Definitely, there are quite a few examples of ideas traveling “upstream” in a variety of fields. I can think of several in the forensic sciences. As far as not putting any forward as examples in this paper…I still think the museum section holds the key to where Rader is going with this at a later time (I say Rader here because as far as I know the museum thing is “hers,” but I suppose it could also be an interest of Pandora’s). They didn’t actually give specifics, but I saw it as a bit of a teaser: “Ooooh…scientists debated this half to death ’bout 50 years back and they came up with some fascinating answers! [to be continued]”

But, yes, I think they could have been a little more over the top with the wink-wink promises-promises to whip people up about it more than they did. Karen’s always preferred to be a bit more on the understated side than, say, I might be. Which makes her work very meticulous, thoughtful, and fair, but it doesn’t always light a fire under people.

Thanks for picking up the thread. I agree with your first point: the reactions to the Isis article are pretty interesting. Some responses to your post:

Reaction 1a. I’m not sure who thought R&P said that scientists and historians don’t get along (though there are certainly dust-ups from time to time). I thought R&P made it clear that the failure of communication took place between scientists and the public.

Reaction 2. I agree, not much of this is new. Analysis similar to R&P’s has been out there since Cooter and Pumphrey took this subject on in 1994, a paper that energized a number of young STS folks to start taking popularization and popular science far more seriously.

If it struck a nerve, perhaps it did, it was because R&P’s novel idea (that historians of science can play a constructive role in the current relationship between science and public) was not followed by any examples that I found persuasive, particularly ways in which the public might shape the content of scientists’ work.

I think that these examples exist. I know that in my field, the history of U.S. exploration, there are good cases of geographical information traveling “upstream” as it were, from publishers, whalers, explorers etc. to influence elite scientists in Washington and elsewhere.

Reaction 6: “it doesn’t quite manage to sell itself.” I agree.

“At least one reaction actually belittled R&P for being so provincial as to give a shit about being decent citizens. “Fuck that silly nonsense,” the respondent might as well have said. “Scientists just want something that’ll matter in a lab.” I assume this refers to my post. If my comment about “civic duty” sounded dismissive, I apologize. I believe that HoS folks have a duty to be relevant and have tried to show this in my published work (eg. http://hnn.us/articles/51386.html). But in the the R&P article, the appeal to civic duty sounded ad hoc. Perhaps this was best left out of my post.

“He also appears to be a historian putting himself on shaky ground by speaking for scientists, instead of actually being a scientist?” I’m a historian by training - though I did study science and philosophy in college and worked in a lab for three years. As for my biases, I’ll let you decide. I try to call it like I see it.

All best,
Michael