Sandia National Laboratories, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was originally a part of Los Alamos Laboratory. In 1949, AT&T agreed to manage Sandia, which they did for the next 44 years. During those Cold War years, Sandia was the prime weapons engineering laboratory for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. As such, it bore prime responsibility for designing and adapting nuclear weapons for the military services' delivery systems, and ensuring the safety and reliability of the stockpile. The Labs' history has been (...) unevenly documented, hindered by the secret nature of its work and the desire of management to maintain a low public profile. There have been three history programs at Sandia: a restricted history published internally in 1963; another history program in the early 1980s that resulted in a history of the Labs' first decade; and the current history program dating from the mid-1990s, which has published a general history and several monographs. This article discusses the challenges and problems inherent in documenting the history of a national weapons laboratory during the last 50 years. (shrink)

In his presidential address to the chemistry section of the British Association in 1907, Arthur Smithells pointed to work in radioactivity with wonder, calling it the ‘chemistry of phantoms’. Indeed, the transitory nature of the radioelements, coupled with the exceedingly small quantities commonly handled, made many a traditional chemist hesitant to accept these unusual substances as real elements worthy of insertion into the periodic table. Besides, there were too many of them: by 1913 over thirty radioelements were known, but there (...) were no more than twelve boxes in the periodic table in which to house them. Moreover, there was much confusion about radioelements that had different physical properties such as half-life and range of emitted alpha particle, but which could not be separated chemically. Small wonder then that Alexander Russell, the only person who worked with both Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy, recalled the prevalent attitude of chemists as discouraging of interpretative attempts: theirs was, so they claimed, ‘an experimental science. No good ever came from pontificating on the ways of Nature from the comfort of an armchair. The laboratory bench, not the sofa, … was where the truth would be found’. (shrink)

I respond to Scerri’s recent reply to my claim that there was a scientific revolution in chemistry in the early twentieth Century. I grant, as Scerri insists, that there are significant continuities through the change about which we are arguing. That is so in all scientific revolutions. But I argue that the changes were such that they constitute a Kuhnian revolution, not in the classic sense of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but in the sense of Kuhn’s mature theory, developed (...) in the 1980s and early 1990s. (shrink)

This paper argues that the field of chemistry underwent a significant change of theory in the early twentieth century, when atomic number replaced atomic weight as the principle for ordering and identifying the chemical elements. It is a classic case of a Kuhnian revolution. In the process of addressing anomalies, chemists who were trained to see elements as defined by their atomic weight discovered that their theoretical assumptions were impediments to understanding the chemical world. The only way to normalize the (...) anomalies was to introduce new concepts, and a new conceptual understanding of what it is to be an element. In the process of making these changes, a new scientific lexicon emerged, one that took atomic number to be the defining feature of a chemical element. (shrink)

This article is a translation into english of a lecture given by paneth in 1931. The content of the work is described by the section titles: (1) the need for epistemological clarification of the fundamental concepts of chemistry, (2) the concept of substance in chemistry, (3) the epistemological standpoint of the ancient atomists, (4) the epistemological position of the concept of element introduced by lavoisier, (5) the double meaning of the chemical concept of element: 'basic substance' and 'simple substance', And (...) (6) the double meaning of other chemical concepts. Sections (4)-(6) are published in the following number of this journal. (staff). (shrink)

Interdisciplinarity has become a dominant research policy imperative1 – exercised by European Research Council and other funding agencies at different scales – and a substantial topic in science studies fields outside philosophy of science, including science education, research management (particularly team management) and scientometrics. Philosophers of science have only recently begun to dedicate more attention to this feature of contemporary science. The present collection of studies aspires to promote this line of philosophical inquiry in terms of case studies on various (...) aspects of interdisciplinarity in science, and to bring philosophical concepts and principles to bear in its analysis. While much current philosophical work has focused on the possibility of conceptual and methodological unification and integration amongst specific fields, we aim to widen the scope of philosophical treatment of this issue by mapping out the broader landscape of philosophical issues that emerge from interdisciplinary interactions, and by identifying the points where philosophical analysis can make important and relevant contributions. (shrink)

Whom should we credit for the discovery of isotopes? The first suggestion of an idea, the first experimental proof, or the development of a new method that clearly reveals the isotopes? Strömholm and Svedberg, Fajans and Soddy interpreted patterns of radioactive decay, which became confirmed theory on the solid basis of the very accurate atomic weight determinations by Richards and his coworkers. The mass spectrograph measurements by Aston provided major extension of the concept of isotopes to much of the rest (...) of the periodic table. Thus, Strömholm and Svedberg, Fajans and Soddy provided an idea, which Richards proved, and Aston made generally useful. Richards should be listed along with Fajans, Soddy, and Aston for fundamental contributions to establishing isotopes as part of the modern language of science. As much credit should be given to the experimental proof as to the suggestion or naming of the concept. (shrink)

Whom should we credit for the discovery of isotopes? The first suggestion of an idea, the first experimental proof, or the development of a new method that clearly reveals the isotopes? Strömholm and Svedberg, Fajans and Soddy interpreted patterns of radioactive decay, which became confirmed theory on the solid basis of the very accurate atomic weight determinations by Richards and his coworkers. The mass spectrograph measurements by Aston provided major extension of the concept of isotopes to much of the rest (...) of the periodic table. Thus, Strömholm and Svedberg, Fajans and Soddy provided an idea, which Richards proved, and Aston made generally useful. Richards should be listed along with Fajans, Soddy, and Aston for fundamental contributions to establishing isotopes as part of the modern language of science. As much credit should be given to the experimental proof as to the suggestion or naming of the concept. (shrink)

Whom should we credit for the discovery of isotopes? The first suggestion of an idea, the first experimental proof, or the development of a new method that clearly reveals the isotopes? Strömholm and Svedberg, Fajans and Soddy interpreted patterns of radioactive decay, which became confirmed theory on the solid basis of the very accurate atomic weight determinations by Richards and his coworkers. The mass spectrograph measurements by Aston provided major extension of the concept of isotopes to much of the rest (...) of the periodic table. Thus, Strömholm and Svedberg, Fajans and Soddy provided an idea, which Richards proved, and Aston made generally useful. Richards should be listed along with Fajans, Soddy, and Aston for fundamental contributions to establishing isotopes as part of the modern language of science. As much credit should be given to the experimental proof as to the suggestion or naming of the concept. (shrink)