l
{

I “ II!
I l

1

fi‘
, 7 ,77,
—
_

5U
1!

HI

{ \

Di‘ ‘
i 2
H

1"!
'11!

l

,W

I
I.
Ll

I? g
l
M ‘

H034
Imp
(00101

 

 

SQENCE, 3063“? AN!) THE WTERNAWONAL
SCIENTIFIC CUAMAUNQTY: AH EXPLOPATORY STUDY

1'th fat the {35-97% af- M. A.
MlCHiGfifl STAGE UNIVERSITY
Sn! P. Resfiva
3966

 

 

 

 

I. ‘ '. r A - ’.‘ l‘>’f1“Y : ;"1"'.;1 T"r.1-"\"-‘ - r"'1‘ -~-7*|r 1' (_x 'TT'I‘. 'n'"'1
001.4-.013 , :J-L‘Cllul: 4-11.13 Hug Ii¢ll11-u.;al'..LL~u..l.s oC lh;~..L_Li‘ IC

COLKUNITY: AH EXFLCLATOLY STUDY

33’

Sal P. Lostivo

A TLSSIS
Submitted to
Hichigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
LASTER OF ARTS
Dewartmcnt of Sociology

1966

.’ -‘:~’:-*‘-;: "cm
-11». lug; J.

SCIEECE, SOCIETX ALD TBS llfnRIiTICKAL SCISLTIFIC
COLLENITY: An EXTLOLAYCLY STUDY

By Sal P. Eestivo

Given the lack of a comrarative perspective in the sociology
of science, and the lack of an adequate theoretical foundation for
comparative research, this exnloratory study attcmots to identify
significant factors affecting the relationshins between science
and society. Doctoral candidates in mathematics, physics, biology,
and psychology are interviewed using an open-ended interview
schedule. 1e exnlore their perceptions of l)the relationships
between scientists and intellectuals in American society, 2)the
university as an institutional setting for science, and 3)the
nature of the international scientific community. "e conclude
that the institutional setting of science (e.g., the university,
government, industry), stratification systems in science, and
types of disciplines are factors affecting the relationshins
between science and society. The type of society in which
science functions is also a determinant of the structure of
science and the kinds of relationshins it develops with other

institutions.

Historical bacquound. The sociology of science, developing
out of the sociology of knowledje and the philosophy and history
of science, has had four major theorists: Robert K. l“‘erton,
Talcott Parsons, Bernard Barber, and Korman N. Storer. In his
pioneering effort, "Science, Technology, and Society in Seven-
teenth Century England"1 and in his classic essay, "Science and
the Social Order"2, Kerton emphasized that science is a social
institution which is related to other institutions in society

and wh‘ch is characterized by four institutional imperatives:
universalism, "communism", disinterestedness, and organized
scepticism. Parsons, workine from the theoretical base estab-
lished by Merton, divided the structure of science into two

sets of norms governing l) the pursuit of scientific knowledge
(empirical validity, logical clarity, lo icel consistency, and
generality of the ”principle" involved), and 2) the occunational
role of the scientist (universalism, affective neutrality, speci-
ficity, achievement orientation, and institutionalization of the
scientist with reference to the collectivity).3 Bernard Barber
attempted to synthesize the works of Herton and Parsons by pro-
viding empirical referents for their generalizations while con-

tributing to theory in the socioloey of science by examining the

h

1'

social functions of science. torman J. Storer, in the most

u " ' ‘ V . _‘ " . ~ -
ilk; C V‘- __ K} C 3‘? L ;J J. -L. . I x '_ \J .. ._ )_ ,'_ V_I , ~ | "_, _' ._\_-} ‘ I I. \‘w' K; _'.. ~.L .K ‘g. , _. ' .\) L-..L1L ~_ Jr Z KI

J-l- . ‘L-.- as '.1 .'-- ‘- '- ‘ ~' :‘ " ~... - , - :I 1 ".1 ’ \ 1: r""."‘ "a?"
bile lnkl )-.'|.Lfi1&'..-~l— SJ k’L‘- C JL—J. a! O... \. C-I '~ ~J-1J -- L _. -—‘- ' C".- K."_>L. 1’)‘ ~(4')~'-‘I~.a ‘1.“ LJ J \J2 -

n ‘F \l). ,., -, ’~‘r “ -7 . .- 'w-n c.— : ..‘ 5’- ': ,~.- -‘ ‘ '- -: - - 3—,
CL L4chi.._'ll U .‘.,O'f'~--rl'led by I‘bllrll‘flas «.41.!(4 .2 .~;C«U—L_\lldo

Probl as i; the Sociology of Science: Toward a Comparative

Perspective. At the institutional level of analysis the soc-

 

iology of science focuses on the relationships between science

and other institutions in societies in which science is a "visi-

ble", more or less differentiated component of the social struc-

ture. Substantively, studies in the sociology of science illum-

inate the nature of these relationships and their consequences

for science and society. Theoretically, they contribute to our

understanding of the process of institutionalization, institutional

structure and function, and the dynamics of total societies in terms

of the relationships between and among institutions. However,

theory in the sociology of science has focused on the internal

structure of the scientific community and has neglected the

relationships between science and society. The "autonomous"

structure of science has been rigorously defined and elaborated.

The norms of the scientific community have been classified. But

the precise delimitation of the system-boundaries of science,

the systemic linkages between science and other institutions,

and the consequences for science and society of these relation-

ships have not been adequately dealt with.6
Sociologists of science have relied on the Yestern experi-

ence for substantive data under the implicit assumption that the

nature of science is not substantially affected by societal

context. Comparative studies are necessary not only for

purposes of illuminating the nature of scitnce in different

types of societies, but also for determining the range of

3
societies in which science is present.
In the historical context, we have comparative cases for
the study of the relationships between science and other insti-
tutions such as heedham's classic work on the development of

7

science in China. We can study the international character

of science which has been fundamental to it throughout its

3

history: Alexandria, Baghdad, and Azerbaiijan were centers of
international "communities" of scientists before the Niddle
es.8 Some of the historical background for understanding
the institutionalization of science in Europe is provided by
events such as l) the establishment of the "scientific role"

in Europeg, 2) the development of communication and transporta-
tion networks by French and English scientists in the eighteenth
century while their nations were at war with each otherlo, and
3) the "liquidation of the entire structure of French science"
by the Jacobin convention in 1793 and the erection of a new

set of scientific institutions - les Eccles centrales, l'Ecole
normale, and l'lcole polytechnique.l

Contemporary Western societies provide another context for

research in the sociology of science. Te can study the rela-
tionships between science and the polity and the impact of
political control over the allocation of resources for basic and
applied scientific research. The growing inter-relatedness

etween science and other institutions offers the sociologist
an opportunity to study the emergence of new structures.

The developing nations provide still another, and neglected,

h

context for the study of science and society. How is science
institutionalized? hhat kinds of relationships will develop
between science and other institutions in these nations? hhat
is the relationship between science in the developing nations
and science in the advanced nations? Is the level of economic
and political deVeloem‘nt of a nrtien i-fl cit; it ins rel tier-
ships with the international scientific community?

Finally, we might inquire into the nature of the scientific
community. We might study, for example, differentiating factors
within the scientific community, and the formal and informal
structures that link scientists from different societies.

Given the lack of a comparative perspective in U1e
sociology of science, and the lack of an adequate theoretical
foundation for comparative research, we designed an exploratory
study l)to aid us in identifying significant factors affecting
the relationships between science and society, and 2)to help
us formulate working hypotheses to guide future research in the
comparative study of science and society. In this study, we
investigate scientists' perceptions of science as a form of
inquiry, their perceptions of the international scientific
community, and their views on the function of science in

American society.

LETEODCLOGY

Population. Te selected as our population doctoral candidates

 

in the physical, biological, and social sciences for theoretical
as well as practical reasons. Theoretically, g‘aduate students
are being socialized to the norms of science that will govern
their search for knowledge and their relationships within and
outside of the scientific community. As participants in a
particular culture, they should reflect, cognitively and be-
haviorally, American culture, the norms of science, and the
relationships between science and American society. Practically,
the population was selected because of status-equality and ease,
of establishing rapport between interviewer and interviewee./
The pretest verified our feeling that status differences

between senior scientists and Haster's level students would
affect not only the rapport between interviewer and interviewee,

but also the type and quality of data obtained.

Stratified sample. Tue pre-test revealed that there appears to

 

(T

e a "continuum" of disciplines in science based on "degree of
involvement" in society in terms of the dependency of each
discipline on resources allocated by other institutions, and
in terms of the function of each discipline in society. Tie
continuum ranges from mathematics to the social sciences.
Mathematicians dealing with a highly abstract subject-matter

felt they did not depend on society for resources; all they

6

need, as one respondent phrased it, is "a cigar ani a rocking
chair" to pursue a problem. Physical and bioleical scientists
said they depend heavily on outside sources for facilities,
equipment, and financial supnort to conduct their research.
Biological and social scientists, because tley must e'peri-
mentally and clinically manipulate human beings and animals,
are restricted in their pursuit of knowled:e by the laws, moral
codes, and ethical precepts of our society. Social scientists
and biological scientists are particularly subject to the
influence of personal and cultural value systems on the most
technical aspects of their research. Hathematicians and
physical scientists can conduct their research by manipulating
symbols and physical objects. The differential influence of
valwe systems on methodolOZy, and the differential need for
resources in different disciplines may result in the development
of different types of relationships between scientists and
society.

To explore the significance of "degree of involvement"
in society for science, we sampled from four disciplines:
mathematics, physics, biolo:y, and psyc*olo:y. Our sample of
psychologists was divided into two sub-samples, clinicians and
experimentalists. This division was made on the basis of the
continuum revealed in the pre-test. The psycholorists inter—
viewed in the pre-test viewed clinicians as closer in orientation
to the social science and more involved in society than
experimentalists.

The research design called for a non-brobability sample of

7
forty-eight respondents, twelve from each of the four disci-
plines. To draw our sample, we obtained lists from the depart-
mants of mathematics, physics, biology, and psychology at a
large Midwestern university of all doctoral candidates registered
for the 1966 summer session. Except in mathematics, we randomly
selected twelve names from each list - only six doctoral can-
didates were registered in the department of mathematics. We
secured interviews with twelve bioleists, twelve psychologists,
eleven physicists, and five mathematicians. nis gave us an

Technique and coding. On the basis of the exploratory nature of

 

our research, we chose the open-ended interview as the most
appropriate data-gathering technique for sensitizing us to the
important sociological variables that need to be considered in
a comparative sociology of science. Given the lack of an ade-
quate tacoretical foundation for formulating questions and
hypotheses, and the lack of similar crpirical studis, the
Open-ended interview scnedule seemed the most feasible instrument
for achieving our research objectives.

fhe coding schema in this study was established by using
the empirical categories generated in the responses to the first
series of interviews. Some changes were made in the course of
our research until a fairly stable set of categories was develope

which allowed us to code directly during the interviews.

8

Standardizing the interview process. Since the data for this

 

study were collected by two researchers working independently,
certain standardizing procedures were necessary to insure data-
comparability. Durin: the pre-test period we interviewed re-
spondents together, independently, and xith our coll a ue present
but not participating in the interview. These sessions sensitized
each of us to the interview style of the other. An Open—ended
interview schedule was then constructed, and several interviews
were conducted by each int rvierer. Ehese interviews were taped
and compared. She final interview schedule was constructed with
each question typed out in full, with words to be emphasized
underlined, and probes specific . Tests of the comparability of
our interview techniques, our use of probes, and date collected
were made during the pre-test period as well as at the research
site. By the time we began our re earch, the int<rview procedures

were sufficiently comparable to insure data comparability.

interview schedule. The interview schedule was divided into

k—J
a

(

.-'

three sections: 1) "Uorld View" - conceptions of science, views
of the relationships between science and society, and conceptions
of the future; 2) reference and membership groups; and 3) science
and the university. The original interview schedule contained
seventy-seven questions. During the course of our research
fifteen questions were eliminated because they did not yield

usable data. No questions were added.

U1

cope of the tape . he first section of the pater deals Lith

. J- . - I“ .~« ‘. ,‘ . ‘ ‘- 4 o. '< , . . v ‘ 1‘» ~- -,.-: ~- (1. . '- '- Q :1‘_ .~ . ‘ ' . ~ "‘
SClenolSLo uhc 1n.ulloCou lb 1d JMLsLCML oSCluof. incl? fhnCLlUu

. "’) . -" ’l“ '1' o I“ "L . a“. ‘ *. v r1 1r- - - -\~“. . I'- 1' ~. ».-- ~‘ ~ ~, 4- {‘ \.‘\ x v . e . ..
In OUL SOCltoy, go QuiC;quu u- OUT l;w3muu0ho8, ufé CQmQuiud,

j -“ ~ . ‘6- ‘A 4 - ‘ 1' ° ' t Wr“"\ R 3* I '- ar" 1 1-. -'\ e A .C‘
and LLvlr linctidn us refeidnCe and/or n;hbe13415 ¢loups ior

1

sraduute students is exnlored. In the second section,

4.‘.
my 81': Q

I“
e
L_.‘

we examine their perceptions of the university as an institutional

setting for science; specifically, Le inquire into the relation-
ships oetween their graduate departments and graduate depart-
mants at other universities, and he exolorr the nature of science
in tho university vis a Vis science in fovcrlmont and in industry
The third section deals with the nature of the international
scientific community as these graduate students experience it.

Te conclude with a discussion of our findinfis with reference

H.

to the signif cant variables and ideas that emerged from the

study and sugoust guides for future research in a comparative

0v

sociology of science.

lO

Scientists and Intellectunls in American Society. In pOpulsr
as well as scholarly usage, the terms "scientist" and "intellec-
tual" are continually linked, and sometimes used synonymously.
This suggests certain socioloficel cuestions. Is the scientific
community one part of the intellectual community? Are in-
tellectuals a reference end/or membership group for scientists?
Our respondents distinguish scientists and intellectu ls
in terms of ”degree of involvement" in society. They are unable
to say in any rigorous sense what an intellectual is. Their
responses to the question, "Ihat is an intellectual?" are
vague and difficult to elicit. But they are able to locate
intellectuals in the social structure of American society.
Sixty-five percent characterize intellectuals as ceitral parti-
cipants in our society: they view critics, educators, opinion-
leaders, and government decision-makers as intellectuals. Sixty-

eight percent, by contrast, View scientists as peripheral

 

participants in our society. The function of science in our
society derives from the application of the knowledge which
scientists pursue for its own sake.

The view that scientists are peripheral participants in
American society is reflected consistently in the resnonse
of these young scientists. Ninety percent say that scientists
should popularize their findings for the general public, but
they are pessimistic about the possibility of communicating
scientific findings to the layman. They 3y that basic research

often cannot be popularized without the type of simplification

ll

that can lead the layman to draw false inferences. The general
public appreciates scientists, according to ninety percent of
these graduate students, but for the wrong reasons. "They may
not appreciate basic research, but the results", says one respon-
dent. Scientists are appreciated, says another, but people are
still "a bit mystified by them".

Science, according to horman U. Storer, is a "non-service"

profession.12

The graduate students in our sample perceive science
similarly, and consider themselves non~service scientists, i.e.,
scientists interested in the pursuit of knowledge for its own
sake. Their reference and membership group is the non-service
collectivity of scientists.

Intellectuals, by contrast, are a r;:¢rnncc group Lut ;ot
a membership group for these young scientists. Sixty-eight
percent feel "a sense of commonality" with intellectuals, but
have neither tse time nor the status to be critics, educators,
opinion-leaders, or government decision-m'kers. The scientific
,community is not viewed as one part of the intellectual community.

Scientists are not perceived as intellectuals by virtue of

beingsscientists.

Science and the University. Scientists function in different

 

institutional settings - the university, rovernment, industry -
and these settings are differentiating factors in the scientific
community. Linety-three percent of our rc5pondents say there

is a distinction among university'scientists, government

12

T

scientists, and scientists in industrv. tniversity scientists

are perceived as mo st hijlly th 1ht of by members of the
scientific community. Ty ical descriptions by our rLsrondents

of the uniVersity scientist are: "University scientists are the
crenm of the crop"; "University scientists have the greatest
freedom to pursue pure science"; "fhey can be honest about

their re e'lch"; "fley are best acouainted xvith what is happening
in their field". The scientist in industry is accorded the

lowes status and portrayed as 1 "money gruhber", an "engineer",
someone wno does not have the orientation he ought to have as

st. Scientists in industry hive, say our respondents,

H.

a scient

limited freedom of inquiry, they are out of Contact with the

J

I...J

mainstresm, any thty do not publish in the journsls or attend
professional meetings. dix 01 the seven res onuoits who 1x-
plicitly ranhLd scientists in the three settings ranked
university scientists first, government scientists second,

and scientists in incustr ry third. Government scientists at
laboratories such as Argonne and Brookhaven are as competent
as university sc nt1sts, according to most of our respondents,

and work under si 3J1 conditions. University scientists are

J

viewed as engaged in pure researc1 under conditions such that
they can sale ct th eir own pioolm ms and pres nt t1 eir findings

honestly. The only source of influence is "the group of

r71 1 ..
.1.

[4.
I

colleagues" in the profession. s is perceiVed to be less
true in government, and less true still in industry.

Our respondents ch1rocterise the faculty and graduate

13

students in their respective departments as research-oriented.

‘I

eacning, especially at the undergraduate leVel, is subordinate

F3

to university research. Lesearch for government or industry,

and service outside the university in an advisory or consu tent

n

capacity is rarelr en azed in by laculty members, according to

kz‘}

3

our respondents.
Inter- -university rela1onsips are maintained by the four

departments through personal communications among faculty, and

through seminar and collocuia programs. Within the university

there are few inter-departmental programs. Scientific communication
among members of different departments is minimal. The Division
of Biological Sciences, composed of four divisions, has inter-
divisional links. find the math mtics, physics, and astronomy
departments, located on the same part of campus and sharing in
good part a common subject-matter, maintain inter-departmental
seminars, colloquia, and personal communications between and
among faculty and graduate students.

The graduate department, say our respondents, is the focal
point for COT.M1UDiCEtiOH xith fellow students, faculty, and
other scientists. They are made aware of new developments in
their fields through personal communications, and through the
journals. Among the physicists, pre-prints of research in
progress or ready for publication are distributed to interested
faculty wh 0 pass them on to their students. The physics dec.1” rt-
ment also has a fournar l cluo wrich gives graduate students an

Opportunity to present talks on, hear about, and discuss new

la

develonm-;nts in tlzir fields b; sed on r'csnt puslicstions.

r 1

inirty-nine of our forty resnonde nts s y tnzt t Lisse COIY unicction

lin1:s M ep th711gbr3ast of ths major develonmsnts in thsir fi lds .

The Intmrnational Loiefitific Community: Its thsnt and Remotcnsity.

Following Hagstrom, Sen-David, Kornhnuscr and othsrs we have

13

u ed the term ”the scienti: ic community". Our data suxg st

[.0

ths t more research is necessary to establish the emniricsl
referents for this term: for cx:t1« le, coes "sciLntific coeruni ty”
refer to scientists in all discijlincs in all countries?

By "community" we refer, in hart, to a group with shared
valULS 1nd pactsrns of interpe: sonsl rfllot ionsiiips. The re-
sponses to our questions indicate that our respondents are a
homogeneous collectivity snarin: the VllUOS of scientists t:10p d
by our questions. Lut the interaction among scientists from
diffs rent disciplines which is a ncce sary element of a community
of scientists is not present.

,

Te selected "felt sonss of commons il ty" and journals res

in allied and 0th: r dis ci lint s as indexes of the prss;ncc of

F

O T ._' I‘ .L 1 '0 .‘~. ‘— I 0 O s .I 0 _‘ .I ‘ . ‘ rw O .‘.,‘J_ O r! "
llnxs among ch seicntlilc QlSCl:llhcoo Ii seientiscs irc
. , - .1. ' ‘ n .Y . .- _ L . .°: , ,_., . ‘ -\ . 4.. 4.1-. 4... 7.. ‘ _ , . ,..
pofulClflrliJu .Li]. ~. Cw 111.111.1111; ”UL; 19.11.411.11 QXM'LCLJ L243 u thus ‘ EXO'UIIK'J

. ‘...._.'_'..-_‘ .1 . " . ---.W.. " -..‘ 2. - _"-‘ -1'1 -. — -~.'_-‘ .'-..
:JCl-C-‘.U lL.‘-1LJQ Y"J‘~)L1l£- fu';l :1 51.1;30 OJ. CO'JJJOIL' 1:1. \I 1-" .5 -Lu- ‘._L.L QCJ. l: ~I.LL; UL)

ed on the so of the same leic of infUiry and orientation

U)

to the Sims set of norms. But the basis for a sense of

commonality with scientists within Lnd outside of one's

15

Table l. Number of respondents ranking divisions of science on the basis
of "felt sense of commonality", by discipline.

 

 

 

 

Discipline
Math. Physics* Biology* Exp. psych. Clin. psych.*

Division Rank
Physical l h 9 3

2 l 8 2

3 l h
Biological l 8 2

2 u 8 h h

3 l 1
Social 1 l l h

2 h 1 5

3 8 8

*N = to - Two physicists, four biologists, and one clinical psychologist did
not rank the divisions of science.

 

discipline or specialty is, for our respondents, the ability
to understand what oths scientists are going. For any group
of scientists, the likelihood that they will have any other
group of scientists as a reference and/or membership group

is a function of l) the extent to which the subject-matter of
the two groups coincides, and 2) the extent to which a given
subject-matter is of interest and comprehensible. Table l
shows how respondents ranked the three broad divisions of
science - physical, biological, social - with respect to

"felt sense of commonality". All but seven graduate students

ranked these divisions in terms of the degree to which they felt

16

a sense of commonality with scientists in each division. Table g
snows the extent to which members of piirs of disciplines agreed
in ranking the divisions of science on the basis of ”felt

Sense of commonality". Physicists feel more of a sense of
commonality with physical scientists than with social scientists.
Clinicians feel more of a sense of commonwlity with social
scientists than Mlth biolo icel or physical scientists. The

directions of the correlations in Table g indicate that, in

 

neral, l)ohysical scientists feel a greater sense of common-
ality with biolo ical scientists than with social scientists,
2)social scientists feel a greater sense of commonality with
biologicxl scientists than with physical scientists, and 3)

biological scientists than with social scientists.14

 

Table 2. Rho correlations between disciplines based on respondents' rankings
of the divisions of science on the basis of "felt sense of commonality".

 

 

 

 

Discipline
Physics Exp. psych. Math. Biology Clin. psych.
Qiscipline
Physics 1.00 0.875 0.500 -l.00
Exp. psych. 0.875 1.00 0.125 -0.63
Math. 0.875 1.00 0.125 -0.63
Biology 0.500 0.125 0.125 -0.500

Clin. PsyCho ‘1000 '0063 -0063 "Oo 500

 

17

he selected journals read in allied and other discinlines
as another index of the presence of links among the scientific

.71 ‘

disciplines. 13316 2 snows the number of resnondents, by disci-
pline, who read journals in disciplines which are alli d with
their science (e.g., allied disciplines for physicists would be
other physical sciences). lable A (page 18) shows the number

of respondents, by discipline, who read journals in "other"
disciplines (e.g., "other" disciplines for physicists would be
biological or social sciences). These data, and the data on

"felt sense of commOiality", indicate that with increasing dis-

tance between disciplines measured by the degree to which

 

Table ;. Number of respondents reading professional journals in allied
disciplines, by discipline.

 

 

 

 

Discipline
Math. Physics Biology Exp. psych. Clin. psych.

Response
Yes

Regularly l l l l

Often l l l

Seldom 3 2 3 2 2
no 2 8 7 2 2
N==h0

1...:
Cl

Table E. Number of respondents reading professional journals in "other"
disciplines, by discipline.

 

 

 

 

 

Discipline
Math. Physics Biology Exp. psych. Clin. psych.

Response
Yes

Regularly 2 l

Often l

Seldom l 2 2 l
Io h 9 lO 2 5
N=ho
subject-matters coincide, communication links are fewer. Te

infer fewer interpersonal links between 3'sciflines which have
less shared subject-matter, and to the extent that this is
true the concept of "the scientific community" takes on a more
restricted manning than it has been given in the literature.
That there is an "international scientific community" of
some type is not disputed by sociologists of s icnce, or by
scientists. Hinety—five percent of our respondents say that
there is an international scientific community. But one of
the criteria of "community" as we conceive it is "patterns of

interpersonal relatioiships". If there is an international

sc1 ntific community, we would exf:ct that structures would
e 'st for the communication of scientific ideas, research

findings, data and so on across rational boundaries. e
would also expect structures for brin3in3 scientists from
different countries tOf; 19F, e.3., international conferences,
exchange lecturesnips, visitin, professorships, and the like.
If these structures exist, if there is a v; dole int e1n :ional
co.unnrr"' of scienm:hflao, nu Elan“ -;; act ;mxyi_l ;nd_:nnxici-

pmxmxl'purticijunxion by 3rtinn to suto;N1os in t-i£: (xin.;nio,.

fie s looted t11e following indexes of octun l participation
in and anticipated participation in the international scientific
community: 1) reading journals in forei3n ls n3us3es, 2) memoer-
ship in international 0133 n1iz ations, 3) knowled3e of international
or3o nizations, A) intention to join international or3anizotions,
and 5) attendance 9t international conferences. Thile sixty-
eight percent of the graduate stuients we interviewed read
one or more professional journo ls in their discipline re3 larly,
only 7. 53 rea 1d foreign lln3u33e journals regularly. Fifty-ei3ht
percent are members of one or more national professional rgin-
izntions, and 88.2» of those wTO are not mémbers intend to join;
but only 12.5fi are members of international oror3 nizations and
22.8fi of those wLo are not n~no<rs intend to join. Only 5;
hnve attended intern tion 1 scientific cun1.;onc ,compnred
with AC} who have ottended re3iongl m etinfo, and 2 5o wfo
have att;noed national meetings. Approx'm;tely one-third of

those who are not members of sin internztionnl or3~nization can

0“"

2O

lca

8

name .t t

‘W ‘W

one such organiz

o 11%,

gth— 1-

To determine the 3c03

scientific community perceived

Sied them, "Uhat areas of tho

plinc?"

Western phenomenon, with the Uni

thirty-eight graduate students

in response to our ion,

quest

States first.

A 1

LL.

Germany,

pattern of response

ation in their

Their responses indicate that for them science is

thi
The United Sta tes,
o France were most often named,

- the number of times a

discipline.
ical locus of the international

by these 3raduate students, we

world are strong in your diyci-
a

ted States as the center. Of

who exolicitly ranked countries

1rty-sevcn rankad the United

v_’

'3
U.

sia, En3land 3nd J pan,

in that order. The

particular country

1..

was montionad, and the number of times it was assigned a given
rank - was similar in each of the discip ll ines for thes si"
countries with one exception, Russia. Only one-thir d of th
biolo ists n. ;ntionod Lussia, compared tith so; of t1c mathe‘ati-
cilns, 33.;5 of the psychologists, and all of tLe physi 1sts.
nu3311 was nv:;Vtr rzrh'd lo'icr than fourth by st udc nts in

mathematics, psycholo3y, and physics: :uon3 the four rsspondcnts
in biology who mentioned Russia, two r3nksd her third, one ranks
her sixth and one ranked hsr ssvcath. T is dCVi:T tion from the

pattern of responses plooaoly reflects tlw

progress of the

biolo ical scic

curtailment of the

-nccs in Zussia due to Lyscnho- is:

Fl
k

C a
C“.
(A:
C.“
F"!
(\
I

1.

his1 Xploratory study was Indemit ..... 1 to iu‘qtify sig—
nificant f1ctors affecting the relationships betw en science and
society. Our study sujyests thst “JfSQ rel1tionships are

y of the scientific community

('1‘

affected by a structur1l con1l<xi
that has been i3nor —d by sociolo ists of science. This com-
plexity derives from at least three factors:
1) Institutione1l setting. Our resoondents differentiate among
university, government, and industrial scientists with respect
to a)orientation to the norms of science, b)status and role in
the scientific community, 1nd c)role in American society. This
differentiation is due to the fact that science is structurally
interlocked with the university, government, or industry. The
institutional setting in w} icli science functions is one deter-
mining factor of the kinds of relw ionsrips thdt develop between
science and society.
2) Stretif ica ion. The fact that we interviewed graduate students
in the sciences raises the cue tion of whether t.u‘ :y can be con—
sidered members of the scientific community. The graduate students
we int ervieW..:ed consider t1;mselves scientists. They are, in
general, members of profes sion1l scientific org1n1;eions, 1nd
are engaged in supervised or independent rcse1r b. If tnis is
true for gr1du1te students in general, it seems aporopriste to
consider them members of the scientific community. This infilics
a

a stratification system in science laseo on level of edu01tion.

It also su gests the problem of stratifi01tion systems in science

based on other criteria: The general concern here is with the
extent to which different strata in science developc1ffem1t
relationships uith society.

3) Type of discipline. In our section on methodology we intro-
duce the idea of a continuum of scientific disciplincs .ased on
”degree of involvement" in society. is did not pursue this idea
with reference to the re s3ior S1ios betIeen science 3nd society

in our study. But the working hypothesis the t the physical,

Ho

biological, and social sciences develop relst

l

onships with

society independent of each other should be pursued in future

There is a fourth factor affecting the relotionsllios between

science and society:

4) Type of societv. To the extent that we can classify societies

(e.g., in terms of diminant institutions, or according to type

of political, religious, or economic system) we should be

concerned with how the type of society in which science functions

affects the relationships between science and society.
Sreculstion on the results of our study can suT est the

s1m11fic~nce of tliese factors. For exnmn e, the graduate

.-

U}
* 3
(Q
*‘S
H I
'1
3
H

students we interviewed perceive scientists a
pnrticipe nts in American society. This view might be exolained
in terms of a)their definition of science es the pursuit of

knowledge for its own sake (basic science), b)tbe structure of

American society, and c)the structure of their departments

These young scientists define science as the pursuit of

LLOLlLQQp nitL2ns r.;_;C c3 ins ‘: c ic,l railioy (9.3., in-
creasing economic productivity, strengthening military cap-
abilities, r3 isin; the st; nd3rd of living). The product of
science is the cumulation of knowledge throujh bssic research.
His oric.:: lly the gmerican people hxve been indifferent to such

research.16 In our society,

_,
pl

1c pursuit of knowledfie for its
own sake has not been cefin d 35 a soci3t3. 1 function: basic
knowledge has not been defined as a product in the conomic

. 17 . ,. p. 3 +. -1, . M
sense. It 18 QlfllCUlt for moss smer1cans, it seems, to
understand the pre-occupation of scientists with problems which
have no tangible solutions. The results of basic research be-
come t313ibl: only .hen the knomledje gained is anilied in
technology or engineerinfi. The general public in our society
appreciates basic research only in terms of the tangible re-
sults of such research, according to our respondents.

.0

Our sample is bi:3:se d in favor 0L students in basic research.

The de .3 :rtme its we 5 mrled from are all apparently 01 is c~d to
pure science. The structure of these déf~rtrnnts seems to

p: eclude tie exposure of gradzate students to aopli d science

h

or to scientists wno are ’involvod" in society (e.g., ilvolde
as intellectuals - critics, educators, etc., or as anplied
scientists). They are being socialized to a work-role that

subordinates prs ctical sci: n 3, teaching, and non-university

WC ivities such 35 research for government or industrv to b sic

:3

research under university auspices. Thus, th ir perception of

pure scientists as periphvrsl participants in nmerican society

is 1n cart 3 function of the historical indiffsrsncs of the
.‘ "1‘? 1;?“ . -1\ ‘nla 7‘1 J- ‘l " " r“ ’. -~. c a. A '1"! "'~ .. 1 1 ' his 4 I" 0.. -’- . "
41115.1. 10111 ‘, 40" L, [/0 Ogloic I L; u=£.}-__.J- CL: , 1.1-1CL 1n izul t 1.1 .1. nc U1 9n OJ.

n9 inst tution: l settin” in unich they n19 tcin; soci llZLd

It is ~occiil to 1r3u11tirg our I thonbc;os p reactions
of ourt scirncists as parithral ncrticip nts in our socicty
is a function of thsir rolL-stotus-p sition in thc scientific
community: they are stu.clc nts, :n( have ncithcr the time nor the
tutus to participate in society as intellectuals, or nonlicd
scL ntists. But t‘ is is not r9lcvsnt to thgir 1M3r:-rolc as
basic roscsr hers. Senior scientists pursuing bdsic knoulnd"9
wko do sntsge in int9llcctu¢l activitins, or are active in
upplisd scicncc, would still be periphorsl participants in
nmcricnn society in their work-role as basic researchers.

Our resfiondcnts Vliw wc_ 9ncc as int: rnz1tionsl in cones:
and spirit. But their co jnitiV9 mop of the int9rnntionsl
scientific community excludes South and Central America, erica,
and most of Asia. insy parceivs scicncc as a Kestnrn fhzzi on non,
1nd the United States as the ccntcr of the internationgl scientific
Community. If t1
would htlp to entlain thesc young scisntists' low scorss on our
indcxcs of actual and snticirstod p r‘n icifation in the inter-
national community of scisntists. is a center, the United Stat s
snouldt e confirls of mobilizing rssources for rasczrch and
teaching in scicncs to 9 yrs tor extent and more efficiently thn
0th: r ngtiorm . It diould also hsvs :dvnnccd systems of

communication to m1fl for9i¢_ n puylic1tion rczdily available in

20
\n

translation to Amtricon scientists. ind its notionsl

scientific organizations should he intsrnitionzl orginization,

Ho
.

c., the proceedinfs of our national organisations should be
of primary interest 0 scisntists from all nations.
‘I

This is, in fact, tnc perception our r~snonwe‘ts have of

C‘J.

the Dlace of he Unitsd stetss 1n the international scientific
COTn“ unitv. They feel that the most imp01mt01t research in

their r-spcctive fields is being done in America; that America

has the best trnining facilitios for scisntists; tnat thc-y need

not niistzr forcig'._Lia1u. s uj;xi; ~11 ~u'1j_, i _3;t 1H3;73r;i n
publications are availchls in tronslatio on; 2nd one respondent
tatss cxnlicitlyt M1 t our national scic ntif ic orgsxniza ions

are international organizations

Additional research is necessary to validate the notion

of the tnitsd States as a contsr for scizncs. If innricu is
a contir for scisnc , than lmcricnn scientists would not, as

a rule, hove to travel to othcr socictiss for ddvanccd training,
or to use cchnicsl equipmcnt not a ailnhlc in this country.
n general, we would contend, scitntists in a center would not
hove to be as mosile as scientist 3 out sisc that center. Such
a situation would help to {Xflflin our rrspondtnts low scorcs on
actual and anticio: ted p ' ticifation in the internstionnl
scisntific con“ J1unity.

It may be true, thou h, that scientists from all nations,
and not only imcricun sci ntists, sXIiit it a "practicgl

1d
0 r - ,_- 1”
d)

nationalism". tut further soscnlaclon along :rss linrs is

fruitless without comparativs data on the cross-cultural
mobility of scicntists, the types of sciantists who trivol
across cultures, :nd the extant to which interporsongl rolation-
hip structures have de eloptd 'non: sciontists from different
nations.

CCLCnlSICl

In icscribing and explaining the e]

. 11'
J,

‘4.
.U

l—Jo
5‘

SOC

of scienc,, 2) stratification systozs in
disc1‘lin s, ind 4) t'r‘s of societies rust be tihsn

account. Research in an tistoricdl and contcm

CJOZlS: l :78
vori “ions in 1) +*» institit' -1
"——\v-L x4.U——»- -1s U.;r ‘J—LU .1 10111-

science, 3) types

ioriry context

bet ween
setting
of
into

-4.

should be aimed at specifying the v: ri tio ms in these factors
sinjly 3nd in combination tnd *1: resulting cons-3c uenccs
l) for the structure of sei'nce ”nd 1' relgtionshins with
otr*r institr.tions in psrticulzrs ociet ics, and 2) for the
sin uc; iI» of'32' J1; vI:fiign;l scientific community.

"—1 1.. _.., fl 7, _' .. 4. ‘3 , ‘ ... 1" _' _ _ r ,1

tUpULL r;scircu in one sQC1oloav oi SClL c: unguLd e

concerned with the following kinds of cuestions:

1) That are the consequences of

.‘J

for scientific Cj

develop, or do not develoo with other insitutions?

differential resource requirements

scinlinus in terms of the relfit1oncn1ns they

Do mathe-

maticians, for example, requir fewer resources (technical
equipment, materials, funds) t1 Tin rhys i cists or chemists?

Does depeilence on other institutions for re

autonomy of inquiry in a discipline?

sources affect

2) Do the relationships of scicntists to the norms of science
vary mith th: institutional setting of science? Lhut is the
Isturs of the relationsli s inon; university, jovernm nt, ind
industrial sei:ntishs? Lhat is their Iel tionship to other
sefments of soc1ety’ Are these relationships stable over time,
and in different societies?

27

3) Zhdt ties, if any, exist between the scientific community
and the intellectual community? Are a scientist's role-
status-position, and the institutional setting in which he
works determinants of whether he is an intellectual? Are the
roles of "scientist" and "intellectual" separate in American
society, as our resnondents contend they are; are they separate
for certain types of scientists; and are these roles separated
in other societies?19
t) Whit are the effects on science in those underdevelOped
notions where rovernment is the principal user of scientific

manpower; and what are the consequences for science when poli-

tical leaders "ration [theia precious stool of university-
90

A.

.\3

Are scientists in the Cev lo in: n Lions

educated personnel
less likely to r ceive rovernment support for bnsic research

Luz“. "; i. ‘0 16,3, .nn 3 n - ~«-, 1.1. 1' ' 1w . . ‘21'11 ' 7‘ ‘? .. fi ,. e "
tecuuse oi t“- need lor J.u)0dur in c.. to, 1,o sci.Ic.s.

5) Till the institutionalization of science in the new nstions
be nccompsnied by the emergence of a set of scientific norms
different from those which accompanied the inst'tutionsli71tion
of science in Europe? Is it likely that the internctional

scientific community, which our resnondcnts oerceive as a

L

V

destern phenomenon, will be bifurcated by the emergence of a

a

scientific community in tLe developing areos:
In general, he tssh of the sociolcfiy of science is the
develomnant of

concepts sufficiently abstr1ct to permit
different cultures to be comp red in the
anslysis of their scientific institutions,
while at the s;me time remaining sufficiLntly
concrete so that the Bistorical growth and
interconnections within a specific society
will not be 1ost.21

29

‘ r~
)cnerul

task should be pursued within the framework of g

{j
p.
U)

.L.

ociolo;icul theory. SociologiSts of science should provide

U]

us with a batter understaniin: of problems in social organ—
ization, institutionalization and social cbangs, and tie
relationships between collectivities, as well as a substantive

understanding of the relationships between science and society.

FOOTICTES

1. Robert K. Ecrton, "Science, Technology, (Ind Society in
Seventeenth Century Ens ”1 nd". (31313, If Part 2, Lruges
(l 7elgium), 19 38, pp. 3bO-032.

 

 

2. This paper is reprinted in Robert Y. Yerton, Sociol
m‘ - ‘ “X . _,._ 1 o J_ o -
ireory :no ooc1il Structure (1ev. 3nd ecl.r“'o eo1uion);
fne Free bress of Glencoe, 1957, pp. 537- 549-

\30

. 'f3lcott P3rsens,'3e1ief Syc tens 3nd the Social System...",
Chapter VIII in The Soci: l Ljstfim; The Free Press of
Glencoe, 1951.

 

@-

. Lernard Barber, Science and tke Soci 1 Order; Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1952.

 

5. Korm3n K. Storer, Tbe Social System of Science; Cb ics go:
Holt, hinehurt 3nd Linston, 1903.

 

6. flese3_rch 3nd "‘3“orv-built‘irwr in the sociolOfiy of science and
in generzl sociolo:y kill be f3cilit53 mt d if we can specify, how-
ever 3rbitr 3rily 3nd te3t331v 1y, 3 g::rer.. fr3rne of reference
for the stu 3y of institutions and tot3l societies. At one level
01 cn3lysis , the soci3l structure of 3 society can be conceptualized
35 composed of more or loss differentiated institutions - every
society h3s the S3me 3n3lytical components of social structure,
m3nifested in 3 variety of concrete institutions. Science is 3n
institution - it is not univers3l, but is present in the range of
cases ti ici repre' sent our universe of study. The sociology of
science, as 3 substantive :rts, illumin3tss tbe nature of L78
rcl3tionsbips between science 3nd the otb er institutions of

society, their ef:ccts on science in p rticulzr, 3nd tte social
structure in gent: 3l. i‘hs pu rposas of comp rutive studies 18
to hilO us icient ify re curring rrocosses, re ntions ips, and so

'171

on. ire JCCHlDMPLlF“Sa of tbis p:rticul:r way of v1~11n» one
p rt of tne soci31 world is 3n enoirical question it is not
3 question of whether or not the world is "really like that",
but 3 question of the utility of such 3 model for OF"”“123U”
ne p rt of the human experience and providing meaningful
expl n; =tions .

7. Joseph Needh3m, Science «n1 Civilisntion in Cbin3 (4 vols.);
C3nbridge: C3mbridge tulvrr ity P“ess, 1954-

 

f; r.” . - «A - '3 , ~ . ~ . .‘ . .7- w .1 , . 1‘ . (I ‘ W t 0
o. , 3CunLce flVi Iut‘iYT t1 n 1.1» . ions, \w:3oi3.
". ”f ‘I “ ‘ “I '3' A , J :1 o T" 1 ~ : i __ -: _ ’ . l \

Ll Cnhdll uClUublLlC iuellc3tldns, 133/.

 

 

9. Jose 3 Len-D3vid, "The Scientific-Role: The Conditions of
--~_ .I. 7 o . c 7. .1 . 1 .5
Its tstablisbmant 1n nurope", Linervo, Vol. IV, Autumn, 19o5.

3O

31

10. Gavin DeEeer, The Sciences Tere Yever 3t Tar; London: Thomns
Nelson 3nd Sons Ltd., 1980.

11. C. C. Gilispie, "Science in the French nevolution",
I,“ Vior 1 Science, Vol. IV, Ho. 1, January 19 59, pp. 87-101.

 

12. Storer, op. cit., p. 16.

 

 

—h
13. V lter h; strom, The Scientific C: mmuiity, New York: Basic
books, 195 5; Tiom: s luln, The ructure pf Scientific involr_tiois,
Cbic """ o: Univ-31s ity of LiC Press, 1988; Eillinm hornh.wu or,

:U

~01entists in 113Uv ry: Conflict no accomnod tion, Lcrkelcy:
U lngI sity of C.;L]_j_fornig_ {res-s, l ,2; Josrpll Lon—Javid, OT). Cit.

 

\f\,—

14. The r3nk (l, 2 or 3) which at least 53fl of he respondents
in 3 discipline assirntd to 3 divi51on see chle 1) w::s selected
for c lcul m. in'r the correl3tion in Table 2. For example, in
eyncriment3l pSyc‘olo 33y, tliree respondents r.m nLed the physical
sciences first, tvuo ran} ed t} em second, 3nd one r31nzed them

hird. Xe : " :gned the r; nk "l" to the physiC31 sciences for
«rgcrfn ntsl ncfciolo y. Thus the divisions of science were
rsnLcd as follows for eynerimtnt 1 ps ycxology: physical (l),
bioloziczl (2), and social (3). In calCLml ting correlations

in Table g, no 3ssumptions were mide resardi 1ng the rel 3tion of
our sample to 3 normal bivnriote universe in wt ich re*ression

is line3r. The correlations were used merely to indicnte the
direction of Pssocistion between ranYinzs by pairs of disciplines.
See Solomon Diamond, Inforrition 3nd Error; New York: E sic

Books, Inc., 1959, pp. 241-234.

 

L1

 

 

 

15. For 3 discu551on of use Lysc lo movement, find WFy it hhs
m;dc Soviet biolo y \1Dfe-ent fro.*;. rt 1. 10r1n IiolOfV”
(50r3vs1y), see David J013vs1y, “Lysenho's Luise“, in The St to
of Soviet 3cionce (ed ‘

ted by t‘s ecitors of Survey: 3 Journal

of Soviet :38 51s , L‘TDrlfl e: LIT Tress.

 

T‘

18. nichsrd H. Srryoch, "Lericon Intiffor‘ncc to sxsic Science
During the ;.ineo teer,h “ nturr” Arc-ives inteinitio lrs d'histoiré
dcsflgéiencgs, lo. 28 (lvt 1p. 3-18: replinted in Sern rd
barber 3nd 13lter Hirsch, “Us Sociology of Science, The

 

t
n'

(. . L
Free Press of Glencoe, 1982, pp. 98-110.

17. Dctl Volfle (edJ, Symposium on Logic Research, Publication

No. 56,1311n ton, D.C.: American Association for the 3dvxncencnt
of Science, 1959. Of particular interest is the 3rticle by £l3n T.
nntermon, "basic Reseorch in the United States", pp. 17—80.

l8.”1exvnder King, "Science International", in I3urice Goldsmith
zznd Alan Lsckay (eds.), The Science of Science, London: Souvenir
PTGSS, 19U+, p0 1140

 

19. The kinds of probl ms t1't n33d attcntionL in this 3‘33 are
illustr3= t3d by th3 int3llecta l rol: sci3n ntis m:V3 rlaycd in
“fl'rlC3 ;nd .USbl' For 6 3131,31113, c» :LLQjm 33 11

”3013331333 *3ou1133t” in jm,1ic3 :olloainj gorld 21? II, SYYS

it W‘s ‘mtiirofiuct o1 11%131;1..3d L 3 1 1.3xw; fossible lgrtfiz

fund mantfil confidunce of t‘o,1 v o ) r‘ic1 ted 13 it thnt 131r
actions End] some chance of 31100.113'. :‘Jovi ‘ 1113

t3 llectu l 1013

p. t
at scientists, CUr'
the s:me period, could not have filagcd pm 111 1
r

t

 

 

i"ill-"3531513 SEC Edward Shils, "Freedom 33d Influence: Cosch tio s on
the Scisntists' Lovement in the United Statcs”, Bgll3t in 0: he
Atomic Sci3ntists, Vol. XIII (J. n. 1957), Ho. 1, pp. 13-18. 1M1' r
different social structural concitions t3.;n axistgd in :ogt_ or

US,
1(1.
U1r II Lussia, scientists dic play an intellectu;l role in 333 Hi
Vucinich notes tbgt scientists in 13th c3ntury gussi: destroy; d
the i“t"ll°CtUfll.EflHHfiNfiQCV of tkc Clurch, LIK1'2'V" str::1:t? to
113 (:13 1‘721‘5 1131 1 "L‘3 TL' 31 13392133. 1.5
t1:c 3.51s, t33y ” 11 1 y infalle ctU"l stimUlus for
tloss mOV3d by t 1 311i: tc11.rt"; s c 313X:nd3r vnc111c Science
in 1U°s1wn CUltu r3 (3 'istor3 to 116 ), St;yn1ord: Sta-nford
Lnivcrsity ;rtss ,1963, pr. 182-153.

(I1

.-1_
0d 33 n”C3ss

 

20. Harbison and Eye 3rs mn_k3 tILis policy recoum: nccti on to
political 13:d3rs of tle 1nc¢rc evelope d nztions; 5331*r3d3rick
Harbison and Charles A. Jy3rs, JJUC1 cion, ninfow r nd Lconomic
lrowth, 13w York: 3c1rdh Hill Book Co., 193 a, p. 69.

_ I .
21. Ger r2r rd ucir3, Sc1cnc3 as 3 Soc
to the So ciology of $ci3nce, 13w Yo

 

i 1 Instislt1on' in Introfiuction
‘ I \ (r
121“ 3andonl house, 1955, p. o.

T“ ”37" 1’". ""17"
UIIJJJJ. ‘ 11“..“ 1...;

E rbcr, Eerngrd. :cio
Illinoi:3 ' The Free fires

 

‘1 f. \A '4— 1,, .n (A! -: r- 1 V . 1"" w',
.ncs 33d on; woc1.1 Crocr. chLcoc,
s ‘5

7‘ , 19 2 O
Len-David, Jos cph, "The Scientific-Role: The (finc1t1ors of Its
Establishmsnt in Europe”. linsrva. Vol. IV, Autumn,l 9’5
DeBeer, Gavin, The Sciences Tore Fever at Usr. London: Thom n35

 

Nelson and Sons Ltd., l9'o O.

T- / ‘ I "‘
oeJrc, aerard.
to tIo -ociolo'v afi ;

 

as 3 Soci3l In: stitution: Ln n,ro uction
‘ce. .cw IorK: 131dom mouse, 1955.

Di3mond, Solomon. Information and Error. Lew York: msic Books,

Inc., 1959.

 

Gillispie, C. C. , "rho ence in the French Revolution". Enhaviornl
Science. Vol. IV, Lo. 1, J3nu3ry 1959.

 

1

anstrom, Talter. Tne Scientific Community. Sew York: Basic
Boolcs, Inc., I905.

 

Harbison, Frederick, and Iyers, Charles. iii‘ucrtionJ Linnowcr
3nd Mconomic lrowth. Low iorl—c: LcGr3w-Hill book Co., 1904.

 

Tor3vsLy David. "Lysenko's Maize", in The St1te of Soviet
Science (edited by the editors of Survey; A Journal of Soviet
and En st Lurooe3n Studies). Cambridge: LIT Press, l9o5.

 

 

King, Alexander, "Science International", in Goldsmith, Laurice,
3nd 3c1:3_y, Alan (eds.), The Science of Science. London:
Souvenir lrsss, 1904.

 

Kornhauser, William. Scientists in Industry: Conflict and
Accommodation. Eerkeley: Lniversity of California Ircss, 1902.

 

 

Kuhn, Thoma . The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. ChiC3go :
University of Chicano Tress, l9o2

'Q

 

Lerton, Robe rt K., "Science, TCCLnOleY, and Society in
Seventeenth Century England". 031113, IV, Part 2. Eruges,
Be elgimh 1938.

 

So ci 1 T‘ 1nory 1nd Soci:1l Structure (Rev. and
enlurvcd editionI: 311e Free lress of Glcncoe , 1957.

 

Leedhem, Joseph. Scimnce 3nd Intern3tionrl Lel3tions. Oxford:
Blackwell Scientific xuolic1t1ons, 1949,

33

3h

. Science .:nd Civilizition in China (4 Vols.).
Cambridge: Cembrid3e Cniversity Press, 1954.

 

r-v 31

°arsons, Talcott. The Social Exetem. ine rree Press of
Glencoe, 1951.

Shils, Edward, ”Freedom and Influence: Observations on the
Scientists' Lovement in t7e United Stttes". :ulletin of the
itomic Scientisig. Vol. XIII, Lo. 1, I7nu.: ry I957.

 

hryock, Lichnrd H., "American Indifference to B77 sic Science

During the Line teenth Century". urcPives Int ““”5]O”'l_o
d'Listoire des “c1ence 0, Lo. 28, 1945-1949.

Storer, Lormnn I. Inc Soci 1 System of Science. Chica3o: Holt,
' a:d inston, l9oo.

.‘ , P ex Lnder. Science in 7735i n Culture (2 history to
lboO). Sta7 ford: Stanford bniversity lies , I953.
Iolfle, Dael (ed.). eymno i7 7_m on E“ ic Research. Publication
-. / -7. . o .

Lo. 50. Lash1r3ton, D. C.: in? erican 7 ssoc1at1on for the

Adv; ncement of Science, 19 59.

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV.

LIBRARIES

 

31293102133968