The State of Science in America

  • John L. Rudolph
Chapter

Abstract

When Arthur Bestor called for the establishment of a national commission of “scientists and scholars” in 1952 to evaluate school curricula and, presumably, restore the subject-matter disciplines to their rightful place, little note was taken of his explicit and repeated inclusion of scientists as key participants in the process.1 It appears somewhat odd that a proposal designed to safeguard the professional status of scholars in the humanities, drafted by a historian, and presented at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association, would give scientists top billing. Considered in light of the relative prestige accorded the two professions, however, Bestor’s actions make more sense. After World War II, scientists had garnered for themselves a considerable amount of positive public notoriety. With intellectuals suffering under the withering ideological scrutiny of McCarthy and other right-wing zealots, Bestor sought to forge a key alliance with the much more reputable scientific community as a means of lending greater legitimacy to his proposed educational reforms.

Keywords

National Security Atomic Energy Commission Postwar Period Scientific Worldview American Historical Association 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Chapter 2

  1. Arthur E. Bestor, Educational Wastelands (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1953), 197–206.Google Scholar
  2. 3. Arthur E. Bestor, “Aimlessness in Education,” Scientific Monthly 75 (1952): 109–116; Harry J. Fuller, “The Emperor’s New Clothes or Prius Dementat,” Scientific Monthly 72 (1951): 32–41Google Scholar
  3. A discussion of the various public images of science and scientists for the first half of the twentieth century can be found in Marcel C. LaFollete, Making Science Our Own: Public Images of Science, 1910–1955 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). On the public authority of science see Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 1–35.Google Scholar
  4. 6. S. S. Schweber, “Big Science in Context: Cornell and MIT,” in Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, ed. Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992), 156; Daniel J.Kevles, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 287–323;Walter A. McDougall, The Heavens and the Earth:A Political History of the Space Age (New York: Basic Books, 1985), 5–6.Google Scholar
  5. Kevles, The Physicists, 302–323; Dexter Masters, “We Outsmarted Them on Radar,” Saturday Evening Post, 8 September 1945, 20; David P.Adams, “The Penicillin Mystique and the Popular Press (1935–1950),” Pharmacy in History 26 (1984): 134–142.Google Scholar
  6. 8. Donald Porter Geddes, The Atomic Age Opens (New York: Pocket Books, 1945), 33.Google Scholar
  7. Kevles, The Physicists, 324–334; Paul Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light:American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994);U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1946)Google Scholar
  8. Francis Sill Wickware, “Manhattan Project,” Life, 20 August 1945, 100Google Scholar
  9. Joel H. Hildebrand, “The Professor and His Public,” BAS 9 (1953): 23–25; Kevles, The Physicists, 375–376.Google Scholar
  10. Paul Forman, “Social Niche and Self-Image of the American Physicist,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on the Restructuring of Physical Sciences in Europe and the United States, 1945–1960, ed. Michelangelo De Maria, Mario Grilli, and Fabio Sebastiani (Singapore:World Scientific, 1989), 102–104.Google Scholar
  11. 18. McDougall, Heavens and the Earth, 93–96; Stephen E. Ambrose, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938, 7th ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1993), 110–113.Google Scholar
  12. Quoted in McDougall, Heavens and the Earth, 114.The economic rationale for the New Look is described in Stephen E.Ambrose, Eisenhower: Soldier and President (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 356Google Scholar
  13. Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science:The Military-Industrial- Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 2.Google Scholar
  14. 27. Philip Morrison, “The Laboratory Demobilizes …” BAS 2 (1946): 1–2. For discussion of the various sources of the ample nondirected government funding, see Schweber, “Mutual Embrace,” 3–45; and Geiger, “Science, Universities, and National Defense, 1945–1970,” 26–48. For further examination of scientist opposition to military patronage, see Jessica Wang, American Science in an Age of Anxiety: Scientists,Anticommunism, and the Cold War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999), 38–42.Google Scholar
  15. David A. Hollinger, “Free Enterprise and Free Inquiry:The Emergence of Laissez-Faire Communitarianism in the Ideology of Science in the United States,” New Literary History 21 (1990): 900.Google Scholar
  16. Mark Silk, Spiritual Politics: Religion and America Since World War II (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988), 38, 63–64, 106, 95–100.The increasing level of institutional religiosity was not necessarily accompanied by a significant deepening of spiritualism in the country.This fact was particularly distressing to intellectuals during the 1950s; James T. Patterson, Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945–1974 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 332. On the threat to intellectuals, see Stephen P.Weldon, “The Humanist Enterprise from John Dewey to Carl Sagan: A Study of Science and Religion in American Culture” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1997), 112–143.Google Scholar
  17. 30. For details, see Donald R. McNeil, The Fight for Fluoridation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
  18. Bernard Mausner and Judith Mausner, “A Study of the Anti-Scientific Attitude,” Scientific American 189 (1955): 35–39.Google Scholar
  19. Robert A. Divine, Blowing on the Wind: The Nuclear Test Ban Debate, 1954–1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 4–18.Google Scholar
  20. 34. R. B. Lindsay, “The Survival of Physical Science,” Scientific Monthly 74 (1952): 140; Charles A. Metzner and Judith B. Kessler, “What are the People Thinking?” BAS 7 (1951): 341Google Scholar
  21. Daniel J. Kevles, “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy,” Isis 68 (1977): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 38. U.S., Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), Science— The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research, by Vannevar Bush, 1945 (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1960), 13Google Scholar
  23. OSRD, Science—The Endless Frontier, 13; and NSF, Basic Research: A National Resource (Washington,D.C.:U.S.Government Printing Office, 1957); see also Daniel Lee Kleinman and Mark Solovey, “Hot Science/Cold War:The National Science Foundation after World War Two,” Radical History Review 63 (1995): 110–139.Google Scholar
  24. 42. Kevles, The Physicists, 364–366. Kleinman describes the nature and composition of this elite in Daniel Lee Kleinman, Politics on the Endless Frontier (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995), 52–73. On Waterman’s background, see J. Merton England, A Patron for Pure Science:The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945–57 (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1982), 118–127Google Scholar
  25. Quoted in James G. Hershberg, James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age (New York: Knopf, 1993), 565.Google Scholar
  26. 51. See Edward A. Purcell, Jr., The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism and the Problem of Value (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1973), 117–266Google Scholar
  27. 52. For overview, see Wang, American Science in an Age of Anxiety; Ellen W. Schrecker, No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 126–160; and Kevles, The Physicists, 378–384. For a contemporary appraisal of the impact of the Red Scare on the scientific community, see Edward A. Shils, The Torment of Secrecy:The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1956)Google Scholar
  28. M.Stanley Livingston, “The Scientist and Security,”Current History 29 (1955): 219. Similar concerns were expressed by NAS president Detlev Bronk; William L. Laurence, “Bronk Says Fear Cripples Science,” NYT, 28 April 1954.A comprehensive statement of the problem of science and security was issued by the AAAS in the fall of 1954,William L. Laurence, “Scientists Set Security Goal of Progress, Not Secrecy,” NYT, 12 December 1954. 55. Schrecker, No Ivory Tower, 131Google Scholar
  29. Edward A. Shils, Torment of Secrecy, 11; see also, Eugene Rabinowitch, “The Atomic Bomb Secret—Fifteen Years Later,” BAS 22 (December 1966): 2–3, 25Google Scholar
  30. Lloyd V. Berkner, “Science and National Strength,” Physics Today 6 (1953): 9. 58. Warren Weaver to Hubert H. Humphrey, 15 February 1957, NSF/HF. For more on this myth, see Schrecker, No Ivory Tower, 132; Robert W. Iversen, The Communists and the Schools (New York: Harcourt Brace and Co., 1959), 296; and Eugene Rabinowitch, “The Atomic Secrets,” BAS 3 (1947): 33, 68.Google Scholar
  31. “Fight for Mind’s Freedom,” Science News Letter 61 (1952): 22–23; Melba Phillips, “Dangers Confronting American Science,” Science 116 (1952): 439–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ernest C. Pollard and John B. Phelps, “Science and Security,” Progressive, November 1954, 10.Google Scholar
  33. Karl T. Compton, “Science and Security,” BAS 4 (1948): 375.Google Scholar
  34. For concern in the academic community, see Alonzo F. Myers, “Thought Control: U.S. Style,” Progressive, September 1951, 9–11Google Scholar
  35. 65. For detailed account, see David Halberstam, The Fifties (New York:Villard Books, 1993), 330–335, 342–345, 349–354; and Jeff Broadwater, Eisenhower and the Anti-Communist Crusade (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 96–101. For the reaction of the intellectual community, see Richard H. Pells, The Liberal Mind in a Conservative Age:American Intellectuals in the 1940s and 1950s (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), 344.Google Scholar
  36. 68. Vannevar Bush, “If We Alienate Our Scientists,” New York Times Magazine, 13 June 1954, 9, 71Google Scholar
  37. Maurice B.Visscher, “Scientists in a Mad World,” Nation, 24 January 1953, 69Google Scholar
  38. V. F.Weisskopf, “Science for Its Own Sake,” Scientific Monthly 78 (1954): 133.Google Scholar
  39. Weisskopf, “Science for Its Own Sake,” 133; a common component of this view of science was the determination and dissemination of the truth as discussed by L. J. F. Brimble, “The Exposition of Truth,” BAS 4 (1948): 141–144; and James Franck, “The Social Task of the Scientist,” BAS 3 (1947): 70Google Scholar
  40. Alan T.Waterman, “Acceptance of Science,” Scientific Monthly 80 (1955): 13–14.Google Scholar
  41. Bruce V. Lewenstein, “‘Public Understanding of Science’ in America, 1945–1965” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1987), 191–192.Google Scholar
  42. James B. Conant, The Growth of the Experimental Sciences: An Experiment in General Education (Cambridge: Harvard University press, 1949), 2.Google Scholar
  43. See Peter S. Buck and Barbara Gutmann Rosenkrantz, “The Worm in the Core: Science and General Education,” in Transformation and Tradition in the Sciences: Essays in Honor of I. Bernard Cohen, ed. Everett Mendelsohn (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 371–394; and I. Bernard Cohen and Fletcher G.Watson, eds., General Education in Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952); Earl J. McGrath, “The General Education Movement,” Journal of General Education 1 (1946): 3–8. On the goals of the Harvard courses, see Steve Fuller, Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 150–221Google Scholar
  44. A. J. Carlson, A. C. Ivy, and Ralph A. Rohweder to Howard Meyerhoff, 7 June 1951, box 1, NSF/ODSFGoogle Scholar
  45. 83. “AAAS Policy,” Scientific Monthly 73 (1951): 335–336. For a detailed discussion, see Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, Michael M. Sokal, and Bruce V. Lewenstein, The Establishment of Science in America: 150 Years of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1999), 109–112Google Scholar
  46. Dael Wolfle, Renewing a Scientific Society:The American Association for the Advancement of Science from World War II to 1970 (Washington, D.C.:American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989), 189–209; for details, see also Lewenstein, “Public Understanding of Science,” 173–187Google Scholar
  47. Edward Shils, “The Scientific Community: Thoughts After Hamburg,” BAS 10 (1954): 151.Google Scholar
  48. See Samuel K. Allison, “Loyalty, Security and Scientific Research in the United States,” in Proceedings of the Hamburg Congress on Science and Freedom, Congress for Cultural Freedom (London: Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd., 1955), 78–86Google Scholar
  49. Henry E. Sigerist, “Science and Democracy,” Science and Society 2 (1938): 297.Google Scholar
  50. J.D. Bernal, “Dialectical Materialism and Modern Science,” Science and Society 2 (1938): 63.Google Scholar
  51. Loren R. Graham, Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 93–103; McDougall, Heavens and the Earth, 23–33Google Scholar
  52. Hermann J. Muller, “The Crushing of Genetics in the USSR,” BAS 4 (1948): 369; see also Theodosius Dobzhansky, “The Fate of Biological Science in Russia,” in Proceedings of the Hamburg Congress, 212–223Google Scholar
  53. See David A. Hollinger, “The Defense of Democracy and Robert K. Merton’s Formulation of the Scientific Ethos,” Knowledge and Society 4 (1983): 1–15. For a broader survey of the historical relationship between science and democracy, see Roy Macleod, “Science and Democracy: Historical Reflections on Present Discontents,” Minerva 35 (1997): 369–384; and Jessica Wang, “Merton’s Shadow: Perspectives on Science and Democracy since 1940,” HSPS 30 (1999): 279–306Google Scholar
  54. David Thomson, “Science and Democracy,” Nation, 10 September 1955, 224.Google Scholar
  55. David A. Hollinger, “Science as a Weapon in Kulturkämpfe in the United States During and After World War II,” Isis 86 (1995): 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. See, for example, George R. Harrison, “Faith and the Scientist,” Atlantic Monthly, December 1953, 48–53; and Vannevar Bush, “For Man to Know,” Atlantic Monthly, August 1955, 29–34Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John L. Rudolph 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John L. Rudolph

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations