En quoi l’« orang-outan » des Lumières contribue-il à notre compréhension de la constitution des sciences sociales et leurs relations contemporaines avec les sciences du vivant ? Introduit en Europe au xviie siècle, l’« homme des bois » (un terme qui désigne toutes les espèces de grands singes) fait son entrée dans les traités de casuistique médicale, parmi d’autres cas cliniques, brouillant les frontières entre humain et animal, et s’imposant au cœur des controverses des Lumières. Cet article traverse les disciplines et les espaces, et déploie une enquête sur l’orang-outan en suivant les routes du commerce triangulaire qui alimente les métropoles en spécimens. Il retrace des trajectoires croisées à partir d’un large éventail de sources (navires de traite, coffee-houses, catalogues de musées) et met au jour plusieurs types de comparaison, à la fois historiques et historiographiques. Il distingue deux régimes de curiosité ayant contribué à la célébrité de certains chimpanzés, entre foires, coffee-houses et cabinets d’histoire naturelle : l’un, savant, est fondé sur la généralisation anatomique ; l’autre, public, relayé par la presse, valorise les singularités – exemplifié ici par le cas de Madame Chimpanzé. L’histoire de l’orang-outan des Lumières permet ainsi d’interroger les frontières de l’humain et les conditions sociales, scientifiques et politiques de production des savoirs.

Research is a human enterprise, and for institutions to hold themselves accountable, people and structures must work in concert. Too many institutions limit their accountability to enforcing formal rules and regulations. This undermines their everyday functioning, institutional integrity, and public trust. In so doing, they fail to honor their own educational, research, and service missions. Institutional accountability for research integrity means going beyond enforcing regulations, teaching required responsible conduct of research courses, and responding to allegations of misconduct. It means recognizing and acting upon the knowledge that researchers’ interpersonal conduct is crucial for creating and sustaining productive and healthy work environments, and that work environments often dictate the norms and behaviors that create (or undermine) a strong culture of research integrity within an institution. Everyday actions of setting the tone, defining success, articulating values and expectations, and providing resources are crucial foundations of an institutional working culture that consistently values rigor, reproducibility, belonging, and integrity. Providing and normalizing engaging, relevant professional development programs is one way to be proactive about supporting all organizational members to be accountable for work cultures that buttress research integrity.

In 1888, George Eastman introduced Kodak, one of the first affordable, user-friendly photographic film cameras. The camera’s success planted seeds for a global market for amateur photography that the Eastman Kodak Company would dominate for over a century. Leveraging substantial profits from photographic film, Kodak invested heavily in research and development, continuously innovating in amateur photography and pioneering new technological domains. From the 1970s onward, as growth in its core business began to slow and new imaging technologies emerged, Kodak embarked on significant strategic renewal initiatives. These efforts included diversifying into industries such as plain paper copiers and pharmaceuticals and developing digital products for photography applications. Despite considerable investments in innovation and growing new businesses over several decades, Kodak ultimately failed to find a viable path to sustaining its success; it filed for bankruptcy in 2012. The company’s decline illustrates the inherent challenges of sustaining a successful enterprise in evolving markets and technologies. Furthermore, it raises critical questions about the effectiveness of strategic renewal efforts, particularly when high-performance expectations are set within an environment of significant uncertainty.