Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:10:04.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ways of knowing: towards a historical sociology of science, technology and medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

John V. Pickstone
John V. Pickstone
Affiliation:
Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, and Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the many groups of scholars whose work now illuminates science, technology and medicine (STM), historians, it seems to me, have a key responsibility not just to elucidate change but to establish and explain variety. One of the big pictures we need is a model of the varieties of STM over time; one which does not presume the timeless existence of disciplines, or the distinctions between science, technology and medicine; a model which is both synchronic and diachronic, and both cognitive and social. To that end, this brief paper presents a historical typology of STM from about 1700 to the present by focusing on four ‘ideal’ socio-cognitive types – four knowledge structures which correspond to four sets of social relations. To some extent these are period specific, but they do not have to be – hence, one may hope, the flexibility and usefulness of the model.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 433 - 458
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I would like to thank Jim Secord for the invitation to speak at the Big Picture conference and for subsequent encouragement. I should mention that this paper was initially entitled ‘Models of medicine; medicine as model. Towards a historical sociology of science, technology and medicine’.

My Manchester colleagues, especially David Edgerton, Jonathan Harwood and Geof Bowker, helped greatly with comments and discussion. Other colleagues, notably Simon Schaffer, Crosbie Smith, Jack Morrell and Terry Shinn were predictably generous with suggestions and reassurance, as were Anna Guagnini, Yves Gingras, Jerry Ravetz and John Harley Warner. I am grateful; they are not culpable. My thanks also to Joan Mottram for her assistance. My apologies to those colleagues whose relevant works I have omitted to mention; in an essay of this scope, choice of reference is more than usually arbitrary.

1 In framing the big picture, one of our problems is linguistic: ‘science, technology and medicine’ is a clumsy expression, but reducing it to ‘science’ or to ‘science and technology’ is often misleading or apparently exclusive. Here I try the experiment of using the acronym STM, also now used by publishers and librarians.

2 Jewson, N. D., ‘The disappearance of the sick man from medical cosmology’, Sociology (1976), 10, 225–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Medical knowledge and the patronage system in eighteenth-century England’, Sociology (1974), 8, 369–85.Google Scholar

3 Braverman, H., Labour and Monopoly Capitalism. The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century, New York, 1974.Google Scholar

4 Edelstein, L., Ancient Medicine, Baltimore, 1967Google Scholar; Temkin, O., The Double Face of Janus, Baltimore, 1977Google Scholar; Galenism, Ithaca, 1973Google Scholar; Entralgo, P. Lain, Doctor and Patient, London, 1969Google Scholar. For a brilliant exposition of later biographical medicine, see Rosenberg, C., ‘The therapeutic revolution: medicine, meaning and social change in nineteenth-century America’, in his Explaining Epidemics and Other Studies in the History of Medicine, Cambridge, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Foucault, M., The Birth of the Clinic, London, 1973Google Scholar; Ackerknecht, E., Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794–1848, Baltimore, 1967.Google Scholar

6 For an excellent recent collection see, The Investigative Enterprise. Experimental Physiology in Nineteenth Century Medicine (ed. Coleman, W. and Holmes, F. L.), Berkeley, 1988.Google Scholar

7 For example, The Therapeutic Revolution. Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (ed. Vogel, M. J. and Rosenberg, C. E.), Philadelphia, 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Warner, J. H., ‘Science in medicine’, Osiris (1985), second series, 1, 37–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and The Therapeutic Perspective: Medical Practice, Knowledge and Identity in America, 1820–1885, Cambridge, Mass., 1986.Google Scholar

8 I develop this argument in two othet papets: ‘The biographical and the analytical. Towards a historical model of science and practice in modern medicine’, in Medicine and Change. Historical and Sociological Studies of Medical Innovation (ed. Löwy, I. et al. ), Paris, Les Editions INSERM, John Libbey, 1993Google Scholar; and ‘Museological science? The place of the analytical/comparative in nineteenth-century science, technology and medicine’, History of Science, forthcoming, 1994Google Scholar. This latter paper accompanies Sophie Forgan's pioneering survey: ‘The architecture of display: museums, universities and objects in nineteenth century Britain’.

John Harley Warner has argued independently and elegantly that historians of medicine have too often equated medical science with experimentalism, and that we need to recognize different kinds of medical science, including pathological anatomy and Paris clinical medicine. See his ‘The history of science and the sciences of medicine’, in Critical Problems in the History of Science (ed. Thackray, A.), forthcomingGoogle Scholar, Osiris (1994), 10.Google Scholar

9 On physiology see Geison, G. L., Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology, Princeton, 1978Google Scholar; Physiology in the American Context (ed. Geison, G. L.), Bethesda, 1987Google Scholar; Pickstone, J. V. ‘Physiology and experimental medicine’, in Companion to the History of Modern Science (ed. Olby, R. C. et al. ), London, 1990, 728–42.Google Scholar

10 On the extension of ‘scientific medicine’ see the previous note and Harvey, A. M., Science at the Bedside; Clinical Research in American Medicine, 1905–1945, Baltimore, 1981Google Scholar; Grand Rounds: One Hundred Years of Internal Medicine (ed. Maulirz, R. C. and Long, D. E.), Philadelphia, 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Historical Perspectives on the Role of the MRC (ed. Austoker, J. and Bryder, L.), London, 1989Google Scholar; Warner, J. H., ‘Ideals of science and their discontents in late nineteenth century American medicine’, Isis (1991), 82, 454–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Sturdy, S., ‘The political economy of scientific medicine: science, education and the transformation of medical practice in Sheffield, 1890–1922’, Medical History (1992), 36, 125–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 As several recent studies have shown, patent-law was a very important stimulus to the formation of industrial research laboratories, by stimulating inventive activities within firms and by creating a market for scientific knowledge and scientists. See Homburg, E., ‘The emergence of research laboratories in the dyestuffs industry, 1870–1900’, BJHS (1992), 25, 91–112Google Scholar, and other articles in this special issue; Hounshell, D. A. and Smith, J. K. Jr, Science and Corporate Strategy: Dupont R & D, 1902–1980, Cambridge, Mass., 1988Google Scholar; Reich, L. S., The Making of American Industrial Research. Science and Business at G.E. and Bell, 1876–1926, Cambridge, Mass., 1985.Google Scholar

12 See, for example, Studer, K. E. and Chubin, D. E., The Cancer Mission. Social Contexts of Biomedical Research, Beverly Hills and London, 1980.Google Scholar

13 See the insightful biography by Macfarlane, G., Howard Florey. The Making of a Great Scientist, Oxford, 1979.Google Scholar

14 Foucault, , Clinic, op. cit. (5), ch. 1.Google Scholar

15 Foucault, M., The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, London, 1970.Google Scholar

16 See Foucault, , Order of Things, op. cit. (15)Google Scholar, and the classic works of Daudin, Henri, De Linné à Jussieu. Méthodes de la classification et idée de série en botanique et en zoologie (1740–1790), Paris, 1926Google Scholar; Cuvier et Lamarck. Les classes zoologiques et l'idée de série animate (1790–1830), Paris, 1926Google Scholar; also Balan, B., L'Ordre et le Temps. L'anatomie comparée et l'histoire des vivants au XIXe siècle, Paris, 1979Google Scholar; Schofield, R. E., Mechanism and Materialism. British Natural Philosophy in An Age of Reason, Princeton, 1969Google Scholar. Compare also the Introduction and the articles by Heidelberger, M. and by Jahnke, H. N. and Otte, M., in Epistemological and Social Problems of the Sciences in the Early Nineteenth Century (ed. Jahnke, H. N. and Otte, M.), Dordrecht, 1981Google Scholar, especially for the antinomies between Baconian and Cartesian aspects of eighteenth-century STM.

17 See previous note and Roger, J., Les Sciences de la vie dans la pensée française de la XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1971Google Scholar; Delaporte, F., Le Seconde Règne de la nature, Paris, 1979.Google Scholar

18 Porter, R., The Making of Geology. Earth Science in Britain 1660–1815, Cambridge, 1977Google Scholar; Schaffer, S., ‘Herschel in Bedlam: natural history and stellar astronomy’, BJHS (1980), 13, 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See Crosland, M. P., Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry, 2nd edn, New York, 1978Google Scholar; Knight, D., The Transcendental Part of Chemistry, Folkestone, 1978Google Scholar; Gillispie, C. C., The Edge of Objectivity, Princeton, 1967, 202–59Google Scholar. For a sensitive recent study of the practice of chemistry, see Golinski, Jan, Science as Public Culture. Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 1970–1820, Cambridge, 1992.Google Scholar

20 Gillispie, C. C., ‘The natural history of industry’, in Science, Technology and Economic Growth in the Eighteenth Century (ed. Musson, A. E.), London, 1972.Google Scholar

21 On definitions of natural philosophy and of physics, see Crosland, M. and Smith, C., ‘The transmission of physics from France to Britain: 1800–1840’, Historical Studies in Physical Sciences (1978), 9, 1–61, especially 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 For a careful and very helpful reading of Foucault see Gutting, G., Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Scientific Reason, Cambridge, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 The intriguing contrasts drawn by Jan Golinski between the science of Beddoes' Pneumatic Institute and Davy's later performances at the Royal Institution seem to me suggestive of collegiate, savant forms versus more analytical, museological and ‘public’ forms of STM. See note 19.

24 ‘Museological science?’. See note 8.

25 See note 19 and the interesting recent paper on classification in nineteenth-century organic chemistry: Kim, M. G., ‘The layers of chemical language, 1: constitution of bodies v. structure of matter’, History of Science (1992), 30, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 The epistemological background to the ‘method of analysis’ is discussed by Albury, W. R., ‘The Logic of Condillac and the Structure of French Chemical and Biological Theory, 1780–1801’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 1972.Google Scholar

27 See Pickstone, J. V., ‘Bureaucracy, liberalism and the body in post-Revolutionary France: Bichat's physiology and the Paris school of medicine’, History of Science (1981), 19, 115–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Clarke, E. and Jacyna, L. S., Nineteenth-Century Origins of Neuroscientific Concepts, Berkeley, 1987, ch. 2.Google Scholar

28 Pujoulx, J. B., Promenade au Jardin des Plantes à la Menagerie et dans les Galleries, 2 vols., Paris, 1804, ii, 376Google Scholar; Balan, , op. cit. (16)Google Scholar; Coleman, W., Georges Cuvier, Zoologist: A Study in the History of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge, Mass., 1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Outram, D., Georges Cuvier. Vocation, Science and Authority in Post-Revolutionary France, Manchester, 1984Google Scholar; and see the following note.

29 Russel, E. S., Form and Function. A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology, London, 1916Google Scholar; Appel, T. A., The Cuvier—Geoffroy Debate. French Biology in the Decades before Darwin, Oxford and New York, 1987.Google Scholar

30 Nordenskiold, E., History of Biology, New York, 1928, 437.Google Scholar

31 Daniels, G. H., ‘The process of professionalisation in American science: the emergent period, 1820–1860’, Isis (1967), 58, 151–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 See Golinski, , op. cit. (19)Google Scholar; Metzger, H., La Génèse de la science des cristaux, Paris, 1918.Google Scholar

33 Laudan, R., ‘The history of geology, 1780–1840’, in Companion, op. cit. (9), 314–25Google Scholar; Secord, J. A., Controversy in Victorian Geology; the Cambrian–Silurian Dispute, Princeton, 1986, especially 25.Google Scholar

34 On Humboldtian sciences, see Cannon, S. F., Science in Culture: the Early Victorian Period, New York, 1978Google Scholar; Nicolson, M., ‘Alexander von Humboldt, Humboldtian science, and the origins of the study of vegetation’, History of Science (1987), 25, 167–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 For arguments linking transformations of ‘public health’ to shifts in medical understandings, see Hamlin, C., ‘Predisposing causes and public health in early nineteenth-century medical thought’, Social History of Medicine (1992), 5, 43–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, and Pickstone, J. V., ‘Dearth, dirt and fever epidemics; rewriting the history of British public health, 1760–1850’, in Epidemics and Ideas: Essays on the Historical Perception of Pestilence (ed. Ranger, T. and Slack, P.), Cambridge, 1992.Google Scholar

36 Rudwick, M. J., ‘Social order and the natural world’, History of Science (1980), 18, 269–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Gillispie, C. C., Lazare Carnot, Savant, Princeton, 1971Google Scholar; for Betancourt see the Description of the Royal Museum Machines (ed. Perez, J. F. and Tascon, I. G.), Ediciones Doce Calles, Madrid?, 1991Google Scholar; Shinn, T., ‘Science, Tocqueville, and the state: the organisation of knowledge in modern France’, Social Research (1992), 59, 533–56Google Scholar; Reuleaux, F., Kinematics of Machinery (tr. Kennedy, A. B. W.), London, 1876.Google Scholar

38 Smith, C., ‘Energy’ in Companion, op. cit. (9), 326–41, especially 328.Google Scholar

39 Gillispie, , op. cit. (37)Google Scholar; Cardwell, D. S. L., James Joule. A Biography, Manchester, 1989Google Scholar; From Watt to Clausius; the Rise of Thermodynamics in the Industrial Age, London, 1971Google Scholar; Smith, C. and Wise, N. M., Energy and Empire. A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin, Cambridge, 1989.Google Scholar

40 Cardwell, , Joule, op. cit. (39).Google Scholar

41 Crosland, and Smith, , op. cit. (21), 5–9.Google Scholar

42 Fox, R., ‘Laplacian physics’, in Companion, op. cit. (9), 264–77.Google Scholar

43 Shinn, , op. cit. (37)Google Scholar; Fisch, M. and Schaffer, S., William Whewell. A Composite Portrait, Oxford, 1991.Google Scholar

44 Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (39), ch. 6, especially 157, 162, 176.Google Scholar

45 For further suggestions on the modelling of mathematics, see the essays by L. J. Daston on probability, by J. V. Grabiner on analysis, and by I. Gratton-Guiness on French mathematical physics, in Epistemological Problems, op. cit. (16)Google Scholar. Eric Brian is working on mathematical analysis in Revolutionary France. Jerry Ravetz tells me that in Paris ‘during the twenties at least, there was a weekly public meeting of the Institute de France … Fourier provided a ticket for Mile. Sophie Germaine! Thus there was a “museological” aspect even for the more technical, esoteric sciences.’ Personal communication, and see Grattan-Guiness, I. and Ravetz, J. R., Joseph Fourier, 1768–1830: A Survey of his Life and Work based on a Critical Edition of the Monograph on the Propagation of Heat, Cambridge, Mass., 1972.Google Scholar

46 For an institutional survey see Fayet, J., La Révolution française et la science, 1789–1795, Paris, 1960Google Scholar. For a recent survey that includes political, ideological and popular aspects, and extends from mathematics to medicine, see , N. and Dhombres, J., Naissance d'un nouveau pouvoir: sciences et savants en France (1793–1824), Paris, 1989Google Scholar. For further literature and a useful critique of the professionalization thesis, Outram, D., ‘Politics and vocation: French science, 1793–1830’, BJHS (1980), 13, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

47 If some of these developments pre-dated the Revolution, so did some of the institutional forms. See the excellent survey by Gillispie, C. C., Science and Polity in France at the End of the Old Regime, Princeton, 1980Google Scholar; Professions and the French State, 1700–1900 (ed. Geison, G. L.), Philadelphia, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (39), ch. 6Google Scholar; Morrell, J. and Thackray, A., Gentlemen of Science; Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford, 1981Google Scholar; Berman, M., Social Change and Scientific Organisation: The Royal Institution, 1799–1844, London, 1978.Google Scholar

49 Desmond, A., The Politics of Evolution. Morphology, Medicine and Reform in Radical London, Chicago and London, 1989.Google Scholar

50 See, for example, Desmond, A. and Moore, J., Darwin, London 1992, ch. 14.Google Scholar

51 I elaborate this argument in ‘Museological science?’, op. cit. (8).

52 Laudan, , op. cit. (33)Google Scholar; Turner, R. S., ‘Justus Liebig versus Prussian chemistry: reflections on early institute building in Germany’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1982), 11, 19–35Google Scholar; Morrell, J. B., ‘The chemist breeders: the research schools of Liebig and Thomas Thomson’, Ambix (1972), 91, 1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Carnegie, see Mowery, D. C. and Rosenberg, N., Technology and the Pursuit of Economic Growth, Cambridge, 1989, 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 See note 27 and Haines, B., ‘The inter-relations between social, biological and medical thought, 1750–1850: Saint-Simon and Comte’, BJHS (1978), 11, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

54 Lenoir, T., ‘Generational factors in the origin of “Romantische Naturphilosophie”’, Journal of the History of Biology (1980), 2, 57–100.Google Scholar

55 Foucault, , Order, op. cit. (15), especially 242.Google Scholar

56 Warner, J. H., ‘The selective transport of medical knowledge; antebellum American physicians and Parisian medical therapeutics’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1985), 59, 213–31.Google ScholarPubMed

57 For a pioneering study of medical science in France and Britain, see Maulitz, R. C., Morbid Appearances. The Anatomy of Pathology in the Early Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 For a guide to science and its publics in this period, see Golinski, , op. cit. (19)Google Scholar; for the emergence of the public, Habermas, J., The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (1962), Cambridge, Mass., 1989.Google Scholar

59 For a crisp summary and basic references, Brock, W. H., ‘Science education’, in Companion, op. cit. (9), 946–9Google Scholar; the classical cross-national sociological study is Ben-David, J., The Scientist's Role in Society. A Comparative Study, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971.Google Scholar

60 See Turner, , op. cit. (52)Google Scholar. The key study is Hufbauer, K., The Formation of the German Chemical Community, Berkeley, 1982.Google Scholar

61 Jungnickel, C. and McCormmach, R., Intellectual Mastery of Nature. Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein. Vol. 1, The Torch of Mathematics, 1800–1870, Chicago, 1986, ch. 3.Google Scholar

62 Jungnickel, and McCormmach, , op. cit. (61), chs. 1–3Google Scholar, provide much information about collections of instruments by or for professors of physics in early nineteenth-century Germany.

63 Ibid., 11–12.

64 Lenoir, T., The Strategy of Life. Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth-Century German Biology, Chicago, 1982.Google Scholar

65 For example, Kremer, R. L., ‘Building institutes for physiology in Prussia, 1836–1846. Contexts, interests and rhetoric’, in The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (ed. Cunningham, A. and Williams, P.), Cambridge, 1992, especially 84.Google Scholar

66 See Forgan, , op. cit. (8).Google Scholar

67 Thomason, B., ‘The New Botany in Britain, 1870–1914’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, UMIST, 1987Google Scholar; Gooday, G., ‘“Nature” in the laboratory: domestication and discipline with the microscope in Victorian life science’, BJHS (1991), 24, 307–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is a substantial literature on the extent to which the ‘new biology’ in America was ‘experimental’; see Journal for the History of Biology (1980), 14Google Scholar. For a penetrating study of the ideology and practice of ‘control’, see Pauly, P. J., Controlling Life. Jacques Loeb and the Engineering, Ideal in Biology, New York and Oxford, 1987.Google Scholar

68 Schaffer, S., ‘Where experiments end: table-top trials in Victorian astronomy’, in Table-top Experiments (ed. Buchwald, J. Z.), Chicago, forthcoming.Google Scholar

69 Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (39)Google Scholar; Sviedrys, R., ‘The rise of physics laboratories in Britain’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7, 405–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Geison, G., Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology, Princeton, 1978Google Scholar; Crowther, J. G., The Cavendish Laboratory, 1874–1974, New York, 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Physics and physiology were both heavily dependent on Trinity College.

71 See, for example, the essays in The Investigative Enterprise, op. cit. (6)Google Scholar, especially Tim Lenoir on Ludwig. These essays make a good case for differentiating two waves; I am suggesting ways of highlighting the corresponding cognitive differences, e.g. by stressing the place of microscopy and collections in early nineteenth-century programmes.

72 See Olesko, K. M., ‘Commentary on institutes, investigations and scientific training’Google Scholar, in Coleman, and Holmes, , op. cit. (6), 295–332Google Scholar; Geison, , op. cit. (70), ch. 6Google Scholar; Butler, S. V. F., ‘A transformation of training: the formation of university medical faculties in Manchester, Leeds, and Liverpool, 1870–84’, Medical History (1986), 30, 115–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gooday, G., op. cit. (67)Google Scholar. These focus on experimental biology etc.; for physics see Gooday, G., ‘Precision measurement and the genesis of physics teaching laboratories in Victorian Britain’, BJHS (1990), 23, 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Bud, R. and Roberts, G. K., Science versus Practice: Chemistry in Victorian Britain, Manchester, 1984.Google Scholar

74 See, for example, the stimulating review by Dennis, M. A., ‘Accounting for research; new histories of corporate laboratories and the social history of American science’, Social Studies in Science (1987), 17, 479–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 This reading emerges from a number of Manchester projects: Steve Sturdy on medical science; Jon Harwood, Paolo Palladino and Tim DeJager on agriculture; and my own work on British provincial science.

76 See the essays by Worboys, M. on vaccine therapy and Weindling, P. on diphtheria serum in Medical Innovations in Historical Perspective (ed. Pickstone, J. V.), London, 1992Google Scholar; Sturdy, S., ‘Medical chemistry and clinical medicine: academics and the scientisation of medical practice in Britain, 1900–1925’, in Medicine and Change, op. cit. (8)Google Scholar. Also Chen, W., ‘The laboratory as business: Sir Almroth Wright's vaccine programme and the construction of penicillin’, in The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine, op. cit. (65).Google Scholar

77 See previous note and, for Britain, Foster, W. D., A Short History of Clinical Pathology, London, 1961Google Scholar, and Pathology as a Profession in Great Britain, London, 1983Google Scholar; for France, Salomon-Bayet, C., Pasteur et la révolution Pastorienne, Paris, 1986Google Scholar; and Latour, B., The Pasteurisation of France, Cambridge, Mass., 1987Google Scholar; and for Germany, Lenoir, T., ‘A magic bullet: research for profit and the growth of knowledge in Germany around 1900’, Minerva (1988), 26, 66–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on pharmaceuticals, Liebenau, J., Medical Science and Medical Industry, Basingstoke, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78 See the special number of the BJHS (1992), 25, part 1Google Scholar, and Travis, A. S., ‘Science as receptor of technology; Paul Ehrlich and the synthetic dyestuffs industry’, Science in Context (1989), 3, 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 See Smith, and Wise, , op. cit. (39), especially chs. 19 and 20Google Scholar; Davies, P., ‘Sir Arthur Schuster, 1851–1934’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, UMIST, 1983Google Scholar; I gratefully acknowledge that my orientation in these matters I owe largely to my time at UMIST with Donald Cardwell, Kathleen and Wilfred Farrar, Joe Marsh and Anna Guagnini.

80 Cardwell, D. S. L., The Organisation of Science in England, London, 1957Google Scholar. Robert Fox and Anna Guagnini have studied these relationships in several European countries: see their ‘Starry eyes and harsh realities. Education, research and the electrical engineer, 1880–1914’, forthcoming in Science and Industrial Technology (The Nature of Industrialisation, vol. 6) (ed. Mathias, P. and Davis, J. A.), forthcoming, Oxford, Blackwell, 1993Google Scholar, and Education, Technology and Industrial Performance in Europe, 1850–1939, Cambridge, 1993.Google Scholar

81 See Fox, R. and Guagnini, A., ‘Life in the slow lane: research and electrical engineering in Britain, France and Italy’, in Technological Development and Science in the Industrial Age (ed. Bakker, M. and Kroes, P.), Kluwer, 1992.Google Scholar

82 Jones, J., ‘Science, Utility and the “Second City of the Empire”: The Sciences and Especially the Medical Sciences at Liverpool University, 1881–1925’. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, UMIST, 1989.Google Scholar

83 On British R & D see, Edgerton, D. E. H. and Horrocks, Sally, ‘British industrial R & D before 1945’, Economic History Review, forthcoming, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The best histories of industrial research labs are American. See note 11.

84 See Bud, R., The Uses of Life. A History of Biotechnology, Cambridge, 1993.Google Scholar

85 See Hodgkin, L., ‘Politics and physical sciences’, Radical Science Journal (1976), 4, 29–60.Google Scholar

86 For an insightful and pioneering critique of industrialized science, and for much more on scientific work, see Ravetz, J. R., Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Oxford, 1971.Google Scholar

87 For a review, see Science after Forty (ed. Thackray, A.)Google Scholar, Osiris, 7, 1992.Google Scholar

88 Harwood, J., Styles of Scientific Thought: the German Genetics Community, 1900–1933, Chicago, 1992.Google Scholar

89 Morantz-Sanchez, R. M., Sympathy and Science. Women Physicians in American Medicine, New York and Oxford, 1985, ch. 7.Google Scholar

90 Morantz-Sanchez, R. M., ‘Feminist theory and historical practice: rereading Elizabeth Blackwell’, History and Theory (1992), 31, 51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I thank John Harley Warner for suggesting that I read this article.

91 Pernick, M., A Calculus of Suffering: Pain, Professionalism and Anesthesia in Nineteenth-Century America, New York, 1985.Google Scholar

92 Whitley, R., The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar

93 Baszanger, I., ‘From pain to person: a new medical entity’, in Medicine and Change, op. cit. (8).Google Scholar