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

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.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!