The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876-1926. Leonard S. ReichWillis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of U.S. Industrial Research. George Wise
The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876-1926. Leonard S. ReichWillis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of U.S. Industrial Research. George Wise
复制标题
美国工业研究的形成：GE 和贝尔的科学与商业，1876-1926 年。
作者：
E. Layton
伦纳德S.赖希和乔治怀斯的研究标志着长期被忽视的工业研究史上的一个转折点。这些书不仅是杰出的，而且是为这一领域的未来研究建立关键标准的决定性作品。此外，两者都简洁而精美。它们是相辅相成的。赖希提供了一个广泛的比较调查的起源和发展的工业研究在通用电气和贝尔从1876年至1926年。怀斯的威利斯R。惠特尼非常深入地展示了使他能够帮助“将美国科学引入现代机构环境”的个人和智力素质（第3页）。赖希的书之所以具有革命性，正是因为它将商业和管理史与科学技术史结合起来。赖希表明，产业研究是企业战略的一个组成部分。相反，他果断地驳斥了工业研究实验室是“魔法屋”发明工厂的观点。赖希表明，工业研究实验室的兴起是为了捍卫贝尔和通用电气最基本的市场，并为罗姆和哈斯的经验中的过度垄断提供新的、社会合法的基础。他暗示化学工业中普遍缺乏对毒理学的关注，缺乏确定化学物质致癌作用的方法。然而，像杜邦蓬特、陶氏化学和联合碳化物等公司在20世纪30年代中期建立了毒理学实验室，到1970年，每年在这些实验室上的花费达到数百万美元。化学物质能致癌的事实早已为人所知。如果罗姆和哈斯有一个毒理学实验室，这场悲剧可能就可以避免了。John K.史密斯
The publication of path-breaking books by Leonard S. Reich and George Wise marks a turning point in the long-neglected history of industrial research. These books are not merely outstanding; they are defini-tive works that establish critical standards for future research in this field. Both are, moreover, succinct and beautifully crafted. They complement one another. Reich provides a broad comparative survey of the origins and development of industrial re-search at General Electric and Bell from 1876 to 1926. Wise's superb biography of Willis R. Whitney shows in great depth the personal and intellectual qualities that enabled him to help" lead American science into its modern institutional setting"(p. 3). Reich's book is revolutionary precisely because it combines insights derived from business and managerial history with the history of science and technology. Reich shows that industrial research is an integral component of corporate strategy. Conversely, he decisively refutes the view of industrial research laboratories as" house of magic" invention factories. Reich shows that industrial research laboratories arose to defend the most fundamental markets of Bell and GE and to provide a new and socially legitimate basis for monopolistic alizes too much from Rohm and Haas's experience. He implies a general lack of concern for toxicology in the chemical in-dustry and a lack of methods for determin-ing the carcinogenic effects of chemicals. However, companies such as Du Pont, Dow, and Union Carbide had established toxicology laboratories in the mid 1930s and by 1970 were spending millions of dollars per year in them. The fact that chemi-cals could cause cancer had been known for a long time. Had Rohm and Haas had a laboratory for toxicology, this tragedy might have been avoided. JOHN K. SMITH