The Historian of Science and Oceanography After Twenty Years
A little more than twenty years ago, at the First International Congress of History of Oceanography in Monaco, the American historian of science Harold Burstyn attempted to place the history of oceanography in context within the history of science. He pointed out that history of science used as a working principle the increasing quantification of science, and that it was moving toward "externalist" studies of the social and political contexts in which science developed. Oceanography, according to Burstyn, was among the first examples of "big science" and was likely to prove important to historians attempting to link scientific development with its social context. He envisioned two tasks for the historian of oceanography, to develop detailed histories of the science itself, and to explore its response to social, political, financial and cultural forces.After three more congresses of the history of oceanography, the proliferation of publications, even the birth of a newsletter of the history of oceanography, it still largely remains true that (slightly edited) the field suffers from "lack of focus, publications of all offerings regardless of merit, and conjunction of scientists … and historians and philosophers of science, assembled without any methodological unit or rules of procedure". But all is not lost. Major books have helped to focus attention on interesting historical problems as well as achievements; outstanding work has been published, or is in progress, on marine geophysics, oceanographic institutions, exploration, national science, and the historical relationship of oceanography to its sister fields such as geography and marine biology. Bibliographies have begun to appear, easing the toil of starting new research, and regular contact, formal and informal is increasing among historians of oceanography.Nonetheless, the history of oceanography is still in a primitive state. We need more internal histories of oceanography's subdisciplines, critical biographies of its practitioners, studies of its institutions in their full contexts, work on differences in national styles, and a thorough examination of its professionalization. Few would now agree that the only canon of the history of oceanography is the increasing quantification of science, but this hybrid discipline remains, as Burstyn perceptively stated, "the most fruitful combination possible of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ problems in the history of science".