This essay explores the geography of postmodern science in nonacademic settings, focusing on two research breakthroughs by Monsanto scientists, in 1985–1986 and 1989–1991, that created plants resistant to the company’s herbicide, glyphosate. The essay follows this new knowledge as it was mobilized into refereed publications and patents, comparing and contrasting the two forms of scientific discourse that resulted. The patents are then traced further as they were challenged, interpreted, and transformed in patent offices and courtrooms across time and space, specifically in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Whereas the crucial peer-reviewed knowledge claims remained fixed, the patent knowledge claims morphed and became fragmented, spatially and temporally. Analyzing lawsuits that Monsanto launched in Britain, Canada, and the United States, the essay shows how the company used spatial-epistemic fragmentation to modify the patents’ meanings in desired ways in particular locations, sometimes with significant social and epistemic consequences. The essay concludes by reflecting more broadly on the expansion of biotechnology patenting as a form of nondisinterested knowledge production and how this trend has shaped the path and characteristics of postmodern science in this realm.

中文翻译：

---

两个发明的故事：孟山都、生物技术和后现代科学地理学

本文探讨了非学术背景下的后现代科学地理学，重点关注孟山都科学家在 1985-1986 年和 1989-1991 年的两项研究突破，这些突破创造了对该公司的除草剂草甘膦具有抗性的植物。这篇文章遵循了这一新知识，因为它被动员到参考出版物和专利中，比较和对比了由此产生的两种形式的科学话语。随着专利在不同时间和空间的专利局和法庭中受到质疑、解释和转化，特别是在美国、加拿大和欧洲，这些专利会被进一步追踪。虽然关键的同行评审知识声明保持不变，但专利知识声明在空间和时间上发生了变化并变得支离破碎。分析孟山都在英国、加拿大和美国发起的诉讼，这篇文章展示了该公司如何使用空间认知碎片化在特定位置以所需的方式修改专利的含义，有时会产生重大的社会和认知后果。本文最后更广泛地反思了生物技术专利作为一种无私的知识生产形式的扩展，以及这一趋势如何塑造了该领域后现代科学的路径和特征。