Introduction to the Symposium on Synthetic Life

Notes on Contributors

Notes on Contributors

Notes on Contributors

Previous articleNext article FreeNotes on ContributorsPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreHarold J. Cook is John F. Nickoll Professor of History at Brown University and was previously Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL. Recipient of the Pfizer Prize of the History of Science Society and the Welch Medal of the American Association for the History of Medicine, he is author of five books and coeditor of six others, together with well over sixty articles. His primary research interests are in the emergence of the new medicines and sciences of early modern Europe; global knowledge exchanges; the coproduction of science and commerce; and processes of translation.William Deringer is Leo Marx Career Development Assistant Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research excavates the history of economic and political knowledge practices. His first book, Calculated Values: Finance, Politics, and the Quantitative Age (Cambridge, Mass., 2018), reconstructs how numerical calculation became an authoritative mode of public reasoning in Anglophone political culture. His new project, Discounting: A History of the Economic Future (in One Calculation), traces “present value” calculations from their early modern beginnings to contemporary debates about climate change.Julia Fein is a historian of Modern Russia, specializing in the intersecting histories of science and empire. She spent two years as a Mellon Postdoctoral Associate at Rutgers University, where she was affiliated with the “Networks of Exchange” seminar at the Rutgers Center for Historical Analysis. She has also taught modern European history at Macalester College.Courtney Fullilove is Associate Professor of History, Environmental Studies, and Science in Society at Wesleyan University. She is the author of The Profit of the Earth: The Global Seeds of American Agriculture (Chicago, 2017) and of articles on claims to natural and cultural heritage. She is currently writing a history of international biodiversity preservation.Arunabh Ghosh is Assistant Professor in the History Department at Harvard University. A historian of modern China, his interests include social and economic history, history of science and statecraft, and transnational history. His book, Making It Count: Statistics and Statecraft in the Early PRC, 1949–1959, is forthcoming from Princeton University Press. Articles have appeared in the Journal of Asian Studies, BJHS-Themes, and the PRC History Review. He is currently working on two new projects: a history of Chinese dam building in the twentieth century and a history of China-India scientific networks, ca. 1900–1960.Martin Giraudeau is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Sciences Po, in Paris, and a researcher in the Centre de Sociologie des Organisations at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. He has published articles on the history of business plans, the invention of entrepreneurship, and the roles of accounting in organizations and society. He recently coedited, with Frédéric Graber, a volume on the modern history of projects: Les Projets: Une histoire politique (16e–21e siècles) (Paris, 2018).Eugenia Lean is Associate Professor of Chinese History in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia University. She is the author of Public Passions: The Trial of Shi Jianqiao and the Rise of Popular Sympathy in Republican China (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2007). Her forthcoming book, Manufacturing China’s Vernacular Industrialism: Nativist Tinkerer and Toothpowder Magnate, Chen Diexian (1879–1940), employs the figure of Chen Diexian, a professional editor, science enthusiast, and pharmaceutical industrialist, to examine the practices of nativist tinkering, innovative adaptation, and knowledge work in the building of early twentieth-century Chinese industry. Her latest research examines China’s involvement in shaping modern global regimes of intellectual property from the early twentieth to twenty-first centuries.Victoria Lee is Assistant Professor in the Department of History at Ohio University, where she teaches and writes about modern science and technology. She is currently writing a book about Japanese society’s engagement with microbes in science, industry, and environmental management. She has published in Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, New Perspectives on the History of Life Sciences and Agriculture (ed. Denise Phillips and Sharon Kingsland), and Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. She was a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.Paul Lucier is a historian of science, business, and the environment. He is the author of Scientists and Swindlers: Consulting on Coal and Oil in America, 1820–1890 (Baltimore, 2008) and is currently finishing a book on the geology of gold, silver, and copper mining in the American West. The goal of his research is to understand whether and how science-driven capitalism can be ethical, innovative, intellectually creative, and environmentally responsible.Sarah Milov is Assistant Professor in the Corcoran Department of History at the University of Virginia. Her first book, Smoke and Ashes: From Corporatism to Neoliberalism in Tobacco’s Twentieth Century, is forthcoming. Her recent research focuses on whistle-blowing, particularly the relationship among gender, credibility, and bureaucracy.Emily Pawley is Assistant Professor of History at Dickinson College, where she teaches environmental history, the history of capitalism, and the history of science. Her research focuses on cultivated landscapes as sources of knowledge; recent publications examine analytic tables and the invention of nutritional value, cattle portraiture and markets in blood, and varietal description and counterfeit fruit. Her book project, the Balance-Sheet of Nature: Agriculture and Speculative Science in the Antebellum North, examines the kinds of speculative and futuristic knowledge that emerged to make sense of the rapidly commercializing landscape of post–Erie Canal New York and is under advance contract at the University of Chicago Press. She is also interested in the transatlantic history of moon farming.Lukas Rieppel is David and Michelle Ebersman Assistant Professor of History at Brown University, where he teaches courses on the history of science and the history of capitalism. His forthcoming book, Assembling the Dinosaur, uses the history of paleontology as a means to examine how the ideals, norms, and practices of modern capitalism shaped the way scientific knowledge was made, certified, and distributed during North America’s Long Gilded Age. In addition, Rieppel has written several essays about the material culture of the earth sciences, the history of museums, the valuation of fossils, and the authentication of specimens.David Singerman is Assistant Professor of History and American Studies at the University of Virginia. His work has appeared in Radical History Review, the Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, and the Journal of British Studies. He has also written on the sugar industry for the New York Times and on U.S.-Canada trade wars for The Atlantic.Hallam Stevens is Associate Professor of History and Biology and the Head of History at the School of Humanities at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore). He is the author of Life Out of Sequence: A Data-Driven History of Bioinformatics (Chicago, 2013), Biotechnology and Society: An Introduction (Chicago, 2016), and the coeditor of Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology after the Genome (Durham, N.C., 2015).Lee Vinsel is Assistant Professor of Science, Technology, and Society at Virginia Tech, where he teaches and writes about government and technology. He is a cofounder of The Maintainers, a global, interdisciplinary research network that studies maintenance, repair, and mundane work with things. His forthcoming book with Johns Hopkins University Press examines the history of automobile regulation in the United States from 1893 to today’s dreams of a driverless future. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Osiris Volume 33, Number 12018Science and Capitalism: Entangled Histories Published for the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/700195 © 2018 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Notes on Contributors

Previous article No AccessSeventy-Second Critical Bibliography of the History and Philosophy of Science and of the History of Civilization (To January 1948)George Sarton and Frances SiegelGeorge Sarton Search for more articles by this author and Frances Siegel Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 39, Number 4Nov., 1948 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/348984 Views: 3Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1948 History of Science SocietyPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: George Sarton , and Frances Siegel Seventy-Third Critical Bibliography of the History and Philosophy of Science and of the History of Civilization (To November 1948), Isis 40, no.22 (Oct 2015): 124–193.https://doi.org/10.1086/349039

Literally speaking, "Philosophy of biology" is a rather old expression. William Whewell coined it in 1840, at the very time he introduced the expression "philosophy of science". Whewell was fond of creating neologisms, like Auguste Comte, his French counterpart in the field of the philosophical reflection about science. Historians of science know that a few years earlier, in 1834, Whewell had generated a small scandal when he proposed the word "scientist" as a general term by which "the students of the knowledge of the material world" could describe themselves, and distinguish themselves from artists. The term "philosopher", Whewell argued, was too wide. A new generic term, more or less equivalent to the French term "savant", was needed in order to prevent the disintegration of science that seemed to flow from its specialization in modern times.1 When Whewell first introduced the terms "philosophy of science" and "philosophy of biology" in his 1840 Philosophy of the inductive sciences, the latter term was merely a special branch of "philosophy of science". The expression "philosophy of science" itself had two justifications: firstly, this phrase expressed the idea that "science" remained cognitively coherent enough to justify a critical enquiry into its methodological unity and its foundation; secondly, the phrase "philosophy of science" was required in order to distinguish a properly "philosophical" enquiry from a "historical" approach to science. Although Whewell's 1840 Philosophy of the inductive sciences 2 had approximately the same chapter structure as his 1837 History of the Inductive Sciences 3 (that is, a series of chapters successively devoted to the concept of science in general, and although there was considerable overlap between the contents of the two books, then to particular sciences), its theoretical purpose was different. Clearly, Whewell was not willing to confuse the genres of history and philosophy as Auguste Comte had done in his 1830 Cours de philosophie positive.4 Note also that the word "biology" was still extremely rare in English when Whewell used it in 1840. In fact, Whewell's 1837 History of the Inductive Sciences does not make use of the word "biology": Whewell successively examines "botany", "zoology", "physiology" and "comparative antomy" as special branches of "analytico-classificatory science", then discusses palaeontology as a special case of the "palaeo-etiological sciences". Three years later, in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Whewell does use "biology" as a generic term for all the sciences dealing with life. The various sciences which were separately examined in the previous book are now collectively considered. Furthermore, the main philosophical problem raised by biology is its dual nature: biology is both nomological and a historical science. Modern philosophers of biology are generally unaware of the story of the origins of the expression "philosophy of biology", but Whewell's dual theoretical nature of biology is still a major concern for modern "philosophy of biology".

AS GODS: A Moral History of the Genetic Age by Matthew Cobb. New York: Basic Books, 2022. 442 pages. Hardcover; $35.00. ISBN: 9781541602854. *It can sometimes be difficult to tell where science fiction ends and science begins when discussing developments in genetic engineering. Consider genetic manipulation of human embryos leading to heritable genetic changes in children, gene-drive-based disruption of whole ecosystems, and the creation of positive mutations in dangerous human pathogens. These are all experiments that have already been conducted. The children are born. The gene drives have been released. More virulent strains of deadly pathogens have been created. *In the introduction to As Gods, Matthew Cobb explains: "My motivation in writing this book has been to explore my own fears about these three areas. Each of them worries me in different ways, but I recognize that many of my concerns are similar to those expressed by people faced with previous applications of genetic engineering, most of which turned out to be either exaggerated, or at least to be controllable by careful regulation and strict safety procedures" (p. 3). *As Gods recounts the major developments in the history of molecular biology, including the discovery of molecular tools (restriction enzymes, reverse transcriptase, etc.), the first recombination of bacterial and viral DNA, and the Asilomar Conference held to discuss the safety of recombinant DNA technologies. *Much of the first eleven chapters of the book covers the history of genetic engineering from the 1960s through the Covid pandemic. Attention is given in these chapters to the patenting and privatization of genetic products, the development of genetically modified foods, and attempts at gene therapy. In the second half of the book, Cobb dedicates space to the three concerns introduced at the start of this review. He offers two chapters (12 and 13) to the "botched experiment that mutated three healthy embryos" (p. 2) conducted by Dr. He Jiankui and one chapter each to the topics of "Ecocide" (chap. 14) via gene drives and "Weapons" (chap. 15) that result from mutating pathogens. *Throughout the book, Cobb recounts this history with a combination of keen historical investigation, personal narrative, and social commentary. Cobb has written other books of history (Eleven Days in August and The Resistance: The French Fight Against the Nazis) and other books on the history of science (The Idea of the Brain: A History and The Egg and Sperm Race: The Seventeenth-Century Scientists Who Unravelled the Secrets of Sex, Life and Growth). He is a skilled storyteller who has rigorously pursued the primary sources in order craft a narrative with characters, tension, and resolution. *But Cobb was himself present for some of these meetings and conferences. Entering the discipline in the late 1970s, he has been part of the community making these moral decisions and conducting the experiments. His own biological research involves a genetic investigation of the sense of smell in fruit flies. When he describes historical events to which he was not a personal witness, he often supplements the printed record with interviews of firsthand participants. *Throughout the book, Cobb continuously contextualizes the history he narrates within the broader culture that was shaping it. For example, in chapter 5, Cobb describes how popular culture directly affected the practice of science. Harvard was considering plans to build a new genetic engineering lab. He writes, "At the end of May 1976, there was a university-wide meeting to discuss the plans. This was attended by a Cambridge councilor, Barbara Ackermann, who just happened to have watched The Andromeda Strain on television the night before. The Andromeda Strain film she watched was based on the 1969 book by Michael Crichton that depicts a deadly outbreak of a novel pathogen. Alarmed by what she heard at Harvard, Ackermann raised the issue with fellow councilors (p. 92)." The resulting delays to the building plans were so extensive that "by the time the building work was completed [the scientists were] able to do the experiments in ordinary laboratory space" (p. 97). *The author is not a passive narrator of the story. He has a clear perspective and is unafraid to share it. For example, in chapter 13, "Aftermath," when discussing people who support human embryo modification, Cobb writes, "There is one gang of fantasists who mix cryptocurrency funding and transhumanist nonsense in a toxic, nauseating nightmare, claiming that they will use CRISPR germline editing to produce babies who will live to be 'super-centenarians' (p. 274). *Throughout the book, Cobb's genuine concerns about advancements in genetic engineering are rooted in the same fear that has stalked the discipline since its inception: safety. Four times in this discipline, scientists have voluntarily paused their work and embraced a moratorium in order to develop means to conduct the research safely. *While the subtitle of the text describes the book as a "moral history," it offers more of a history of insufficient moral consideration regarding important moments in molecular biology. The field has been willing to consider how to progress safely, but there has been surprisingly little consideration of what experiments should not be done. As a book of history, it is not Cobb's responsibility to offer his readers a robust moral framework for evaluating advances in gene editing. Instead, the history he recounts illuminates the need for such a framework. *The striking title of the book comes from an essay by Steward Brand who said, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it" (p. 338). Cobb agrees, and adds, "In genetic terms at least, being a god is relatively straightforward these days; getting good at it is another matter" (p. 338). In recounting the moral history of this field, Cobb encourages us, the next generation of scientists taking up the discipline, to remember to consider why we do our experiments, not just how they are done. In the closing chapter, he implores us to remember that in genetic engineering, "we have a choice whether to employ it or not, whether to permit its development or not. Just because we can do something does not mean that we should [emphasis original]" (p. 362). *Reviewed by Clayton Carlson, Professor of Biology and Chair of the Natural Sciences, Trinity Christian College, Palos Heights, IL 60463.

The first attempt to bring together the historians of science from the Baltic States took place in Riga in 1958. Prof. Pauls Stradiņš (1896–1958) initiated and organised a joint meeting for historians of science from Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania under the supervision of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. A program for future joint activities was developed, and the tradition of joint conferences—the Baltic Conference on History of Science (BCHS)—in each country followed. In 1991, the Baltic Association of the History and Philosophy of Science (BAHPS), uniting historians and philosophers of science of independent Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, took over organising the BCHS. The article aims to present an overview of the published results of the conference, which is partly based on the annotated bibliography (1958–1985) of the conference. The authors analyse the subject, dissemination and tradition of the BCHS, and discuss the role of academic institutions in organising the events. Since the overview was inspired by a decision to gather a complete set of books of conference abstracts, it also resulted in recommendations for conference organisers. Between 1958 and 2019, twenty-nine conferences were organised and 2,880 papers were presented. The next conference will take place in Finland in 2022. The main ideas of the article were presented at the 26th International Congress on History and Philosophy of Science in Prague in 2021.

Previous articleNext article FreeSynthetic Bibliography, with Special Reference to the History of ScienceGeorge SartonGeorge Sarton Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 3, Number 2Autumn, 1920 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/357911 Views: 103Total views on this site Citations: 4Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Marcel Martin George Sarton (1884-1956): the Founder of the History of Science Branch, Historica Olomucensia 53, no.vol. 53vol. 53 (Dec 2017): 273–320.https://doi.org/10.5507/ho.2017.036 Herman H. Henkle Content and the Curriculum in Education for Librarianship, The Library Quarterly 12, no.11 (Sep 2015): 29–48.https://doi.org/10.1086/615103 George Sarton Sixteenth Critical Bibliography of the History and Philosophy of Science and of the History of Civilization, Isis 7, no.22 (Oct 2015): 171–352.https://doi.org/10.1086/358324 George Sarton Ninth Critical Bibliography of the History, Philosophy and Organization of Science and of the History of Civilization, Isis 3, no.33 (Oct 2015): 451–497.https://doi.org/10.1086/357970

December 01 2002 Comments on the Precarious Relationship between History and Philosophy of Science Richard M. Burian Richard M. Burian Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Richard M. Burian Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Online Issn: 1530-9274 Print Issn: 1063-6145 © 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2003 Perspectives on Science (2002) 10 (4): 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1162/106361402322288039 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Search Site Citation Richard M. Burian; Comments on the Precarious Relationship between History and Philosophy of Science. Perspectives on Science 2002; 10 (4): 398–407. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/106361402322288039 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll JournalsPerspectives on Science Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2003 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

The relationship between the history and philosophy of engineering is similar to that between the history and philosophy of science and that between the history and philosophy of technology. Lakatos’ thesis—that “philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind”—applies as well to the history and philosophy of engineering. To advance the history of engineering requires some attention to the nature of engineering and vice versa. The effort here is to draw some lines of demarcation among the histories of engineering, of technology, of science, and of economics from a philosophical point view. With regard to history, a theory of engineering evolution can bridge philosophy and history; an important part of such an evolution will also consider historical developments in the engineering community. There nevertheless remain important tensions and complementarities between the history and philosophy of engineering.

Previous articleNext article No AccessCommemorating Scientific Disciplines: Memorializing ObjectivityThe First American and French Commemorations in Molecular Biology: From Collective Memory to Comparative HistoryPnina G. Abir-AmPnina G. Abir-Am Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Osiris Volume 14, Number 11999Commemorative Practices in Science: Historical Perspectives on the Politics of Collective Memory Published for the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/649312 Views: 25Total views on this site Citations: 13Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 2000 The History of Science Society, Inc.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Dominik Želinský Becoming Socrates: Five elements of the consecration process and the case of Jan Patočka, European Journal of Social Theory 23, no.33 (Jun 2019): 370–388.https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431019852690Mark E. Borrello The Historiography of Modern Evolutionary Biology, (Sep 2020): 1–26.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74456-8_5-1Christine Aicardi Francis Crick, cross-worlds influencer: A narrative model to historicize big bioscience, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 55 (Feb 2016): 83–95.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.08.003Natalie B Aviles The little death: Rigoni-Stern and the problem of sex and cancer in 20th-century biomedical research, Social Studies of Science 45, no.33 (May 2015): 394–415.https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715584402Lisa A. Onaga Ray Wu as Fifth Business: Deconstructing collective memory in the history of DNA sequencing, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 46 (Jun 2014): 1–14.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.12.006Jérôme Pierrel An RNA Phage Lab: MS2 in Walter Fiers’ Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Ghent, from Genetic Code to Gene and Genome, 1963–1976, Journal of the History of Biology 45, no.11 (Dec 2010): 109–138.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-010-9267-zTruus Van Bosstraeten Dogs and Coca-Cola: Commemorative Practices as part of Laboratory Culture at the Heymans Institute Ghent, 1902-1970, Centaurus 53, no.11 (Feb 2011): 1–30.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.2010.00204.xNeeraja Sankaran Mutant Bacteriophages, Frank Macfarlane Burnet, and the Changing Nature of “Genespeak” in the 1930s, Journal of the History of Biology 43, no.33 (Aug 2009): 571–599.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-009-9201-4Miguel García-Sancho A New Insight into Sanger’s Development of Sequencing: From Proteins to DNA, 1943–1977, Journal of the History of Biology 43, no.22 (Apr 2009): 265–323.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-009-9184-1Angela N. H. Creager The Paradox of the Phage Group: Essay Review, Journal of the History of Biology 43, no.11 (Jan 2010): 183–193.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-010-9226-8Hans-Jörg Rheinberger Recent science and its exploration: the case of molecular biology, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40, no.11 (Mar 2009): 6–12.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.12.002Laura Hirshbein, Sharmalie Sarvananda History, power, and electricity: American popular magazine accounts of electroconvulsive therapy, 1940–2005, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 44, no.11 (Jan 2008): 1–18.https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.20283Ton Van HelVoort Articulating Biochemistry in the Netherlands after the Second World War: Science for its Own Sake, Ambix 51, no.33 (Nov 2004): 199–218.https://doi.org/10.1179/000269804790219977

A large body of work in science education indicates that evolution is one of the least understood and accepted scientific theories. Although scholarship from the history and philosophy of science (HPS) has shed light on many conceptual and pedagogical issues in evolution education, HPS-informed studies of evolution education are also characterized by conceptual weaknesses. In this chapter, we critically review such studies and find that some work lacks historically accurate characterizations of student ideas (preconceptions and misconceptions). In addition, although several studies in the science education literature have drawn parallels between students’ conceptual change patterns and those from the history of science (HOS), we identify several issues that complicate the characterization of student ideas as “Lamarckian” or “Darwinian.” Finally, a review of the topic of explanation illustrates how the plurality of approaches employed in evolutionary biology is not reflected in evolution education scholarship or practice. This finding is particularly concerning given the recent shift in emphasis in science education standards to teaching content through practice-based tasks (e.g., explanation and argumentation). Overall, this chapter demonstrates that while HPS is of central importance to a deep understanding of evolution education, too often its contributions are poorly realized.

According to the American philosopher, Michael Friedman, while triggering the so-called historical turn, Kuhn reinstated the history of science as perhaps the most important object for the philosophy of science. In this last chapter, I show that this reinstatement is rather a rehabilitation of the philosophical and epistemological uses of the history of science, something already present in the continental historiography of science in the first half of the twentieth century and especially in Gaston Bachelard’s work. In this respect, I undertake a review of the European history and philosophy of science during that period, paying special attention to Gaston Bachelard as one of the leading representatives of the French historical epistemology of the 1930s. The late and quite problematic reception of Bachelard’s thought in the early work of Thomas S. Kuhn provides an opportunity to review the main philosophical tenets of classical historical epistemology. This line of inquiry may help to define what the continental history and philosophy of science is, notably in relation to classical historical epistemology. Moreover, it may open new perspectives for the emerging field of historical epistemology of economics.