...

"The publication strategies of Jons Jacob Berzelius" by Jenny Beckman, focuses on chemist Berzelius and his publication strategies to maintain Swedish science in contest with French, German, and English science, as well as his own scientific reputation. After a summary, I show how Beckman integrates history and philosophy of science by drawing on the "center/periphery" (Basalla 1967; Raj 2013) and "circulation" (Raj 2013) perspectives into what she calls a "transnational perspective" (Beckman 2016, 207).

Beckman's decision to focus on Sweden and Berzelius is not surprising, given Beckman's extensive work on the history of Swedish science and scientists (e.g., Beckman 2012). However, she makes a strong historical case about why Berzelius and Swedish science should interest us. Whereas Berzelius' Swedish predecessors (e.g., Torben Bergman) often used Latin to communicate with peers, Latin waned as the lingua franca of European science (Beckman 2016, 197). Instead, French, German and English became the prominent languages of European science (Beckman 2016, 197). This sets science in Sweden and the Swedish language between already well-established alternatives.

Berzelius' status as a respected scientist was threatened by the dominance of non-Swedish journals (Beckman 2016, 195). For example, in 1826, Humphry Davy criticized Berzelius' work on muriatic acid, in part because their paper had not yet been translated into English and thus deemed irrelevant (Beckman 2016, 196). Although he occasionally translated them himself, Berzelius often depended on external translators. Translation was often performed by the editors of publishing journals (Beckman 2016, 201). But this was, of course, not without its issues. Translations are costly and time-consuming (Beckman 2016, 202). And as Berzelius declared, he has "the worst luck with translations," sometimes demanding corrections (Beckman 2016, 201).

Berzelius' location and nationality (translation issues aside) also created problems for interacting with non-Swedish science. Beckman presents Berzelius in relation to the network of booksellers, scientists, and publishers necessary for the circulation of scientific works from other countries (Beckman 2016, 199; Topham 2011). This network was not always reliable, especially considering that books in many languages were banned in Sweden during the Napoleonic wars (Beckman 2016, 199-200).

Berzelius was eventually interested in preserving Swedish as the language of Swedish science (Beckman 2016, 202). By the time he had considerable influence and respect, he had also taken up editing and running his own journals (Beckman 2016, 199). And despite previous negative experiences with the Transactions of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, he regarded it as the most important Swedish publication and sought to bring it on par with those of other scientific societies (Beckman 2016, 202). But the Transactions had a slew of issues in competition with other science societies. For one, it contained mostly meteorological observations (Beckman 2016, 203). Furthermore, the Transactions were slow to publish and thus results published there were liable to "scooping" (Beckman 2016, 203). In 1811, Berzelius declared that foreigners had stopped caring about the Transactions, in part because it was not translated into their native languages (Beckman 2016, 203).

In 1818, when he was elected to the Royal Swedish Academy, he was able to enact reform in the Transactions to influence its international relevance (Beckman 2016, 204). Shortly after, he also began the Annual Survey of Progress in the Sciences, in which he and others translated current science into Swedish (Beckman 2016, 204). The explicit goal of the Annual, however, was to communicate its findings to a broader audience in the hopes of fostering future scientific research in Sweden (Beckman 2016, 204). The Annual was eventually periodically translated into German and then French, typically by followers of Berzelius, and used by Berzelius to exert his influence (Beckman 2016, 205). But even with translation, the movement of articles was slow, and Berzelius' influence was weakened as a result (Beckman 2016, 206).

So, we can see how Beckman presents Berzelius as caught up in a network of circulating scientific research, with a particular focus on his efforts to translate and establish publication infrastructure for Swedish science. Her historical argument is complex and compelling, relying on Berzelius' correspondences and public actions to reconstruct his intentions. So, I think it is good history. But how does it integrate the history and philosophy of science?

Beckman integrates both a circulatory and center/periphery perspective into what she calls a "transnational perspective" (Beckman 2016, 207). As Beckman herself notes, Kapil Raj's circulatory perspective emphasizes the back-and-forth interactions between social groups and their mutual production of science (Beckman 2016, 206; Raj 2013). And, granting my reconstruction of Beckman's historical argument, Beckman has clear affinities with this perspective. However, Beckman also emphasizes the notions of central and peripheral, stating that Berzelius and Sweden are "both central and peripheral" (Beckman 2016, 206). A center-and-periphery model of the dissemination of science, with unidirectional flow, is the typical foil to the circulatory model (Basalla 1967; Raj 2013).

One way of interpreting Beckman's essay is that it highlights circulation found in the European "center." The center/periphery perspective obfuscated the agency of colonized peoples in science, and rejecting and replacing it with a circulatory perspective highlights the influence of the periphery (Raj 2013). Yet we should be reminded that the circulatory perspective is not limited to the periphery, and that Swedes are also agents engaging in the co-production of scientific knowledge. In this sense, Beckman is clarifying the circulatory perspective and its domain through a historical case.

However, Beckman also takes on board that Berzelius is "both central and peripheral." The reason is that established scientific societies acted as centers around which Sweden was peripheral. Without a strong publication infrastructure, reputation, and translation, Sweden could not be a national center on its own. It seems that Berzelius' actions are best understood as driven by his desire to make Sweden into such a center, and his own agency was impeded without such infrastructure. Therefore, both circulatory and center/periphery perspectives are integrated: knowledge is co-produced by different national communities, but national communities might influence and compete with one another as centers. We may call this a transnational perspective.

In conclusion, Beckman draws on aspects of both the circulatory and center/periphery perspectives on the spread of scientific knowledge to frame her historical narrative of Berzelius, thereby using the case to articulate what she calls a "transnational" perspective.