de Guizot à Ferry, l'Harmattan, Paris, 1998 TRIQUET E., DAVALLON J., “Le “public”, enjeu stratégique entre scientifiques et concepteurs”, Public et Musées, n°3, juin 1993, p.67-87 Un patrimoine inattendu, 1998, Ecole Polytechnique. VAN-PRAËT M., “Cultures scientifiques et musées d’histoire naturelle en France”, Toutes les pratiques culturelles se valent-elles, hermes 20, 1996, CNRS Editions paris VAN-PRAËT M., “Les expositions scientifiques, “miroirs épistémologiques”de l’évolution des idées en sciences de la vie”, bulletin d’histoire et d’épistémologie des sciences de la vie, volume 2, numéro 1, 1995, p/52-29 WELFELÉ O., ”La souris et l’encrier. Pratiques scientifiques et inscriptions documentaires”, Alliage n°19. mai 1994. WELFELÉ O., ”Quels matériaux pour l’historien d’après-demain ? Le devenir des archives scientifiques”, Cahiers de l’Ecole Nationale du Patrimoine, n°, 1999, pp102-126. WELFELÉ O., L’éprouvette archivée, La gazette des archives n°163, 19 novembre 1996 See also the Newsletters published by the Office de coopération et d’information muséologique (OCIM). The activities of OCIM are presented on their web site: http://www.ocim.fr/ TU

UT