Liberals, the Progressive Left, and the Political Economy of Postwar American Science: The National Science Foundation Debate Revisited

Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 1995, Pages 139-166

  Wang, Jessica ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GOVERNMENT; HISTORY; NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION; POLITICS; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

FOUNDATIONS; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; POLITICS; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0029434822     PISSN: 08909997     EISSN: 15338355     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/27757758     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Daniel J. Kevles, “The National Science Foundation and the debate over postwar research policy, 1942–1945,” Isis, 68 (1977), 5–26.
2. Robert F. Maddox, “The politics of World War II science: Senator Harley M. Kilgore and the legislative origins of the National Science Foundation,” West Virginia history, 40 (Fall 1979), 20–39.
3. J. Merton England, A patron for pure science: The National Science Foundation’s formative years, 1945–1957.
4. Carl Milton Rowan, “Politics and pure research: The origins of the National Science Foundation, 1942–1954” (Ph.D. diss., Miami University (Ohio), 1985).
5. Daniel Lee Kleinman, “Layers of interests, layers of influence: Business and the genesis of the National Science Foundation,” Science, technology, and human values, 19 (Summer 1994), 259–282.
6. Elizabeth Hodes, “Precedents for social responsibility among scientists: The American Association of Scientific Workers and the Federation of American Scientists, 1938–1948” “Vannevar Bush’s new deal for research: or The triumph of the old order,” HSPS, 17:2 (1987), 299–344.
7. Mary Sperling McAuliffe, Crisis on the left: Cold War politics and American liberals, 1947–1954.
8. Richard H. Pells, The liberal mind in a conservative age: American intellectuals in the 1940s and 1950s (New York, 1985).
9. Alonzo Hamby, Beyond the New Deal: Harry S. Truman and American liberalism (New York, 1973).
10. U.S., Congress, Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs, Technological mobilization: Hearings on S. 2721, vol. 1, 77th Cong., 2nd sess., 13 Oct 1942, 1–4.
11. U.S., Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on War Mobilization of the Committee on Military Affairs, Legislative proposals for the promotion of science: The texts of five bills and excerpts from reports, 79th Cong., 1st sess., Aug 1945, 1–11.
12. U.S., Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on War Mobilization of the Committee on Military Affairs, National Science Foundation: Preliminary report on science legislation, 79th Cong., 1st sess., 21 Dec 1945, 9–18.
13. James R. Newman and Byron S. Miller, The control of atomic energy: A study of its social, economic, and political implications (New York, 1948), 19.
14. Kenneth MacDonald Jones, “Science, scientists, and Americans: Images of science and the formation of federal science policy, 1945–1950,” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1975), 208–216.
15. Ellis W. Hawley, The New Deal and the problem of monopoly (Princeton, 1966), chap. 17.
16. Howard A.Meyerhoff, “Obituary: National Science Foundation, 1946,” Science, 104 (2 Aug 1946), 97–98.
17. Talcott Parsons, “National science legislation, part 1: An historical review,” BAS, 2 (1 Nov 1946), 7–9, 31.
18. K.A.C. Elliot and Harry Grundfest, “The science mobilization bill,” Science, 97 (23 Apr 1943), 376.
19. Kirtley F. Mather, Harry Grundfest, and Melba Phillips, “The future of American science,” in United States, Congress, Senate, Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Wartime health and education: Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, part 7, 78th Cong., 2nd sess., 14, 15, and 16 Dec 1944, 2285–2292.
20. L.C. Dunn, “The opposition to the Kilgore Bill,” Science, 97 (4 June 1943), 511.
21. L.C. Dunn, “Organization and support of science in the United States,” Science, 102 (30 Nov 1945), 548-554, on 549-551.
22. Edwin T. Layton, Jr., The revolt of the engineers: Social responsibility and the American engineering profession (Cleveland, 1971), 159.
23. “The Committee for a National Science Foundation,” Science, 103 (4 Jan 1946), 11.
24. “Toward a national science policy?” Science, 106 (24 Oct 1947), 385.
25. John M. Jordan, Machine-age ideology: Social engineering and American liberalism, 1911–1939 (Chapel Hill, 1995).
26. Daniel J. Kevles, The physicists: The history of a scientific community in modern America (Cambridge, 1987).
27. Christopher Lasch, The revolt of the elites and the betrayal of democracy (New York, 1995).
28. Samuel P. Hays, Conservation and the gospel of efficiency: The progressive conservation movement, 1890–1920 (Cambridge, 1959).
29. Silvan S. Schweber, “The mutual embrace of science and the military: ONR and the growth of physics in the United States after World War II,” in Everett Mendelsohn, Merrit Roe Smith, and Peter Weingart, eds., Science, technology and the military, 2 vols. (Dordrecht, 1988), 1, 3–45.
30. Peter Galison, “Physics between war and peace,” 1, 47–86, esp. 51–65.
31. Paul Forman, “Behind quantum electronics: National security as basis for physical research in the United States, 1940-1960,” HSPS, 18:1 (1987), 149–229.
32. Stuart W. Leslie, The Cold War and American science: The military-industrial-academic complex at MIT and Stanford (New York, 1993).
33. Jessica Wang, “American science in an age of anxiety: Scientists, civil liberties, and the Cold War, 1945–1950” (Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995), 72–75.
34. Philip N. Powers, “A National Science Foundation?” Science, 104 (27 Dec 1946), 614–619.
35. S.S. Schweber, “Big science in context: Cornell and MIT,” in Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly, eds., Big science: The growth of large-scale research (Stanford, 1992), 149–183.
36. Robert R. Wilson, “The conscience of a physicist,” in Richard S. Lewis and Jane Wilson, eds., with Eugene Rabinowitch, Alamogordo plus twenty-five years (New York, 1971), 67–76.
37. Ellen W. Schrecker, No ivory tower: McCarthyism and the universities (New York, 1986), 151.
38. Stuart M. Feffer, “Atoms, cancer, and politics: Supporting atomic science at the University of Chicago, 1944–1950,” HSPS, 22:2 (1992), 233–261.
39. Norbert Wiener, “A scientist rebels,” Atlantic monthly, 179 (Jan 1947), 46.
40. “A rebellious scientist after two years,” BAS, 4 (Nov 1948), 338–339.
41. Martin J. Sherwin, A world destroyed: The atomic bomb and the grand alliance (New York, 1977; reprint, New York, 1975).
42. Paul K. Hoch, “The crystallization of a strategic alliance: The American physics elite and the military in the 1940s,” in Mendelssohn et al. (ref. 40), 87–111.
43. Nelson Lichtenstein, “From corporatism to collective bargaining: Organized labor and the eclipse of social democracy in the postwar era,” in Steven Fraser and Gary Gerstle, eds., The rise and fall of the New Deal order, 1930–1980 (Princeton, 1989), 122–152.
44. Daniel J. Kevles, “K1S2: Korea, science, and the state,” 329.
45. Melba Phillips, “Dangers confronting American science,” Science, 116 (24 Oct 1952), 439–443, on 442.