The profusion of theories within science and technological studies sometimes makes it hard to find lines of direction or stable points of support. The question of the relations between scientific practices and the state affords an opportunity to appraise the differences between theoretical corpi. The present article explores three recent theoretical propositions. In the name of a neoliberal ideological foundation, the new production of knowledge has eliminated the notion of State from its conceptual horizon. Actor-network theory, suspending the structures instituted within the chain of actors, ignores the state-form. Lastly, regime of knowledge theory accords the state a special role as a source in managing the production of knowledge.

L'effusion théorique au sein des science and technological studies rend parfois difficile la saisie de lignes directrices ou de points d'appui stables. La question des rapports entre pratiques scientifiques et État offre l'occasion de mesurer les écarts entre différents corpus théoriques. Dans cet article, nous avons considéré trois propositions théoriques récentes. La new production of knowledge écarte, au nom d'un soubassement idéologique néolibéral, la notion d'État de son horizon conceptuel. La théorie de l'acteur-réseau, dissolvant les structures instituées dans l'enchaÎnement des acteurs, ignore la forme-État. Enfin, les régimes de savoirs accordent une place importante à l'État en tant que ressource pour l'agencement de la production savante.

Em Toulouse, por volta de 1850, uma controvérsia sobre a estrutura dos Pirineus colocou o diretor do Observatório, Frederic Petit, contra o professor de geologia Alexandre Leymerie. O motivo do debate foi a hipótese formulada por Petit: o interior dos Pirineus era praticamente oco. A proposição baseava-se no trabalho que Petit iniciara para determinar a latitude de Toulouse. Os debates, que tiveram lugar na Academia de Ciências de Toulouse e também em periódicos locais, ilustram a organização dos espaços disciplinares no século XIX. Petit defendia seu método de pesquisa baseado em cálculos; a perspectiva do geólogo provinha do campo. A emergência da ciência geológica, menos matemática, vinha de encontro às práticas da astronomia daquele século. Analisada por cálculos ou pela observação visual, a montanha foi um objeto de controvérsia entre diferentes práticas científicas.

In Toulouse, around 1850, a controversy about the structure of the Pyrenees pitted observatory director Frederic Petit against geology professor Alexandre Leymerie. The object of the debate was an assumption formulated by Petit: that the inside of the Pyrenees was practically hollow. This proposal was based on work that Petit initiated in order to determine the latitude of Toulouse. The debates, which took place within the Toulouse Academy of Science and also in local newspapers, illustrate the organization of disciplinary spaces in the nineteenth century. Petit defended his research method based on calculation; the geologist's perspective was from the field. The emergence of the less mathematical science of geology came up against nineteenth-century astronomical practices, centered on calculation. Dissected by calculation or by visual observation, the mountain was an object of controversy from the perspective of distinct scientific practices.