Notes on Contributors

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

The situation of the history of science and, in particular, of the history of medicine in Italy reflects some contradictions that are typical of the discipline. Researchers from a variety of fields work in the history of medicine. Doctors, biologists, historians, sociologists, philosophers and philologists are the main actors in the discipline. Very often in Italy the different methodologies are not harmonized into an interdisciplinary approach, with the result that there are various strands to the history of medicine that have not yet come together. On one side there are the histories written by doctors, which focus mainly on medical ideas, theories and technical concepts; on another there is a more general approach to the history of ideas, in which medical theories are studied in relation to philosophy and culture; and on yet another there are some historians—still rare in Italy—that concentrate on sociology or philology. In general these three approaches, of the technical and the more general history of ideas, and the history of the conditions of the production of such ideas—that is, the history of society and language—have not yet converged. The University of Bari is one of two institutions in Italy that offers a PhD in history of science (the other is Florence and there are also some possibilities at Bologna and Naples). As a consequence, Bari has the advantage of appealing to many researchers from a variety of fields, and of supporting an interdisciplinary approach in history of science and medicine. Over the last few years, the Interdepartmental Centre of History of Science in Bari has promoted a computational analysis of scientific languages for historical purposes. Researchers at the Centre have created software that allows users to take a document converted into an electronic format (txt) and scan it for exact word position and frequency. The first two significant publications resulting from the application of this type of software are: Jean-Martin Charcot e la lingua della neurologia by Liborio Dibattista (Cacucci, Bari 2003), and Le Recherches physiologique sur la vie et la mort di Francois Xavier Bichat, the text reviewed here, which studies Bichat's physiology. Charcot and Bichat are considered the founders of two disciplines: neurology and physiology respectively. The basic hypothesis of both texts is that the creation of a new discipline corresponds to the creation of a new language, the analysis of which can give us further indications of the processes by which the new discipline has arisen. The software that Lucia di Palo has used is INTEX (created specifically for the French language), by which it is possible to find, for each word, the more frequent correspondences with other words, verbs or constructions. By analysing the words function, organ, and ownership, which appear very frequently in Bichat's Recherches physiologiques sur la vie et la mort, di Palo tries to analyse how Bichat built a new physiology. This physiology is based upon the concepts of animal and natural vital functions and upon the experimental analysis of the ownership of these functions. The organs, built by specific tissues, are the seats of these functions and through experimental analysis it is possible to understand how each function is put to use, that is, the nature of the ownership of each organ. The experimental analysis is lead by the selective suppression of the function of an organ in a given animal and by the observation of the functions that as a result are suppressed. Di Palo analyses also the experimental language of Bichat, in which we find a new relationship between observation and experimentation. Experimentation and observation are no longer in contrast, as in previous French natural philosophy, because Bichat presents the experiment as a more wide ranging form of observation. The most valuable aspects of di Palo's book are, first, that it gives quantitative proof concerning the way in which this new physiology emerges, based on a computational analysis of the language (the book is sold with a DVD containing the results), and, second, this analysis is placed in a classical historical perspective, offering some excellent chapters on the culture, medicine and philosophy of Bichat's epoch. The only drawback to this focus on linguistic analysis is that the complete conceptual explanation of Bichat's text is not given due consideration.

christopher r. boyer is associate professor of history and Latin American and Latino studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His scholarship concentrates on the social and environmental history of modern Mexico. He is currently finishing a book on the social history of forest management in Mexico between 1880 and 1991, and he edited a volume of environmental histories of modern Mexico that will be published next year. His articles have appeared in the Latin American Historical Review, Historia Mexicana, the American Historical Review, and other journals. He is coeditor with Lise Sedrez of a University of Arizona Press book series on Latin American environmental history. His first book, Becoming Campesinos: Politics, Identity, and Agrarian Struggle in Postrevolutionary Michoacán, 1920 – 1935 (Stanford University Press, 2003) explains how the Mexican land reform influenced rural political culture in the 1920s and 1930s.vera candiani teaches colonial Latin American history at Princeton University. A specialist on the social history of technology and environmental change, Candiani is the author of “The Great Colonial Drainage: Conflict and Collaboration in the Transformation of Mexico City’s Environment” (book manuscript under review), and “Bourbons and Water,” in Mapping Latin America: A Cartographic Reader, edited by Jordana Dym and Karl Offen (University of Chicago Press, 2011).mark carey is assistant professor of history in the Robert D. Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon. He specializes in Latin American environmental history and the history of science, with a focus on climate history, natural disasters, water, health, and mountaineering. His book In the Shadow of Melting Glaciers: Climate Change and Andean Society (Oxford University Press) was published in 2010. An article, “The History of Ice: How Glaciers Became an Endangered Species,” won the Leopold-Hidy Prize for the best article in the journal Environmental History in 2007. He is currently writing a book on mountaineering history in South America and collaborating with geographers in a three-year research project, funded by the National Science Foundation, on climate, water, and export agriculture in Peru.keely maxwell is an assistant professor of environmental studies at Franklin and Marshall College. She has conducted interdisciplinary ethnographic, ecological, and historical research in Peru for over a decade. Recent publications include articles on Andean energy landscapes and on Inca Trail tourism and local livelihoods. A manuscript on the cultural politics of heritage conservation and tourism in Machu Picchu is in progress. Another of her research projects analyzes historic and contemporary vicuña conservation and commodification.matthew vitz received his PhD in 2010 from New York University and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies of the University of California, San Diego, from 2010 to 2011. Currently a visiting assistant professor of Latin American history at Dartmouth College, he is revising his dissertation, “Revolutionary Environments: The Politics of Nature and Space in the Valley of Mexico, 1890 – 1950,” into a book manuscript.emily wakild is assistant professor of history at Wake Forest University. She specializes in the history of Mexico and modern Latin America with a focus on social change, revolution, and the environment. Her book Revolutionary Parks: Conservation, Social Justice, and Mexico’s National Parks, 1910 – 1940 was published by the University of Arizona Press in 2011. Recent journal articles include “Border Chasm: International Boundary Parks and Mexican Conservation, 1935 – 1945” (Environmental History, 2009) and “Naturalizing Modernity: Urban Parks, Public Gardens, and Drainage Projects in Porfirian Mexico City” (Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, 2007). At present she is working on a comparative history of transnational conservation and scientific research in Amazonia and Patagonia.

Au XVIII e siecle, les bateaux etaient consideres comme des instruments scientifiques permettant de voyager et connaitre ainsi la geographie, la topographie et la meteorologie a travers le monde

History of science is a vast and complex domain, comprising many sub-domains, such as: the history of medicine, history of chemistry, history of physics etc. Different specialists in these sub-domains, trying to reach the general and integrative understanding of the history of science, succeeded only after they acquired a rich scientific experience in their fields of activity. One of the scientists who had interesting papers on the history of science was Valeriu Bologa (1892–1971). He was the first Romanian professor of history of medicine. Our paper presents some milestones regarding his preoccupations on the history of science. The aim of our study is to prove that, although he was primarily a historian of medicine, he surpassed this framework, proving to be a skillful historian of science. The topics of his works on the history of science included: the value of the unity of science, the ethical aspects of science during centuries, the interferences between the history of science and the history of medicine etc.

This chapter examines the progress of British study on the history of medieval science and medicine during the twentieth century. It explains that the history of science has been moderately well represented within the universities of the western world for rather more than a century, and has enjoyed a secure place in British universities for about half of that time. It describes major British publications on these subjects and discusses international precedents, the role of the University College London and the historical instruments and alchemy.

Between Carnival and Lent: The Scientific Revolution at the Margins of Culture Paula Findlen (bio) How curious, after all, is the way in which we moderns think about the world! And it is all so novel, too. E. A. Burtt In the half-century since the “Scientific Revolution” became a meaningful description of the transformation of attitudes toward nature in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it seems to have enjoyed more lives than the Cheshire cat and to have remained as enigmatic. 1 Since its original formulation in the late 1940s, it has been the topic of a lively debate about the origins and character of modern approaches to nature and, more generally, knowledge. The result has been not only increased skepticism that the Scientific Revolution could be reduced to any single narrative, but also a profusion [End Page 243] of narratives about what constituted its fundamental characteristics. As Hayden White observes, “any given set of real events can be emplotted in a number of ways, can bear the weight of being told as any number of different stories.” 2 In the process, the Scientific Revolution, perhaps more than any other area of science studies, has become a testing ground for new approaches to the historical understanding of science and new ways of understanding the process of scientific change. Why should we feel so compelled to tell and retell this particular story in the history of science, when there are so many other episodes worthy of our attention? Surely part of the fascination lies in the sense that the Scientific Revolution is, in many respects, the original story in the history of science. From the sixteenth century onward, humanist natural philosophers—from the anatomist Andreas Vesalius to the astronomer Johannes Kepler—wrote the histories of various sciences in order to publicize the importance of their reformation of knowledge. By the eighteenth century they had become the story, protagonists of a narrative rewritten by new scholarly communities in search of modern ruptures with the past. 3 The crafting of scientific narrative has been a prolonged and self-conscious exercise in which scientists as well as historians have participated over the centuries—all the more so because neither the scientist nor the historian enjoyed distinct intellectual identities until fairly recently (quite often, as the case of the seventeenth-century statesman, historian, and natural philosopher Francis Bacon demonstrates well, they were the same person). Accordingly, we might see the Scientific Revolution as one of the fundamental experiments in narrating the history of science. While the grand narrative of the Scientific Revolution has largely been a story of the rise of modern science that takes science in a fairly defined sense as its focal point, cultural approaches to the history of science suggest a variety of other possibilities that explore in greater detail the imagery that early modern Europeans had at their disposal when they attempted to describe nature. Such imagery was [End Page 244] not simply an afterthought to the study of nature; often it was so deeply embedded in the act of seeing and understanding nature that it would be impossible to separate how a particular natural philosopher viewed nature from how he viewed culture. 4 Defining nature and defining culture were complementary activities in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. If we wish to truly understand what it meant to do early modern science, then we need to think more carefully about what it meant to be early modern. The approach I am suggesting has already had a number of advocates. Several years ago, John Schuster remarked that “the Scientific Revolution consisted of a process of change and displacement among and within competing systems of natural philosophy,” and he recommended that historians look more carefully at the “privileged images, metaphors or models” that defined these different approaches to knowledge. 5 The literature exploring the fundamental cultural themes of the early modern period can be a rich resource for expanding our interpretations of the Scientific Revolution. 6 Since nature was never an isolated subject of study during this period but always part of some larger project, we should examine more closely those features of early modern society that best illuminate the place of...

This paper results from the initiative taken by the Institute of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine of Lisbon, IHMT (institution representing today the first school of Portuguese Tropical Medicine, founded in Lisbon in 1902) in 2013, promoting the 2nd National Congress of Tropical Medicine, in memory of the 1st congress occurred 61 years before. It aims to analyse the motivations which conducted to the 1st National Congress of the History of Medicine held in Lisbon in 1952, in memory of the first 50 years of Portuguese tropical medicine under the imperialist project of the Portuguese State, as well as its projection throughout the following years, and which was the motto for an exhibition, opened to the public between the months of April and July (2013) in the Institute of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , entitled “Portugal in the world – the 1st National Congress of Tropical Medicine, 1952.” The 1st National Congress of Tropical Medicine led by its director, Joao Fraga de Azevedo (1906-1977), represents an important landmark for the Portuguese history of science and medicine, in what concerns understanding the rhetoric and the Portuguese colonial discourse, for which tropical medicine, its actors and institutions contributed significantly to the imperialist project, in respect to the consolidation and the projection of Portugal’s image in the world. The Congress was organized around two axes of analysis: a commemorative documentary exhibition of overseas sanitary activities by the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Portuguese tropical medicine, and the scientific congress itself, which brought together the main stakeholders of the medical network in the metropolis and in the colonies of the national context, as well as the participation of some international figures of relevance in tropical medicine. As methodology, we will analyse the iconographic and documentary material existing in the museum of the IHMT, such as the correspondence related to the organisation of this congress, the scientific and social programme, the scientific communications, some iconography related with the exhibition on the overseas sanitary activities, and the movies produced for the event. Amongst the multiplicity of papers presented at this conference, later published in the Anais do Instituto de Medicina Tropical (Annals of the Institute of Tropical Medicine) we will particularly focus on the analysis of communications on trypanosomiasis and malaria, as well as on some elements of the exhibition of Overseas Sanitary Activities, held at the National Palace of Junqueira (Palace Burnay), crucial elements to understand the importance of this congress to the consolidation and projection of the Portugal image around the world. Should this paper contribute to explore new and different lines of research on Portuguese tropical medicine providing continuity to this piece of our history always unfinished.

The philosophical aspects of Greek medicine are now more widely appreciated, not only by historians of science and medicine but also by students of philosophy in a more narrow sense. There has also been a greater appreciation of the fact that Greek medical writers not only reflect a derivative awareness of developments in philosophy but that they also actively contributed to the formation of philosophical thought more strictly defined, for instance by developing concepts and methodologies for the acquisition of knowledge and understanding. Yet the consequences of this for a renewed study of the formation of Greek philosophy have yet to be drawn; and disciplinary boundaries between historians of medicine on the one hand and philosophers and historians of philosophy on the other still pose obstacles to an integrated account of Greek thought that takes on board the contributions by the medical writers. Some preliminary remarks may therefore be in order.

In 1712 the poet Elkanah Settle (1648–1724) published a funeral poem, Threnodia Apollinaris , dedicated to the memory of Dr Martin Lister.[1][1] Settle had a good deal of material to draw upon, because Lister had been Vice-President of the Royal Society, a physician to Queen Anne, and the first

With most categories now apparently contestable in professional historiography, historians of science (so-called) surely feel especially vulnerable - not least those concerned with periods prior to the nineteenth century. If the 'early modern' dangerously implies teleology, the 'modern' implies a terminus from which the only exit seems to be the postmodern;1 all such labels invite accusations of progressivist historicism and, for the acutely trained historian of science, of latent whiggishness (for we are all postmodernists now). One could always obviate the difficulty of the term 'early modern' by ditching talk of 'modern' history altogether (its origins lying only in an opposition to 'ancient' history, after all), and speaking instead of 'recent' history; the conventional antecedent might be called history. But pragmatically speaking, there seems to be no great conceptual problem lurking behind this particular issue of terminology. Where one chooses to place the demarcation between differentiated periods is another question, of course. The present article takes a look at some of the most recent work on the period C.1500-C.1700, that is, on the late Scientific Revolution. It is of significance that such an article cannot claim to be even remotely comprehensive; I focus on a few issues that seem to be worthy of especial note.SCIENCE ETC.An additional burden for historians of pre-nineteenth-century science nowadays concerns the problem of 'science' itself: specialist historians seem increasingly agreed that science as we now know it is an endeavour born of the nineteenth century.2 Disagreement remains rife, however, about whether the general term 'science' may legitimately be used for earlier periods or, indeed, for other cultural regions than the European. The Latin word scientia and its cognates had specific meanings, at once extensive and restricted, in usages derived from academic, scholastic sources. To the extent that we might wish to confine ourselves to the categories of activity recognized by our historical actors, it would behoove us to the corresponding (and shifting) cultural boundaries as in some way definitive of our subject matter. Thus, the history of science for the not-so-recent period, which follows the now conventionally meaningless 'medieval' (older?) period, might confine itself to those fields of endeavour concerned with necessary demonstration of their conclusions, as well as with those areas in which controversy over such scientific status took place. Yet most scholars would regret the necessity of therefore including within the 'history of science' those subjects, such as the law or theology, which were often themselves regarded as scientiae.The usual solution to this problem has long been to put the word 'science' as an actor's category to one side in favour of focusing attention on those topical areas of study that seem to correspond, more or less, to areas of present-day scientific attention. The approach calls for selective attention to activities in the past the coherence of which is provided by that of activities in the present, and thus to run a grave risk of 'present-centredness' , the more expansive version of whiggishness.3 The danger here lies in imposing a systematic distortion on the categories of the past by heedlessly understanding historical activities as having been carried out under the categories of the present. Nonetheless, an effective recommendation to do just this, using the rubric 'protoscience', has recently been put forward by Pamela Smith.4 Smith uses the term 'protoscience' to designate studies that trace the early modern development of modern scientific objects, practices, and theories, what we might call the history of protosciences such as astronomy and physics. Her idea is to avoid the implication that such histories would take their objects of study as fixed by having their focus be upon the development of particular ways of thinking and practice that have come to constitute our contemporary sciences. …