SDEST: The Military Roots of Basic Science: American Oceanography in the Cold War and Beyond

基础科学的军事根源：冷战时期的美国海洋学与碧昂纳奥米·奥瑞斯美国海洋学建立在军事经费和后勤保障两大支柱之上。在20世纪30年代之前，美国没有“蓝水”海洋学，这一领域的领导者出现在英国、德国和斯堪的纳维亚半岛。到20世纪60年代末，美国科学家走在了该领域的前沿，他们的工作对改变人类对深海的认识起到了重要作用。这个项目是对这种转变如何发生的历史研究：海洋学家如何与出于国家安全考虑的军事赞助人合作，产生对海洋、海底和塑造地球表面的过程的现代科学理解。历史学家、哲学家和科学社会学家、美国历史学家、科学家和科学政策分析师对这本书很感兴趣。这个项目挑战了从基础科学到应用科学的因果箭头的标准模型。在冷战时期的海洋学中，“应用”推动了科学，而不是反过来。然而，科学并没有受到阻碍：这几年是多项深刻发现的年份。这挑战了大多数科学家的根深蒂固的信念，即科学必须不受约束才能进步。它还挑战了默顿的假设，即自由和开放的信息交换对科学进步至关重要。来自海洋学的证据与这些信念相反。然而，尽管军事赞助对海洋科学有利，但对科学家并不总是有利的。代价是在人力、智力和政治方面付出的。个别科学家的职业生涯因安全调查而脱轨，女性在海军科学兄弟会中被排除在外或被边缘化。在智力上，军事议程在许多领域产生了知识，但在其他领域留下了持久的无知。在社会政治方面，50年来的军事和科学合作，科学家不必向更大的公众解释他们的工作，在公众中留下了不信任的遗产，并留下了一种看法，即科学家现在更多地是为了私利，而不是无私。这项研究的一个主要贡献将是分析军事赞助在海洋学和美国科学中的持久遗产。该项目提供的见解具有重大意义，不仅对我们理解科学史，而且对未来的科学政策和资金也有重大影响。

AbstractThe Military Roots of Basic Science:American Oceanography in the Cold War and BeyondNaomi OreskesAmerican oceanography was built on the twin pillars of military funding and logistical support. Before the 1930s there was no `blue water' oceanography in the United States, and the leaders of the field were to be found in England, Germany, and Scandinavia. By the late 1960s, American scientists were at the forefront of the field, and their work was instrumental in transforming human knowledge of the deep seas. This project is a historical study of how this transformation occurred: how oceanographers, working with military patrons motivated by national security concerns, produced the modern scientific understanding of the oceans, the sea-floor, and the processes that shape the surface of the earth. The outcome is a book of interest to historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science, to U.S. historians, and to scientists and science policy analysts. This project challenges the standard model of a causal arrow from basic to applied science. In Cold War oceanography, `application' drove science, not the other way around. Yet science was not impeded: these were years of multiple, profound discoveries. This challenges the deeply held conviction of most scientists that science must be unfettered to advance. It also challenges the Mertonian assumption that the free and open exchange of information is critical to scientific advance. The evidence from oceanography is against these convictions.However, while military patronage was good for oceanographic science, it was not always good for scientists. Costs were paid in human, intellectual, and political terms. Individual scientists had their careers derailed by security investigations, and women were excluded or marginalized in the Navy- science fraternity. Intellectually, the military agenda produced knowledge in many areas but left persistent ignorance in others. On the socio-political front, fifty years of military-scientific collaboration, in which scientists did not have to explain their work to a larger public, has left a legacy of distrust among the public, and a perception that scientists are now more self-interested than disinterested. A major contribution of the study will be an analysis of the lasting legacies of military patronage, in oceanography, and in American science. The insights offered by the project have significant implications, not only for our understanding of the history of science, but for future science policy and funding.