Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

New Forms of Complementarity in Science

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

New sciences born or developed in the 20th century (information, materials, life science) are based on forms of complementarity that differ from the past. The paper discusses cognitive, or disciplinary, institutional, and technical complementarity. It argues that new sciences apply a reductionist explanatory strategy to complex multi-layered systems. In doing so the reductionist promise is falsified, generating the need for multi-level kinds of explanation (e.g. in post-genomic molecular biology), new forms of complementarity between scientific and non-scientific organizations, and new forms of experimental and informational facilities. The paper develops the argument in theoretical terms, comparing it with the STS literature, and offers preliminary evidence based on the experience of Networks of Excellence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We benefited from intensive work carried out in 2008 and 2009 under the Expert Group on The Future of Networks of Excellence convened by DG Research and coordinated by Manfred Horvat (European Commission 2009). The group held six meetings and interviewed almost twenty persons, including many coordinators of NoEs. It also distributed a survey to a large number of scientific institutions at the national and European levels in all 27 EU countries. We thank Manfred Horvat, Toivo Maimets and Pierre Papon, members of the Expert Group, as well as Peter Fisch and Gerburg Larsen from the European Commission, for intense and challenging discussions. However, the material used for this paper was collected on a personal basis and is in no way related to the official conclusions of the Report. We remain the sole parties responsible for the interpretation of empirical evidence offered in this paper.

    We also greatly benefited from extensive discussion within the PRIME Nanodistrict project, namely with Aurelie Delemarle, Philippe Laredo, Vincent Mangematin, and Arie Rip.

  2. There is a large debate on this issue: see, for an introduction, Yearley (2005). As Taylor (1996) puts it: “we might be tempted to turn for answers to those who ought know best- scientists themselves”. But this means that “we are left to take scientists’ accounts of their practices as isomorphic with those practices, effacing, as it were, the map and its territory” (p. 4). On the map-territory relation, see also Gieryn (1999). The position by Collins and Yearley discussed in the text were criticized by Callon and Latour (1992) in the same volume (Pickering 1992).

  3. NoE ECNIS (Environmental Cancer Risk, Nutrition and Individual Susceptibility. Source: http://www.ecnis.org. Accessed March 14, 2008.

  4. NoE EPG (EuroPathoGenomics). Source: http://www.noe-epg.uni-wuerzburg.de/epg_worhpackages.htm. Accessed March 14, 2008.

  5. NoE DC Thera (Dendritic Cells and Novel Immunotherapies). Source: http://www.biocompetence.eu/index.php/kb_1/io.html?print=1&pdf=0&sotby=4. Accessed March 14, 2008.

  6. NoE EVGN (European Vascular Genomics Network). Source: http://www.biocompetence.eu/index.php/kb_1/io_3398/io.html. Accessed March 14, 2008.

  7. NoE EMBIC (Embryo Implantation Control). Source: http://embic.med.uni-jena.de/public/index2.php?option=com_conttc&task=view&id=112. Accessed March 14, 2008.

  8. NoE ESONET (European Sea Floor Observatory Network). http://www.oceanlab.abdn.ac.uk/research/esonet.php. Accessed March 14, 2008.

  9. NoE EADGENE (European Animal Disease Genomics for Animal Health and Food Safety). Source: http://www.ist-word.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=2b8eb2938ab849979981891671cf3085. Accessed March 14, 2008.

  10. NoE EPIZONE (Epizootic Disease Diagnosis and Control). Source: http://www.epizone.net.com. Accessed March 14, 2008.

  11. NoE ENDURE (European Network for the Durable Exploitation of Crop Protection Strategies). Source: http://www.endure-network.eu/. Accessed May 31, 2009.

  12. NoE CO2 GEONET (CO2 capture). Source: http://www.co2geonet.com. Accessed March 6, 2008.

  13. NoE EVOLTREE (Evolution of trees as drivers of terrestrial biodiversity). Source: http://www.evoltree.eu/. Accessed May 31, 2009.

  14. NoE EDIT (European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy). Source: on http://www.e-taxonomy.eu/. Accessed May 31, 2009.

  15. I thank Massimiano Bucchi for suggesting this interpretation.

References

  • Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The system of professions. An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agazzi, Evandro (ed.). 1991. The problem of reductionism in science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amable, Bruno, and Pascal Petit. 1999. Identifying the structure of institutions to promote innovation and growth. CEPREMAP Working Paper 9919.

  • Amato, Ivan. 1997. Stuff. The materials the world is made of. New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angier, Natalie. 1988. Natural obsessions. Striving to unlock the deepest secrets of the cancer cell. New York: Hougthon Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronowitz, Stanley. 1988. Science as power. Discourse and ideology in modern society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, Wolfgang, David A. Pearce, and Heinz-Jurgen Schmidt (eds.). 1984. Reduction in science. Structure, examples, philosophical problems. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Barry, and David Edge. 1982. Science in context. Readings in the sociology of science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, Barry, David Bloor, and John Henry. 1996. Scientific knowledge. A sociological analysis. London: Athlone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudet, Jean. 2006. La vie expliquée par la chimie. Comment la biologie est devenue moléculaire. Paris: Vuibert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, William. 2006. Discovering cell mechanisms. The creation of modern cell biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David, Joseph. 1971. The scientist’s role in society. A comparative study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, Johan, Herbert Van de Sompel, Aric Hagberg, Luis Bettencourt, Ryan Chute, Marko A. Rodriguez, and Lyudmila Balakireva. 2009. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of science. PLoS ONE 4(3): 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, Andrea. 2007. On the poor performance of European science. Institutions vs. policies. Science and Public Policy 34(5): 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, Andrea. 2008. Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva 46: 285–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, Andrea, and Juan Vargas. 2010. Proliferation dynamics in new sciences. Research Policy 39(8): 1034–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, Andrea, Jane Calvert, and Pierre Benoit Joly. 2010. From protecting texts to protecting objects in biotechnology and software: A tale of changes of ontological assumptions in intellectual property protection. Economy and Society (forthcoming).

  • Bordons, Maria, Fernanda Morillo, and Isabel Gomez. 2004. Analysis of cross-disciplinary research through bibliometric tools. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, eds. Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Glanzel, and Ulrich Schmoch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Börmer Katy, Chaomei Chen, and Kewin W. Boyack (2003) Visualizing knowledge domains. In Annual review of information science and technology (ARIST), ed. Blaise Cronin, 37, 179–255.

  • Boyack, Kewin W. 2005. Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics 64(3): 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Phil, and Edwin J. Mikkelsen. 1990. No safe place: Toxic waste, leukemia, and community action. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, Rebecca. 2000. Discovery and decision. Exploring the metaphysics and epistemology of scientific classification. London: Associated University Presses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, Massimiano. 1997. The public science of Louis Pasteur: The experiment on anthrax vaccine in the popular press of the time. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 19: 181–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, Massimiano, and Federico Neresini. 2008. Science and public participation. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed, eds. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman Judy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, Michel. 1999. The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science, Technology and Society 4(1): 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latour. 1992. Don’t throw the baby out with the Bath school! A reply to Collins and Yearley. In The science as practice and culture, ed. Andrew Pickering. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. 1999. Le pouvoir des malades, l’AFM et la recherche. Paris: P.E.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coen, Enrico. 1999. The art of genes: How organisms make themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Morris. 1976. Reciprocity in materials design. Materials Science and Engineering 25(3): 2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Harry M., and Steven Yearley. 1992. Epistemological chicken. In The science as practice and culture, ed. Andrew Pickering. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, Clifford D. 2005. A people’s history of science. Miners, midwives, and “low mechanicks”. New York: Nation Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Solla Price, Derek. 1963. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Steven. 1995. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values 20(4): 408–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2009. Expert group on the future of networks of excellence—Final report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauci, Anthony S. 2008a. Back to basics for HIV vaccine development. Nature 452: 516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauci, Anthony S. 2008b. 25 years of HIV. Nature 453: 289–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, Scott. 2004. Chemical consequences: Environmental mutagens, scientist activism, and the rise of genetic toxicology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, Peter. 2003. Einstein’s clocks, Poincare’s maps. Empires of time. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science. Credibility on the line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, Benoit. 1998. Writing performative history: The new Atlantis? Social Studies of Science 28(3): 465–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, Benoit, and Yves Gingras. 2000. The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research Policy 29(2): 273–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Steven Jay. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grmek, Mirko D. 1990. History of AIDS: Emergence and origins of a modern pandemic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, J. Edward, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman (eds.). 2008. The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Peter, and David Soskice. 2001. Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37: 740–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J.Rogers, and Robert Boyer. 1997. Coordination of economic actors and social systems of production. In Contemporary capitalism, the embeddedness of institutions, eds. J.Rogers Hollingsworth, and Robert Boyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in four dimensions: Genetics, epigenetics, behavioural, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, Jonathan D. 2002. Mode 2 knowledge and institutional life: Taking Gibbons on a walk through a South African University. Higher Education 43(4): 507–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff Sheila, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch (eds.). 1995. Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

  • Kay, Lily E. 1993. The molecular vision of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. Interdisciplinarity. History, theory and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, Daniel Lee. 2003. Impure cultures. University biology and the world of commerce. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, Steven J. 1995. Conceptual foundations for multidisciplinary thinking. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lander, Eric S., and Robert A. Weinberg. 2002. Genomics: Journey to the center of biology. In Science. Pathways to discovery, ed. Ivan Amato. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir, Timothy. 1997. Instituting science. The cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, Loet. 1987. Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics 11(5–6): 295–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, Loet, and Ismael Rafols. 2008. A global map of science based on the ISI Subject Categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(2): 348–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, Loet, and Ping Zhou. 2007. Nanotechnology as a field of science: Its delineation in terms of journals and patents. Scientometrics 70(3): 693–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llerena, Patrick, and Frieder Meyer-Krahmer. 2003. Interdisciplinary research and the organization of the university: General challenges and a case study. In Science and innovation. Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. Aldo Geuna, Ammon J. Salter, and Edward W. Steinmuller. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation. Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. Aldo Geuna, Ammon J. Salter, and Edward W. Steinmuller. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, Norman, and Richard N. Zare. 1999. Interdisciplinary research: From belief to reality. Science 283(5402): 642–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Martin. 2001. Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: An exploration of nano-science and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1): 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Martin, and Olof Persson. 1998. Nanotechnology-interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics 42(2): 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts. 1990. The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy and organization. American Economic Review 80: 511–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts. 1992. Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts. 1995. Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics 19: 179–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nader, Laura. 1996. Naked science. Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The structure of science. London: Harcourt, Brace and World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R. 2005. Technology, institutions, and economic growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Richard R., and Bhaven Sampat. 2001. Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 44: 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, Denis. 2006. The music of life. Biology beyond the genome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noyons, Ed C. 2004. Science maps within a science policy context. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, eds. Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Glanzel, and Ulrich Schmoch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 1998. Interdisciplinarity in science and technology. Directorate for science, technology and industry. Paris: OECD.

  • Olson, Gregory B. 2002. Designing a new material world. In Science. Pathways of discovery, ed. Ivan Amato. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, Nelly, and Trevor Pinch (eds.). 2003. How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parthasarathy, Shobita. 2007. Building genetic medicine. Breast cancer, technology, and the comparative politics of health care. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peruzzi, Giulio. 2000. Scienza e realtà. Riduzionismo e antiriduzionismo nelle scienze del Novecento. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, Dominique. 2003a. Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva 41: 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, Dominique. 2003b. Science, argent et politique. Un essai d’interprétation. Paris: Editions INRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, Andrew (ed.). 1992. The science as practice and culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, William van Orman. 1953. From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, Ismael. 2007. Strategies for knowledge acquisition in bio-nanotechnology: Why are interdisciplinary practices less widespread than expected? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 20(4): 395–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols, Ismael, and Martin Meyer. 2009. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 81(2): 263–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a history of epistemic things. Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, John. 2004. The modern firm. Organizational design for performance and growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, Paolo. 1962. I filosofi e le macchine. 1400–1700. Milano: Feltrinelli.

  • Schaffner, Kenneth F. 1993. Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, Joachim. 2004. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59(3): 425–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seringhaus, Michael, and Mark Gerstein. 2008. Genomics confounds gene classification. American Scientist 96: 466–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, Terry. 2002. The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science 32(4): 599–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Cyril Stanley. 1981. A search for structure. Selected essays on science, art, and history. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, Wolfgang. 1992. Social institutions and economic performance : Studies of industrial relations in advanced industrialised countries. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Charles Alan. 1996. Defining science. A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, Paul. 1999. How scientists explain disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijssen, Robert J.W. 2004. Measuring and evaluating science and technology connections and interactions. In Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, eds. Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Glanzel, and Ulrich Schmoch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tubiana, Maurice. 2007. N’oublions pas demain. Mémoires. Paris: Editions de Fallois.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuunainen, Juha. 2005. Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education 50(2): 275–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, Thed, and Robert J.W. Tijssen. 2000. Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science. Analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Research Evaluation 9(3): 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, Robert A. 1996. Racing to the beginning of the road. The search for the origin of cancer. New York: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, Peter. 1997. From “finalization” to “mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information 36(4): 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearley, Steven. 2005. Making sense of science. Understanding the social study of science. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yon-Kahn, Jeannine. 2006. Histoire de la science des proteins. Grenoble: EDP Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zysman, John. 1994. How institutions create historically rooted trajectories of growth. Industrial and Corporate Change 3(1): 243–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electric Systems and Automation, School of Engineering, University of Pisa, Largo Lucio Lazzarino 2, 56122, Pisa, Italy

    Andrea Bonaccorsi

Authors
  1. Andrea Bonaccorsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Bonaccorsi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bonaccorsi, A. New Forms of Complementarity in Science. Minerva 48, 355–387 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9159-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-010-9159-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation