{"title":"Cleaning a dark matter detector: A case of ontological and normative elusiveness","authors":"Jaco de Swart, Annemarie Mol","doi":"10.1177/03063127251361158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Laboratory sciences crucially depend on the cleanliness of experiments. But what is clean? In this article, we show that the salience of the valuation <jats:italic>clean</jats:italic> emerges through its relation to a particular ontological repertoire. Our case is the XENONnT experiment in the Gran Sasso Mountains of Italy, designed to detect dark matter in the form of hypothetical WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). In this experiment, dirt presents a significant disruption, as contaminations can mimic the signals of WIMPs, and electronegative molecules risk erasing such signals. The ideosyncratic cleanliness required makes the practice of cleaning the XENONnT detector exceedingly difficult. So far, the ontological question ‘do WIMPs exist?’ remains open, which means that the normative question ‘is the detector clean enough?’ cannot be answered either. In addition, more cleaning will make the detector sensitive to a background of unremovable neutrinos—hence irredeemably dirty. With the normative goal of a ‘clean detector’ out of reach, the ontological question ‘do WIMPs exist?’ is bound to remain open as well. Alternative experiments therefore hunt for different hypothetical dark matter candidates, with different equipment, requiring different kinds of cleanliness. At the same time, the XENONnT experiment must navigate tensions between its own cleanliness goals and rules meant to ensure the environmental cleanliness of the Gran Sasso National Park. Cleaning turns out to be dirty. This leads us to ask: Which <jats:italic>goods</jats:italic> deserve to be cherished, and, intertwined with that, which <jats:italic>realities</jats:italic> deserve to be cared for?","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127251361158","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Laboratory sciences crucially depend on the cleanliness of experiments. But what is clean? In this article, we show that the salience of the valuation clean emerges through its relation to a particular ontological repertoire. Our case is the XENONnT experiment in the Gran Sasso Mountains of Italy, designed to detect dark matter in the form of hypothetical WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). In this experiment, dirt presents a significant disruption, as contaminations can mimic the signals of WIMPs, and electronegative molecules risk erasing such signals. The ideosyncratic cleanliness required makes the practice of cleaning the XENONnT detector exceedingly difficult. So far, the ontological question ‘do WIMPs exist?’ remains open, which means that the normative question ‘is the detector clean enough?’ cannot be answered either. In addition, more cleaning will make the detector sensitive to a background of unremovable neutrinos—hence irredeemably dirty. With the normative goal of a ‘clean detector’ out of reach, the ontological question ‘do WIMPs exist?’ is bound to remain open as well. Alternative experiments therefore hunt for different hypothetical dark matter candidates, with different equipment, requiring different kinds of cleanliness. At the same time, the XENONnT experiment must navigate tensions between its own cleanliness goals and rules meant to ensure the environmental cleanliness of the Gran Sasso National Park. Cleaning turns out to be dirty. This leads us to ask: Which goods deserve to be cherished, and, intertwined with that, which realities deserve to be cared for?
期刊介绍:
Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)