In a new introduction, the authors describe how science and its social context were understood when this book was first published, and how the study of the history of science has changed since then.

The ArgumentThe thesis of the paper is that there is no “abuse” of science as suggested by the legend of Galileo but only a mutual opportunism characterizing the relation between science and politics.Any scientific research depends on the accessibility of its subject matter, plus material resources. The absence of internal constraints, the hunger for novelty, translate into a powerful drive to secure both. The coupling between science and politics in our time is based on a mutual dependence: resources and accessibility (...) are exchanged for solutions to problems and legitimation.Scientific disciplines are highly sensitive to their environments with respect to the possibilities of extending their power of definition and of thereby obtaining resources. The ability of the sciences to expand their power of definition depends on the political “context of relevance.” The context, such as a socialist or fascist ideology, selects against certain sciences. But for a government to be able to favor one school at the expense of another there have to be competing factions within science, and their conflict has to be to some extent unresolved.Modern democratic systems differ from totalitarian ones insofar as their interest in science is ideologically vague and primarily economic in nature. This does not mean that the same mechanisms of mutual utilization do not operate. (shrink)

This is a study of Master Ramchandra, a nineteenth-century Indian mathematician, social commentator and Urdu journalist. The contradictions manifest in his projects, it is contended, were actually the products of the contradictions manifest in the political and ideological thinking of the period. One encounters in his writings a dominant critique of the prevalent religious, social and educational systems and also a call for social transformation, wherein scientific rationality and realism came to play an important role. Ramchandra's understanding is quite close (...) to that of the Comtean positivists. An attempt is made here to locate this emerging scientism within the context of nineteenth-century colonial politics. (shrink)

Science is atypical because it is cultivated with communal participation from throughout the world. This global formation has evolved recently. It originates in the institutionalization of a cosmopolitan tradition in Europe. The cosmopolitan orientation and the perceived usefulness of the European tradition promoted its adoption and institutionalization in the non-Western civilizations. A global institutional frame, including a global science policy regime, sustains communal participation in world science. Participation is described in terms of individual, national, and global communalformations.

Carothers's polymerisation theory, and Flory's enunciation of equal reactivities, were hybrids of ideas, extensions by analogy of the principles and methods of rigorous scientific disciplines into a new field, still in a state of conceptual unclarity. Their hybrid-ideas were radical innovations which contributed towards establishing polymer chemistry as a separate chemical discipline. Joseph Ben-David's theory of hybridisation can cast new light on the social and technological origins of significant innovations in twentieth-century science. Carothers and Flory's enunciations of radically novel ideas (...) were inseperable from their identification with the new role of polymer chemist.Quasi-academic or academically peripheral milieux have had a systematic, indeed historic, role in bringing about innovations in fundamental science, in isolating significant problems and fruitful analogies, and in shaping new types of academic careers. This mechanism at the periphery offsets the pressures for conformity and orthodoxy which otherwise tend to prevail in academic science at the centre. (shrink)