The National Academy of Science's 1956 study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation was designed to provide an objective analysis to assess conflicting statements by leading geneticists and by officials in the Atomic Energy Commission. Largely because of its status as a detached, non-governmental evaluation by eminent scientists, no studies have had a broader impact on the development of biological thinking in regard to nuclear policies. This paper demonstrates that despite the first BEAR study's reputation as an objective and (...) independent study, it was the product of careful negotiation between Academy scientists, the Atomic Energy Commission, and Britain's Medical Research Council. This paper also reveals the fragility of the consensus that produced the Academy's report, the range of political uses of the report, and the subsequent disaffection of the scientists who took part in it. (shrink)

Although it often chafed at scientists' wishes to promote international cooperation, the U.S. Navy was a great supporter of such initiatives during the 1950s. This essay examines the impetus for the Navy's alliance with scientists to bolster its antisubmarine capabilities, the reasons for its acceptance of international cooperation as a means to ensure its technological capabilities during a general war, and the source of its clashes with scientists over the issue of classification. Using diverse sources, including the records of the (...) Navy's Strategic Plans Division, the essay illustrates that, despite the confluence of interests between the Navy and oceanographers, there was a decisive difference in their views as to the ultimate utility of basic research. This difference stemmed largely from scientists' limited perception of science as the capital for new technology and the Navy's perception of science as the collection of operational data for existing technology. This essay, which takes the Navy's views more fully into account, brings to light an issue that should be an important component of any analysis of scientists working with the military. (shrink)

This work explores the attitudes of American scientists towardsinternational scientific activity, with particular respect to theoceanic sciences, during the three decades after the First WorldWar. In the mid-1950s, the Eisenhower Administration favouredthe thesis that increased international collaboration wouldstrengthen the Free World, ease Cold War tensions, and promotethe growth of science. This essay analyses elements in thatthesis, namely, scientific chauvinism, humanitarianism, andscientific interdependence. The narrative traces these themesthrough key episodes in the history of international cooperationin oceanic science, revealing how this experience (...) shapedstrategies and expectations for cooperative scientific research. (shrink)