R.K. Merton, Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England ( New York: Harper and Row, 1970). (Originally published 1938.)
2.
R.K. Merton, 'The Normative Structure of Science', in R.K. Merton, The Sociology of Science ( Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1973). (Originally published 1942.)
3.
B. Barber, Science and the SocialOrder (New York: The Free Press , 1952).
4.
This point has been made strongly by S.S. Blume, Toward a Political Sociology of Science (New York and London: The Free Press, 1974).
5.
For example, S. and J. Cole, 'Visibility and the Structural Bases of Awareness of Scientific Research', American Sociological Review , Vol. 33 (June 1968), 397-412.
6.
For example, J. Gaston, 'The Reward System in British Science', American Sociological Review, Vol. 35 (August 1970), 718-32.
7.
For example, N.W. Storer , The Social System of Science ( New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966).
8.
For example, D. Crane, Invisible Colleges (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972).
9.
For discussion of élites, see T.B. Bottomore, Elites and Society ( London: Watts, 1966 ); also A. Giddens , 'Elites in the British Class Structure', in P.H. Stanworth and A. Giddens (eds), Elites and Power in British Society (London : Cambridge University Press, 1974 ).
10.
Because I am concerned here primarily with relations between the research community and the wider society, I have necessarily avoided a full discussion of the complexities of the élite structure of science. Such a discussion would deal with various kinds of scientific elite and would recognize that what I have called 'the scientific élite' is made up of a complicated series of overlapping élites, which are themselves often in competition. See J.R. Ravetz, Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971); also R.D. Whitley, 'Umbrella and Polytheistic Disciplines and their Elites', elsewhere in this issue.
11.
The range of phenomena regarded as 'natural' will vary over time and from one society and social group to another.
12.
See relevant sections of B. Barnes (ed.), Sociology of Science (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1972).
13.
M.J. Mulkay , G.N. Gilbert and S.W. Woolgar, 'Problem Areas and Research Networks in Science', Sociology, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1975), 187-203.
14.
S. and J. Cole, Social Stratification in Science (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press , 1973), Chapter 8.
15.
M.J. Mulkay and D.O. Edge, 'Social, Cognitive and Technical Factors in the Growth of Radio Astronomy ', Social Science Information , Vol. 12, No. 6 (1973), 25-61.
16.
J. Ziman, Public Knowledge (London: Cambridge University Press, 1968).
17.
But see H. Collins, 'The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon', Sociology, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1975), 205-24.
18.
T.S. Kuhn, 'The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science', in A.C. Crombie (ed.), Symposium on the History of Science (London: Heinemann, 1963), 31-60.
19.
W.O. Hagstrom , The Scientific Community ( New York: Basic Books, 1965).
20.
R.K. Merton , 'Priorities in Scientific Discovery', in The Sociology of Science, op. cit. note 2.
21.
Cole and Cole, op. cit. note 14.
22.
Op. cit. note 6.
23.
Op. cit. note 14. It should be recognized that women and certain racial and class groups are considerably under-represented in the scientific community. These kinds of 'particularistic' factors are clearly of very great importance in determining entry to the scientific community.
24.
A.J. Lotka , 'The Frequency Distribution of Scientific Productivity ', Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 16 (19 June 1926), 317.
25.
D. J. de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science ( New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1963), 43.
26.
The association between receipt of recognition and production of results deemed to be 'significant' or of 'high quality' (quality and significance are indistinguishable in most studies) may well be exaggerated by the procedures which are normally used to measure these variables. This is so because there is often conceptual overlap between the indicators of recognition and of quality. Consequently, the apparent association between these variables may be, to an unknown extent, a product of our research techniques. Moreover, the processes whereby results come to be defined as 'significant' have been little explored by sociologists. See N. Shanin-Cohen, 'Innovation and Citation' (Unpublished paper, National Council for Research and Development , Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1974).
27.
Op. cit. note 14.
28.
S.S. Blume and R. Sinclair, 'Chemists in British Universities: A Study of the Reward System in Science', American Sociological Review, Vol. 38 (February 1973), 126-38.
H. Zuckerman , 'Stratification in American Science', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 40 (Spring 1970), 235-57; Price. op. cit. note 25.
33.
H. Zuckerman , 'Nobel Laureates in Science: Patterns of Productivity, Collaboration, and Authorship', American Sociological Review , Vol. 32 (June 1967), 391-403.
34.
I.I. Mitroff, The Subjective Side of Science (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1974),91.
35.
Gaston, op. cit. note 6.
36.
Hagstrom, op. cit. note 19.
37.
A.H. Halsey and M. Trow, The British Academics (London: Faber and Faber, 1971); A.M. Cartter, An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966).
38.
H. Zuckerman , 'The Sociology of the Nobel Prizes', Scientific American (November 1967), 25-33.
39.
Zuckerman, op. cit. note 32.
40.
H. Eisner, 'University of the FRS', New Scientist (25 January 1973), 197.
41.
Halsey and Trow, op. cit. note 37.
42.
Ibid.; Zuckerman, op. cit. note 32; Cole and Cole, op. cit. note 13; L. Moulin, 'The Nobel Prizes for the Sciences from 1901-1950', British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6 ( 1955), 246-63.
43.
K.W. Deutsch , J. Platt, and D. Senghaas, 'Conditions Favouring Major Advances in Social Science', Science, Vol. 171 (5 February 1971), 450-59. The research methods used in this study are open to criticism.
44.
L. Hargens and W.O. Hagstrom, 'Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Academic Scientists', Sociology of Education, Vol. 40 (Winter 1967), 24-38.
45.
D. Crane, 'Scientists at Major and Minor Universities', American Sociological Review, Vol. 30 (October 1965), 699-714.
46.
Blume and Sinclair, op. cit. note 28, 135.
47.
Gaston, who did not control for quality of output, found no connection between university affiliation and recognition for British high energy physics. However, the number of British universities engaged in this field is rather small and there may be a tendency for high energy physicists to be located at élite centres. See note 6.
48.
R.H. Knapp and J.J. Greenbaum, The Younger American Scholar: His Collegiate Origins (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953); J.L. Holland, 'Undergraduate Origins of American Scientists', Science, Vol. 126 (6 September 1957), 433-37; Halsey and Trow, op. cit. note 37.
49.
RobbinsReport on Higher Education (London: HMSO, 1963).
50.
L. Groeneveld , N. Koller and N. Mullins, 'The Advisers of the U.S. National Science Foundation', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 5, No. 3 (August 1975 ), 343-54.
51.
These figures have been computed from Tables 4.1 and 7.1 in Halsey and Trow, op. cit. note 37, Chapter 10.
52.
Crane, op. cit. note 8.
53.
Hagstrom, op. cit. note 19; B. Barber, 'The Functions and Dysfunctions of Fashion in Science', Mens en Maatscbappij , Vol. 43, No. 6 (1968), 501-14.
54.
G.N. Gilbert, 'The Development of Scientific Specialties: the Case of Radar Meteor Astronomy', to be published in G.L. Lemaine et al. (eds), New Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines (Paris: Mouton, 1976).
55.
M.J. Mulkay, The Social Process of Innovation: A Study in the Sociology of Science (London: Macmillan, 1972 ).
56.
W.D. Garvey and B.C. Griffith, 'Scientific Information Exchange in Psychology', Science , Vol. 146 (25 December 1964), 1955-59.
R.K. Merton , 'The Matthew Effect in Science', in The Sociology of Science, op. cit. note 2.
61.
The Coles' attempt to explore the extent of the Matthew Effect is methodologically unconvincing. See op. cit. note 14, Chapter 7.
62.
P.D. Allison and J.A. Stewart, 'Productivity Differences among Scientists: Evidence for Accumulative Advantage', American Sociological Review, Vol. 39 (August 1974), 596-606; see also Cole and Cole, op. cit. note 14.
E.g., G.M. Swatez, 'The Social Organization of a University Laboratory', Minerva, Vol. 8, No. 1 (January 1970), 36-58.
65.
G. Lemaine, B-P. Lecuyer et al., Les Voies du Succes: sur quelques facteurs de la réussite des laboratoires de recherche fondamentale en France (Paris : CNRS, 1972), offset.
66.
Blume, op. cit. note 4.
67.
Ravetz, op, cit. note 10.
68.
Op. cit. note 5. A scientist's visbility score was the percentage of respondents who said that they were familiar with his work.
69.
W. Krohn and P. Weingart, 'The Origins of Agricultural Chemistry', to be published in Lemaine et al., op. cit. note 54; J.D. Bernal, Science and Industry in the Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953).
70.
J. Haberer, Politics and the Community of Science (New York and London: Van Nostrand Reinhold , 1969).
71.
R. Lapp, The New Priesthood: The Scientific Elite and the Uses of Power (New York: Harper and Row , 1965).
72.
R. Gilpin and C. Wright (eds), Scientists and National Policy Making (New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1964).
73.
D.K. Price, Government and Science (New York: New York University Press, 1954).
74.
R.C. Wood, 'Scientists and Politics', in Gilpin and Wright, op. cit. note 72.
75.
In op. cit. note 72; also D.S. Greenberg, The Politics of American Science (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1969); and N.C. Mullins, private communication .
76.
Two careful quantitative studies have been carried out in America by Mullins and his associates: N.C. Mullins, 'The Structure of an Elite: the Advisory Structure of the U.S. Public Health Service', Science Studies , Vol. 2 (1972) 3-29; and L. Groeneveld et al., 'The Advisers of the U.S. National Science Foundation', op. cit. note 50. In the first study, it was concluded that, although on the whole the turnover of PHS advisers is rapid, there does appear to be a small group which has remained in the PHS for some time and which has moved into positions of influence. See also the forthcoming book by Mullins, Power, Social Structure and Advice in American Science: The United States Federal Science Advisory System from 1950-1973. There is an urgent need for studies of this kind to be carried out in Britain.
77.
J. Ben-David, Fundamental Research and the Universities (Paris : OECD, 1968).
78.
Compare the figures given by Blume, op. cit. note 4, Chapter 6, with those in Groeneveld et al., op. cit. note 50.
79.
Blume, op. cit. note 4, Chapter 6.
80.
For an account of the wider political context, see N.J. Vig, Science and Technology in British Politics (London: Pergamon Press, 1968).
81.
A. de Rueck, M. Goldsmith and J. Knight (eds), Decision Making in National Science Policy (London : Churchill, 1968).
82.
L. Sklair, Organised Knowledge (London: Hart -Davis, MacGibbon, 1973).
83.
J. Salomon, Science and Politics (London; Macmillan , 1973).
84.
A Framework for Government Research and Development (London: HMSO, 1971). (The Rothschild Report.)
85.
The SRC provides most of the funds for academic research in astronomy, biology, chemistry, mathematics and computing science, engineering and physics. The other major source of funds for academic research is the UGC. See Council for Scientific Policy, Report of a Study on the Support of Scientific Research in the Universities ( London: HMSO, 1971).
86.
Src, Report of the Council for the year 1970-71 (London: HMSO , 1971),2.
87.
C. Freeman et al., 'The Goals of R and D in the 1970s', Science Studies, Vol. 1, Nos. 3/4 (October 1971), 357-406.
88.
Op. cit. note 28.
89.
Mitroff, op. cit. note 34, 172.
90.
Hagstrom, op. cit. note 19, 106.
91.
SRC Report, op. cit. note 86.
92.
On the whole, government is interested in short-term pay-off. Thus Rothschild refers to a delay of 7 years between basic research and practical application as being in many cases unavoidable, but significantly longer delays are to be avoided. There is general agreement that any practical benefits from advances in molecular biology or high energy physics will develop, if at all, on a much longer time scale. See note 84.
93.
High EnergyPhysics Advisory Panel, 'The Status and Problems of High Energy Physics Today', Science, Vol. 161 (5 July 1968), 11.
94.
Freeman et al., op. cit. note 87, 405.
95.
J. Gaston, Originality and Competition in Science (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press , 1973).
96.
Ibid., 17.
97.
Src, Report of the Council for the year 1972-3 (London: HMSO , 1973).
98.
I should make it clear, perhaps, that I have no particular sympathy for this instrumental policy towards science.
99.
See, for example, the Report of the Working Group on Molecular Biology (London: HMSO, 1968). The eight members of this committee, all FRS, claim that there is a considerable gap between the 50 to 100 leading molecular biologists in Britain and the remaining 1,700 or so. They recommend the establishment of new centres of excellence in order to balance those already in existence at Oxbridge and London, and 'to focus the relevant scientific disciplines in a common attack on fundamental biological problems' (p. 9). See also the Report of the Working Group on the Implications of the Proposed 300 GeV Accelerator (London: HMSO, 1968). This committee (seven members, all FRS) recommends a long term commitment, rising to £6 million p.a., even though it recognizes that economic and technological benefits are 'mainly indirect and at present marginal' (p. 23). See also the SRC report on Radio Astronomy (London: HMSO, 1965). This committee (twelve members, nine FRS) recommends a policy of special encouragements and financial support, despite the fact that 'the economic value of radio astronomy is probably small' (p. 4). For some North American examples, see Physics in Canada (Ottawa: Science Secretariat, Special Study No. 2, May 1967).
100.
J. Schmookler , Invention and Economic Growth ( Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1966).
101.
J. Langrish et al., Wealth from Knowledge ( London: Macmillan, 1972, xii.
102.
D.J. de Solla Price, 'Science and Technology: Distinctions and Interrelationships', in Barnes (ed.), op. cit. note 12; see also M. Gibbons and R. Johnston, 'The Roles of Science in Technological Innovation', Research Policy, Vol. 3 (1974), 220-42.
103.
No account is taken here of recent changes following the Rothschild Report ; see note 84.
104.
R. Williams , 'Independence and Accountability after Rothschild ', R & D Management, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1972), 131-35.
105.
Greenberg, op. cit. note 75.
106.
A first step in this direction has been taken by M. Blisset, Politics in Science (Boston: Little, Brown and Co. , 1972).
