Science and the Growth of the American Republic

1976 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Bernard Cohen

Just a few years ago, it was estimated that 90 percent of all the scientists and engineers who had ever lived were still alive; and that more than half of them were resident in the United States. These numbers show the status of America as a major scientific nation, and the reason why this is a fact of critical importance for the historical analyst in 1976 is that only 40 years ago America could probably still be classed as an “undeveloped” (or “developing”) country on the highest scale of the international scientific community. Before addressing myself to the causes of this change and its consequences for American political and social thought and action, for the American conscience and for America's public image and self-image, let me indicate the kind of evidence that supports my assertion that America might be considered “underdeveloped” with respect to the sciences, prior to 1935. First of all, there was an almost wholly one-way direction of movement of graduate and postdoctoral students: eastward over the Atlantic to the great European centers of scientific teaching and research. Although there were some fields in which Americans had been making outstanding contributions, such as experimental and theoretical genetics, by and large the great overarching theories that either introduced order into one of the sciences, or brought diverse branches of science into an unexpected relationship, or revolutionized much of science, were produced by Europeans: Rutherford, the Curies, Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac. In 1963, in an address on the occasion of the centenary celebrations of our National Academy of Sciences, John F. Kennedy observed that of the 670 members of the Academy, 163 (or one out of every four) had been born in foreign lands—a figure that differed in order of magnitude from the condition in any other country, and that showed the degree to which the high estate that American science had gained was owing to the infusion of scientists from abroad.

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 171-176
Author(s):  
Hepeng Jia

Abstract In recent years, Chinese scientists have achieved significant progress in paleontological discoveries and scientific studies. Series of studies published in top journals, such as Science, Nature and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), have astonished the world by presenting beautiful fossils that furnish robust evidence to enrich the understanding of organismic evolution, major extinctions and stratigraphy. It has been portrayed as the heyday in the paleontology of China. What is the status of the field? What factors have caused the avalanche of fossil discoveries in China? What implications can these new discoveries provide for our understanding of current evolution theories? How, given their significant contribution to the world's paleontology scholarship, can Chinese scientists play a due leadership role in the field? At an online forum organized by the National Science Review (NSR), its associate editor-in-chief, Zhonghe Zhou, asked four scientists in the field as well as NSR executive editor-in-chief Mu-ming Poo to join the discussion. Jin Meng Paleobiologist at American Museum of Natural History Mu-ming Poo Neurobiologist at Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Shuzhong Shen Stratigrapher at Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences Shuhai Xiao Paleobiologist and geobiologist at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Zhonghe Zhou (Chair) Paleobiologist at Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP), Chinese Academy of Sciences


2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 556-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brit Shields

This paper seeks to combine studies of émigré scientists, Cold War American science, and cultural histories of mathematical communities by analyzing Richard Courant’s participation in the National Academy of Sciences interacademy exchange program with the Soviet Union in the 1960s. Following his dismissal by the Nazi government from his post as Director of the Göttingen Mathematics Institute in 1933, Courant spent a year at the University of Cambridge, and then immigrated to the United States where he developed the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University. Courant’s participation with the National Academy of Sciences interacademy exchange program at the end of his career highlights his ideologies about the mathematics discipline, the international mathematics community, and the political role mathematicians could play in contributing to international peace through scientific diplomacy. Courant’s Cold War scientific identity emerges from his activities as an émigré mathematician, institution builder, and international “ambassador.”


Author(s):  
Joseph L. Breault

The National Academy of Sciences convened in 1995 for a conference on massive data sets. The presentation on health care noted that “massive applies in several dimensions . . . the data themselves are massive, both in terms of the number of observations and also in terms of the variables . . . there are tens of thousands of indicator variables coded for each patient” (Goodall, 1995, paragraph 18). We multiply this by the number of patients in the United States, which is hundreds of millions.


2004 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 487-493
Author(s):  
Xiaofang Gao

Hedge is defined as the expression of provisionalness and possibility that makes scientific messages tentative, vague, and imprecise, thereby reducing the force of claims scientists make. Linguistic study of hedges began in the early 1970s in generative semantics. Since then, the focus has shifted from seeking linguistic properties in spoken discourse to analyzing its pragmatic functions in written contextual communication. The purpose of this paper was to analyze hedges in Chinese and English scientific articles from the perspective of contrastive pragmatics. Based on a contextual analysis of 5 Chinese and 5 English scientific articles, selected randomly, from two journals in molecular biology— Science in China and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, there were significant differences between Chinese and English scientific articles in use of hedges.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-85
Author(s):  
A. E. Skelton ◽  
A. Franklin

AbstractThe extent to which aesthetic preferences are ‘innate’ has been highly debated (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382, 2004). For some types of visual stimuli infants look longer at those that adults prefer. It is unclear whether this is also the case for colour. A lack of relationship in prior studies between how long infants look at different colours and how much adults like those colours might be accounted for by stimulus limitations. For example, stimuli may have been too desaturated for infant vision. In the current study, using saturated colours more suitable for infants, we aim to quantify the relationship between infant looking and adult preference for colour. We take infant looking times at multiple hues from a study of infant colour categorization (Skelton, Catchpole, Abbott, Bosten, & Franklin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(21), 5545–5550, 2017) and then measure adult preferences and compare these to infant looking. When colours are highly saturated, infants look longer at colours that adults prefer. Both infant looking time and adult preference are greatest for blue hues and are least for green-yellow. Infant looking and adult preference can be partly summarized by activation of the blue-yellow dimension in the early encoding of human colour vision. These findings suggest that colour preference is at least partially rooted in the sensory mechanisms of colour vision, and more broadly that aesthetic judgements may in part be due to underlying sensory biases.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 239784731769499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward J Calabrese

This commentary summarizes a spate of recent papers that provide historical evidence that the 1956 recommendation of the US National Academy of Sciences Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation I Genetics Panel to switch from a threshold to a linear dose–response model for risk assessment was an ideologically motivated decision based on deliberate falsification and fabrication of the research record. The recommendation by the Genetics Panel had far-reaching influence, affecting cancer risk assessment, risk communication strategies, community public health, and numerous medical practices in the United States and worldwide. This commentary argues that the toxicology, risk assessment, and regulatory communities examine this issue, addressing how these new historical evaluations affect the history and educational practices of these fields as well as carcinogen regulation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document