Past Conferences

Vol. 41, No. 3, July 2012
Printer friendly version of Newsletter

Regional Links Promoted at "Facts, Artifacts, and the Politics of Consensus"

By Adam Plaiss (Northwestern University)

Fay Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Stephen Epstein

From left to right: Fay Cook, Director of Northwestern's Institute for Policy Research; Naomi Oreskes, University of California, San Diego; Stephen Epstein, Director of the Science in Human Culture Program and of the interdisciplinary graduate cluster in Science Studies at Northwestern. Photo by Héctor Carrillo.

Recognizing the innovative work of STS scholars in Midwestern institutions, Northwestern University's Science in Human Culture program hosted "Facts, Artifacts, and the Politics of Consensus: A Midwest Conference for Science and Technology Studies," on May 4 and 5, in Evanston, Illinois. Regional ties were made and strengthened as the conference drew more than 100 attendees and panelists from more than a dozen colleges and universities across the Midwest.

Naomi Oreskes (California-San Diego) commenced the conference's investigation into the politics of consensus in her keynote address on Friday evening. Her address, entitled "Merchants of Doubt," was largely based on her 2010 book of the same title (co-authored with Erik M. Conway), which received the HSS's 2011 Watson Davis and Helen Miles Davis award for the best history of science written for the public at large. Professor Oreskes argued that the seeming scientific controversy surrounding the issue of climate change is in fact the product of a small but determined cadre of professional consensus-questioners. These "merchants of doubt" have, since the late 1970s, received industry funding to produce scientific reports that contradict the prevailing academic opinions regarding environmental hazards such as cigarette smoke, carbon-gas emissions, and acid rain. Such reports give the illusion of disagreement among scientists to outside journalists.

The conference's four panels met on Saturday and continued to examine the complications surrounding consensus-building among the scientific community and between scientists and society in general. The first panel, entitled "Transnational Negotiations," investigated how national boundaries influence scientific consensus concerning the veracity of fact. For example, Gabrielle Hecht (University of Michigan) argued that when regulatory agencies ascribe the status of "nuclear" to uranium mines, power plants, and technological processes, they do so in political environments that vary by nation, thus making ostensibly scientific judgments beholden to considerations of race and class particular to national settings. Issues of race and national cultures were also discussed by Joan Fujimura (University of Wisconsin-Madison), who outlined the technical and conceptual complexities faced by a number of geneticists across the globe as they attempt to correlate genetic differences among present-day humans with the geographic distance that supposedly separated their remote ancestors. Lastly, Tom Waidzunas (Northwestern University) showed the importance of national context in the creation of expertise by comparing the policy statements on homosexuality issued by social workers in Uganda to Western social workers' professional consensus on the issue. Internationally accredited Ugandan social work agencies hold position statements on human behavior that are, unlike Western statements, explicitly informed by Judeo-Christian Scripture.

The second panel, "Nature of Expertise," explored the role the state plays in creating societal consensus over what counts as scientific authority. Christopher Hamlin (University of Notre Dame) opened the panel with a study of "experts and anarchists in Victorian sanitation" and found that English towns at times successfully integrated democratic decision making into the oversight of large, state-owned infrastructural systems. The role of democratic ideals was also considered by Shobita Parthasarathy (University of Michigan), who compared the patenting of living entities in the United States and Europe. The connection between science and the law was further studied by Rachel Ponce (University of Chicago), who examined expert testimony given at a curious nineteenth-century murder trial and contended that at times practitioners such as psychologists construct their authority so as to supplement, and not replace, folk wisdom.

After lunch and a presentation on funding by the National Science Foundation's STS Program Director Kelly Moore, the third panel, "Sensing the Unseen," convened. This panel probed the sometimes unstable consensus among scientists regarding the reliability of the senses. Lorraine Daston (University of Chicago) recounted the attempts of early modern European botanists to categorize plants by taste, which led them to trust their own senses in ways that subsequent generations of scientists found troubling. Not all modern scientists distrust their sense of taste, however, as Fiona Rose-Greenland (University of Michigan) demonstrated in her study of Italian archeologists. These experts acquire knowledge by touching, smelling, and even tasting the dirt itself; archeologists with good "dirt sense" are highly revered by their peers. But as Tania Munz (Northwestern University) observed, aside from archeologists, most twentieth-century scientists regarded the human senses to be unreliable, as evidenced in her analysis of the twentieth-century honeybee biologist Karl von Frisch. Frisch's explanation of how honeybees locate their food—that scout bees use a dance language to communicate the food's whereabouts—survived the attack of a simpler, rival theory which posited that bees merely smell their way to their food. Experiments set up to verify the smell hypothesis, however, required scientists to rely on their own sense of smell, a situation considered too unscientific even by the researchers conducting the work.

The fourth and final panel, "Ecologies of (In)Security" considered the limits of experts' power once consensus has been achieved. At times, consensus regarding the need for surveillance can mobilize massive national security projects, as Paul Edwards (University of Michigan) demonstrated in his review of the formerly top secret Project Grab Bag, which utilized high-altitude balloons to detect radioactive particles released by nuclear weapons tests. Other times, even the most widely held fears fail to motivate action, as Susan Lederer (University of Wisconsin-Madison) showed. Professor Lederer examined the federal government's contingency plans to manage the casualties of a nuclear attack, and proved post-World War III civil defense protocols to be almost as frightening as the dreaded war itself. Finally, Alex Blanchette (University of Chicago) illustrated how expert consensus can exacerbate class differences. His presentation on factory farms in the American South Plains described how diseases endemic in feed-lot swine necessitate strict control over the behavior of the humans who work with them.

The Science in Human Culture program, which hosted the conference, gathers scholars from across Northwestern University to consider the role of science, technology, and medicine in societies, past and present (www.shc.northwestern.edu). The SHC program organizes the Klopsteg Lecture Series, inviting scholars from throughout North America to share their research in a supportive and enthusiastic environment. Northwestern undergraduates can pursue a minor or an adjunct major through the SHC program, and the program also provides graduate fellows from a variety of departments with a colloquium in which to share and improve their work. For more information, please contact Professor Steve Epstein, program director, at s-epstein@northwestern.edu.

Lone Star Historians of Science

By Bruce Hunt (University of Texas, Austin)

Left to right: Kevin Stewart, Martin Melosi, Nathan Ensmenger, Karl Stephan, Ioanna Semendeferi, John Zammito, Anthony Stranges, Jimmy Schafer, Steve Kirkpatrick, Derek Polston, Bruce Hunt, Stephanie Vajda, Jennifer Bazar, Erik Norquest, Cyrus Mody, Tom Williams, and Anna Fay Williams.

Continuing a tradition that has now been running far longer than its founders would have ever imagined, the Lone Star History of Science Group held its twenty-fifth annual meeting on 6 April 2012 at Rice University in Houston. The gathering was hosted by Cyrus Mody of Rice and Jimmy Schafer of the University of Houston.

The speaker this year was Professor Martin Melosi of the University of Houston. A distinguished environmental historian, Melosi also researches and teaches on the history of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, and has just completed a new book, Atomic Age America (Pearson, 2012). For the Lone Star group, he spoke on "Democracy of Science No More: The Untimely Discovery of Nuclear Fission in the 1930s," emphasizing how the discovery of fission came at an especially unfortunate time in global affairs and ushered in deep changes in the scientific community.
After a lively discussion, the group headed off to enjoy dinner, drinks, and further conversation at a local Italian restaurant.

Each spring, the Lone Star Group draws together historians of science, technology, and medicine from around Texas to discuss their shared interests and enjoy a friendly dinner. Its constitution, adopted at an Austin restaurant in 1988, provides that there shall be "no officers, no by-laws, and no dues," and the group remains resolutely informal. The next Lone Star meeting will be hosted by Bruce Hunt at the University of Texas in Austin in March or April 2013. Anyone wishing to be added to the group's mailing list should contact him at bjhunt@mail.utexas.edu.

The Public History of Science and Technology

By Allison Marsh and Sarah Scripps

In September 2011, the University of South Carolina hosted a conference to address the interaction of history, science, and the public. This conference raised questions, such as: What role does history play in the general public's understanding of science and technology? What is the role of museums, libraries, television, and popular writing in educating audiences about science? How can historians of science and technology best interact with science policy makers? And what can university history departments and public history programs do to teach future science popularizers and educators?

Funded by NSF Grant #SES-0531160, this conference expanded upon current research at the University of South Carolina aimed at increasing public understanding of scientific change and emerging technologies. Presenters represented numerous museums, universities, and agencies from across the United States and the world. The panelists covered a host of issues concerning science in the public sphere, including oral history, science and the media, science policy, pedagogy, and material culture (www.cas.sc.edu/hist/conf/phst/index.html).

The opening plenary by Katherine Pandora and Erika Milam set a lively tone for the conference by examining how children experienced the history of science during the postwar period. In evaluating Disney's Our Friend the Atom and National Geographic's Miss Goodall and the Wild Chimpanzees, Pandora demonstrated how television science documentaries communicated scientific authority and the ways in which this media positioned children in the larger polity of science. Milam evaluated how debates over the moral and political content of science emerged in early education discussions through her analysis of the social studies curriculum project Man: A Course of Study (MACOS). Their talks introduced themes that recurred in subsequent panels: What counts as science, and who has the authority to participate? How can the history of science help better inform us of the range of public engagement in the scientific enterprise?

Several presenters emphasized the role of objects in telling new and engaging stories about the history of science and technology. Joseph N. Tatarewicz at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County argued that even science "junk"—such as hand-made apparatus or beat-up equipment—could reveal the common, everyday realities of scientific practice. Conversely, Suzanne Fischer at The Henry Ford museum highlighted the centrality of aesthetics in her description of a growing trend occurring both in museums and on the web: the reemergence of cabinets of curiosity. This eclectic mode of display values the beauty and wonder contained within objects themselves. The presentations emphasized how material culture could convey multiple meanings and tell a fuller story of science and technology.

Robert Bud of the Science Museum in London, Peter Liebhold of the National Museum of American History, and Sharon Babaian at the Canada Science and Technology Museum described the challenges that national museums face in dealing with appointed boards, shifting political priorities, and past institutional mandates. In Babaian's experience, history often takes a backseat to basic science education, and where it is included, it often presents an uncomplicated, positivist account of nationalist achievements. This approach does not make for an accurate or interesting story, and yet it is often the only one told at national institutions. Robert Bud identified the issue more concisely by asking, in the case of science museums, "Is history bunk?" Bud, Babaian, and Liebohld all pointed to a similar solution. Rather than separating science and technology as independent from the public sphere, museums could demonstrate how science is fundamentally shaped by culture. This approach allows the public not only to understand important historical complexities, but it also invites them to play important roles as actors (or adversaries) in how science and technology is conceived. As Bud suggested, perhaps the issue is not that historians do not know how to engage people's beliefs and doubts about science, but that it might be rather frightening to hear what they have to say.

Plenary speaker Zuoyue Wang from California State University-Pomona advocated for more consideration of policy as a valid part of the public history field. Wang reminded us that policy makers prefer clarity over nuance, and historians should acquire a familiarity with the fast-paced, staged nature of the political process before entering the policy arena. Wang contended that historians need to be comfortable taking a stand promoting science and defending it against political attacks. Historians generally aim at keeping at a critical stance from their subject matter, highlighting complex shades of grey than firm black and white positions. Wang argued that in the public arena, however, such an approach would not engage policymakers.

Wang cited climate change as one area where historians need to take a firm position in favor of science. However, professionals at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (CHF) approached this issue from the opposite standpoint. Christy Schneider and Elizabeth McDonnell outlined a planned exhibit at CHF titled Making Climate Change Real: Artists Respond. The exhibit aims to use artists' renderings of climate change to provoke debates among visitors. Their presentation sparked one of the most heated discussions of the conference. Many participants questioned the legitimacy of CHF in addressing these issues because they are sponsored heavily by the chemical industry. To what extent do historians and the public consider them to be honest brokers? The large contingent from CHF countered that institutions can and should show transparency in their work.

In the closing roundtable organized by Allison Marsh, participants discussed the future of museum practices for the public history of science. The roundtable provoked debate about training future professionals for careers in the public history of science and technology. Do they need technical content (training in STEM), as Michael Geselowitz of IEEE argued, or do they need training in contextualization and public outreach, as representatives from CHF argued?

The conference illustrated many of the challenges historians face in conveying science and technology to the general public. Throughout the conference, participants called for a clearly articulated, but more nuanced approach to science and technology. They wanted to move beyond the "science center mentality" that lacks historical context and to avoid positivist accounts that celebrate a simplistic march towards progress. A history-based approach provides greater sensitivity to the pluralism of science, situates artifacts as bearers of interesting stories, and shows how science and technology should be situated within a greater cultural context.

Interested in learning more about the public history of science and technology? Join the Technology Museums Special Interest Group (TEMSIG) meetings at the National Council on Public History and Society for the History of Technology annual conferences. Contact Eric Nystrom (eric.nystrom@rit.edu) to be added to the listserv. Working in the field? Contact conference organizers Ann Johnson (ajohnson@mailbox.sc.edu) and Allison Marsh (marsha@mailbox.sc.edu) about a potential book project on the subject.

Ann Harrington Delivers the 4th Hazen Lecture

Ann Harrington (Harvard University) gave the History of Science Society's Joseph H. Hazen Lecture at the New York Academy of Science this past May. In her talk, "Bodies Behaving Badly: Insights from the History of Mind-Body Medicine and Why They Matter," she explored the general assumption in the academy that, while human cultures vary in different times and places, the human body always works the same, in all times and places. Professor Harrington drew on material from the history of mind-body medicine to challenge this assumption. Especially in situations of illness, there is evidence that human bodily experience is shaped by culture and, in this sense, has a history that needs to be told, alongside the histories of changing medical and folk theories.

The Joseph H. Hazen Lecture is made possible by a gift from Cynthia Hazen Polsky, daughter of Joseph Hazen. The lecture is supported by the History of Science Society; Metropolitan New York Section of the HSS; New York University's Gallatin School of Individualized Study; Columbia University's Colloquium for Science, Technology, Medicine and Society and University Seminar in History and Philosophy of Science; City University of New York's PhD Program in History, and History of Science Lecture Series; and the New York Academy of Sciences Section for History and Philosophy of Science and Technology.

The Humanities in Science, Engineering, and Medicine: A Conference Welcoming the History of Science Society to the University of Notre Dame

Jay Malone

Jay Malone, Executive Director of the HSS. Photo by Jessica Baron.

On the occasion of the HSS Executive Office relocating to the campus of the University of Notre Dame, scholars from around North America converged on the campus this past June to examine how those in the humanities, in the sciences, in engineering, and in medicine can engage in fruitful dialogue. The conference began with talks by four HSS officers: Lynn K. Nyhart, President of the HSS, spoke on "Alternation of Generations as a Model for Evolution," Bernie Lightman, Society Editor, provided insights on "Science and Religion at the Metaphysical Society: Contesting Knowledge in the 1870s," Marsha Richmond, HSS Secretary, delivered a paper "What's Gender Got to Do with It? Women and Biological Laboratories and Research Institutes after 1900," and Angela Creager, HSS Vice President, focused on "Life Atomic: Radioisotopes as Tools in Biology and Medicine." These fascinating talks were followed by two panels. The first panel featured representatives from various Notre Dame units, as well as an officer of the American Council of Learned Societies. Each scholar spoke to the need for those in the humanities and those in the sciences and engineering to deepen their dialogue. Panelists included Don Howard, Director, Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values, University of Notre Dame; Peter Kilpatrick, Dean of College of Engineering, University of Notre Dame; Dan Myers, Vice President and Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, University of Notre Dame; Jeffrey W. Peng, Depts. of Chemistry & Biochemistry and Physics, University of Notre Dame; and Steve Wheatley, Vice President, American Council of Learned Societies. This lively exchange was followed by a discussion of humanities in medicine. These panelists included Christopher Hamlin, Department of History, University of Notre Dame; Nicole Archambeau, ACLS New Faculty Fellow, California Institute of Technology; Bridget Gurtler, Research Fellow in History of Science, Princeton University; and Sarah Parker, Department of English and Comparative Literature, University of North Carolina. It is hoped that the conference will result in more interchange among all stakeholders. Both panels were recorded so that other colleges and universities can use this model to foster conversations on their own campuses.

History of Science Society