10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17060
In the last few years a flourishing debate has developed on visualization processes and practices of representation in technoscience, fostering an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the production and dissemination of images. This Scenario outlines some of the current examples of research in this area, introducing the turn from the study of scientific representation to that of (techno)scientific imaging and visualization. Three main areas of research are discussed: technoscientific imaging in practice; images as evidence; images, imaginations and imaginaries. Finally, some further questions and challanges concerning the future study of technoscientific imaging are raised.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17060
2
en
Manuela Perrotta
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
imaginaries
The Study of Technoscientific Imaging in STS
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
3
Scenarios
2013-01-06
2023-05-28
2013-01-06
2023-07-14
163-176
TS
Manuela Perrotta
2012
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17060
163
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
2038-3460
2
imaginaries
en
176
The Study of Technoscientific Imaging in STS
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17060/15948
3
                                                                          Scenario
The Study of Technoscientific Imaging in
STS

Manuela Perrotta



      Abstract In the last few years a flourishing debate has developed on visualization
      processes and practices of representation in technoscience, fostering an interdis-
      ciplinary approach to the study of the production and dissemination of images.
      This Scenario outlines some of the current examples of research in this area, in-
      troducing the turn from the study of scientific representation to that of (tech-
      no)scientific imaging and visualization. Three main areas of research are discussed:
      technoscientific imaging in practice; images as evidence; images, imaginations and
      imaginaries. Finally, some further questions and challanges concerning the future
      study of technoscientific imaging are raised.

      Keywords scientific representation; technoscientific imaging; visualization prac-
      tices; visual knowledge production; visual logic; imaginaries.




Introduction
    Forms of representation as diagrams, graphs and images have always been
central in scientific practices. In the last decades, moreover, the development of
increasingly sophisticated visualization tools has made the use of images more
and more relevant in illustrating scientific results. Images, in fact, seem to have a
particular potency for communicating scientific ideas that make them more un-
derstandable to a broader professional and non-professional community. For this
reason, pictures are used not only in their production sites (usually specific labs)
but they travel within the scientific community and beyond. Therefore, appealing
scientific images have been spread in the popular culture through magazines, ar-
tistic performances and even television series.
    In Studies of Science and Technology (STS) a flourishing debate has devel-
oped on visualization processes and practices of representation in technoscience.
This debate has its origins in the so-called Laboratory Studies that have
investigated the use of images in the making of science (Latour and Woolgar
1979; Knorr-Cetina 1981; Lynch, 1985a, 1985b; Latour 1986, 1987). A real
milestone in this strand of literature is Representation in Scientific Practice, a book


TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
Volume 3(2) pp. 163-175- ISSN 2038-3460
http://www.tecnoscienza.net                       © 2012 TECNOSCIENZA
164   PERROTTA



      edited by Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar in 1990. This collection has been a
      classic in the STS literature on visualization and a “starting point for studying the
      cultural embeddedness of the practices of the making and handling of visual rep-
      resentations and of the shaping, distributing, applying, and embodying of scien-
      tific visual knowledge” (Burri and Dumit 2008, p. 300).
          Thereafter the debate on visualization in science and technology has exploded
      in the last twenty years (quoting only a few examples Traweek 1997; Lynch 1998;
      Beaulieu 2001; Dumit 2004; Joyce 2005, 2006; Prasad 2005a, 2005b; Burri 2008;
      for a review see Burri and Dumit 2008). A new version of the latter collection,
      which will brings together recent work on representational technologies in con-
      temporary scientific work, will be co-edited by Catelijne Coopmans, Janet Ver-
      tesi, Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (forthcoming) and published as New
      Representation in Scientific Practice.
          The main aim of this debate has been to overcome the widespread under-
      standing of scientific images as static and “neutral” elements; natural objects in-
      dependent from cultural and social processes. In the hard science discourse, in
      fact, often imaging tools are considered as photo cameras able to catch the reality
      rather than measurement devices. According to an STS perspective, instead, im-
      ages – as well as scientific representations in general – have a little definite mean-
      ing or logical force aside from the complex activities in which they are situated.
      Representational practices in science, therefore, need to be studied as situated
      processes of knowledge production. The STS literature developed on the basis of
      these assumptions illustrated how images assume meaning and fixed interpreta-
      tion in the complex activities in which they are situated, and in relation with oth-
      er forms of representation (other data, numbers, graphs, observations, and so
      on), according to the socio-material practices and processes of knowledge pro-
      duction in which they are embodied.
          Nowadays, this field of study is increasingly flourishing, fostering an
      interdisciplinary approach (Fyfe and Law 1988; Nowotny and Weiss 2000) to the
      study of the production and dissemination of images. Interdisciplinary
      conferences have been dedicated to this topic (such as Visualization in the Age of
      Computerisation, held in Oxford in 2011 and Images and Visualization: Imaging
      Technology, Truth and Trust, held in Norrköping in 2012) and a special issue on
      “Visual Representation and Science” (Gross and Louson 2012) has been recently
      published in Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy
      of Science.
          This body of work is thus extremely diverse, and its boundaries are difficult to
      demarcate. Therefore, any attempt to synthesize the various strands would
      necessarily be reductive and selective. Instead this Scenario will try to outline
      some of the current examples of research findings in this area in recent years. In
      the next sections I will introduce the turn from the study of scientific
      representation to the so-called (techno)scientific imaging and visualization.
      Following the distinction proposed by Burri and Dumit (2008) I will discuss then
      three main areas of research: technoscientific imaging in practice; images as evi-
                                                             TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        165



dence; images, imaginations and imaginaries. Finally, I will raise future questions
and directions concerning the study of technoscientific imaging.


1. From representation to scientific imaging and visualization
    Scientific visual representations have been studied from a variety of different
theoretical and disciplinary perspectives. They vary across multiple important
dimensions, such as production, use, and type of content (for a detailed account,
see Pauwels 2006).
    	
  According to Daston and Galison’s reconstruction (2007), early modern sci-
ence has built on an idea of “good” representation which takes for granted the
absence of human agency. They described this phenomenon as “mechanical ob-
jectivity”, the search for a representation that is as automatic and unhampered by
personal vision as possible. This alleged purity of scientific representations and
the ways in which it is constructed have been unmasked by contemporary science
scholars (Daston and Galison 2007; Hacking 1983), as well as those examining
everyday practices of scientists (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Latour 1986; Amann
and Knorr-Cetina 1990) have underscored that instruments do not produce rep-
resentations alone.
    Accordingly, Burri and Dumit call for a turn to the study of scientific imaging
and visualization, which focuses “on the social dimensions and implications of
scientific images and visual knowledge rather than inquiring into their nature”
(2008, p. 298). The study of scientific imaging and visualization aims to investi-
gate the specificity of the visual as a form of scientific knowledge and therefore it
follows the practice turn in science studies (Pickering 1992) and social theory
(Schatzki et al. 2001). Turning toward the study of scientific imaging and visuali-
zations means to focus on the epistemic practices of the production, interpreta-
tion, and use of scientific images.
    In their review essay Burri and Dumit organized their discussion around what
they defined “three artificially separated topics: the production, engagement, and
deployment of visualizations” (2008, p. 300). They claim that this distinction is
more relevant in terms of what STS scholars focus on than on the scientific prac-
tices involved. Their three categories grasp a core aspect of the study of scientific
imaging and visualization, i.e. its focus on the visual practices of science.
    According to the authors, the study of image production deals with “how and
by whom an image is made” (p. 302), while studying engagement means to focus
on “how images are used in the course of scientific work and are made instru-
mental in the production of scientific knowledge”(p. 302). Finally, the study of
deployment refers to the analysis of how images leave their production sites and
travel to nonacademic environments, i.e. the social world.
    In this scenario I will use “updated” versions of these three categories and I
will take into account the domain of technoscience. Scientific imaging and visual-
ization, in fact, are clear examples (as many others) of technoscience. There is no
strict division between the scientific and technological aspects of scientific and
166   PERROTTA



      research practices, as they rely upon technological intervention as an irreducible
      element. Therefore, I will explore the current development of the literature con-
      cerning the study of technoscientific imaging in STS.
         For reasons of space, I will focus attention on recent studies, which will allow
      me to discuss theoretical developments in the analysis of the production, en-
      gagement, and deployment of visualizations. Similarly to Burri and Dumit (2008),
      I will discuss in the next sections: the technoscientific imaging in practice, focus-
      ing the attention on visual logics and styles of representation; the use of images as
      evidence in the production of scientific knowledge; the relation among images,
      imaginations and imaginaries. In order to take into account the more recent re-
      search findings I will use research examples from the last few years. My aim is not
      to produce an exhaustive overview of recent literature, rather to explore what
      best illustrates the challenges within studies of technoscientific imaging in STS.


      2. Technoscientific imaging in practice
         The study of image production, i.e. how images are actually “made” in their
      production sites, is one of the cornerstones of the study of scientific imaging and
      visualization in STS. Recent approaches have highlighted the “technoscientific”
      (rather than scientific) processes of imaging. Even though the attention to actual
      (and often invisible) work made inside laboratories to explore science in action is
      rooted in the tradition of Laboratory Studies, the increasing focus on the tech-
      nical and instrumental aspects of scientific imaging makes me lean towards the
      term technoscientific imaging. For instance, Mody introduces the idea of instru-
      mental communities, “a network of individuals who view their involvement with a
      particular type of instrument and/or instrumentality as ratifying their connection
      to other nodes in the network” (2011, p. 10).
         Similarly, I take for granted that technoscientific imaging is going to be
      studied from a practice perspective, i.e. studying the practice of imaging and
      visualization and observing image practices ethnographically. This assumption
      has recently been criticized (Garforth 2012) arguing that the observational
      methods rooted in Laboratory Studies might devalue “invisible work”, i.e. the
      aspects of knowledge work that are more private and solitary, such as office
      work.
         Even though taking new angles to the study of technoscientific imaging is a
      core issue in the advancement of this debate, I want to underline what such a
      perspective can illustrate about the production of images.
         For doing so, I will start from a first example coming from the recent
      sociological debate on “visual rationalities”. Through an ethnographic study of
      medical images, Burri (2012) explores how imaging practices are shaped by what
      she defines a “visual logic”. She claims that social practice is intertwined with a
      visual logic: the latter shapes medical practices, but at the same time it is
      (re)produced by social practices. The concept of visual logic has been elaborated
      from ethnographic research in medical imaging sites. On the methodological
                                                             TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        167



level, a multitude of visual logics can be observed. In their empirical form the
author defines them as visual rationalities. Reconstructing and analyzing these
visual rationalities by investigating how they work in practice is the task of a
sociology of images.
    Burri (2012, p. 53) argues that there are three different visual dimensions of
images that play a role in social practice and are crucial for a sociology of images.
These three visual dimensions “emerge from and shape social practice just like
any other epistemic category”.
    The first dimension concerns the visual value, which allows a simultaneous
perception of visual information. Burri (2012, p. 50) defines it as “the surplus
value of images; it makes images different from auditory, olfactory, flavourful, or
tactile signs. The visual value is constructed in social practice; it serves as a
phenomenological criterion to distinguish images (as visual signs) from other
signs, such as numerical or textual signs. It also underlines that images cannot
entirely be transformed into textual or numerical signs without losing some of
their advantages”.
    The second dimension deals with the visual performance, i.e. what is depicted
in the image, and it emphasizes that the way images are represented is a result of
social practices of image production and interpretation. The aesthetic appeal of
images is an important issue in medical practice, but it is not purely objective,
rather contingent and situational, and it is shaped by local sociotechnical
arrangements and institutional contexts. In other words, it is always a social and
cultural achievement.
    The third dimension refers to the visual persuasiveness, which regards the
power of images in being perceived as objective and true depictions of reality and
as able to prove something. I will explore more in depth the topic of images as
evidence. Interestingly, Burri (2012, p. 53) notices that “scientific images are
especially persuasive because they are both authoritative and seductive”:
authoritative because of their evidential power; seductive because they build on
appealing aesthetics, evoke emotions, and impact actors’ perceptions. This
persuasive power is even more relevant considering that images are widely used
in daily medical practice: “in talks with patients or colleagues to underline an
argument and convince others of a diagnosis or research finding” (p. 52).
    The last dimension of visual logic is directly related to the second example of
research that I want to present in this section, namely styles of representation. In
his ethnographic study of Italian clinical cytogenetic laboratories, Mauro Turrini
(2011, 2012) investigates some examples of divergences in representational
practices through which chromosomes are displayed in cytogenetics. According
to the author, this field is still considered to be one of the most artisanal among
the biological disciplines. Notwithstanding, since the study of chromosomes is
involved in several medical areas, cytogenetics is not only well established, but
also widely diffused. Turrini explores the “differences in style that coexist in the
same period and are recognized within a scientific community as traditions, genre
conventions, and the specific circumstances of the production process, skills, and
preferences of the scientist. These stylistic diversities – even though they can be
168   PERROTTA



      defined scientific, since they are based principally on scientific procedures
      perfected by the empirical method of trial and error – are not unique to the lab,
      but respond to varied aesthetic ways to visualize and view the same scientific
      object” (2012, p. 3). A crucial feature of representative styles is related to the role
      of aesthetics and aesthetic judgment, which is not amenable to a mere personal
      taste, but rather refer to local and situated practices of visual construction of
      scientific data (Goodwin 1994, 1995). Therefore, diverse styles of representation
      “at the same time entails what to visualize and how to view it. The distinct
      strategies of visualizing and viewing specific objects are the final outcomes of an
      articulated and stratified process of negotiation among biologists, aesthetics,
      procedures, reagents, laboratory devices and so forth” (Turrini 2012, p. 15).
          To sum up, it can be said that styles of representation illustrate that, even in
      the same scientific discipline, there can be many different ways to visualize the
      same objects. However, this does not diminish the scientific representativeness of
      the images produced, but leads to the topic of the next section: how images are
      constructed and used as evidence in the process of scientific research.


      3. Images as evidence
          In a recent article, Emma Frow claims that nowadays images and illustrations
      are treated “as essential for the communication of knowledge claims in scientific
      publications, providing ‘external’ references that complement the written text
      and help to focus the reader’s attention on those aspects of the natural world that
      the author is trying to make visible” (Frow 2012, p. 370). If the idea that scien-
      tific images allow readers to ‘witness’ natural phenomena at a distance is not new
      (Shapin 1984), the development of instruments for digital imaging (and the pos-
      sibility of manipulations that they offer) makes the role of images even more crit-
      ical. On the one hand, this produces a frantic search for aesthetically pleasing im-
      ages; on the other hand, a growing concern regarding the use of digital image-
      processing software and instruments in preparing illustrations challenges the
      credibility of images in scientific research.
          Examining image-processing guidelines and journal commentaries on this top-
      ic Frow (2012) analyses how journal editors are drawing lines for the scientific
      community regarding acceptable and unacceptable practices in image produc-
      tion. The high-profile science journals under examination are not so much con-
      cerned with intentional fraud, but rather with routinely alteration of digital imag-
      es. However, the production of best-practice guidelines raises a number of
      longstanding ambiguities inherent to the production, circulation and interpreta-
      tion of digital images in scientific publications, but do not resolve them.
          Furthermore, recent ethnographic studies (Carusi 2008, 2012; Monteiro 2010;
      Spencer 2012; for a review see Perini 2012) show how scientists themselves have
      doubts about the scientific value of images and how they often express negative
      assessments of the part that images should play in the accomplishment of good
                                                                     TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)           169



research. As an example of this distrust, I will report an excerpt from Spencer’s
ethnographic fieldwork with a group of computational physicists:

    “Images lie,” says one scientist. “It is much better to work with numbers.” A colleague of
hers commented that “there is a substantial percentage of scientists, maybe even 10 percent,
who will see a pretty picture and just want to use it, without even knowing how it is validated.
I think that is just disturbing.” More strong language from a third source: “I think pretty pic-
tures are an utter waste of time” and a fourth: “Images tell you nothing” (Spencer 2012, p.
34).

    According to Carusi (2012), the distrust of images and “the visual” is still
commonplace because it is seen as subjective, and therefore in opposition to ob-
jective. The gold standard in science is still the numerical investigation precisely
because it replaces subjectivity by objectivity and promises a neutral view. This is
due to the traditional distinction (rooted in hard sciences, but widespread also in
the social sciences) between qualitative and quantitative data. Interestingly, Ca-
rusi notes that huge quantities of data are made tractable through qualitative vis-
ual renderings. Moreover, qualitative/quantitative reversals are the characteristic
feature of digital visualizations of all kinds, since there is a “continuous interplay
between data in quantitative form, the algorithms for processing the data and
producing the visualization, and the qualitative visual evaluation of the progress
of the algorithm formation” (2012, p. 109). This interplay, moreover, is not only
related to the instruments but refers to the actual use of visualizations in scientific
practices. The typical screen display, for instance, is not only of a visual still or
movie, but will also contain interfaces with quantitative settings and parameter
displays.
    Despite negative assessments, it is undeniable that images play a key role in
conducting contemporary scientific research and that visualization is an indispen-
sable technique, especially within the intermediate stages of the investigative pro-
cess. For instance, on the basis of his ethnographic observations of a multidisci-
plinary team’s weekly work meetings, Marko Monteiro (2010) analyzes how sci-
entists produce scientific evidence through constructing and manipulating scien-
tific visualizations. Monteiro focuses on how scientists build on “digital objects”,
which are constructed through embodied practices of interpreting and visualiz-
ing numerical evidence. As Montero claims “these digital objects as reliable ren-
derings (and sometimes replacements) of natural objects or phenomena. The idea
of “digital objects” seeks to conceptually locate their “materiality” in the rela-
tionship established by scientists between the phenomena they seek to ex-
plain/represent/model and the digital objects they work with during their re-
search practices” (2010, p. 336). Therefore, these digital objects are also compel-
ling images not only because they fascinate the viewer, but also for their per-
ceived mechanical objectivity. The core potential of digital objects, however, is
their possibility of manipulation as a way to directly handle data once available
only through numbers. Scientists manipulate these digital objects in order to
170   PERROTTA



      produce meaning or check for data reliability. Therefore, these manipulations
      become part of the scientific process of producing evidence.
          As we have seen in the previous section, in the scientific communities’ rheto-
      ric it is often underlined that – in order to make these data scientific (i.e. objec-
      tive, and therefore trustable) – instruments have to be used professionally by ex-
      perts who are able to interpret the data. This process of visual enskillment pro-
      duces “skilled visions” situated in diverse communities of practice (Grasseni
      2004, 2007). However, developments in visualization digital tools have fostered
      the use of scientific imaging in the communication of science, both inside and
      outside the scientific community. The use of digital images as evidence in the re-
      search practices and communication can bring the non-scientific audience to
      embrace the idea that these instruments are able to pick up the “reality”. In the
      next section, I will deal with the relation among images, imaginations and imagi-
      naries.


      4. Images, imaginations and imaginaries
          The spread of visual displays and representations in science communication
      crosses the boundaries of the scientific community and reaches, often through
      the media, the audience of non-experts. However, the lay public tends to consid-
      er the images presented by the media (including artistic and fantastic) as the ac-
      tual evidence of existing objects, even though they are invisible and inaccessible
      to direct observation (Maestrutti 2008).
          This phenomenon is particularly relevant in the increasing interest on nano-
      technologies and the diffusion of images from this field. As it has been argued by
      the research examples I have presented in the previous sections, technoscientific
      images are epistemologically problematic. In the case of nano images this prob-
      lematic is even more evident, since pictures of an atom or a molecule cannot pos-
      sibly “look like” an atom or a molecule (Moriarty 2010). Among the nano images,
      moreover, images of atoms and molecules are accompanied by pictures of imagi-
      nary nanoscale machines that might or might not become real in the future, such
      as nanobots (i.e. nano-robots) that navigate within blood vessels, acting as me-
      chanical shovels to remove plaque, or nanobots that grasp blood cells. As Nerlich
      (2008) has argued, artistic depictions of nanobots are meant to make the unfamil-
      iar features of nanotechnology seem familiar to broad audiences and to make
      things that do not exist seem as if they might soon exist. According to the author,
      this is because nanotechnology will seem normal if people accept pictures of
      nanobots. However, Nerlich claims, nanobots have captured public imagination.
          Exploring different types of images from Nanotechnology Image Galleries, de
      Ridder-Vignone and Lynch (2012) have analysed the relation between images
      and imaginations. They argue that all the types of nano images they have investi-
      gated distinctively challenge the viewer’s imagination, while drawing upon what
      is familiar: they are at the same time “realistic” in their appearance (as una-
                                                            TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        171



dorned, monochromatic or black-and white, micrographic images can be) as well
as they involve distinctive modes of imagination. The authors even argue that
“the most ostentatiously imaginative images often deploy the most conventional
means to depict nanoscale reality” (2012, p. 447). 	
  
    As Toumey and Cobb (2012) argue, the two interweaving families of na-
noscale images (i.e. pictures of atoms and molecules and pictures of imaginary
nanobots) raise a number of questions about our knowledge of reality at the na-
noscale. On the basis of a survey in the U.S. the authors illustrate how epistemol-
ogy meets public interpretation in the case on nano images: “We see how a de-
piction of an object that is not real now and may never become real nevertheless
affects public attitudes about the health and medical implications of nanotech-
nology” (Toumey and Cobb 2012, p. 464).
    The imaginaries of nanotechnology, moreover, are strictly related to the imag-
inaries of body transformations (Maestrutti 2011a). Accordingly, I will move my
attention to the technoscientific imaging of the human body, which seems to be
an extraordinary example of the relation among images, imaginations and imagi-
naries. As argued by Maestrutti (2011b) one of the main characteristics of tech-
noscience is the creation of what she defines as “techno-imagination”, which de-
velops around the body. The body seems to be one of the more fruitful loci for
the development of techno-imagination for two main reasons: on the one hand, it
is a site of experiment and transformation of life and organic materials; on the
other, it is a locus of construction of new forms of identity.
    In order to explore the relationship between the production and diffusion of
appealing scientific images and new imaginations and imaginaries of human bod-
ies, I will present a last example of research on the technoscientific imaging and
visualization of human reproductive cells (Lie 2012). Through the example of the
website of a Norwegian governmental organization for information on biotech-
nology and bioethics, the author investigates how new images of the human body
(in this case mainly egg and sperm cells at the moment of conception) may affect
the understanding of human bodies (and human reproduction), contributing to
change imaginations and imaginaries of the body itself. The website under scru-
tiny, as many others intended for the lay public, displays images of egg and sperm
cells related to techniques of assisted reproduction.
    Technoscientific imaging can transform human cells into astonishing and aes-
thetically appealing images. Cells, and even their interior, are depicted via medi-
cal visualization technologies and become concrete bodies. Cells are cleaned (i.e.
organic matter is removed) and colours are added to distinguish various aspects:
the result appears as images of real human cells. Through this “manipulation” a
cultural transformation is also achieved and cells reappear as individual and au-
tonomous entities. As Lie (2012, p. 19) argues, once cells “are detached from the
self, they can be studied, discussed and referred to at a distance, and once they
have a shape or description they are identifiable and manageable”. When gam-
etes are de-contextualized from human bodies they become detachable, usable
properties. This cultural transformation fosters the re-imagination of the “facts of
172   PERROTTA



      life”. The new imaginations and imaginaries of the human bodies, directly affect
      our sense of self, body and humanness. When cells are understood as autono-
      mous entities, rather than fragment of a whole body, the same biological material
      can assume a different ontological status according to the sense-making process
      in which it is embedded (for a detailed discussion, see Perrotta 2013).


      5. Conclusions: future studies of technoscientific imaging in STS
          The array of studies presented in the previous pages is not an exhaustive re-
      view, although it represents some of the most interesting studies in the recent
      STS literature on technoscientific imaging. I decided to focus on the three
      strands of analysis which best represent the state of the art: technoscientific imag-
      ing in practice; images as evidence; images, imaginations and imaginaries.
          Through the literature presented, I have pointed out the role of visual logic
      and styles of representation, the relevance of aesthetics in the sharing and pro-
      duction of scientific knowledge, and the importance of images in the transfor-
      mation of imaginations and imageries. Not by chance, some recent experiences of
      hybridization have shown a great potential for new future studies of technoscien-
      tific imaging. The call for a broader development of an STS approach to the arts
      (Benschop 2009), the study of the emerging area of BioArt (Yang 2011), and the
      increasing number of joint projects between STS scholars and (mainly bio)artists
      (Anker and Franklin 2011) can bring a new breeze to the future studies of tech-
      noscientific imaging.
          Although the collaboration among artists and natural and social scientists has
      already provided interesting examples of research successes, the increasing hy-
      bridization between STS and art represents a challenge for future studIES of
      technoscientific imaging. The field of STS, as an interdisciplinary research envi-
      ronment, could afford new opportunities of collaboration between artists and
      scientists, as well as support further research efforts to explore technoscientific
      imaging.


      References

      Amann, K. and Knorr-Cetina, K. (1990) The Fixation of (Visual) Evidence, in M.
        Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds.) Representation in Scientific Practice, Cambridge,
        MIT Press, pp. 85-121.
      Anker, S. and Franklin, S. (2011) Specimens as Spectacles. Reframing Fetal Re-
        mains, in “Social Text”, 29 (1), pp. 103-125.
      Beaulieu, A. (2001) Voxels in the Brain: Neuroscience, Informatics and Changing
        Notions of Objectivity, in “Social Studies of Science”, 31 (5), pp. 635-680.
      Benschop, R. (ed.) (2009) STS on Art and the Art of STS, Special Issue of “Krisis.
        Journal for contemporary philosophy”, 1.
                                                               TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        173



Burri, R.V. (2008) Doing Distinctions: Boundary Work and Symbolic Capital in
   Radiology, in “Social Studies of Science”, 38 (1), pp. 37-64.
Burri, R. V. (2012) Visual rationalities: Towards a sociology of images, in “Current
   Sociology”, 60 (1), pp. 45–60.
Burri, R. V. and Dumit J. (2008) Social Studies of Scientific Imaging and Visualiza-
   tion, in E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (eds.),
   The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition, Cambridge,
   MA, MIT Press, pp. 297-317.
Carusi, A. (2008) Scientific visualizations and aesthetic grounds for trust, in “Eth-
   ics and Information Technology”, 10 (4), pp. 243-254.
Carusi, A. (2012) Making the Visual Visible in Philosophy of Science, in “Sponta-
   neous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science”, 6
   (1), pp. 106-114.
Coopmans, C., Vertesi, J., Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. (eds.) (forthcoming) New
   Representation in Scientific Practice, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007) Objectivity, New York, Zone Books.
de Ridder-Vignone, K. D. and Lynch, M. (2012) Images and Imaginations: An
   Exploration of Nanotechnology Image Galleries, in “Leonardo”, 45 (5), pp.
   447-454.	
  
Dumit, J. (2004) Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity,
   Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Fyfe, G. and Law, J. (eds.) (1988) Picturing Power: Visual Depiction and Social
   Relations, London and New York, Routledge.
Frow, E. K. (2012) Drawing a line: Setting guidelines for digital image processing
   in scientific journal articles, in “Social Studies of Science”, 42 (3), pp. 369-392.
Garforth, L. (2012) In/Visibilities of Research: Seeing and Knowing in STS, in
   “Science, Technology, & Human Values”, 37 (2), pp. 264-285.
Goodwin, C. (1994) Professional vision, in “American Anthropologist”, 96 (3),
   pp. 606-633.
Goodwin, C. (1995) Seeing in depth, in “Social Studies of Science”, 25, pp. 237–
   274.
Grasseni, C. (2004) Skilled vision. An apprenticeship in breeding aesthetics,
   “Social Anthropology”, 12 (1), pp. 41-55.
Grasseni, C. (ed.) (2007) Skilled Visions. Between Apprenticeship and Standards,
   New York and Oxford, Berghahn Books.
Gross, A. and Louson, E. (2012) Visual Representation and Science: Editors’
   Introduction, in “Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and
   Philosophy of Science”, 6 (1), pp. 1-7.
Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and Intervening, Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-
   sity Press.
Joyce, K. (2005) Appealing Images: Magnetic Resonance Imaging and the Produc-
   tion of Authoritative Knowledge, in “Social Studies of Science”, 35 (3), pp.
   437-462.
174   PERROTTA



      Joyce, K.A. (2006) From Numbers to Pictures: The Development of Magnetic Res-
         onance Imaging and the Visual Turn in Medicine, in “Science as Culture”,
         15(1), pp. 1-22.
      Knorr Cetina, K. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Con-
         structivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
      Latour, B. (1986) Visualization and Cognition. Thinking With Eyes and Hands, in
         H. Kuklick and E. Long (eds.), Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology
         of Culture Past and Present, Greenwich, Connecticut and London, JAI Press,
         pp. 1-40.
      Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
         Through Society, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
      Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific
         Facts, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
      Lie, M. (2012) Reproductive Images: The Autonomous Cell, in “Science as
         Culture”, 21 (4), pp. 1-22.
      Lynch, M. (1985a) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work
         and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory, London and New York, Routledge &
         Kegan Paul.
      Lynch, M. (1985b) Discipline and the Material Form of Images: An Analysis of
         Scientific Visibility, in “Social Studies of Science”, 15 (1), pp. 37-66.
      Lynch, M. (1998), The Production of Scientific Images: Vision and Re-vision in the
         History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science, in “Communication & Cogni-
         tion”, 31, pp. 213–228.
      Lynch, M. and Woolgar, S. (eds.) (1990) Representation in Scientific Practice,
         Cambridge, MIT Press.
      Maestrutti, M. (2008) Rendere visibile l’invisibile. Il ruolo della visione e
         dell’immagine nella costruzione di una storia delle nanotecnologie, in “Rassegna
         Italiana di Sociologia”, XLIX (3), pp. 427-50.
      Maestrutti, M. (2011a) Imaginaires des nanotechnologies : mythes et fictions de
         l'infiniment petit, Paris, VUIBERT.
      Maestrutti, M. (2011b) Techno-imaginaires du corps à l’ère des technosciences. Art
         contemporain et utopie de la transformation, in “Cahiers de recherche sociolo-
         gique”, 50, pp. 77-95.
      Mody, C.C.M. (2011) Instrumental Community. Probe Microscopy and the Path to
         Nanotechnology, Cambridge, MIT Press.
      Monteiro, M. (2010) Reconfiguring evidence: Interacting with digital objects in sci-
         entific practice, in “Computer Supported Cooperative Work”, 9 (3-4), pp.
         335‒354.
      Moriarty, P. (2010) Resolution Frontiers, in “Physics World”, 23 (11), pp. 29-34.
      Nerlich, B. (2008) Powered by imagination: Nanobots at the Science Photo Library,
         in “Science as Culture”, 17 (3), pp. 269–292.
      Nowotny, H. and Weiss, M. (eds.) (2000) Shifting Boundaries of the Real: Making
         the Invisible Visible, Zürich, Vdf.
                                                              TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        175



Pauwels, L. (2006) A theoretical framework for assessing visual representational
   practices in knowledge building and science communication, in L. Pauwels (ed.)
   Visual cultures of science: Rethinking representational practices in knowledge
   building and science communication, Lebanon, New England University Press,
   pp. 1-25.
Perini, L. (2012) Image Interpretation: Bridging the Gap from Mechanically Pro-
   duced Image to Representation, in “International Studies in the Philosophy of
   Science”, 26 (2), pp. 153-70.
Perrotta, M. (ed.) (2013) Re-conceiving Life in the Labs: The Emerging Meanings
   of Cells in the Italian Reproductive Biomedicine and Beyond, Special Issue of
   “Tecnoscienza: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies”, 4 (1)
   (forthcoming).
Pickering, A. (1992) Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago, University of Chi-
   cago Press.
Prasad, A. (2005a) Making Images/Making Bodies: Visibilizing and Disciplining
   Through Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), in “Science, Technology & Hu-
   man Values”, 30 (2), pp. 291-316.
Prasad, A. (2005b) Scientific Culture in the ‘Other’ Theater of ‘Modern Science’:
   An Analysis of the Culture of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research in India,
   in “Social Studies of Science”, 35 (3), pp. 463-89.
Schatzki, T., Knorr Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E. (eds.) (2001) The Practice
   Turn in Contemporary Theory, London and New York, Routledge.
Shapin, S. (1984) Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology, in
   “Social Studies of Science”, 14 (4), pp. 481-520.
Spencer, M. (2012) Trouble with Images in Computational Physics, in “Spontane-
   ous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science”, 6 (1),
   pp. 34-42.
Traweek, S. (1997) Iconic Devices: Toward an Ethnography of Physics Images, in
   G.L. Downey and J. Dumit (eds.), Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological In-
   terventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies, Santa Fe, School of Ameri-
   can Research Press, pp. 103-115.
Toumey, C. and Cobb, M. (2012) Nano in Sight: Epistemology, Aesthetics, Com-
   parisons, and Public Perceptions of Images of Nanoscale Objects, in “Leonar-
   do”, 45 (5), pp. 461-465.
Turrini, M. (2011) “Se vedo solo il bianco e il nero non vedo le sfumature”. Stili vi-
   suali e incertezza nei laboratori clinici di citogenetica, in “Etnografia e Ricerca
   Qualitativa”, 4 (1), pp. 39-60.
Turrini, M. (2012) Continuous Grey Scales Versus Sharp Contrasts: Styles of Rep-
   resentation in Italian Clinical Cytogenetics Laboratories, in “Human Studies”,
   35 (1), pp. 1-25.
Yang, A.S. (2011) Interdisciplinarity and Critical Inquiry: Visualizing at the
   Art/Bioscience Interface, in “Interdisciplinary Science Reviews”, 36 (1), pp.
   43-55.
176   PERROTTA




         Manuela Perrotta Norwegian University of Science and Technology
         Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture
         Dragvoll, Edvard Bulls veg 1, 7491, Trondheim, Norway
         Email: manuela.perrotta@aruba.it
