Notes
Notes Preface 1. I do not mean to imply that sociological studies of science are unimportant or lack significance, only that a study that places the organization and output of bioscience research in historical context can be equally productive, even informative for such studies. A substantial body of literature on the sociology of science has accumulated in recent years, and spans a wide spectrum of analytic frameworks. Some have borrowed from E. P. Thompson's celebrated essay on eighteenth-century bread-riots to argue that a particular "moral economy" informed the organization of basic and applied bioscience research in the San Francisco Bay Area. The complex set of relations between bioscientists at all three research universities reveals a set of unstated customs and traditions, or, "moral economies." Certainly, the language of basic and applied bioscience research emerged out of individual investigator's own efforts to describe their work. But it also emerged because it offered real advantages within a highly competitive research environment (Steven Shapin, "The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England," Isis 79 (1988), 373-404). Others disregard questions of power in the experimental workplace and instead conduct ethnographies of laboratory life. Commonly referred to as "production-oriented" studies, these historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science have shown quite convincingly a powerful relationship between scientists' experimental behavior and epistemologies of scientific knowledge. For instance, in his study ofDrosophila geneticists, Robert Kohler has shown how the organization of laboratory research promotes distinctive workplace cultures, and how this culture in turn shapes experimental outcomes (Robert Kohler, Lords of the Fly (Chicago, 1994]). At the same time, scholars such as Daniel Greenberg have shown how political decisions and public policy shapes the organization of scientific research (Daniel Greenberg, The Politics of Pure Science (New York, 1971). For more studies ofthe curious sociological underpinnings of science and the scientific community, see Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction ofScientific Facts (Beverly Hills, 1979); Andrew Pickering, ed., Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago, 1992); and Karen Knorr-Cetina, "Tinkering Toward Success: Prelude to a Theory of Scientific Practice," Theory and Society 8 (1979), 347-76. 2. Among many articles in Science on the subject of pure and applied research, see Michael Reagan, "Basic and Applied Research: A Meaningful Distinction ?" Science, 17 Mar. 1967, 1383-84. For the article that initiated the debate, seeR. E. Marshak, "Basic Research in the University and Industrial Laboratory ," Science, 23 Dec. 1966, 1521-22. 3. Albert Einstein, quoted by Reagan, "Basic and Applied: A Meaningful Dis- 230 Notes to Pages 1-8 tinction?" 1383-84. For an example of a comparative study between bioscience disciplines, such as naturalist and molecular biology, see Joel Hagen, "Naturalist , Molecular Biologists, and the Challenges of Molecular Evolution," Journal of the History ofBiology 32 (1999), 321-41. Chapter 1. The Setting, 1946 ... 1. Michael Malone, The Big Scare (New York, 1985). 2. David Hounshell and John Kenly Smith, Science and Corparate Strategy, Du Pont, 1902-1980 (Cambridge, 1995), 366; Louis Galambos andJane Sewell, Netwarks ofInnovation (Cambridge, 1995) . 3. Stanfard Daily, 7 Nov. 1958, 3; Rebecca Lowen, Creating the Cold War University (Berkeley, 1997); Vette!, "Research Life" (Ph.D. diss., 2003), ch. 1. 4. Clark Kerr, The Gold and the Blue: A Personal Memoir ofthe University ofCalifarnia , 1949-1967, vol. 1 (Berkeley, 2001), 29 and 56-59. 5. Warren Weaver's diary, 14 Nov. 1947, RG 1.2, 205D, box 7, file 49, RAC; Kerr, The Gold and the Blue, 83-84. 6. Richard C. Atkinson, "Robert Gordon Sproul," California Journal (Nov. 1999), 1; Kerr, The Gold and the Blue, 16-22. 7. Angela Creager, "Wendell Stanley's Dream of a Free-Standing Biochemistry Department at the University of California, Berkeley," JHB 29 (1996), 331-60. 8. Robert Kohler, From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry (Cambridge, 1982), 158-65, 288, 334. 9. Creager, "Wendell Stanley's Dream of a Free-Standing Biochemistry Department." 10. Angela Creager, The Life ofa Virus (Chicago, 2002), 47-50. 11. Sally Smith Hughes, The Virus: A History of the Concept (New York, 1977), 89-90; Stanley used this phrase repeatedly in his public correspondence, in BANC, Wendell Stanley Papers, MSS 78/18 c, file: "Correspondence." 12. Wendell M. Stanley, "Isolation of Crystalline Protein Possessing the Properties ofTobacco-Mosaic Virus," Science (81 (1935, 644-45; Barclay M. Newman, "Giant Molecules: The Machinery of Inheritance," Scientific American 158 (1938), 337; George Corner, History of the Rockefeller Institute, 320; Michel Morange , A History of Molecular Biology (Cambridge, 1998), 62-65...
OR
