The National Academy of Science's 1956 study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation was designed to provide an objective analysis to assess conflicting statements by leading geneticists and by officials in the Atomic Energy Commission. Largely because of its status as a detached, non-governmental evaluation by eminent scientists, no studies have had a broader impact on the development of biological thinking in regard to nuclear policies. This paper demonstrates that despite the first BEAR study's reputation as an objective and (...) independent study, it was the product of careful negotiation between Academy scientists, the Atomic Energy Commission, and Britain's Medical Research Council. This paper also reveals the fragility of the consensus that produced the Academy's report, the range of political uses of the report, and the subsequent disaffection of the scientists who took part in it. (shrink)

Although oceanographers such as Roger Revelle are typically associated with key indicators of anthropogenic change, he and other scientists at midcentury had very different scientific priorities and ways of seeing the oceans. How can we join the narrative of the triumph of mathematical, dynamic oceanography with the environmental narrative? Dynamic methods entailed a broad set of values that touched the professional lives of marine scientists in a variety of disciplines all over the world, for better or for worse. The present (...) essay highlights three aspects of “Bergen values” in need of greater exploration by scholars. First, how did the dominance of Scandinavian outlooks influence scientific questions across the broad spectrum of oceanography? Second, did oceanographers’ particular means of making the oceans legible through instrumentation challenge their ability to perceive the oceans differently? Third, given the immense quantity of data, was the historical legacy of the dynamic oceanographers more descriptive than they imagined? (shrink)

The National Academy of Science's 1956 study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) was designed to provide an objective analysis to assess conflicting statements by leading geneticists and by officials in the Atomic Energy Commission. Largely because of its status as a detached, non-governmental evaluation by eminent scientists, no studies have had a broader impact on the development of biological thinking in regard to nuclear policies. This paper demonstrates that despite the first BEAR study's reputation as an objective (...) and independent study, it was the product of careful negotiation between Academy scientists, the Atomic Energy Commission, and Britain's Medical Research Council. This paper also reveals the fragility of the consensus that produced the Academy's report, the range of political uses of the report, and the subsequent disaffection of the scientists who took part in it. (shrink)

This work explores the attitudes of American scientists towardsinternational scientific activity, with particular respect to theoceanic sciences, during the three decades after the First WorldWar. In the mid-1950s, the Eisenhower Administration favouredthe thesis that increased international collaboration wouldstrengthen the Free World, ease Cold War tensions, and promotethe growth of science. This essay analyses elements in thatthesis, namely, scientific chauvinism, humanitarianism, andscientific interdependence. The narrative traces these themesthrough key episodes in the history of international cooperationin oceanic science, revealing how this experience (...) shapedstrategies and expectations for cooperative scientific research. (shrink)