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 ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The history <strong>of</strong> twentieth-century dream research provides a case in point. When Eugene Aserinsky <strong>and</strong><br />
Nathaniel Kleitman first announced their discovery <strong>of</strong> rapid eye movement (REM) in 1953, they described<br />
it as an objective sign <strong>of</strong> dreaming. This discovery (<strong>and</strong> its acceptance) was historically contingent.<br />
It rested upon a series <strong>of</strong> developments in psychology <strong>and</strong> neurophysiology that had international<br />
origins, but peculiarly American applications. The former included the use <strong>of</strong> sleep deprivation as an<br />
experimental model by the French psychologist, Henri Piéron, around 1907, <strong>and</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
human electroencephalogram (EEG) by the German psychiatrist, Hans Berger, in 1929. These two<br />
investigative strategies began to coalesce at the University <strong>of</strong> Chicago during the 1930s, when the<br />
problem <strong>of</strong> sleep emerged as an important biomedical problem at the same time that psychoanalytic<br />
psychiatry was reviving the dream. The convergence <strong>of</strong> these two fields through the shared practice <strong>of</strong><br />
physiological inscription generated the phenomena that became known as rapid eye movement.<br />
Kroll, Gary<br />
E-mail Address: gmkroll@ou.edu<br />
Displacing Frontiers: The Pacific <strong>Science</strong> Board's Campaign for Conservation<br />
This paper examines the work <strong>of</strong> the Pacific <strong>Science</strong> Board, an arm <strong>of</strong> the National Research Council<br />
established to facilitate the work <strong>of</strong> American naturalists <strong>and</strong> anthropologists in the Pacific territories<br />
that fell under U.S. trusteeship after World War II. The PSB functioned as a scientific advisory board<br />
that provided the U.S. Navy with the information for sustaining both military colonization <strong>and</strong> the<br />
benevolent governance <strong>of</strong> indigenous cultures. I introduce the history <strong>of</strong> the PSB as a new "big natural<br />
history," a federally-funded effort to systematize <strong>and</strong> catalog Micronesia's natural <strong>and</strong> human resources.<br />
I will also focus on the initiative to conserve <strong>and</strong> preserve isl<strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong>scapes, a primary concern <strong>of</strong><br />
western naturalists at the end <strong>of</strong> the nineteenth century <strong>and</strong> start <strong>of</strong> the twentieth. PSB bureaucrats <strong>and</strong><br />
field workers viewed the Micronesian l<strong>and</strong>scape as an extension <strong>of</strong> the American frontier, <strong>and</strong> they<br />
transported those values forged in the American west to the Pacific. In the final analysis, the conservation<br />
campaign in Micronesia failed not only because the goal was incompatible with the military concerns<br />
<strong>of</strong> the U.S. government, but also because American naturalists viewed the region as a new U.S.<br />
territory. They displaced their conceptions <strong>of</strong> the American frontier west on to a distant Pacific region<br />
that resisted the tradition <strong>of</strong> American conservation strategies.<br />
Krupar, Jason<br />
E-mail Address: kruparj@hotmail.com<br />
From Inner-Space to Outer Space: T. Keith Glennan <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Science</strong> Managers <strong>of</strong> the Early Cold<br />
War<br />
During his pr<strong>of</strong>essional career, T. Keith Glennan served as the President <strong>of</strong> the Case Institute <strong>of</strong><br />
Technology, a Commissioner <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), <strong>and</strong> the first Administrator<br />
<strong>of</strong> the National Aeronautics <strong>and</strong> Space Agency (NASA). Any one <strong>of</strong> these accomplishments might have<br />
served as the capstones event in a distinguished career. Yet, Glennan undertook all three, sometimes<br />
simultaneously. Glennan's multiple roles as a science/innovation manager typified in many ways the<br />
growing influence in the immediate post-WWII years <strong>of</strong> the scientific/technical expert. The diversity <strong>of</strong><br />
Glennan's positions indicated both a level <strong>of</strong> managerial flexibility <strong>and</strong> innovation. The purpose <strong>of</strong> this<br />
paper is to analyze the increased influence <strong>of</strong> science/innovation managers in the early Cold War, using<br />
Glennan's career as a case study. The success <strong>of</strong> wartime scientific <strong>and</strong> technical programs, such as the<br />
Manhattan Project <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> radar, convinced politicians <strong>and</strong> the public to place their trust<br />
in the capabilities <strong>of</strong> science to resolve critical issues. In addition, this study intends to explore what<br />
constituted scientific expertise. Within science management differences developed between scientific<br />
specialists promoted to managerial positions <strong>and</strong> innovation managers who assumed leadership posts.