Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:21:34.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prestige Asymmetry in American Physics: Aspirations, Applications, and the Purloined Letter Effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Joseph D. Martin
Joseph D. Martin*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Why do similar scientific enterprises garner unequal public approbation? High energy physics attracted considerable attention in the late-twentieth-century United States, whereas condensed matter physics – which occupied the greater proportion of US physicists – remained little known to the public, despite its relevance to ubiquitous consumer technologies. This paper supplements existing accounts of this much remarked-upon prestige asymmetry by showing that popular emphasis on the mundane technological offshoots of condensed matter physics and its focus on human-scale phenomena have rendered it more recondite than its better-known sibling field. News reports about high energy physics emphasize intellectual achievement; reporting on condensed matter physics focuses on technology. And whereas frontier-oriented rhetoric of high energy physics communicates ideals of human potential, discoveries that smack of the mundane highlight human limitations and fail to resonate with the widespread aspirational vision of science – a consequence I call “the purloined letter effect.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 475 - 506
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Abrahams, Marc. 2010. “Geim Becomes First Nobel & Ig Nobel Winner.” Improbable Research, http://www.improbable.com/2010/10/05/geim-becomes-first-nobel-ig-nobel-winner/ (last accessed August 3, 2016).Google Scholar
Anderson, Philip W. 1972. “More Is Different: Broken Symmetry and the Nature of Hierarchical Structure in Science.” Science 177 (4047): 393–396.Google Scholar
Anderson, Philip W. 2001. “More Is Different – One More Time.” In More is Different: Fifty Years of Condensed Matter Physics, edited by Ong, Nai-Phuan and Bhatt, Ravin, 1–9. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Philip W. 2011. More and Different: Notes from a Thoughtful Curmudgeon. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Balandin, Alexander A. 2011. “Thermal Properties of Graphene and Nanostructured Carbon Materials.” Nature Materials 10 (8): 569–581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell Telephone Magazine . 1949. “The ‘Transistor.’” (Fall): 240.Google Scholar
Berry, Michael V., and Geim, Andre K.. 1997. “Of Flying Frogs and Levitrons.” European Journal of Physics 18 (4): 307.Google Scholar
Brooks, Michael. 2016. “It's Mind-Blowing What Our Puny Brains Can Do.” New Scientist, April 13, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030690-200-its-mindblowing-what-our-puny-brains-can-do/ (last accessed January 11, 2017).Google Scholar
Brown, Louis. 1999. A Radar History of World War II: Technical and Military Imperatives. Bristol: Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
Browne, Malcolm W. 1979. “Nobel Prizes Are Awarded to 3 Physicists and 2 Chemists.” New York Times, October 16, p. 1.Google Scholar
Bucchi, Massimiano. 1998. Science and the Media: Alternative Routes to Scientific Communications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Jeffrey. 1999. “Scientific Values and Moral Education in the Teaching of Science.” Perspectives on Science 7 (1): 87–110.Google Scholar
Bush, George W. 2007. “Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union, January 23, 2007.” The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24446 (last accessed August 2, 2016).Google Scholar
Carroll, Sean. 2016. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy, and Frigg, Roman. 2007. “String Theory under Scrutiny.” Physics World 20 (9): 14–15.Google Scholar
Castro Neto, Antonio H., Guinea, Francisco, Peres, Nuno Miguel R., Novoselov, Kostya S., and Geim, Andre K.. 2009. “The Electronic Properties of Graphene.” Reviews of Modern Physics 81 (1): 109.Google Scholar
Chang, Kenneth. 2006. “Technology and Engineering.” In A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers, 2nd ed., edited by Blum, Deborah, Knudson, Mary, and Henig, Robin Marantz, 209–215. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune . 1970. “California Scientist and 2 Win Nobel.” 28 October, p. B9.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune . 1974. “American, 2 Britons Win Nobels.” 16 October, p. 13.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune . 1975. “American Physicist Wins Nobel Award.” 18 October, p. N2.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune . 1976. “Yanks Sweep Science Field for This Year's Nobel Prizes.” 19 October, p. 2.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune . 1977. “3 Split Nobel Physics Award.” 12 October, p. 2.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune . 1979. “3 Yanks win science Nobel Prizes.” 16 October, p. 2.Google Scholar
Colapinto, John. 2014. “Material Question.” The New Yorker, 22 December, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/22/material-question (last accessed March 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Committee on CMMP, Solid State Sciences Committee, National Research Council. 2010. Condensed-Matter and Materials Physics: The Science of the World Around Us. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Leon N. 2014. Science and Human Experience: Values, Culture, and the Mind. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dupré, John. 2001. Human Nature and the Limits of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Michael, and Schubert, Helmut. 1990. Crystals, Electrons, Transistors: From Scholar's Study to Industrial Research, translated by Hughes, Thomas. New York: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
Eisenhower, Dwight D. 1956. “Remarks on the State of the Union Message, Key West, Florida. January 5, 1956.” The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=10704 (last accessed August 2, 2016).Google Scholar
Endersby, Jim. 2008. Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Evans, John H. 2014. “Faith in Science in Global Perspective: Implications for Transhumanism.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (7): 814–832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fahy, Declan. 2015. The New Celebrity Scientists: Out of the Lab and into the Limelight. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Feynman, Richard P., and Leighton, Ralph. 1985. Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman: Adventures of a Curious Character. London: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Fleury, Paul A. 1991. Statement to the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 101st Congress, 1st session. Hearing on the Department of Energy's Superconducting Super Collider project, April 16.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Geim, Andre K. 2009. “Graphene: Status and Prospects.” Science 324 (5934): 1530–1534.Google Scholar
Geim, Andre K. 2010. “Random Walk to Graphene.” NobelPrize.org, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/geim_lecture.pdf (last accessed July 21, 2015).Google Scholar
Godin, Benoît. 2006. “The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 31 (6): 639–667.Google Scholar
Gormley, Melinda. 2016. “Pulp Science: Education and Communication in the Paperback Book Revolution.” Endeavour 40 (1): 24–37.Google Scholar
Greene, Brian. 1999. The Elegant Universe. New York: Norton, 1999.Google Scholar
Hecht, Gabrielle. 2009. The Radiance of France: Power and National Identity after World War II. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoddeson, Lillian, Braun, Ernst, Teichmann, Jürgen, and Weart, Spencer, eds. 1992. Out of the Crystal Maze: Chapters from the History of Solid State Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoddeson, Lillian, and Daitch, Vicki. 2002. True Genius: The Life and Science of John Bardeen. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
Hoddeson, Lillian, and Kolb, Adrienne W.. 2000. “The Superconducting Super Collider's Frontier Outpost, 1983–1988.” Minerva 38 (3): 271–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, Albert W. 1944. “The Outlook for the Physicist and Prospective Physicist in Industry.” American Journal of Physics 12 (2): 62–70.Google Scholar
James, Jeremiah, and Joas, Christian. 2015. “Subsequent and Subsidiary? Rethinking the Role of Applications in Establishing Quantum Mechanics.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 45 (5): 641–702.Google Scholar
Janssen, Michel. 2002. “Reconsidering a Scientific Revolution: The Case of Einstein versus Lorentz.” Physics in Perspective 4 (4): 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joas, Christian. 2011. “Campos que interagem: Física quântica e a transferência de conceitos entre física de partículas, nuclear e do estado sólido.” In Teoria quântica: Estudos históricos e implicações culturais, edited by Freire, Olival Jr., Pessoa, Osvaldo Jr., and Bromberg, Joan L., 109–151. Campina Grande, Brasil: Livraria da física.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Elizabeth. 2015. “Sci-Fi and Jurassic Park Have Driven Research, Scientists Say.” The Conversation, 10 June, https://theconversation.com/sci-fi-and-jurassic-park-have-driven-research-scientists-say-42864 (last accessed August 2, 2017).Google Scholar
Jones, Elizabeth. 2017. “The Development of Ancient DNA Research.” PhD diss., University College London.Google Scholar
Kaiser, David. 2005. “The Atomic Secret in Red Hands?: American Suspicions of Theoretical Physicists during the Early Cold War.” Representations 90 (1): 28–60.Google Scholar
Keith, Stephen T., and Quédec, Pierre. 1992. “Magnetism and Magnetic Materials.” In Out of the Crystal Maze: Chapters from the History of Solid State Physics, edited by Hoddeson, Lillian, Braun, Ernst, Teichmann, Jurgen, and Weart, Spencer, 359–442. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J. 1978. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Kline, Ronald. 1995. “Construing ‘Technology’ as ‘Applied Science’: Public Rhetoric of Scientists and Engineers in the United States, 1880–1945. Isis 86 (2): 194–221.Google Scholar
Meme, Know Your. 2015. “Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work?” http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fucking-magnets-how-do-they-work (last accessed August 3, 2016).Google Scholar
Laubichler, Manfred D., and Maienschein, Jane. 2007. From Embryology to Evo-devo: A History of Developmental Evolution. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laughlin, Robert B. 2005. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Laughlin, Robert B., and Pines, David. 2000. “The Theory of Everything.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of Americas 97 (1): 28–31.Google Scholar
Lederman, Leon M., and Teresi, Dick. 1993. The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What is the Question? New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Livingstone, M. Stanley. 1968. Particle Physics: The High-Energy Frontier. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times . 1970. “Frenchman, Argentine, Swede Get Nobel Prizes.” 28 October, p. 8.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times . 1972a. “Nobel Team's Theory Finds Practical Uses.” 21 October, p. 8.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times . 1972b. “Door Ignores Physics Prize.” 21 October, p. 8.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times . 1974. “Stanford Scientist and Two Britons Win Nobel Awards.”15 October, p. 2.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times . 1977. “Two Americans and Briton Win Nobel Physics Prize.” 11 October, p. A2.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times . 1979. “Nobel Prize for Physics, Chemistry Shared by Five.” 15 October, p. A2.Google Scholar
Martin, Joseph D. 2015a. “Fundamental Disputations: The Philosophical Debates that Governed American Physics, 1939–1993.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 45 (3): 703–757.Google Scholar
Martin, Joseph D. 2015b. “What's in a Name Change? Solid State Physics, Condensed Matter Physics, and Materials Science.” Physics in Perspective 17 (1): 3–32.Google Scholar
Martin, Joseph D., and Janssen, Michel. 2015. “Beyond the Crystal Maze: Twentieth-Century Physics from the Vantage Point of Solid State Physics.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 45 (5): 631–640.Google Scholar
Martínez, Alberto. 2004. “Kinematic Subtleties in Einstein's First Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations.” American Journal of Physics 72 (6): 790–798.Google Scholar
McDonald, Kim A. 1997. “Covering Physics.” In A Field Guide for Science Writers, edited by Blum, Deborah and Knudson, Mary, 188–196. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Midgley, Mary. 1992. Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and Its Meaning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milam, Erika Lorraine. 2010. “The Equally Wonderful Field: Ernst Mayr and Organismic Biology.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 40 (3): 279–317.Google Scholar
Missner, Marshall. 1985. “Why Einstein Became Famous in America.” Social Studies of Science 15 (2): 267–291.Google Scholar
Morus, Iwan Rhys. 2005. When Physics Became King. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Newspaper Association of America. 2016. “Newspaper Circulation Volume.” http://www.naa.org/Trends-and-Numbers/Circulation-Volume/Newspaper-Circulation-Volume.aspx (last accessed August 19, 2016).Google Scholar
New York Times . 1977. “2 from U.S. among 4 Nobel Science Winners.” 12 October, p. 1.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1972. Physics in Perspective, vol. 2, pt. A. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Norton, John D. 2016. “How Einstein Did Not Discover.” Physics in Perspective 18 (3): 249–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obama, Barack. 2012. “Address before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union, January 24, 2012.” The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=99000 (last accessed August 2, 2016).Google Scholar
Orzel, Chad. 2016. “Why Isn't the Biggest Conference in Physics More Popular?” Forbes, 13 March, http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2016/03/13/why-isnt-the-biggest-conference- in-physics-more-popular (last accessed August 18, 2016).Google Scholar
Petrarchæ, Francesco. 1605. De Remediis utriusque Fortunae, book 2 (Ioannes le Preux), https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QMoGAAAAcAAJ (last accessed August 2, 2016).Google Scholar
Poe, Edgar Allan. 1852. “The Purloined Letter.” In The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe: With Notices of His Life and Genius, vol. 1, Tales, edited by Willis, Nathaniel Parker, Lowell, James Russell, and Griswold, Rufus Wilmot, 262–280. New York: Redfield.Google Scholar
Randall, Lisa. 2011. Knocking on Heaven's Door: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modern World. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Rensberger, Boyce. 1974. “Chemist, 2 Astronomers Are Given Nobel Prizes.” New York Times, 16 October, pp. 1, 26.Google Scholar
Ritson, Sophie, and Camilleri, Kristian. 2015. “Contested Boundaries: The String Theory Debates and Ideologies of Science.” Perspectives on Science 23 (2): 192–227.Google Scholar
Rochberg, Francesca. 2004. The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rowland, Henry A. 1883. “A Plea for Pure Science.” Science 2 (29): 242–250.Google Scholar
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. 2014. “New Light to Illuminate the World.” 7 October, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2014/press.html (last accessed July 21, 2015).Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael. 2003. “Is Evolution a Secular Religion?” Science 299 (5612): 1523–1524.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Rebecca Press. 2008. “The Making of the History of the Atomic Bomb: Henry Dewolf Smyth and the Historiography of the Manhattan Project.” PhD diss., Princeton University.Google Scholar
Schuster, Arthur. 1911. The Progress of Physics during 33 Years (1875–1908): Four Lectures Delivered to the University of Calcutta during March 1908. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schweber, Sylvan S. 2015. “Hacking the Quantum Revolution: 1925–1975.” European Physics Journal H 40 (1): 53–149.Google Scholar
Schweber, Sylvan S. 1986. “The Empiricist Temper Regnant: Theoretical Physics in the United States 1920–1950.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 17 (1): 55–98.Google Scholar
Semple, Robert B. Jr. 1976. “Nobel Prizes Won by 3 U.S. Scientists.” New York Times, 19 October, pp. 1, 34.Google Scholar
Sevigny, Melissa L. 2016. Under Desert Skies: How Tucson Mapped the Way to the Moon and Planets. Tuscon: Sentinal Peak.Google Scholar
Smoluchowski, Roman. 1982. Interview by Kris Szymborski (16 August), sound recording, OH 4897. Niels Bohr Library and Archives, College Park MD.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Walter. 1973. “Physics Prize Won for Research in Electronics.” New York Times, 24 October, p. 26.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Walter. 1975. “Three Physicists Unravel Mystery: Nobel Winners Showed and Explained the Asymmetry of Atomic Nucleus.” New York Times, 18 October, p. 15.Google Scholar
Traweek, Sharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
United States Department of Energy. 1986a. “Congressional Budget Request: Energy Supply Research and Development.” Washington DC: US Department of Energy, https://science.energy.gov/~/media/budget/pdf/sc-budget-request-to-congress/fy-1987/Cong_Budget_1987_BES.pdf (last accessed January 10, 2017).Google Scholar
United States Department of Energy. 1986b. “Congressional Budget Request: General Science and Research.” Washington DC: US Department of Energy, https://science.energy.gov/~/media/budget/pdf/sc-budget-request-to-congress/fy-1987/Cong_Budget_1987_HEP.pdf (last accessed January 10, 2017).Google Scholar
United States House. 1991. Establishing Priorities in Science Funding: Hearing Before the Task Force on Defense, Foreign Policy and Space of the Committee on the Budget, July 11 and 18, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000018472233 (last accessed October 26, 2017).Google Scholar
United States Senate. 1987. On the Department of Energy's Funding Request for the Superconducting Super Collider: Hearing Before the Subcommittee Energy on Research and Development of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, April 7, 100th Cong., 1st sess., http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000013682262 (last accessed October 26, 2017).Google Scholar
United States Senate. 1989. Proposed Fiscal Year 1990 Budget Request (DOE's Office of Energy Research): Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, February 24, 101st Cong., 1st sess., http://hdl.handle.net/2027/pst.000014984129 (last accessed October 26, 2017).Google Scholar
Updike, John. 1960. “Cosmic Gall.” The New Yorker, 17 December, 36.Google Scholar
Updike, John. 1969. “The Dance of the Solids.” Scientific American 220 (1): 130–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vleck, John H. 1944. Letter to Saul Dushman (29 January). American Physical Society Division of Solid State Physics records of Roman Smoluchowski, 1943–1947, AR 164, Box 1, Folder 1. Niels Bohr Library and Archives, College Park MD.Google Scholar
Varma, Roli. 2000. “Changing Research Cultures in U.S. Industry.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 25 (4): 395–416.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Steven. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Weinraub, Bernard. 1970. “Three Scientists Win Nobel Prizes.” New York Times, 28 October, pp. 1, 26.Google Scholar
Weinraub, Bernard. 1972. “6 Americans Win Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry Fields.” New York Times, 21 October, pp. 1, 14.Google Scholar
Wilson, Benjamin. 2015. “The Consultants: Nonlinear Optics and the Social World of Cold War Science.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 45 (5): 758–804.Google Scholar
Zakariya, Nasser. 2012. “Making Knowledge Whole: Genres of Synthesis and Grammars of Ignorance.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 42 (5): 432–475.Google Scholar
Zangwill, Andrew. 2015. “A Half Century of Density Functional Theory.” Physics Today 68 (7): 34–39.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yuanbo, Tan, Yan-Wen, Stormer, Horst L., and Kim, Philip. 2005. “Experimental Observation of the Quantum Hall Effect and Berry's Phase in Graphene.” Nature 438 (7065): 201–204.Google Scholar