Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. An American Insect in Imperial Germany: Visibility and Control in Making the Phylloxera in Germany, 1870–1914.Sarah Jansen - 2000 - Science in Context 13 (1):31-70.
    The ArgumentThe vine lousePhylloxera vastatrixbecame a “pest” as it was transferred from North America and from France to Germany during the 1870s. Embodying the “invading alien,” it assumed a cultural position that increasingly gained importance in Imperial Germany. In this process, the minute insect, living invisibly underground, was made visible and became constitutive of the scientific-technological object, “pest,” pertaining to a scientific discipline, modern economic entomology. The “pest” phylloxera emerged by being made visible in a way that enabled control measures (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Between Local Practices and Global Knowledge: Public Initiatives in the Development of Agricultural Science in Russia in the 19th Century and Early 20th Century. [REVIEW]Olga Elina - 2014 - Centaurus 56 (4):305-329.
    State patronage and the role of central government in modernization are often cited as the key factors that underpin the development of science in Russia. This paper argues that the development of Russian agricultural science had predominantly local and non-governmental sources of support. Historically Russian agricultural research was funded and promoted through private patronage, but from the middle of the 19th century agricultural societies and community administrations began to sponsor research and promotion of new ideas in the agricultural sector. At (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Wizards and Devotees: On the Mendelian Theory of Inheritance and the Professionalization of Agricultural Science in Great Britain and the United States, 1880–1930.Paolo Palladino - 1994 - History of Science 32 (4):409-444.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • The once and future georgic: agricultural practice, environmental knowledge, and the place for an ethic of experience. [REVIEW]Benjamin R. Cohen - 2009 - Agriculture and Human Values 26 (3):153-165.
    This paper re-introduces the georgic ethic and the role it has historically played in debates about new agricultural practices. Public engagement, participatory research, and greater local involvement in crafting new means to work the land flood the literature of agrarian studies. Putting the experience- and place-based georgic into that discourse can help deepen its character and future possibilities. The paper draws from recent sociological research into the acceptance and resistance to new practices to show the georgic’s explanatory, descriptive utility in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Instrument makers and discipline builders: the case of nuclear magnetic resonance.Timothy Lenoir & Christophe Lécuyer - 1995 - Perspectives on Science 3 (3):276-345.
    Crucial to the establishment of a scientific discipline is a body of knowledge organized around a set of instruments, interpretive techniques, and regimes of training in their application. In this paper, we trace the involvement of scientists and engineers at Varian Associates in the development of nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers from the first demonstrations of the NMR phenomenon in 1946 to the definitive takeoff of NMR as a chemical discipline by the mid-1960s. We examine the role of Varian scientists in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Justus Liebig and the Plant Physiologists.Petra Werner & Frederic L. Holmes - 2002 - Journal of the History of Biology 35 (3):421 - 441.
    In his book "Organic Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Chemistry." Justus Liebig attacked "the plant physiologists" for their support of the humus theory and for their general ignorance of chemistry. Two leading botanists, Matthias Schleiden and Hugo von Mohl, responded by sharply criticizing Liebig for his lack of knowledge of plants and his misrepresentation of the views of plant physiologists. The origin and character of this debate can be understood in part through the temperaments of Liebig and Schleiden, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark