“Pure science” and “applied science” have peculiar histories in the United States. Both terms were in use in the early part of the nineteenth century, but it was only in the last decades that they took on new meanings and became commonplace in the discourse of American scientists. The rise in their currency reflected an acute concern about the corruption of character and the real possibilities of commercializing scientific knowledge. “Pure” was the preference of scientists who wanted to emphasize their (...) nonpecuniary motives and their distance from the marketplace. “Applied” was the choice of scientists who accepted patents and profits as other possible returns on their research. In general, the frequent conjoining of “pure” and “applied” bespoke the inseparable relations of science and capitalism in the Gilded Age. (shrink)

How to characterize the relationship between science and technology has been a sensitive issue for historians of technology. This essay uses a recent and controversial piece by Paul Forman as a springboard for reexamining the concept of applied science and asks whether “applied science” remains a useful term. Scholars have often taken “applied science” to mean the subordination of technological knowledge to scientific knowledge—and thus the subordination of history of technology to history of science. This essay argues that the historical (...) moment for sensitivity on the subject of applied science has passed, that even in instances where technology can accurately be described as subordinate to science it need not follow that its history is subordinate, and that the concept can be useful in addressing issues in the history and contemporary practice of engineering education. (shrink)