As an engineer, my exposure to Bruno Latour’s Laboratory Life has provided me with a unique lens through which to view scientific practice. In science and engineering, we often operate under the belief that mathematics, algorithms, and equations are purely objective—not affected by personal, cultural, or social influences. However, Latour challenges this notion, suggesting that scientific studies are not merely discovered but designed, shaped by the environments in which they are conducted. This perspective has resonated deeply with me, revealing that the practice of science is as much about its social dynamics as it is about empirical rigor.
The Social Fabric of Scientific Research
Science is often considered universal, yet the way research is conducted and received varies across cultures. Take, for example, a groundbreaking discovery in an Indian laboratory. The response from researchers in India may differ significantly from that of their counterparts in the U.S. or Europe. This divergence is not rooted in the nature of the discovery itself but in the cultural, institutional, and even psychological frameworks that shape how scientific findings are processed and disseminated. In some cases, skepticism, hesitance in reporting, or a lack of confidence in challenging global narratives may stem from a nation's standing in the power dynamics of the scientific world. This subjective component—shaped by history, culture, and geopolitics—profoundly influences how science evolves.
The Culture of the Laboratory
Beyond national influences, each laboratory operates within its own microcosm of norms, behaviors, and interactions. The exchange of ideas, the willingness to challenge authority, and even the emotional intelligence of researchers all play crucial roles in shaping the trajectory of scientific progress. History has repeatedly shown that systemic biases—whether based on gender, race, or social status—have influenced which studies are taken seriously and which are dismissed. Women researchers, for instance, have historically faced marginalization, and racial prejudices have hindered scientific inclusivity. These factors, though seemingly unrelated to equations or data, ultimately dictate how knowledge is produced and recognized.
Conscious and Unconscious Biases in Analysis
Subjectivity does not end at data collection—it extends to data interpretation. Consider demographic studies in India, where historical traumas like Partition have embedded social tensions between religious communities. If an Indian analyst interprets such data, their perspective might be subconsciously influenced by their personal or collective historical experiences. Meanwhile, a Canadian analyst might approach the same dataset with an outsider’s lens, potentially more detached but lacking the nuanced understanding of local contexts. Conversely, Canadians might exhibit their own biases when analyzing indigenous issues. These biases, whether acknowledged or not, shape the narrative of research findings.
Engineering and Subjectivity in Project Design
As engineers, we work on multidisciplinary teams that bring together individuals with varying cultural backgrounds, emotional intelligence, and cognitive frameworks. Recognizing the subjectivity in scientific and engineering projects is crucial for efficient design and execution. A successful project is not just about equations and blueprints—it is about understanding the motivations, behaviors, and perspectives of those involved. The intersection of arts, sociology, anthropology, and even religious beliefs plays a foundational role in shaping scientific endeavors. Ignoring these elements can lead to miscommunication, inefficiencies, and even flawed conclusions.
Conclusion
Bruno Latour’s insights have reaffirmed for me that scientific practice is not detached from human subjectivity. The study of nature may be objective, but the study of science itself is deeply intertwined with human behavior. If we truly aim to advance knowledge, we must acknowledge and document the subjective influences on our research. Only then can we fully appreciate the context in which scientific discoveries emerge and evolve.