Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...
Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...
Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ulists. At <strong>the</strong> same time, I analyze <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> Metchnikov’s anthropological work on <strong>the</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> his ideas about <strong>the</strong> developmental<br />
arrests, and show in what ways his ‘discovery’ <strong>of</strong> primitive organs shaped his views about <strong>the</strong> ‘disharmonies’ in <strong>the</strong> construction<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> human organism. Metchnikov’s concept <strong>of</strong> immunity appears as an attempt to reconcile <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> organismic integrity with <strong>the</strong><br />
notion <strong>of</strong> atavistic self.<br />
Helen M. Rozwadowski, University <strong>of</strong> Connecticut, Avery Point (helen.rozwadowski@uconn.edu)<br />
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 9:00 - 11:45 AM - Texas Ballroom III<br />
Turning Heads: FLIP and <strong>the</strong> Technological Imagination in Postwar Oceanography<br />
The decade <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1960s in oceanography was characterized by excitement and optimism regarding <strong>the</strong> possibilities for studying <strong>the</strong><br />
ocean and for <strong>the</strong> uses to which <strong>the</strong> resulting new knowledge might be put. This optimism was manifested in almost wildly creative<br />
proposals for platforms that would give researchers access to <strong>the</strong> sea. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se actually were built. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most unusual was<br />
(and remains; it is still in use) <strong>the</strong> Floating Instrument Platform (FLIP) designed by staff at <strong>the</strong> Scripps Institute <strong>of</strong> Oceanography and<br />
built in 1962 with Office <strong>of</strong> Naval Research funding. Defined as a manned buoy, FLIP is a 355-foot craft (not self-powered) that can<br />
be maneuvered to stand on end so that 300 feet extend below <strong>the</strong> surface, creating a remarkably stable platform for working below <strong>the</strong><br />
wave zone. FLIP can be understood in an institutional context, as a product <strong>of</strong> Scripps’ Marine Physical Laboratory, one <strong>of</strong> an array<br />
<strong>of</strong> strange platforms and vehicles invented to probe <strong>the</strong> depths at this time. It equally represents <strong>the</strong> strong engineering dimension that<br />
began to enter ocean science in <strong>the</strong> 1960s, as ocean engineering came into focus as a field in its own right. It also reflects something <strong>of</strong><br />
a Cold War response to Sputnik, as so much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> push for development <strong>of</strong> oceanography in that decade does. This paper will consider<br />
how FLIP’s creation reflected <strong>the</strong> state and directions <strong>of</strong> oceanography in <strong>the</strong> 1960s. Some questions to be explored are: Was<br />
FLIP conceived as a “manned” buoy, as opposed to an unmanned, automatic one, and, if so, for what reasons? Or, was it intended as<br />
a cheaper substitute to a submarine for observing below <strong>the</strong> wave zone? Was it built for one, specific military use—studies <strong>of</strong> sound<br />
sources in <strong>the</strong> water—or for <strong>the</strong> multiple uses to which it was eventually put? Answers to questions such as <strong>the</strong>se will enable a comparison<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> invention and early use <strong>of</strong> FLIP with <strong>the</strong> development and use <strong>of</strong> scientific instruments and technologies more commonly<br />
associated with <strong>the</strong> Cold War.<br />
John L. Rudolph, University <strong>of</strong> Wisconsin, Madison (jlrudolp@wisc.edu)<br />
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 3:30 - 5:30 PM - Hill Country A<br />
Millikan, Mann, and <strong>the</strong> Debate Over General <strong>Science</strong> in <strong>the</strong> High School Course <strong>of</strong> Study<br />
From <strong>18</strong>96 to 1914, Robert A. Millikan and Charles Riborg Mann worked side by side as physicists at <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong> Chicago’s<br />
Ryerson Laboratory. A significant part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir pr<strong>of</strong>essional efforts during <strong>the</strong>se years focused on high school science education. Such<br />
activities, which included textbook writing, participation in national education meetings, and teacher education, were not uncommon at<br />
<strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> twentieth century when <strong>the</strong> line between high schools and colleges was far from well established. It was during this<br />
time that institutional science (as a result <strong>of</strong> increased specialization) came to be viewed as out <strong>of</strong> touch with <strong>the</strong> practical interests <strong>of</strong><br />
a rapidly growing secondary school population. A solution was <strong>of</strong>fered in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a new course, “general science,” which emphasized<br />
<strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> science in everyday contexts. The role <strong>of</strong> such a course in <strong>the</strong> overall high school curriculum, though, was unsettled<br />
at <strong>the</strong> outset. The ensuing debate over general science between Millikan, who would go on to fame as a Nobel laureate in physics, and<br />
Mann, who pursued a career in education, reveals <strong>the</strong> conflicting pr<strong>of</strong>essional interests and ideologies <strong>of</strong> science that vied for acceptance<br />
during <strong>the</strong>se early years <strong>of</strong> educational ferment.<br />
Andrea Rusnock, University <strong>of</strong> Rhode Island (rusnock@uri.edu)<br />
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Texas Ballroom VII<br />
Making Sense <strong>of</strong> Vaccination circa <strong>18</strong>00<br />
Smallpox inoculation and vaccination were introduced and practiced in Europe during <strong>the</strong> eighteenth century. Both procedures provided<br />
instances <strong>of</strong> deliberately induced immunity. Histories <strong>of</strong> immunology (including textbook histories) typically begin with a cursory<br />
description <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se two procedures and yet little has been written about how contemporaries made sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. In a recent article,<br />
Anne-Marie Moulin has examined what she calls “<strong>the</strong> paradox <strong>of</strong> immunization without immunology.” Smallpox inoculation, smallpox<br />
vaccination, and Pasteur’s rabies vaccine, she notes, were all developed without any “<strong>the</strong>oretical advances in <strong>the</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> immunity.”<br />
Although empirical demonstrations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> efficacy <strong>of</strong> vaccines <strong>of</strong>ten took precedence over <strong>the</strong>oretical accounts <strong>of</strong> how vaccines<br />
work, contemporaries did attempt to make sense <strong>of</strong> immunization. In this talk, I will examine how physicians conceptualized inoculation<br />
and vaccination in <strong>the</strong> decades surrounding <strong>the</strong> publication <strong>of</strong> Edward Jenner’s “An Inquiry into <strong>the</strong> Causes and Effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Variolae Vaccinae” (1798).<br />
H. Darrel Rutkin, Stanford University (drutkin@mit.edu)<br />
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 9:00 - 11:45 AM - Texas Ballroom VI