WilsonLeonard, “Medical history without medicine”, Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, xxxv (1980), 5–7. StevensonLloyd G., “A second opinion”, Bulletin of the history of medicine, liv (1980), 134–140. Stevenson cited the Science news story, but both he and Wilson were clearly reacting independently of the A.A.A.S. talk.
4.
Science, ccvii (1980), 934–5.
5.
HolmesF. L., “The fine structure of scientific creativity”, History of science, xix (1981), 60–70.
6.
A number of the writings of Charles C. Gillispie come to mind.
7.
Weart's book successfully interweaves group sociology and science policy with developments in nuclear physics. Precedents for such attempts are quite common in the histories of applied fields. A recent outstanding example is JenkinsReese V., Images and enterprise: Technology and the American photographic industry (Baltimore, 1976). Perhaps more important as precedents in the United States are the many writings of general historians which matter-of-factly treated inter-relations of thought and action, particularly in United States history. Except for some of the historians of science, products of American graduate schools were not uncomfortable with the idea that science could show influences from outside its domain.
8.
Washington Post, 23 July, 1980.
9.
“Refugee mathematicians in the United States of America, 1933–1941: Reception and reaction”, Annals of science, xxxviii (1981), 313–38.
