Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
THOMAS F. GIERYN
Indiana University
come up winners in the long history of such this as a "professional"conflict for "authority
boundarydisputes: "in modern societies, sci- and prestige," ratherthan strictly an academic
ence is near to being the source of cognitive debate between two "theories"of naturalhis-
authority: anyone who would be widely be- tory (cf. Turner, 1974a). The intellectual au-
lieved and trusted as an interpreterof nature thority of long-standingreligious beliefs, rein-
needs a license from the scientificcommunity" forced every Sunday from the pulpit, created
(Barnes and Edge, 1982:2).This authorityhas resistance toward scientific explanations of
been cashed in for copious materialresources natural phenomena. For example, Tyndall
and power: about $1 billionof tax revenue was found himself embroiledin the "prayergauge"
provided last year to support basic scientific debate, which was sparkedby an 1872 article
research in American universities; "expert" challengingChristiansof the nation to conduct
scientists are called before courts and.govern- an experimentto determinethe physical effi-
ment hearing rooms to provide putatively cacy of prayer. It was then the custom for the
truthful and reliable contexts for decision British PrimeMinisteror Privy Councilto ask
making;science educationis an integralpartof a highofficial of the Anglicanchurchto call for
modern curricula, opening employment op- a national day of prayer as a response to na-
portunitiesfor scientists at almostevery school tional crises. Public prayers were called as
and university. Scientists often win these pro- hoped-forsolutions to cattle plagues in 1865, a
fessional advantagesin boundarydisputesthat choleraepidemicin 1866,and a case of typhoid
resultin the loss of authorityand resources by suffered by the young Prince (Edward) of
competingnon-scientificintellectualactivities. Wales in 1871.
Public addresses and popular writings by To Tyndall, public prayers "represented a
John Tyndall (1820-1893) are a rich source of concrete form of superstitionwhereby clergy
informationon how this boundary-workwas with the approvalof the state could hinderthe
accomplished in Victorian England (for bio- dispersionof scientific explanationsof natural
graphicaldetails, cf. Eve and Creasey, 1945; phenomenaor claim credit for the eradication
MacLeod, 1976a; Burchfield, 1981). Tyndall of natural problems that were solved by the
followed Michael Faraday as Professor and methods of science . . ." (Turner, 1974b:48).
then Superintendentat the Royal Institutionin (When the young Prince recovered from
London, where he was chargedwith delivering typhoid, clergymen pointed to the effective-
lectures demonstratingto lay and scientific ness of the country's prayers.) Tyndall en-
audiencesthe progressof scientificknowledge. couraged an experiment in which a selected
At that time, career opportunitiesand re- hospital would be made the focus of national
searchfacilities availableto Britishmen of sci-prayer, with a comparison of mortality rates
ence were paltry (MacLeod, 1972; Turner, before and after the day of supplication.The
1976;Cardwell,1972).ThomasHenry Huxley, experimentwas never conducted, but the furi-
Tyndall'sfriendand Darwin's"bulldog,"com- ous debate provoked by its proposal gives a
plainedin 1874that "no amountof proficiency sense of how much "the scientific professions
in the biological sciences will 'surely be con-desired the social and cultural prestige and
vertibleinto breadand cheese' " (Mendelsohn, recognitionthat had been and to a largedegree
1964:32).Tyndall used his visible position at still was accorded the clergy" (Turner,
the Royal Institutionto promote a variety of 1974b:64).
ideological argumentsto justify scientists' re- The Church also held power over educa-
quests for greaterpublicsupport.He faced two tional institutionsand used it to stall introduc-
impediments: the intellectual authority of tion of science into the curriculum. During
Victorian religion and the practical accom- Tyndall'stenureas Presidentof the BritishAs-
plishments of Victorian engineeringand me- sociation for the Advancement of Science in
chanics. Tyndall's campaignfor science took 1874,the CatholicChurchin his native Ireland
the rhetoricalstyle of boundary-work:he at- rejected a request from laymen to include the
tributedselected characteristicsto science thatphysical sciences in the curriculum of the
effectively demarcatedit from religion or me- Catholic university. Perhaps as a response to
chanics, providinga rationalefor the superior- this, Tyndall's presidentialaddress at Belfast
ity of scientists in designated intellectualandwas an unequivocaldenial of the authorityof
technical domains. religious beliefs over naturalphenomena, and
he made "so bold a claim for the intellectual
imperialismof the modem scientific inquiry"
Scientists' Struggle for Authority
(Turner, 1981:172)that churchmenand some
The endless conflict between religion and sci- scientists were outraged.
ence reached a crescendo in the decade fol- Victorian mechanicians and engineers pre-
lowing publicationof Darwin's The Origin of sented a differentobstacle to the expansion of
Species in 1859. Turner (1978:357)describes scientificauthorityand resources. Practicalin-
read as "a poem, not [as] a scientific treatise. tion in an 1876 discourse in Glasgow on the
In the formeraspect, it is forever beautiful;in science of fermentationand the mechanicalart
the lateraspect it has been, and it will continue of brewingbeer: "it mightbe said that untilthe
to be, purely obstructive and hurtful. To present year no thorough and scientific ac-
knowledge its value has been negative count was ever given of the agencies which
(Tyndall, 1905b:224). While considering the come into play in the manufactureof beer ...
topic of miracles and special providences, Hitherto the art and practice of the brewer
Tyndall (in 1867)writes: "to kindle the fire of have resembled those of the physician, both
religion in the soul, let the affections by all being founded on empirical observation. By
means be invoked . . . [But] testimony as to this is meant the observation of facts, apart
naturalfacts is worthless when wrappedin this from the principles which explain them, and
atmosphereof the affections;the most earnest which give the mindan intelligentmasteryover
subjective truth being thus renderedperfectly them. The brewer learned from long experi-
compatiblewith the most astoundingobjective ence the conditions, not the reasons, of suc-
error" (Tyndall, 1905b:19-20). A military cess ... Over and over again his care has been
metaphorsuggests that this boundary-workfor rendered nugatory; his beer has fallen into
Tyndall was more than philosophicalspecula- acidity or rottenness, and disastrous losses
tion: "It is against the objective renderingof have been sustained, of which he has been
the.emotions-this thrustinginto the region of unable to assign the cause" (Tyndall,
fact and positive knowledgeof conceptions es- 1905b:267).
sentially ideal and poetic-that science ... (3) Science is theoretical. Mechaniciansare
wages war" (Tyndall, 1905b:393). not scientists because they do not go beyond
observed facts to discover the causal princi-
Science as Not-Mechanics ples that govern underlying unseen processes.
"Ourscience would not be worthy of its name
When Tyndall turns to build a boundarybe- and fame if it halted at facts, however practi-
tween science and mechanics, he attributesto cally useful, and neglected the laws which ac-
science a differentset of characteristicsin re- company and rule the phenomena"(Tyndall,
sponse to the different kind of obstacle pre- 1905a:95-96). "One of the most important
sented by the technical achievements and au- functions of physical science . . . is to enable
thority of engineers and industrialcraftsmen. us by means of the sensible processes of Na-
Significantly,characteristicshere attributedto ture to apprehend the insensible" (Tyndall,
science are not always consistent with those 1905a:80). Tyndall's choice of words in the
attributedto science when Tyndalldemarcated next two passages seems odd for one who
it from religion. elsewhere speaks the languageof naive empiri-
(1) Scientific inquiryis the fount of knowl- cism: "the visible world [is] converted by sci-
edge on which the technological progress of ence into the symbol of an invisible one. We
inventorsand engineersdepends. "Beforeyour can have no explanationof the objects of expe-
practical men appeared upon the scene, the rience, withoutinvokingthe aid and ministryof
force had been discovered, its laws investi- objects which lie beyond the pale of experi-
gated and made sure, the most complete mas- ence" (Tyndall, 1883:33)."The theory is the
tery of its phenomenahad been attained-nay, backward guess from fact to principle; the
its applicability to telegraphic purposes conjecture,or divinationregardingsomething,
demonstrated-by men whose sole rewardfor which lies behind the facts, and from which
their labours was the noble excitement of re- they flow in necessary sequence" (Tyndall,
search, and the joy attendanton the discovery 1894:141-42).
of naturaltruth"(Tyndall, 1901:221-22)."The (4) Scientists seek discovery of facts as ends
professed utilitarian . . . admires the flower, in themselves;mechaniciansseek inventionsto
but is ignorantof the conditions of its growth further personal profit. On the electric light,
. . . Let the self-styled practical man look to Tyndall notes: "Two orders of minds have
those from the fecundity of whose thoughthe, been implicated in the development of this
and thousandslike him, have sprunginto exis- subject: first, the investigatorand discoverer,
tence. Werethey inspiredin theirfirst inquiries whose object is purely scientific, and who
by the calculationsof utility?Not one of them" cares little for practical ends; secondly, the
(Tyndall, 1905a:312). practicalmechanician,whose object is mainly
(2) Scientists acquire knowledge through industrial . . . The one wants to gain knowl-
systematic experimentation with nature; be- edge, while the other wishes to make money
cause mechaniciansand engineersrelyon mere ..." (Tyndall, 1905b:472-73). The lust for
observation, trial-and-error, and common profit among mechanicians is said to impede
sense, they cannot explain their practicalsuc- technological progress: "The slowness with
cesses or failures. Tyndall makes this distinc- which improvements make their way among
workmen ... is also due to the greed for cultural and political elite, science was less
wealth, the desire for monopoly, the spirit of attractiveas a means to make money and more
secret intrigueexhibited amongmanufactures" attractive as the discoverer of truth and as a
(Tyndall, 1898:136). These attitudes are not source of intellectualdiscipline.
common to scientists: "The edifice of science Tyndall's choice of religion and mechanics
had been raisedby men who had unswervingly as contrast-caseswas not an idle one: each was
followed the truth as it is in nature; and in an impedimentto public support, fundingand
doing so had often sacrificed interests which educational opportunities essential for the
are usually potent in this world" (Tyndall, growth of science in Victorian England. Tyn-
1905b:403). dall demarcatedscience from these two obsta-
(5) Science' need not justify its work by cles, but the characteristicsattributedto sci-
pointing to its technological applications, for ence were differentfor each boundary:scien-
science has nobler uses as a means of in- tific knowledge is empirical when contrasted
tellectual discipline and as the epitome of with the metaphysicalknowledge of religion,
humanculture. Tyndallasks: "But is it neces- but theoretical when contrasted with the
sary that the studentof science shouldhave his common-sense, hands-onobservations of me-
labourstested by their possible practicalappli- chanicians;science is justified by its practical
cations?Whatis the practicalvalue of Homer's utility when compared to the merely poetic
Iliad? You smile, and possibly think that contributions of religion, but science is jus-
Homer's Iliad is good as a means of culture. tified by its nobler uses as a means of "pure"
There's the rub. The people who demand of culture and discipline when compared to en-
science practicaluses forget, or do not know, gineering. Alternative repertoires were avail-
that it also is great as a means of culture-that able for Tyndall's ideological self-descriptions
the knowledge of this wonderfuluniverse is a of scientists: selection of one repertoire was
thingprofitablein itself, and requiringno prac- apparentlyguided by its effectiveness in con-
tical applicationto justify its pursuit"(Tyndall, structing a boundary that rationalized scien-
1905a:101).And to an Americanaudience: "it tists' requestsfor enlargedauthorityand public
is mainlybecause I believe it to be wholesome, support.
not only as a source of knowledge but as a Still, Tyndall was not disingenuous in de-
means of discipline, that I urge the claims of scribingscience in one context as "practically
science upon your attention . . . Not as a ser- useful," and elsewhere as "pure culture." It
vant of Mammondo I ask you to take science would be reductionisticto explain these incon-
to your hearts, but as the strengthenerand sistent parts of a professionalideology merely
enlightener of the mind of man" (Tyndall, as fictions conjured up to serve scientists'
1901:217,245). interests. There is, in science, an unyielding
This last attributionseems odd. If utilitarian tension between basic and applied research,
consequences of science are often mentioned and between the empiricaland theoreticalas-
to justify increased resources for scientific re- pects of inquiry. Tyndall's "public science"
search, why does Tyndall also present an exploits this genuine ambivalenceby selecting
imageof "pure"science to be appreciatedas a for attributionto science one or anotherset of
means of high culture and intellectual disci- characteristicsmost effective in demarcating
pline? For two reasons, Tyndall demarcated science from religionon some occasions, from
the merely practical mechanician from the mechanics on others.
more-than-practicalscientist. First, if science This ideology, however inconsistent or in-
was justified only in terms of potential indus- complete, seems to have improvedthe fortunes
trial accomplishments, government officials of science in the decades immediatelyfollow-
could argue(as Gladstone-Prime Ministerfor ing Tyndall's death in 1893. Scientists "had
much of this period-often did) that profits established themselves firmly throughoutthe
from scientifically inspired innovations would educationalsystem and could pursue research
repay private industrialists who invested in and teaching free from ecclesiastical interfer-
scientific research. By emphasizing that sci- ence" (Turner, 1978:376),and by 1914 public
ence has cultural virtues beyond practical money for civil scientific research reached 2
utility-virtues not likely to be appreciatedand million pounds, or an unprecedented3.6 per-
financially supported by profit-seeking cent of the total civil expenditure(MacLeod,
industrialists-Tyndall presented an "alterna- 1976b:161,cf. 1982).
tive case" for governmentgrants to scientists.
Second, Mendelsohn(1964)has suggested that PHRENOLOGISTSAND ANATOMISTSIN
descriptionsof science as industriallypractical EARLY 19TH-CENTURYEDINBURGH
might not have persuaded Oxford and Cam-
bridge Universities to enlarge their science Boundary-work is also a useful ideological
curricula.As part of the educationof Britain's style when monopolizing professional au-
thority and resources in the hands of some objectively evaluate knowledge claims (cf.
scientists by excluding others as "pseudo- Shapin, 1979:140).Alternatively, Combe pre-
scientists" (cf. Mauskopf, 1979; Wallis, 1979; sented an image of science as essentially limit-
Collins and Pinch, 1982). The debate over less: phrenological science could provide a
phrenologyillustrateshow one group of scien- sound foundation for deciding religious or
tists draws a boundaryto exclude anotheralso political questions. Early 19th-centuryscien-
claimingto be scientific. tists desired a peaceful coexistence with the
Phrenology began in the late 18th century Church, to be accomplished by a careful de-
with anatomist-and-physicianFranz Joseph marcationof scientificfrom religiousquestions
Gall, who arguedthree essential principles(cf. (cf. DeGiustino, 1975:50,104;Cannon, 1978:2).
Cantor, 1975:197):the brainis the organof the Edinburghanatomists perhaps felt threatened
mind;the brainis made up of separateorgans, by presumptionsthat science providedthe one
each related to distinct mental faculties; the truth: Combe claimed that "phrenology held
size of the organ is a measureof the power of the key to all knowledge and provided the
its associated mental faculty. The faculties in- philosophical basis for a true approach to
cluded sentiments such as combativeness, Christianity" (Cantor, 1975:204). When
self-esteem, benevolence, and veneration,and phrenologistsoffered a "scientific"theory that
intellectualfaculties such as imitation, order, religiosity was a function of the size of one's
time, number, tune, and wit. An individual organfor "veneration,"the domainof religion
with a large organ for "amativeness"was ex- had obviously been encroachedupon (Cooter,
pected to have a large appetitefor "feelings of 1976:216). Anatomists implied that because
physical love." Phrenologists claimed to be Combe placed a quasi-religiousmission ahead
able to judge a person's mental character by of the dispassionate search for knowledge
examiningthe patternof bumpson the outside about natural phenomena, he was no longer
of the skull: a proturberancein the forehead within science. Perhaps they also convinced
indicatedintellectualprowess because this-was powerfulScottish churchmenthat intrusionof
the regionfor organsof reflection.Thejourney phrenologyinto religion was not the work of
of phrenology from serious science to bona fide scientists.
sideshow legerdemain is a consequence of (2) For Combe, phrenology relied on em-
boundary-workby phrenologistsand their sci- piricalmethods like any other science: "Expe-
entific adversaries, a debate which peaked in rience alone can decide concerning the accu-
Edinburghin the early 1800s. racy or inaccuracyof our observationand in-
The Scottish controversy was fueled by an duction"(in Cantor, 1975:211). Criticsargued,
1803 article in the Edinburgh Review which however, that theories of phrenologywere so
described phrenology as "a mixture of gross vague as to remove them from "adequate"em-
errors, extravagant absurdities," "real igno- pirical testing. Francis Jeffrey, adversary of
rance, real hypocrisy," "trash, despicable Combe, could find no logical reason why there
trumpery" propagated by "two men calling was no organ for "love of horses" to accom-
themselves scientific inquirers" (in Davies, pany one proposed to explain "love of chil-
1955:9-10).This opinion was shared by Edin- dren," and concluded that phrenology
burgh'sintellectualelite, includinganatomists "aboundsin those equivocations, by which it
at the City's prestigiousmedical school. How- may often escape from direct refutation . .. [It
ever, prominent Edinburgh phrenologists- was] a series of mere evasions and gratuitous
Johann Spurzheim (a Gall student) and his assumptions"(in Cantor, 1975:213;cf. Young,
most vociferous recruit George Combe- 1970:43). William Hamilton, a philosopher,
enjoyed popularreputationsas legitimate sci- conducted experiments apparently con-
entists at least until 1820. Anatomists offered tradictingCombe's hypothesis that the cere-
public descriptionsof science that effectively bellum controlled sexual activity and that it
pushed Combe and phrenology outside its was larger in men than women. Hamilton
boundaries.Combein turnoffereda competing found the opposite but Combe did not retreat,
descriptionof science, makingit appearthat he instead defending phrenology as an "estima-
was unjustlybanishedand that he had as much tive," not an "exact" science. Hamilton'scali-
claim to the mantle of science as anatomists. brations were irrelevant for Combe because
phrenology"concerned approximatedetermi-
Alternative Images of Science nation of quantities, in particular,the size of
the cranialcontoursas gaugedby thefeel of the
The repertoires differed on three issues: (1) phrenologist . ." (in Cantor, 1975:214-15).
Anatomists tried to discredit the scientific This subjectivismwas enough for Hamiltonto
legitimacyof phrenologyby exposing its politi- dismiss phrenology as pseudo-science: "'so
cal and especially religious ambitions, which long as phrenology is a comparison of two
were said to currupt phrenologists'ability to hypothetical quantities-a science of propor-
on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of knowledge as its own end, not as a means for
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, material production; open scientific communi-
1982). Some U.S. government officials now cation transmits theoretical and empirical
worry that rapid increases in Soviet military knowledge about nature, not "know-how" or
strength are due, in part, to their exploitation "recipes" immediately transferable to produc-
of American science and technology. Members tion of hardware (NAS, 1982:45, 62).
of the Reagan Administration have responded (2) This core of university-housed, "basic"
by proposing and, at times, implementing scientific research is not a significant source of
stricter controls on the open circulation of sci- "technology transfer" benefiting Soviet mili-
entific and technical knowledge.' The restric- tary strength, and thus "no restrictions of any
tions elicited outrage from the scientific com- kind limiting access or communication should
munity, captured in the title of a Science edito- be applied to any area of university research
rial: "Hand-Cuffing Science" (cf. Culliton, ..." (49). "While there has been extensive
1983). transfer of U.S. technology of direct military
In response to efforts to expand government relevance to the Soviet Union from a variety of
control over the circulation of scientific knowl- sources, there is strong consensus that scien-
edge, an NAS Panel on Scientific Communica- tific communication, including that involving
tion and National Security was created to ex- the university community, appears to have
amine the question "What is the effect on na- been a very small part of this transfer
tional security of technology transfer to adver- (13-14). The source of the problem lies
sary nations by means of open scientific com- elsewhere: "legal equipment purchases, out-
munication, either through scientific literature right espionage, illegal conduct by some indi-
or by person-to-person communications?" viduals and corporations in international trade,
(NAS, 1982:91). The Panel was made up of and secondary transfers through legal or illegal
representatives of organized science, industry, recipients abroad to the hands of U.S. adver-
and government. Whether its recom- saries" (41).
mendations are in the best interests of national (3) Government controls on open scientific
security is a matter for the public and its legis- communication would have deleterious side
lators to debate. However, the professional effects. First, scientists would be deterred
interests of science seem well served, for the from choosing to do research in militarily "sen-
Report recommends, in effect, that the over- sitive" areas, thus hampering American efforts
whelming majority of scientific communica- to produce its own innovative military hard-
tions should remain free from government re- ware (45). Second, if controls limited interna-
straints, and that national security will be more tional exchanges between American and Soviet
effectively attained not through controls on scientists, then progress of American science
science but through preserved autonomy and might be impeded in those research areas
enlarged resources to enable American science where the Soviets are especially strong, for
and technology to retain its international example, plasma physics, condensed-matter
preeminence. physics and fundamental properties of matter
To justify these recommendations, the Panel (25). Third, the progress of American science
presents four arguments: in general would suffer: "Free communication
(1) The Report isolates a "core" of science among scientists is viewed as an essential fac-
by demarcating the production of scientific tor in scientific advance. Such communication
knowledge from its consumption. Selected enables critical new findings or new theories to
characteristics are attributed to science in be readily and systematically subjected to the
order to distinguish it from technological appli- scrutiny of others and thereby verified or de-
cations: scientific work is housed mainly in bunked" (24). Fourth, constraints on scientific
universities, not in industrial firms or gov- communication would slow the rate of tech-
ernmental agencies; the goal of science is the nological innovation, both military and civil-
creation, dissemination and evaluation of ian: "The technological leadership of the
United States is based in no small part on a
scientific foundation whose vitality in turn de-
1 The Department of Defense recently blocked
pends on effective communication among sci-
presentation of about 150 of the 626 papers to be read entists and between scientists and engineers"
at the 26th annual meeting of the Society of Photo-
Optical Engineers in San Diego (August 1982). They (43).
acted on grounds that certain papers (federally sup- (4) American military supremacy, in an age
ported but "unclassified") on optical technologies of high-tech weaponry, is better achieved not
used in laser communication had potential military by controls on scientific communication, but
applications, and that the meetings were attended by by providing enlarged resources and improved
scientists from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe facilities to scientists. "Current proponents of
(NAS, 1982:12, note 1). stricter controls advocate a strategy of security
throughsecrecy. In the view of the Panel, se- professionalgoals: autonomy and public sup-
curity by accomplishment may have more to port.
offer as a general national strategy. The long- The persuasivenessof this Reporthinges on
term security of the United States depends in the effectiveness of its boundary-work.If the
largeparton its economic, technical, scientific, Panel succeeds in demarcatingthe university-
and intellectualvitality, which in turn depends based productionof "basic" scientific knowl-
on the vigorous research and developmentef- edge from its technological consumption and
fort that openness helps to nurture"(45). The application, then legislators may accept its
Panel does not miss an opportunityto hint at conclusion and follow its recommendations.
the inadequacyof Governmentsupportof sci- Because the responsibilityand blamefor leaks
ence: "Federal funding at universities, mea- of militarily useful technology to the Soviet
sured in constant dollars, leveled off about 15 Union is not to be placed on science but on
years ago, and thus recent growth in the sys- individualsor corporations outside the com-
tem has been slight, makingit more difficultto munity of American university-based scien-
replace obsolete equipment and to undertake tists, the case for increased governmentcon-
new, and more expensive, enterprises trols on scientific communicationis less com-
(23). pelling. The continued autonomy of scientists
The boundary-workhere is subtle and com- may depend on the effectiveness of this ideol-
plex: on one hand, the Panel asserts that ogy.2
university-basedscience yields "basic" rather
than "applied"knowledge;on the other, they CONCLUSION:THE AMBIGUOUS
assert that university-basedscience is essential BOUNDARIES OF "SCIENCE"
for technologicalprogress. The two assertions
are not necessarily contradictory: "basic" At first glance, Tyndall'sexhortationsfor pub-
knowledge can be transformedinto "applied" lic support of science seem remote from the
knowledge and, with time, yield military and Edinburgh phrenology debates or from the
industrial products. The sociologically in- militaryexploitationof scientificknowledge,at
teresting point is this: a boundary between least until the concept of "boundary-work"is
basic and appliedscience is clearly established introduced.The three examples of ideologies
when the Panel wants to cordon "science" of science have a common rhetoricalstyle: at-
(i.e., basic research at universities)from gov- tributionsof selected characteristicsto the in-
ernment controls on communication;but the stitution of science for purposes of construct-
boundaryis obscured, if not dissolved, when ing a social boundarythat distinguishes"non-
the Panelwishes to remindlegislatorsthateven scientific" intellectual or professional activi-
basic science makes importantcontributionsto ties. Geertz's suggestion to examine the
technological progress. The Panel notes: "in "stylistic resources" of ideologists has proved
manyfields, at the cuttingedge of science, the fruitful: "boundary-work"is a sociological
distinctionbetween basic and appliedresearch parallel to the familiar literary device of the
was becoming less relevant" (101-102). But "foil." Just as readers come to know Holmes
elsewhere, it is relevant and possible for the better throughcontrasts to his foil Watson, so
Panel to distinguish basic research from its does the public better learn about "science"
technologicalpotential, and to argue that the throughcontrasts to "non-science."
Soviets acquire militarily useful information Moreover,the analysis begins to identifyoc-
from non-scientific applications of scientific casions where boundary-work is a likely
knowledge. stylistic resourcefor ideologistsof a profession
Since Tyndall,the ideology of "the practical or occupation:(a) when the goal is expansion
benefits of pure science" has been used to jus- of authorityor expertise into domainsclaimed
tify public supportfor scientific research.With by other professions or occupations,
the ReaganAdministrationproposingcutbacks boundary-workheightensthe contrastbetween
in the budget of the U.S. National Science
Foundation,it may be politicallyexpedient to
emphasize once again the utilitarianjustifica- 2 More recent political developments must worry
tion of science. But in the context of "national the scientific community: Science (4 February
security"it may not help to play that song too 1983:473) reports that the Reagan Administration has
review of ways to control the
loudly,for to avoid governmentrestrictionson "launched aofhigh-level
scientific papers that contain certain
publication
scientific communication, some distance be- unclassified but militarily sensitive information . . .
tween basic and appliedscience mustbe estab- The review will be more concerned with how, rather
lished. Thus, the boundary between the pro- than whether, publication of such information should
duction and consumption of scientific knowl- be controlled." Boundary-work is not always suc-
edge remains ambiguous in the Report, but cessful, though this case is far from decided (cf.
usefullyso for scientists'pursuitof two distinct Chalk, 1983).
Knorr, Karin, Roger Krohn and Richard Whitley, 1977 "The social construction of scientific
eds. knowledge." Pp. 3-26 in E. Mendelsohn, P.
1980 The Social Process of Scientific Investiga- Weingart, R. Whitley (eds.), The Social Pro-
tion. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, duction of Scientific Knowledge. Sociology
Vol. 4. Boston: D. Reidel. of the Sciences Yearbook. Vol. 1. Boston:
Kohler, Robert E. D. Reidel.
1982 From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry. Merton, Robert K.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 1973 The Sociology of Science. Chicago: Uni-
Lane, Robert E. versity of Chicago Press.
1966 "The decline of politics and ideology in a 1976 Sociological Ambivalence and Other Es-
knowledgeable society." American Socio- says. New York: Free Press.
logical Review 31:649-62. Mitroff, Ian I.
Larrain, Jorge 1974 "Norms and counter-norms in a select
1979 The Concept of Ideology. Athens: Univer- group of Apollo moon scientists: a case
sity of Georgia Press. study of the ambivalence of scientists."
Laudan, Larry American Sociological Review 39:579-95.
1983 "The demise of the demarcation problem." Mulkay, Michael J.
Pp. 7-35 in Rachel Laudan (ed.), The De- 1976 "Norms and ideology in science." Social
marcation Between Science and Pseudo- Science Information 15:637-56.
science. Blacksburg: Center for the Study 1979 Science and the Sociology of Knowledge.
of Science in Society, Virginia Tech. London: Allen & Unwin.
Lichtheim, George 1980 "The sociology of science in the West."
1967 The Concept of Ideology and Other Essays. Current Sociology 28:1-184.
New York: Vintage. NAS
MacKenzie, Donald 1982 Scientific Communication and National Se-
1981 Statistics in Britain 1865-1930: The Social curity. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-
Construction of Scientific Knowledge. emy of Sciences Press.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Nelkin, Dorothy
MacLeod, Roy 1982 The Creation Controversy. New York:
1969 "Science and government in Victorian En- Norton.
gland: lighthouse illumination and the Oakeshott, M. J.
Board of Trade, 1866-1886." Isis 60:5-38. 1980 "Preface." Pp. vii-viii in D. J. Manning
1972 "Resources of science in Victorian En- (ed.), The Form of Ideology. London: Allen
gland: the Endowment of Research Move- & Unwin.
ment, 1868-1900." Pp. 111-66 in Peter Parsons, Talcott
Mathias (ed.), Science and Society 1600- 1951 The Social System. New York: Free Press.
1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University 1967 Sociological Theory and Modem Societies.
Press. New York: Free Press.
1976a "John Tyndall." Pp. 521-24 in C. C. Gilles- Parssinen, T. M.
pie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biog- 1974 "Popular science and society: the phrenol-
raphy. Vol. XIII. New York: Scribners'. ogy movement in early Victorian Britain."
1976b "Science and the treasury: principles, per- Journal of Social History 8:1-21.
sonalities, and policies, 1870-85." Pp. Popper, Karl R.
115-72 in G. L'e. Turner (ed.), The Patron- 1965 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New
age of Science in the 19th Century. Leyden: York: Harper & Row.
Noordhoff. Reagan, Michael D.
1982 "The 'Bankruptcy of Science' debate: the 1969 Science and the Federal Patron. New York:
creed of science and its critics, 1885-1900." Oxford University Press.
Science, Technology and Human Values
7:2-15. Robinson, Eric and A. E. Musson
1969 James Watt and the Steam Revolution.
Mannheim, Karl
1936 Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt. New York: Kelley.
Marcuse, Herbert Seider, Maynard S.
1964 One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon. 1974 "American big business ideology: a content
analysis of executive speeches." American
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels Sociological Review 39:802-815.
[1846] "The German Ideology." Karl Marx-
1976 Frederick Engels Collected Works. Vol. 5. Seliger, Martin
New York: International. 1977 The Marxist Conception of Ideology. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Mauskopf, Seymour Shapin, Steve
1979 The Reception of Unconventional Science. 1975 "Phrenological knowledge and the social
Boulder: Westview. structure of early 19th century Edinburgh."
Mendelsohn, Everett Annals of Science 32:219-43.
1964 "The emergence of science as a profession 1979 "The politics of observation: cerebral
in 19th century Europe." Pp. 3-48 in Karl anatomy and social interests in the Edin-
Hill (ed.), The Management of Scientists. burgh phrenology disputes." Pp. 139-78 in
Boston: Beacon. Roy Wallis (ed.), On the Margins of Sci-