1. See for example Lecher, “The 10 Best Fictional Laboratories, Ranked.” See also Bouton, “In Lab Lit, Fiction Meets Science of the Real World.”
2. Foucault, Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, 106.
3. Parikka, What is Media Archaeology?, 41–62.
4. Mullaney, The Chinese Typewriter,42, 43.
5. Ibid., 22, 23, 26.
6. To quote Gilles Deleuze, “the institution is always given as an organized system of means . . . law is a limitation of actions, institution a positive model for action.” Deleuze, “Instincts and Institutions,” 19.
7. Kittler, Gramophone, Film, Typewriter, 10.
8. Mullaney, 30.
9. Ibid., 37.
10. Ibid., 56
11. Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump, 341.
12. Ibid., 298.
13. Ibid., 39.
14. See Daston, “The Moral Economy of Science.”
15. Bureau d’Études writes of the planetary lab: “Since World War, the planet is gradually transformed into a scale 1 laboratory. The old model of ‘world factory’ has given way to the model of the ‘world laboratory.’ Objects of this laboratory, can we also be the subjects? Can we reclaim this huge machine that became autonomous and is now developing according to its own dynamic? Can we redirect the fate and direction of this laboratory?” Quoted on the Laboratory Planet website: http://laboratoryplanet.org/en.
16. Bishop, “The Global University,” 563–566.
17. Krzyżanowski, “Values, Imaginaries and Templates of Journalistic Practice,” 346–347.
18. There are plenty of relevant examples, but in terms of recent activism where the rhetoric of the lab is mobilized as a feminist network. It is also a good example of the ways in which the notion of the lab is not necessarily contained by normal architectural arrangements, but becomes a network of participants working on a wider geographical scale and with wider set of global social issues.
19. Galison and Jones, “Factory, Laboratory, Studio.”
20. Edison’s letter to Charles E. Buell, December 1, 1873, quoted in Israel, “Telegraphy and Edison’s Invention Factory,” 69.
21. Villiers de L’Isle-Adam, Tomorrow’s Eve, 8.
22. “Undergirding this new context was an emerging corporate culture that relied less on the invisible hand of the market and more on what historian Alfred Chandler has called the ‘visible hand’ of modern management.” Israel, “Telegraphy and Edison’s Invention Factory,” 66.
23. Millard, “Thomas Edison and the Theory and Practice of Innovation,” 199.
24. Gertner, The Idea Factory, 45, 343.
25. Altice, I Am Error, 22.
26. Millard, “Thomas Edison and the Theory and Practice of Innovation,” 192–195.
27. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 91.
28. Latour, “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World,” 165.
29. Ibid., 154.
30. Kluitenberg, “Connection Machines,”160.
31. Ibid., 168.
32. Ibid., 170.
33. Thibault, “The Automatization of Nikola Tesla.”
34. Wolffram, “In the Laboratory of the Ghost Baron,” 151–156.
35. See Hamilton, Intention and Survival. See also Sconce, Haunted Media.
36. Hamilton Family Fonds. University of Manitoba Archives & Special Collections.
37. “At present, photography of the substance is the most valuable means at our disposal of showing its objective reality and of studying its morphology and processes.” Hamilton, Intention and Survival, 10.
38. “That these phenomena were secured under the direction of intelligences, known as “controls,” that is, trance personalities claiming to be individuals who have survived death, is generally known, and a fact that makes the whole enquiry particularly distasteful to many.” Hamilton, Intention and Survival, 10.
39. Sir Oliver Joseph Lodge, the British Inventor and physicist who made significant contributions to the development or radio, referred to this room as Hamilton’s “laboratory,” in a passage quoted in, Intention and Survival, 132.
40. Wojcik, “Spirits, Apparitions, and Traditions of Supernatural Photography,” 120. Wojick cites Chéroux et al., eds, The Perfect Medium; and Krauss, Beyond Light and Shadow.
41. Hamilton writes, “many of my medical colleagues have accepted my experiments as attempts to get at the truth by genuinely experimental methods, regardless of the somewhat unusual nature of these things.” Hamilton, Intention and Survival, 16.
42. Quoted in Gertner, The Idea Factory 4. See also Galison and Jones, “Factory, Laboratory, Studio.”
43. Frank, The Conquest of Cool, 56–57.
44. For example, from its first sentence onward (“This book is about the origins of modern communications as seen through the adventures of several men . . .” ), Jon Gertner is unabashed about The Idea Factory being a “great man history.” For all its virtues, he retrenches a mythology of male American midwestern genius at the roots of technological innovation by glossing over the contributions of the thousands of employees (15,000 at its peak) for the work of a handful, including the women who worked at Bell Labs (121) and the Europeans whose discoveries sometimes served as the occasion for innovation (13, 67). The story could have been told otherwise.
45. Gertner, The Idea Factory, 346.
46. Dickerman, “Our Future Is Being Determined in the Lab Out West.”
47. Barbrook and Cameron, “The Californian Ideology,” 52, 45.
48. Ibid., 50, 49.
49. Ibid., 53.
50. Ibid., 55.
51. Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here. Golumbia, The Cultural Logic of Computation, 3–4. Golumbia sees in computationalism not only a drift toward the right, but the seeds of a Hobbesian, winner-take-all sensibility that leads directly to authoritarianism: “There is no room in this picture for exactly the kind of distributed sovereignty on which democracy itself would seem to be predicated” (224). And, in the wake of GamerGate and the rise of Trump, Josephine Armistead extends the argument yet again to account for the rise of neo-reactionary philosophy and outright fascism. See Armistead, “The Silicon Ideology” and “The Silicon Ideology Revisited.”
52. Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture, 240.
53. Ibid., 242.
54. Ibid., 19–20.
55. Holmes, “Disconnecting the Dots of the Research Triangle,” 185.
56. Ibid., 185.
57. Crow, “Building an Entrepreneurial University,” 76.
58. Crow and Dabars, Designing the New American University, 10–11.
59. Ibid., 103–04.
60. Manovich, The Language of New Media, 129.
61. Galison, “Three Laboratories,” 1149.
62. Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture, 20.