The European Union's recommendation for a 'mining revival' in France has renewed focus on the challenges of post-mining areas, particularly concerning soil contamination from past mismanagement. The Cévennes region, with its long history of mining, provides a rich context. Saint-Laurent-Le Minier, in particular, boasts one of the world's largest lead-zinc deposits, with a legacy of pollution impacting the hamlet of La Papeterie. While initial remediation efforts occurred in 2006, high lead levels persisted, leading to further investigations and a management strategy involving ADEME (French Agency for Ecological Transition) in 2016. Phytoremediation, specifically phytostabilisation, was chosen as an in-situ solution. This study investigates how scientific and lay knowledge intersect within this context, exploring the visibility and invisibility of pollution and the research process itself.

The paper draws on existing literature on visibility and invisibility in research and post-mining territories. It highlights the work of Fontaine (2016) on the contrasting dynamics of removing mining remnants versus valuing mining history. Other studies emphasize the often-overlooked nature of soil pollution (Zanetti, 2018) and the challenges of communicating about post-mining risks (Becerra et al., 2016b; Doumas et al., 2018). The authors also cite works on the 'dis-origined' nature of metals (McKay, 2021), the rhetorical strategies used to manage public perception of environmental issues (Schneider et al., 2016; Paliewicz, 2024), and the limitations of relying solely on scientific expertise in addressing complex environmental problems (Latour and Woolgar, 1986; Frickel and Vincent, 2007; Harding, 2015). The study builds upon Lemaire-Crespy's (2013) work, which examines how different stakeholders in Saint-Laurent-Le Minier perceive and discuss pollution, extending the analysis to include the role of researchers and the research process itself.

The research employed a mixed-methods approach. First, a literature review examined scientific publications (17 papers from Web of Science) and media articles (52 from Europresse) from the mine closure to 2022 to analyze the visibility of pollution and phytoremediation in both arenas. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2022 and 2023 with researchers (microbiologists and environmental chemists), local inhabitants (including former miners and members of mining heritage associations), and institutional stakeholders (ARS, DREAL, Géodéris, and ADEME). The interviews explored scientific content, stakeholder interactions, research perceptions, and local experiences of post-mining challenges. Data analysis involved discourse analysis of interviews and textual data from the literature review. Field trips provided additional observational data, particularly regarding interpersonal dynamics and unspoken tensions among stakeholders.

The study reveals a complex interplay of visibilisation and invisibilisation processes. Analysis of publication kinetics shows an increase in scientific publications on soil pollution and phytoremediation after 2010, while media coverage remains limited and often uses euphemisms. The research highlights how initial focus on plants resistant to contamination (e.g., *Thlaspi caerulescens*) led to the institutionalized solution of phytostabilisation. The collaboration between researchers and a local farmer proved crucial, with the farmer's lay knowledge significantly influencing the research process. The close, informal relationship between researchers and ADEME facilitated the adoption of phytostabilisation as the remediation method. However, this choice sparked controversy, with some stakeholders favoring phytoextraction due to its perceived economic benefits and potential for decontamination. The study highlights both conscious and unconscious invisibilisation processes: researchers focused on specific aspects, while some stakeholders withheld information to avoid certain outcomes (e.g., agromining). The implementation of phytostabilisation, while aesthetically improving the site, also led to an invisibilisation of the pollution itself. The research also underscores the positive and negative impacts on local inhabitants, leading to empowerment through knowledge acquisition but also dispossession in certain cases where local knowledge was appropriated without proper recognition. The study demonstrates how seemingly successful remediation efforts can mask underlying problems and potentially serve to legitimize larger political narratives related to mining renewal.

The findings address the research question by demonstrating how the interplay of lay and expert knowledge, influenced by power dynamics and stakeholder interests, shapes the visibility and invisibility of pollution and remediation strategies. The case study showcases how research can selectively highlight specific aspects of a complex problem, shaping public and policy responses. The significance of the results lies in illustrating the social and political dimensions of scientific research, particularly in environmental remediation. The study challenges traditional views of science as a purely objective endeavor, highlighting the importance of reflexive practices and ethical considerations in research design and stakeholder engagement.

This research emphasizes the need for a reflexive approach in environmental research, acknowledging the influence researchers exert on what is considered visible or invisible. Mindful decision-making regarding stakeholder engagement can improve knowledge transfer, empower local communities, and enhance the social impact of research. Future research could explore the generalizability of these findings to other post-mining territories and examine the influence of broader political and legislative contexts on invisibilisation processes.

The study's primary limitation is its focus on a single case study. While the findings offer valuable insights, further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these observations to other post-mining sites and diverse socio-political contexts. The data used (interviews) are not publicly available due to privacy concerns and language limitations.