14.01.2014 Views

Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...

Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...

Listing of Sessions and Abstracts of Papers - History of Science ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ology. This is not to say that other lines <strong>of</strong> approach were insignificant. In fact, empirically-oriented<br />

climatological works such as those cultivated by Hubert Lamb played an instrumental role in raising the<br />

issue <strong>of</strong> climate change <strong>and</strong> variability during the 1960s <strong>and</strong> early 1970s. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, many<br />

meteorologists, from the very beginning, believed that climate <strong>and</strong> its change could only be properly<br />

studied using physico-mathematical models. This tendency was particularly strong in Britain. Since the<br />

early 1960s, the British Meteorological Office had begun to devote more <strong>of</strong> its climate research efforts<br />

to the development <strong>of</strong> general circulation models (GCMs). Consequently, Hubert Lamb, despite his<br />

international reputation as a pioneer <strong>of</strong> historical climatology, faced an increasing lack <strong>of</strong> support <strong>and</strong><br />

eventually decided to leave the Office. In this presentation, by tracing the historical <strong>and</strong> social contexts<br />

<strong>of</strong> early GCM developments in Britain, I will demonstrate that styles <strong>of</strong> scientific practice, disciplinary<br />

traditions, institutional cultures, as well as broad political environments all contributed to the transformation<br />

<strong>of</strong> climate science during the 1960s <strong>and</strong> 1970s.<br />

Kimmelman, Barbara<br />

E-mail Address: kimmelmanb@philau.edu<br />

Regulation <strong>and</strong> Debate in International Agricultural Industries: The Case <strong>of</strong> Antibiotic Feed<br />

Additives In the U.S. <strong>and</strong> U.K.<br />

Between 1948 <strong>and</strong> 1951 researchers in the United States <strong>and</strong> Great Britain discovered what is known<br />

as the "antibiotic growth effect"--that the feeding <strong>of</strong> antibiotics at low levels to agricultural animals<br />

resulted in enhanced growth. The general tone <strong>of</strong> both scientific <strong>and</strong> commercial publications reporting<br />

this unexpected effect was enthusiastic--its discovery <strong>of</strong>fered a fascinating scientific problem requiring<br />

elucidation <strong>and</strong> also promised economic benefits to both producers <strong>and</strong> consumers <strong>of</strong> meat. But by the<br />

1970s an alternative viewpoint had emerged in the face <strong>of</strong> growing worldwide concern about microbial<br />

resistance to antibiotics <strong>and</strong> accumulating evidence that agricultural use <strong>of</strong> antibiotics was a contributing<br />

factor. Actions by various national governments, non-governmental organizations, <strong>and</strong> voluntary associations<br />

<strong>of</strong> scientists <strong>and</strong> medical practitioners have produced restrictions or bans on routine antibiotic<br />

feeding <strong>of</strong> food animals. But the United States has lagged behind in both national <strong>and</strong> international<br />

initiatives. In this paper, I compare the course <strong>of</strong> debate <strong>and</strong> regulatory action in the United States <strong>and</strong><br />

United Kingdom, <strong>and</strong> argue that the political culture <strong>of</strong> the U.S. encourages a voluntary approach to<br />

restriction, rather than formal government intervention <strong>and</strong> regulation, which is tolerated better in<br />

Europe.<br />

Kinraide, Rebecca<br />

E-mail Address: kinraide@hotmail.com<br />

The many hats <strong>of</strong> the nineteenth-century science popularizer<br />

The efforts <strong>of</strong> nineteenth-century science popularizers to disseminate science to a broad audience<br />

have come under much recent investigation by historians <strong>of</strong> science. However, the many different roles<br />

that some <strong>of</strong> these popularizers played has not been adequately examined. In this paper I will show how<br />

the Society for the Diffusion <strong>of</strong> Useful Knowledge in Britain came to be a leading clearing-house <strong>of</strong><br />

scientific knowledge in the first half <strong>of</strong> the nineteenth century. Founded in 1826 as an organization to<br />

oversee the publication <strong>of</strong> inexpensive works on science, history, literature <strong>and</strong> other forms <strong>of</strong> t the<br />

needs <strong>of</strong> a great diversity <strong>of</strong> groups. Amateur <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essional scientists, inventors, collectors, educators,<br />

<strong>and</strong> the simply curious, looked to the SDUK to provide employment opportunities, chances for publication,<br />

promotion, textbooks, <strong>and</strong> answers to queries. The volume <strong>and</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> both <strong>of</strong>fers <strong>of</strong> assistance<br />

<strong>and</strong> requests for information indicates that there was a significant portion <strong>of</strong> the public interested in<br />

science who may have felt excluded from the more formal institutions <strong>of</strong> science. The SDUK solicited<br />

correspondence from its working-class readers <strong>and</strong> subscribers <strong>and</strong> was therefore viewed as being

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!