Jeroen van Dongen (Editor). Cold War Science and the Transatlantic Circulation of Knowledge. (History of Science and Medicine Library, 51; History of Modern Science, 1.) x + 293 pp., figs., tables, index. Leiden: Brill, 2015. €115 (cloth).

Isis ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
pp. 494-496
Author(s):  
Sam Robinson
2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-242
Author(s):  
JAMES POSKETT

AbstractWhat is the history of science? How has it changed over the course of the twentieth century? And what does the future hold for the discipline? This ‘Retrospect’ provides an introduction to the historiography of science as it developed in the Anglophone world. It begins with the foundation of the Cambridge History of Science Committee in the 1940s and ends with the growth of cultural history in the 2000s. At the broadest level, it emphasizes the need to consider the close relationship between history and the history of science. All too often the historiography of science is treated separately from history at large. But as this essay shows, these seemingly distinct fields often developed in relation to one another. This essay also reveals the ways in which Cold War politics shaped the history of science as a discipline. It then concludes by considering the future, suggesting that the history of science and the history of political thought would benefit from greater engagement with one another.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-90

The article examines the state of the history of science as a discipline and its objectives in the context of its origins and current transformations. The establishment of this discipline and its assumptions about the nature of science together with its goals and structure are briefly discussed. The history of science became a discipline only at the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, and its start is associated with the work of chemist James Conant, a high-level administrator in Manhattan project who was also president of Harvard University and a high-ranking bureaucrat. It was based also on the narrative developed by Alfred North Whitehead, Edwin Burtt, Alexandre Koyré and other historians of science, which claimed modern science was the creator of modernity and a necessary condition for the geopolitical domination of the West. In that understanding, modern science meant science since the time of Galileo and Newton. The author provides a critical analysis of this foundation narrative for the discipline and of its consequences while showing how contemporary history of science has overcome it. The contradiction between modernism and historicism has been resolved in favor of the latter. A key role in this was played by the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, which held the potential to undo the presumed monolithic unity of science by rejecting teleology and introducing incommensurability and discontinuities into the historical process. By rejecting explanation of the knowledge of other times and places in terms of modern science, the discipline faced a radical multiplication of independent types of knowledge. This was facilitated by the reorientation to the study of knowledge practices that took place in the 1980s. As a result, the subject matter of the history of science began to erode, and this launched discussion of the prospects for a transition to a history of knowledge based on the study of practices. The sweep of this change of vision is illustrated by the example of classifying sciences according to both their subject matter and the similarities in their research practices. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of the new discipline along with its prospects and the challenges it faces are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aileen Fyfe

Keynote presentation. The current debates about the future of academic publishing have generated much discussion about the most appropriate way to support financially the widespread circulation of knowledge. Yet there have been debates about this since at least the 1890s. Drawing upon my historical research, I will describe how scholarly publishing has a long history of not making money. Indeed, until the mid-twentieth century, its costs were frequently sponsored (i.e. subsidised) by learned societies, by universities, by government and by private donors. It was only in the early Cold War years, in a time of expanding output of research, that mission-driven publishers began to seriously focus on sales income as a means of covering costs; and then, later, as a means of generating income. Should publishing be treated as mission, or as a means to mission? My talk will seek to untangle the historical relationship between publishing, money-making and scholarly mission.


2015 ◽  
Vol 70 (02) ◽  
pp. 307-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Romano

Abstract What kind of history is the history of science? To what extent does the academic research labeled as such delineate a homogeneous field? What are the current challenges that it faces? The recent translation of Simon Schaffer’s works into French, along with the publication of his 2014 Marc Bloch Lecture in the Annales, provides the framework for this article’s historiographical reflection on the profound changes that have taken place within the discipline over the last thirty years, particularly within a French context. The analysis is twofold. First, it aims to trace how new approaches to the sociology and anthropology of science have reconfigured the boundaries of the discipline. Second, it considers the effect of the abandonment of one of its major historiographical paradigms by most of the scholars currently working on early modern science: the scientific revolution as the rise of scientific modernity, underpinned by a Eurocentric vision of the production of knowledge. Although most research on the early modern period now strives to distance itself from this narrative, it must also face new challenges and questions—in particular the role of science in the processes of globalization and the multiplicity of sites and social configurations that participate in this change of scale. These challenges point towards new methods and styles in the history of science and, more broadly, the social sciences.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 2-3
Author(s):  
Jaichan LEE

It is 100 years when we think about the history of ferroelectricity. We, who study ferroelectricity, are honored and pleased to share the 100-year anniversary of ferroelectricity and recall its history. At this great moment, we look back to the brief history on the verge of ferroelectricity. Our hope is that ferroelectricity studied as an early collective phenomenon will be coupled with quantum behavior, the essence of modern science, to become a new age in the history of science and technology.


Itinerario ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Romano ◽  
Stéphane Van Damme

Through its focus on the question of circulation, world history attained a central position amongst the historical configurations in the last decade. Indicative of our fundamentally changing world, the past thereby reveals itself to have been shaped by commercial, human and intellectual flows of global dimension. The history of science has been particularly receptive to such methodological developments, especially with regard to works influenced by a markedly social approach to science and knowledge, which has focused for some time on the analysis of intellectual networks. From the French provincial Enlightenment to Athansius Kircher's circles—including the relationships of patronage of mathematicians and court philosophers—social, intellectual and epistemological configurations have been designed, allowing us to consider different scales in the circulation of knowledge.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document