Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...

ulists. At the same time, I analyze the impact of Metchnikov’s anthropological work on the evolution of his ideas about the developmental
arrests, and show in what ways his ‘discovery’ of primitive organs shaped his views about the ‘disharmonies’ in the construction
of the human organism. Metchnikov’s concept of immunity appears as an attempt to reconcile the idea of organismic integrity with the
notion of atavistic self.
Helen M. Rozwadowski, University of Connecticut, Avery Point (helen.rozwadowski@uconn.edu)
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 9:00 - 11:45 AM - Texas Ballroom III
Turning Heads: FLIP and the Technological Imagination in Postwar Oceanography
The decade of the 1960s in oceanography was characterized by excitement and optimism regarding the possibilities for studying the
ocean and for the uses to which the resulting new knowledge might be put. This optimism was manifested in almost wildly creative
proposals for platforms that would give researchers access to the sea. Some of these actually were built. One of the most unusual was
(and remains; it is still in use) the Floating Instrument Platform (FLIP) designed by staff at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and
built in 1962 with Office of Naval Research funding. Defined as a manned buoy, FLIP is a 355-foot craft (not self-powered) that can
be maneuvered to stand on end so that 300 feet extend below the surface, creating a remarkably stable platform for working below the
wave zone. FLIP can be understood in an institutional context, as a product of Scripps’ Marine Physical Laboratory, one of an array
of strange platforms and vehicles invented to probe the depths at this time. It equally represents the strong engineering dimension that
began to enter ocean science in the 1960s, as ocean engineering came into focus as a field in its own right. It also reflects something of
a Cold War response to Sputnik, as so much of the push for development of oceanography in that decade does. This paper will consider
how FLIP’s creation reflected the state and directions of oceanography in the 1960s. Some questions to be explored are: Was
FLIP conceived as a “manned” buoy, as opposed to an unmanned, automatic one, and, if so, for what reasons? Or, was it intended as
a cheaper substitute to a submarine for observing below the wave zone? Was it built for one, specific military use—studies of sound
sources in the water—or for the multiple uses to which it was eventually put? Answers to questions such as these will enable a comparison
of the invention and early use of FLIP with the development and use of scientific instruments and technologies more commonly
associated with the Cold War.
John L. Rudolph, University of Wisconsin, Madison (jlrudolp@wisc.edu)
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 3:30 - 5:30 PM - Hill Country A
Millikan, Mann, and the Debate Over General Science in the High School Course of Study
From 1896 to 1914, Robert A. Millikan and Charles Riborg Mann worked side by side as physicists at the University of Chicago’s
Ryerson Laboratory. A significant part of their professional efforts during these years focused on high school science education. Such
activities, which included textbook writing, participation in national education meetings, and teacher education, were not uncommon at
the beginning of the twentieth century when the line between high schools and colleges was far from well established. It was during this
time that institutional science (as a result of increased specialization) came to be viewed as out of touch with the practical interests of
a rapidly growing secondary school population. A solution was offered in the form of a new course, “general science,” which emphasized
the power of science in everyday contexts. The role of such a course in the overall high school curriculum, though, was unsettled
at the outset. The ensuing debate over general science between Millikan, who would go on to fame as a Nobel laureate in physics, and
Mann, who pursued a career in education, reveals the conflicting professional interests and ideologies of science that vied for acceptance
during these early years of educational ferment.
Andrea Rusnock, University of Rhode Island (rusnock@uri.edu)
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Texas Ballroom VII
Making Sense of Vaccination circa 1800
Smallpox inoculation and vaccination were introduced and practiced in Europe during the eighteenth century. Both procedures provided
instances of deliberately induced immunity. Histories of immunology (including textbook histories) typically begin with a cursory
description of these two procedures and yet little has been written about how contemporaries made sense of them. In a recent article,
Anne-Marie Moulin has examined what she calls “the paradox of immunization without immunology.” Smallpox inoculation, smallpox
vaccination, and Pasteur’s rabies vaccine, she notes, were all developed without any “theoretical advances in the understanding of immunity.”
Although empirical demonstrations of the efficacy of vaccines often took precedence over theoretical accounts of how vaccines
work, contemporaries did attempt to make sense of immunization. In this talk, I will examine how physicians conceptualized inoculation
and vaccination in the decades surrounding the publication of Edward Jenner’s “An Inquiry into the Causes and Effects of the
Variolae Vaccinae” (1798).
H. Darrel Rutkin, Stanford University (drutkin@mit.edu)
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 9:00 - 11:45 AM - Texas Ballroom VI