Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 340–356 | Cite as

The rejection of the who research centre: A case study of decision-making in international scientific collaboration

  • Hilary Rose
Articles
  • 31 Downloads

Keywords

Research Centre Scientific Collaboration International Scientific Collaboration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Weinberg, Alvin M., “Criteria for Scientific Choice”,Minerva, I, 2 (Winter, 1963), pp. 159–171.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    At the inaugural meeting of the Edinburgh Science Studies Unit, 3 November, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    World Health Organisation,Official Records, No. 128 (7–23 May, 1963), p. 40.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    At this time the WHO research budget was approximately $2 million annually.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    World Health Organisation,Official Records, No. 132 (14–24 January, 1964), p. 15.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Ibid., No. 136 (3–20 March, 1964), p. 46.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Ibid., No. 135 (3–20 March, 1964), p. 16.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Ibid., No. 143 (4–21 May, 1965), p. 26.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Ibid., No. 128 (7–23 May, 1963), p. 25.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Ibid., No. 136 (3–20 March, 1964), p. 322.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    “The International Cancer Agency ... was the result of a letter from President de Gaulle to the heads of state of five other countries.” Grant, Robert P., “National Biomedical Research Agencies: A Comparative Study of Fifteen Countries”,Minerva, IV, 4 (Summer, 1966), p. 486.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Bernal, J. D.,Science in History (London: Watts, 1965), p. 684.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    World Health Organisation,Official Records, No. 136 (3–20 March, 1964), pp. 314–328.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Ibid., No. 143 (4–21 May, 1965), p. 53.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    The nationalities and scientific disciplines of the members of the committees are given in the Appendix. See below, pp. 354–356.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Ibid., No. 143 (4–21 May, 1965). The organisational case was reported in a special appendix, pp. 150–151.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    New Scientist, No. 431 (18 February, 1965), p. 449.Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    Leach, Gerald, “The big boys—the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and Britain—did not like it”,New Statesman, 29 June, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    See, for example,Medical News, 28 May, 1965 (“Speaking privately in the corridors at Geneva some supporters of the WHO centre idea blamed Britain's representative Sir George Godber”) andNew York Herald Tribune (Paris Edition), 17 March, 1964 (“Britain led the opposition to the proposal”).Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    For a country steadily losing population in search of better employment opportunities, the possibility of attracting a major research institute had clear socio-economic advantages. Four local authorities bordering Edinburgh both openly discussed these possibilities and gave credence to their interest with the immediate offer of sites for the centre. (The first authorities to make such offers were Midlothian, East Lothian and Livingstone New Town. SeeThe Scotsman, 17 March, 1964. Later Fife County Council sent a deputation to the Foreign Office to offer a site near the new Forth Road Bridge. SeeGlasgow Herald, 23 April, 1964.) At the national level of politics, the Scottish Members of Parliament—robustly supported by Lord Ritchie Calder—were similarly concerned to press the specific claims of Scotland within the more general scientific and welfare criteria.Google Scholar
  21. 25.
    Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 1961–1962, Cmnd. 1920 (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1963).Google Scholar
  22. 26.
    Ibid., p. 3.Google Scholar
  23. 27.
    Cf. Salam, Abdus, “The Isolation of the Scientist in Developing Countries”,Minerva, IV, 4 (Summer, 1966), pp. 461–465.Google Scholar
  24. 28.
    Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, 1961–1962, Cmnd. 1920 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1963), p. 4.Google Scholar
  25. 29.
    Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 1963–1964, Cmnd. 2538 (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1964), appendix D.Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    World Health Organisation,Official Records, No. 144 (4–21 May, 1965), p. 331.Google Scholar
  27. 31.
    Grant, Robert P., “National Biomedical Research Agencies: A Comparative Study of Fifteen Countries”,Minerva, IV, 4 (Summer, 1966), p. 488.Google Scholar
  28. 32.
    Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 1963–1964, Cmnd. 2538 (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1964), appendix D.Google Scholar
  29. 33.
    Sai, F. T., “The Health and Nutrition Problems of the Less Developed Areas”,Impact, XIII (Autumn, 1963), 3, p. 228.Google Scholar
  30. 34.
    Wood, Robert, “Scientists and Politics: the Rise of an Apolitical Elite” in Gilpin, R., and Wright, C. (eds.),Scientists and National Policy-Making (Columbia University Press, 1964), p. 41.Google Scholar
  31. 35.
    Cornford, F. M.,Microcosmographia Academica, being a Guide for the Young Academic Politician (Cambridge: Bowes & Bowes, 1908).Google Scholar
  32. 36.
    Snow, C. P.,The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. The Rede Lecture, 1959 (Cambridge University Press, 1959), p. 10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© C. S. F. Publications Ltd 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hilary Rose

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations