Nomadic concepts in the history of biology Jan Surman a, * , Katalin Stráner b, d , Peter Haslinger c a Leibniz Graduate School “History, Knowledge, Media in East Central Europe”, Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe e Institute of the Leibniz Association, Gisonenweg 5-7, 35037 Marburg, Germany b Leibniz-Institut for European History, Alte Universitätsstraße 19, 55116 Mainz, Germany c Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe e Institute of the Leibniz Association, Gisonenweg 5-7, 35037 Marburg, Germany d Pasts, Inc. Center for Historical Studies, Central European University,1051 Budapest Nádor u. 9, Hungary article info Article history: Available online 2 September 2014 Keywords: Nomadic concepts Metaphors in biology Isabelle Stengers Conceptual history of biology abstract The history of scientific concepts has firmly settled among the instruments of historical inquiry. In our section we approach concepts from the perspective of nomadic concepts (Isabelle Stengers). Instead of following the evolution of concepts within one disciplinary network, we see them as subject to constant reification and change while crossing and turning across disciplines and non-scientific domains. This introduction argues that understanding modern biology is not possible without taking into account the constant transfers and translations that affected concepts. We argue that this approach does not only engage with nomadism between disciplines and non-scientific domains, but reflects on and involves the metaphoric value of concepts as well. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences “Transfers are never innocent” Oliver Christin (Christin, 2010: 15) The intense discussion in the last years concerning the emergence and solidification of scientific concepts have amended earlier as well as raised new questions about how scientific concepts can act within given knowledge regimes. 1 In historical writing on biology, for instance, Evelyn Fox Keller (2000) and Staffan Müller-Wille and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (2009) have impressively shown that sci- entific conceptsdof the gene, in this specific caseddo not neces- sarily follow linear trajectories, but have the capacity to develop across disciplines and through mediation between content and its new environment. Political or religious language can also enter biological discourse: in this process, they not only interfere with its conceptual framework or are consciously put to work to ascertain one claims, but become an integral, fundamental element of the biological discourse. Terms are imbued with old and new meanings, which carry multiple histories that make them capable of func- tioning independently and together in their former settings, during the process of travel, and in their new environment. Conceptual transfersdlike all translationsdare conflictual processes of medi- ation and negotiation, constant de-contextualization and re- contextualization (Italiano & Rössner, 2012, pp. 11e 12). As Fox Keller wrote so elegantly in her work on François Jacob and Jacques Monod’s introduction on terms of feedback, regulatory circuits and epigenetic progress: [Jacob and Monod] tailored them in ways it minimized conflict with the dominant frameworks of their time [and redefined them] to refer to genetically controlled process. The possibility of such redefinition was, of course, a direct consequence of the * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 64211754983. E-mail address: jan.surman@herder-institut.de (J. Surman). 1 Since the pioneering work on scientific concepts of Georges Canguilhem, con- cepts have even come to be seen as actors in scientific change, acquiring a status comparable to images, material objects or practices (Schmidgen, 2008). It was most recently Georg Toepfer who scrutinized the key concepts (Grundbegriffe) of modern biology, offering an encyclopedic breakdown of the changes and adjustments affecting and shaping the formation and evolution of biological concepts, bringing forward a kaleidoscope of dynamic processes of conceptual change beneath the modern biology (Toepfer, 2011). Other scholars like Ingo Brigandt or Friedrich Steinle approached the matter from a more philosophical stance, demonstrating the importance of scientific concepts for the development of new knowledge by marrying descriptive historical reconstruction with philosophical reflection (Brigandt, 2010; Brigandt, 2012; Feest & Steinle, 2012; Steinle, 2006). While Can- guilhemdand the many epistemologists following in his footstepsdsought to establish “the order of conceptual progress” (Canguilhem, 1988, p. 9), our idea of the conceptual history of biology, follows a slightly different path. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2014.08.001 1369-8486/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 48 (2014) 127e129