Pub Date : 2022-02-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2022.52.1.132
Whitney E. Laemmli
{"title":"How to Capture Movement","authors":"Whitney E. Laemmli","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2022.52.1.132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2022.52.1.132","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"118 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79478096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.605
J. Menzel
This paper examines the history of the renormalization group, a cornerstone of contemporary theoretical physics, focusing on the work of Kenneth Wilson (winner of the 1982 Nobel Prize in physics) and affiliated scholars in the 1970s. In particular, it reconstructs how studies of the renormalization group led to formative interactions between two distinct branches of physics, namely particle physics and condensed matter theory. Instead of explaining such intellectual coordination as the result of material and conceptual exchanges, as in Peter Galison’s widely influential discussion of the “trading zone,” my analysis emphasizes the pedagogical labor, social institutions, and political economic conditions that gave the renormalization group its mediating power. To that end, I show how early lectures and fast circulating pre-prints on the renormalization group created a population of physicists in the United States conversant in the rudiments of both condensed matter and particle theory. I then root the formation of a transatlantic network of renormalization group enthusiasts in the geopolitics of the Cold War, showing that the spread of Wilsonian ideas was made possible by a liberal internationalist program of academic exchanges and summer schools sponsored by the US state department and NATO. Finally, I argue that sharp cuts to basic science funding in the United States pushed young physicists seeking jobs in the 1970s to work across specializations, which visibly impacted how renormalization group ideas were interpreted and used—often against the objections of their original progenitors.
{"title":"Wilsonian Renormalization in the 1970s","authors":"J. Menzel","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.605","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the history of the renormalization group, a cornerstone of contemporary theoretical physics, focusing on the work of Kenneth Wilson (winner of the 1982 Nobel Prize in physics) and affiliated scholars in the 1970s. In particular, it reconstructs how studies of the renormalization group led to formative interactions between two distinct branches of physics, namely particle physics and condensed matter theory. Instead of explaining such intellectual coordination as the result of material and conceptual exchanges, as in Peter Galison’s widely influential discussion of the “trading zone,” my analysis emphasizes the pedagogical labor, social institutions, and political economic conditions that gave the renormalization group its mediating power. To that end, I show how early lectures and fast circulating pre-prints on the renormalization group created a population of physicists in the United States conversant in the rudiments of both condensed matter and particle theory. I then root the formation of a transatlantic network of renormalization group enthusiasts in the geopolitics of the Cold War, showing that the spread of Wilsonian ideas was made possible by a liberal internationalist program of academic exchanges and summer schools sponsored by the US state department and NATO. Finally, I argue that sharp cuts to basic science funding in the United States pushed young physicists seeking jobs in the 1970s to work across specializations, which visibly impacted how renormalization group ideas were interpreted and used—often against the objections of their original progenitors.","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"170 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83533281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.642
A. Reynolds
{"title":"Re-Envisioning the History of Cellular and Molecular Biology","authors":"A. Reynolds","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.642","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.642","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73032342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.634
I. Morus
{"title":"Social Scientists","authors":"I. Morus","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.634","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.634","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74352030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.567
Diarmid A. Finnegan
The Christian missionary John Thomas Gulick (1832–1923) has long been recognized as an important evolutionary theorist. Most recently, his scientific contributions have been commended by biologists skeptical of the sufficiency of pan-adaptationist accounts of evolution. While Gulick’s scientific work has been noticed, his theological and metaphysical commitments have been largely dismissed, ignored, or downplayed. This paper argues that this not only marginalizes what for Gulick was of central importance but has also distorted historical accounts of his theory of evolution. In the portrait drawn here, Gulick’s understanding of evolution emerges as a significant example of the creative interplay between theological and evolutionary ideas and explanations in the early twentieth century. Gulick’s intellectual influences, his theological vision, and his opposition to fatalism combined to form a lifelong quest to understand both snails and salvation.
基督教传教士约翰·托马斯·古力克(John Thomas Gulick, 1832-1923)一直被认为是一位重要的进化论理论家。最近，他的科学贡献受到了生物学家的赞扬，他们对泛适应进化论的充分性持怀疑态度。虽然古力克的科学工作已经被注意到，但他的神学和形而上学的承诺在很大程度上被驳回、忽视或淡化。本文认为，这不仅边缘化了古力克的核心重要性，而且歪曲了他的进化论的历史记载。在这幅肖像画中，古力克对进化论的理解是20世纪早期神学与进化论思想和解释之间创造性相互作用的一个重要例子。古力克的智力影响，他的神学视野，以及他对宿命论的反对，共同形成了他一生对蜗牛和救赎的探索。
{"title":"Of Snails and Salvation","authors":"Diarmid A. Finnegan","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.567","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.5.567","url":null,"abstract":"The Christian missionary John Thomas Gulick (1832–1923) has long been recognized as an important evolutionary theorist. Most recently, his scientific contributions have been commended by biologists skeptical of the sufficiency of pan-adaptationist accounts of evolution. While Gulick’s scientific work has been noticed, his theological and metaphysical commitments have been largely dismissed, ignored, or downplayed. This paper argues that this not only marginalizes what for Gulick was of central importance but has also distorted historical accounts of his theory of evolution. In the portrait drawn here, Gulick’s understanding of evolution emerges as a significant example of the creative interplay between theological and evolutionary ideas and explanations in the early twentieth century. Gulick’s intellectual influences, his theological vision, and his opposition to fatalism combined to form a lifelong quest to understand both snails and salvation.","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"297 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77618709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.542
C. Gere
{"title":"“Shovel-Ready”","authors":"C. Gere","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.542","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84840194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.468
Matthias Dörries
Music and seismology merged in the daily work of the Caltech professor Hugo Benioff, who united the avant-garde technology of the 1920s with a nineteenth-century Helmholtzian aesthetic, cultural, and scientific understanding of music. The transducer facilitated this merger, mediating between science and music and allowing for new ways of listening to waves outside the audible range. Benioff had the capacity to listen—“listening” understood here not as passive perception, but as an active search to distinguish and separate signal from noise, whether from in- or outside of the instrument. For more than forty years, Benioff worked as a sonic expert, perfecting the recording and reproduction of waves and vibrations of all types and frequencies. After tracing elements of Benioff’s biography, I examine how he incorporated the technology of the transducer in his workshop into his seismological and musical instruments, notable not only for the control, austerity, and clarity of lines of their modernist design, but also for a new kind of poetic technology. Benioff’s seismological instruments made it possible to listen to a large variety of previously undetectable phenomena such as the free oscillations of the earth, and his work with the pianist Rosalyn Tureck on electric musical instruments aimed to reproduce the pure sound of traditional instruments. I argue that Benioff’s search for an aesthetic reconciliation of the scientific modern with an enchanted view of the world is very much a product of the social, cultural, technical, and scientific conditions of the interwar period.
{"title":"The Art of Listening","authors":"Matthias Dörries","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.468","url":null,"abstract":"Music and seismology merged in the daily work of the Caltech professor Hugo Benioff, who united the avant-garde technology of the 1920s with a nineteenth-century Helmholtzian aesthetic, cultural, and scientific understanding of music. The transducer facilitated this merger, mediating between science and music and allowing for new ways of listening to waves outside the audible range. Benioff had the capacity to listen—“listening” understood here not as passive perception, but as an active search to distinguish and separate signal from noise, whether from in- or outside of the instrument. For more than forty years, Benioff worked as a sonic expert, perfecting the recording and reproduction of waves and vibrations of all types and frequencies. After tracing elements of Benioff’s biography, I examine how he incorporated the technology of the transducer in his workshop into his seismological and musical instruments, notable not only for the control, austerity, and clarity of lines of their modernist design, but also for a new kind of poetic technology. Benioff’s seismological instruments made it possible to listen to a large variety of previously undetectable phenomena such as the free oscillations of the earth, and his work with the pianist Rosalyn Tureck on electric musical instruments aimed to reproduce the pure sound of traditional instruments. I argue that Benioff’s search for an aesthetic reconciliation of the scientific modern with an enchanted view of the world is very much a product of the social, cultural, technical, and scientific conditions of the interwar period.","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80297880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.427
U. Deichmann
In 1940, Linus Pauling proposed his template theory of antibody formation, one of many such theories that rejected Paul Ehrlich’s selective theory of preformed “receptors” (antibodies), assuming instead a direct molding of antibody shapes onto that of the antigen. Pauling believed that protein shapes—independently of amino acid sequences—determined antibody specificity and biological specificity in general. His theory was informed by his pioneering work on protein structure, and it was inspired by the intuitive “rule of parsimony” and simplicity. In 1942, Pauling published his alleged success in producing specific artificial antibodies through experiments based on his 1940 theory. However, his experiments could not be reproduced by prominent immunochemists at the time, and, later, it became generally accepted that antibody specificity was not generated according to Pauling’s and others’ “instruction” template theories. A citation analysis shows that Pauling’s papers on antibody generation continue to be cited as, among other things, pioneering studies of a chemical technology called “molecular imprinting.” The examples of Pauling and other protein chemists are used in this paper to demonstrate that scientific belief, philosophical concepts, and subjective theory preferences facilitated the occurrence of irreproducibility in immunochemistry and beyond. The article points to long-term consequences for the scientific community if irreproducible results are not acknowledged. It concludes by arguing that despite the risks, e.g., for the occurrence and perpetuation of irreproducible results that they entail, subjectivity and a commitment to scientific convictions have often been pre-requisites for the generation, and holding on to, scientific innovation in the face of doubt and rejection from the scientific community.
{"title":"Template Theories, the Rule of Parsimony, and Disregard for Irreproducibility—The Example of Linus Pauling’s Research on Antibody Formation","authors":"U. Deichmann","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.427","url":null,"abstract":"In 1940, Linus Pauling proposed his template theory of antibody formation, one of many such theories that rejected Paul Ehrlich’s selective theory of preformed “receptors” (antibodies), assuming instead a direct molding of antibody shapes onto that of the antigen. Pauling believed that protein shapes—independently of amino acid sequences—determined antibody specificity and biological specificity in general. His theory was informed by his pioneering work on protein structure, and it was inspired by the intuitive “rule of parsimony” and simplicity. In 1942, Pauling published his alleged success in producing specific artificial antibodies through experiments based on his 1940 theory. However, his experiments could not be reproduced by prominent immunochemists at the time, and, later, it became generally accepted that antibody specificity was not generated according to Pauling’s and others’ “instruction” template theories. A citation analysis shows that Pauling’s papers on antibody generation continue to be cited as, among other things, pioneering studies of a chemical technology called “molecular imprinting.”\u0000 The examples of Pauling and other protein chemists are used in this paper to demonstrate that scientific belief, philosophical concepts, and subjective theory preferences facilitated the occurrence of irreproducibility in immunochemistry and beyond. The article points to long-term consequences for the scientific community if irreproducible results are not acknowledged. It concludes by arguing that despite the risks, e.g., for the occurrence and perpetuation of irreproducible results that they entail, subjectivity and a commitment to scientific convictions have often been pre-requisites for the generation, and holding on to, scientific innovation in the face of doubt and rejection from the scientific community.","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75220852","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-01DOI: 10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.507
Johnny Miri
Vannevar Bush was at the forefront of American research policy during World War II, but he suffered a steep fall after the war, and by 1948 had left government service altogether. What motivated such a significant loss of influence? Drawing on previously unexamined sources, this article traces the causes of Bush’s decline in authority to his loss of powerful allies, particularly with the death of Franklin Roosevelt and the retirement of Henry Stimson; to his long-standing feuds with military leaders; and to several political missteps on Bush’s part that alienated figures in Congress and elsewhere. Continued examples of personal conflict in the postwar period not only impacted Bush’s career, but also shaped the structure of the resulting institutions that emerged to fund Cold War–era science. Rather than an abrupt change occurring immediately after the war, the postwar transition to public institutions was both gradual and influenced by the personal networks that preceded it. Bush’s quiet departure from government was tied to the emergence of military dominance in American research, largely at the expense of civilian scientific leaders. Such a shift in control of research policy had a dramatic effect on resulting postwar initiatives, closely connecting scientific advancements to national security.
{"title":"The Fall of Vannevar Bush","authors":"Johnny Miri","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.507","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.507","url":null,"abstract":"Vannevar Bush was at the forefront of American research policy during World War II, but he suffered a steep fall after the war, and by 1948 had left government service altogether. What motivated such a significant loss of influence? Drawing on previously unexamined sources, this article traces the causes of Bush’s decline in authority to his loss of powerful allies, particularly with the death of Franklin Roosevelt and the retirement of Henry Stimson; to his long-standing feuds with military leaders; and to several political missteps on Bush’s part that alienated figures in Congress and elsewhere. Continued examples of personal conflict in the postwar period not only impacted Bush’s career, but also shaped the structure of the resulting institutions that emerged to fund Cold War–era science. Rather than an abrupt change occurring immediately after the war, the postwar transition to public institutions was both gradual and influenced by the personal networks that preceded it. Bush’s quiet departure from government was tied to the emergence of military dominance in American research, largely at the expense of civilian scientific leaders. Such a shift in control of research policy had a dramatic effect on resulting postwar initiatives, closely connecting scientific advancements to national security.","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85551331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：