SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY AS FARCE - THE BENVENISTE-MADDOX COUNTER TRIALS

This paper examines same aspects of the attempted construction of the 'ghostly imprint' phenomenon which resulted in a five-month controvers y, pitting immunologists against homeopathists. A striking feature of this case appeared to be its farcical atmosphere - an atmosphere remin iscent of Kafka's satirical comedy, The Trial. First I show that such a farcical atmosphere marked the initial phase of the 'ghostly imprint ' episode, caused by (and generating) an underlying ambiguity in the i ssues, roles, types of discourse and interests in the play of events. Second, I focus on how the scientific community accomplished error cou nting. I examine the means by which Benveniste's results were deemed t o be 'unscientific': Crucial to my analysis of the patterns of power i nscribed in the relationship of humour and rhetoric operating within t he scientific community in this particular case, are the theoretical f rameworks of Emerson, Collins and Pinch, and Gilbert and Mulkay.