Presented as a retrospective speech by the president of the History of Science Society in 2038, this essay imagines a future for the profession of the history of science in the United States. Acknowledging that self-described historians of science do not fully control the subject, it considers the place of the history of science in a future university landscape in which interdisciplinary “studies” have supplanted disciplines as the fundamental organizing structure. It then situates this academic scene within a broader professional (...) landscape in which nonuniversity institutions play an expanded role in bringing the history of science directly to the public. Here the essay focuses on an imagined Science Heritage Center that blends commitments to innovative scholarly research, public history techniques of experiential learning, and updated technologies of virtual reality. It further suggests an unexpected direction for developing a collaborative “citizen history of science.”. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This essay argues that historians of science who seek to embody our oxymoronic self-description must confront both contradictory terms that define our common enterprise—that is, both “history” and “science.” On the history/methods side, it suggests that we embrace the heterogeneity of our institutional arrangements and repudiate the homogeneous disciplinary model sometimes advocated by Thomas Kuhn and followed by art history. This implies that rather than treating the history of science as an end in itself, we consider it a means (...) to a variety of historical ends, think of ourselves as a tool-making community, and jettison moralistic assertions of scientific exceptionalism. To do so, this essay argues—on the science/subject side—that we rebrand the subject of our historical inquiry as “episcience,” a neologism that stands in relation to “science” as the new field of epigenetics does to the old genetics. Episcience encompasses both the material activities of the relevant sciences and their “surround” (environment, milieu, Umgebung) to reframe knowledge making to include the material processes that put science “in play” and make its findings matter beyond science. The essay concludes that “the history of science” is an oxymoron that makes sense to the extent that its practitioners acknowledge that the history of science is important not just because science is important, but because its history is. (shrink)