At the outset, Bruno Latour's approach shared the Strong Programme's ambition to explain scientific results, although the locus was shifted from macro-sociology to the micro-approach of anthropological fieldwork. Latour's celebrated studies at the Salk laboratories in San Diego revealed science to be a matter of the "organization of persuasion through literary inscriptions". At the macro-level, science is represented as a process though which credit is accumulated in the scientific community, much as economic capital is accumulated in society at large. However, soon Latour would take a major step away from Edinburgh orthodoxy by insisting that the physical world plays a significant role in the production of science. This was accompanied by a radical reinterpretation of the ontology of the scientific enterprise: Instead of seeing science as being generated by a confrontation between two radically heterogeneous realms, that is, human subjectivity and objective reality, it is instead generated by an interaction between items that are basically of the same kind; Latour refers to them as actants. The reality with which natural science deals is generated by the networking of actants; and so, at the same time, is social reality. Latour's ontological constructivism, which sets him apart from the Strong Programme, is shown to generate problems when combined with Latour's claim that the objects of science must be granted a larger role in accounting for the scientific research process. However, in his later works Latour abandons the ambition of explaining scientific results in any orthodox sense.