Theories and Origins in Planetary Physics
[Review of the books Nebulous Earth: The Origin of the Solar System and
the Core of the Earth from Laplace to Jeffreys; Transmuted Past: The Age of
the Earth and the Evolution of the Elements from Lyell to Patterson;
Fruitful Encounters: The Origins of the Solar System and of the Moon from
Chamberlin to Apollo]
Isis
1999
Doel, Ronald E.
Department of History (and Department of Geosciences), Oregon State University
*Reviewing Author
Originally published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
and can be found at: http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=isis
Citation: Doel, R. E. (1999, September). [Review of the books Nebulous Earth: The Origin of the Solar
System and the Core of the Earth from Laplace to Jeffreys; Transmuted Past: The Age of the Earth and the
Evolution of the Elements from Lyell to Patterson; Fruitful Encounters: The Origins of the Solar System and of
the Moon from Chamberlin to Apollo]. Isis, 90(3), 563-568. Available from JSTOR website:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/237235
Theories
and
Origins
in
Planetary
Physics
By Ronald E. Doel*
Stephen G. Brush. Nebulous Earth: The Origin of the Solar Systemand the Core of the
Earthfrom Laplace to Jeffreys. (History of Modem PlanetaryPhysics, 1.) xii + 312 pp.,
illus., tables, bibl., index. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
$54.95.
Stephen G. Brush. TransmutedPast: The Age of the Earth and the Evolution of the
Elementsfrom Lyell to Patterson. (Historyof Modem PlanetaryPhysics, 2.) x + 134 pp.,
illus., figs., tables, bibl., index. Cambridge/NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1996.
$44.95.
Stephen G. Brush. FruitfulEncounters:The Originsof the Solar Systemand of the Moon
from Chamberlinto Apollo. (History of Modem PlanetaryPhysics, 3.) xii + 354 pp.,
illus., bibl., index. Cambridge/NewYork: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1996. $54.95.
Interestin the history of the earth sciences in the nineteenthand twentieth centurieshas
expandedrapidlyin recent years. As a markerof intellectualboundaries,the designation
"earthsciences" is admittedlyill fitting: no institutionalstructureor body of knowledge
correspondedto that term until after the turn of the twentieth century, and professional
relationsbetween astronomyand geophysics differed greatly across nationalboundaries.
Yet scientists moved freely between these neighboringfields to pursue problems in terrestrialand planetaryphysics, and scholarshave begun to trace theirpaths across this vast
and interestingterrain.New worksaddresssuch topics as the contributionsof Pierre-Simon
Laplace and his contemporariesto refining the theory of celestial mechanics, efforts to
map and to interpretthe earth's magnetic field, the rise of meteorological theory and
practice, science in Antarctica,and twentieth-centuryinvestigations of the natureof the
solar system.' Scholarshave also focused on oceanographicexpeditions,the work of major
* Departmentof History (and Departmentof Geosciences), 306 Milam Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331.
1For recent books see, e.g., CharlesC. Gillispie, Pierre-SimonLaplace, 1749-1827: A Life in Exact Science
(Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniv. Press, 1997); Ren6 Taton and CurtisWilson, eds., PlanetaryAstronomyfrom
the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics(New York: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1989); RobertP. Multhaufand
GregoryA. Good, A Brief History of Geomagnetismand a Catalog of the Collections of the National Museum
of AmericanHistory (Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianInstitutionPress, 1987); William Glen, The Road to Jamarillo: Critical Years of the Revolution in Earth Science (Stanford,Calif.: StanfordUniv. Press, 1982); C.
StewartGillmor and John R. Spreiter,eds., Discovery of the Magnetosphere(Historyof Geophysics, 7) (Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union, 1997); James Rodger Fleming, Meteorology in America, 1800Isis, 1999, 90:563-568
? 1999 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved.
0021-1753/99/9003-0007$02.00
563
564
THEORIESAND ORIGINSIN PLANETARYPHYSICS
researchcenters such as the U.S. Geodetic Survey and the CarnegieInstitutionof Washington, the introductionof physical and chemical methodsin the earthsciences (including
the biogeochemical ideas of Vladimir I. Vemadsky, which helped define the concept of
the earth'sbiosphere),and the influenceof militarypatronageon space science and oceanographyafter 1945.2 The rejectionof continentaldriftand the eventualacceptanceof plate
tectonics in the late 1960s has lately become a small industry, while other high-profile
controversies,such as the mass extinctiondebateand humanrecognitionof global climate
change, are vibrantnew fields of scrutiny.3Even reprintsof classical treatiseshave begun
to appear:an English translationof Alexander von Humboldt's Kosmos (1848), which
helped give shape to the disciplines of climatology, ecology, and geography,is once again
in bookstores.4
A defining characteristicof this scholarshipis its inclusive definition of the earth sciences as an interdisciplinarysubject, its insistence that nineteenth-and twentieth-century
studies of the earthand the solar family be treatedas partsof a broaderconceptualwhole.
Several factors have been responsiblefor this approach.One is the greaterattentionfield
sciences, as opposed to laboratorysciences, have been receiving as a focus of historical
inquiry.For instance, the recent Osiris volume dedicatedto Science in the Field testifies
to a growing body of scholarshipon researchrequiringsynoptic observationsof diverse
phenomenaover large spatial distances and raises importantquestions about such wideranging topics as instrumentdesign and calibration,disciplinaryorganization,scientific
practice,regional and internationalcooperation,and standardsof evaluation.Anotherfactor is the increasedwillingness of historiansto move away from such canonical topics as
Darwinian evolution and the development of modem physics, many of which have a
disciplinarycast. A final factor has surely been growing popularand culturalinterestin
the earthas a threatenedprovince.As PeterJ. Bowler has recentlydeclared,the conceptual
unity of the "environmentalsciences" is not intrinsicbut instead "imposedby the public's
growing awarenessof the threatposed to the environmentby our own activities."5
1870 (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1990); FrederikNebeker, Calculatingthe Weather:Meteorology
in the TwentiethCentury(San Diego: AcademicPress, 1995);RobertMarcFriedman,Appropriatingthe Weather:
VilhelmBjerknesand the Constructionof a ModernMeteorology(Ithaca,N.Y.: CornellUniv. Press, 1989); and
G. E. Fogg, A History of AntarcticScience (New York:CambridgeUniv. Press, 1992). On planetaryastronomy
and related fields see John G. Burke, Cosmic Debris: Meteorites in History (Berkeley/LosAngeles: Univ. CaliExtraterrestrialLifeDebate
forniaPress, 1986); Steven J. Dick, TheBiological Universe:TheTwentieth-Century
and the Limitsof Science (New York: CambridgeUniv. Press, 1996); Ronald E. Doel, Solar SystemAstronomy
in America:Communities,Patronage, and InterdisciplinaryResearch, 1920-1960 (New York:CambridgeUniv.
Press, 1996); Clayton R. Koppes, JPL and the American Space Program: A History of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory(New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press, 1982); and Joseph N. Tatarewicz, Space Technology and
PlanetaryAstronomy(Bloomington:IndianaUniv. Press, 1990).
2 See Robert Marc
Friedman,The Expeditions of Harald Ulrik Sverdrup: Contextsfor Shaping an Ocean
Science (La Jolla, Calif.: ScrippsInstitutionof Oceanography,1994); Hugh R. Slotten, Patronage, Practice, and
the Cultureof American Science: AlexanderDallas Bache and the U.S. Coast Survey (New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1994); Gregory Good, ed., The Earth, The Heavens, and the Carnegie Institutionof Washington
(Washington,D.C.: American Geophysical Union, 1994); Kendall Bailes, Science and Russian Culture in an
Age of Revolution:Vernadskyand His ScientificSchool, 1863-1945 (Bloomington:IndianaUniv. Press, 1989);
David Oldroyd, Thinkingabout the Earth: A History of Ideas in Geology (Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniv.
Press, 1996); David H. DeVorkin, Science with a Vengeance:TheMilitary Origins of the Space Sciences (New
York:Springer,1992): andChandraMukerji,A Fragile Power: Scientistsand the State (Princeton,N.J.:Princeton
Univ. Press, 1989).
3 See
especially Homer LeGrand,Shifting Continentsand Drifting Theories (New York: CambridgeUniv.
Press, 1988); Naomi Oreskes,TheRejectionof ContinentalDrift (New York:OxfordUniv. Press, 1999);William
Glen, ed., The Mass ExtinctionDebate: How Science Worksin a Crisis (Stanford,Calif.: StanfordUniv. Press,
1994); and Spencer R. Weart, "The Discovery of the Risk of Global Warming,"Physics Today, 1997, 50:3440.
4 Alexander von Humboldt, Cosmos: A Sketch
of a Physical Description of the Universe, trans. E. C. Ott6
(Baltimore:Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1997).
5 Peter J. Bowler, The Norton History of the EnvironmentalSciences (New York: Norton, 1992), p. 2; and
HenrikaKuklick and RobertE. Kohler, eds., Science in the Field, Osiris, 2nd Ser., 1996, 11.
RONALD E. DOEL
565
Two significant questions about the earth that scientists have sought to address since
the nineteenthcenturyareits physicalhistory(includingits age, composition,andchemical
evolution) and its ultimateorigins as a memberof the solar family. In this importantand
thoroughlyresearchedthree-volumework, the culminationof a nearly two-decades-long
effort, Stephen G. Brush takes on scientific interest in these topics since the late 1700s.
Brush's works unfold chronologically: his first volume deals with a broad expanse of
nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuryresearch,encompassing celestial mechanics, the
nebularhypothesis, the discovery of the earth's core, and theories about its geochemical
history. In the second volume Brush turnsto the topic of the earth's antiquity,providing
a sweeping technical overview of the well-known late nineteenth-centurycontroversybetween Lord Kelvin and geologists over the age of the earth, as well as debates over
uniformitarianism,mid-twentieth-centuryefforts to date the earth'sorigin, and the cosmic
evolution of matter(includingthe efforts of astrophysiciststo interpretnucleosynthesisin
stars and its applicationto the formationof planets). His third volume focuses primarily
on twentieth-centurytheoriesof the origin of the solar system and concludes with a review
of lunar researchfrom the eighteenth century throughthe post-Apollo era. Two chapter
sections in the first volume, on Saturn's rings and geomagnetic secular variation, are
cowritten with collaborators.Each volume is designed to be read independentlyof the
others. Yet even taken as a whole, the three display remarkablylittle overlap, save for a
few aspects of Brush's treatmentof cosmogony and the interpretationsof the chemical
evolution of the earth. Indeed, they could well have been published as a single volume,
with the benefit (lackinghere) of a comprehensiveconcludingchapter,one thatmight have
called largerissues into question.
A real strengthof Brush's work is his careful analysis of episodes of discovery and his
familiaritywith the broad conceptualrealm of the planetarysciences. Readerswill have
no doubt of Brush's mastery over the technical details of the myriad subjects he treats.
Brush provides comprehensiveaccounts of efforts to unravel puzzling variationsin the
orbital motions of the planets, particularlythe long inequality of Jupiter,the solution of
which ultimately convinced Laplace's contemporariesthat the solar system was a clockwork-like, deterministicsystem; he is equally at home in describing the theoreticalseismology pursuedby the Germangeophysicist Emil Wiechert, the geochemical arguments
by WernerKuhn, Arnold Rittmann,and William H. Ramsey concerningthe earth's core,
and the accretionarycosmogony proposedby the Soviet astrophysicistViktorS. Safronov.
One rewardof Brush's exhaustiveresearchis his ability to illuminatelesser-knownfigures
and research traditions:he devotes considerable space to the controversialyet widely
discussed plasma-based cosmogony developed by the Swedish Nobel laureate Hannes
Alfven as well as to the early twentieth-centurydiscovery of the earth's solid inner core
by the Danish seismologist Inge Lehmann.Brushalso succeeds in demonstratingthateven
the most apparentlystraightforwardscientific accounts of discovery often omit the complicated twists that underlieactual scientific work: Kelvin's claims aboutthe earth's solid
structureinspiredgeophysiciststo intensify theirstudyof the earth'sphysical andchemical
properties and thus had a more lasting influence than his better-rememberedefforts to
convince geologists, priorto the discovery of radioactivity,thatthe earthwas at best several
millions of years old, too young for biological evolution to have occurred.Only occasionally does Brush give short shrift to key episodes. Continentaldrift and plate tectonics are
cited only in passing, and the contributionsgeologists made to interpretingthe moon's
history, which were considerable,are left out in favor of extensive discussions of geochemical and geophysical results.
One of Brush's pursuitsover the years has been to employ the history of nineteenthand twentieth-centuryphysical science to assess the adequacyof Kuhnian,Popperian,and
Lakatosiantheories of science to evaluate the productionof scientific knowledge, and
Brush turnsto these issues again here. He is particularlyeffective in pointingto historical
566
THEORIESAND ORIGINSIN PLANETARYPHYSICS
examples that refute Imre Lakatos's claim that scientists never falsify a theory before the
emergence of a bettertheoreticalalternative.He notes, for instance,thatby the mid 1930s
astrophysicistsabandonedthe encountertheory of cosmogony-which held that another
starsideswipingthe sun had drawnout filamentsof matterthatcondensedinto the planetary
system-after calculations by Lyman Spitzer, then a graduate student of the eminent
astrophysicistHenry Norris Russell, demonstratedits weakness; not until a decade later
did an alternativehypothesis (a modifiedform of the nebularhypothesis) again win favor,
despite persistent interest in the problem (Vol. 3, pp. 85-87). Although philosophical
issues are not his central concern, Brush demonstratesthat cosmogony in the twentieth
centurydoes not end in a dramaticclimax;instead,like manybranchesof planetaryscience,
it has a history filled with numerousdead ends, unproductivedetours, and quarrelsover
competing methodologicalapproaches.As Brush does not not employ historicalperiodizations in framing his often-encyclopedic narrative-he prefers to focus on long-term
conceptualdevelopments-these themes help give structureto his books.
It is clear that Brush also has a broaderaim for this three-volumework: to widen the
debate over standardsfor writing the history of science. Brush has long played a leading
role in this debate. In his 1995 Osiris essay "Scientistsas Historians,"which summarized
his views, Brush criticized the excessively "contextualist"approachesof historianswho
lack advanced training in science (Brush holds a Ph.D. in physics) and diminish the
achievements of scientific thought. Rejecting Paul Forman's demand that historians of
science achieve independencefrom their subjects,Brushcalled for greaterfamiliaritywith
the tacit knowledge sharedby scientific communitiesand attentionto the "intensedesire
of researchscientists to producenew discoveries."6The design of the History of Modern
PlanetaryPhysics series illuminatesBrush's preferencesfor narratingthe developmentof
scientific ideas, for (in metaphoricalterms) he focuses primarilyon militarytactics while
setting aside the causes of the war. Like AlexandreKoyre, whose work he clearly admires,
Brush has based his accountprimarilyon his careful readingof original scientificpapers.
Biographicalinformationabout scientists, when provided, is typically relegated to footnotes and is often limited to his subject's educationalbackgroundand scientific contributions. Moreover,Brush's conceptuallandscapeis largely devoid of social, cultural,political, professional,or institutionalforces. Historiansof science who have laboredin recent
years to identify the role of biography,national styles of science, disciplinarypractices,
researchschools, and patronagein shaping the pursuitof scientific practicewill find few
of their interpretationsand insights reflectedhere.
Brush seems convinced that this largely internalnarrativeprovides a richer, more enduringhistory than contextualapproaches,and his conviction will not be lost on his readers. In the provocativefirst chapterof his second volume, Brush contraststhe emergence
and growth of history and geology after 1800 as intellectual fields. By the turn of the
twentieth century, Brush argues, geology showed progressive tendencies-including a
theory of volcanic energy and the concept of uniformitarianism-whereas historianshad
made little progresstowardcreatinghistoricalparadigms.Even in the late twentiethcentury, he claims, scientists talk shop at lunch, but historians do not; scientists distribute
preprintsand collaborateon papers, while historiansavoid such practices and generally
work in isolation. In particular,Brush laments what he terms the impulse of professional
historiansto shirkcontroversy,encouragingthem "to engage in vigorous debatewith each
otheron specific questionsof fact and interpretationand, more importantly,to changetheir
conclusions as a resultof such debate"(p. 32). Althoughhe does not define whathe means
by historical "facts"(and regrettablydoes not discuss Peter Novick's ThatNoble Dream
6 Stephen G. Brush, "Scientists as Historians,"Osiris, 2nd Ser., 1995, 10:215-231, on p. 228; and Paul
Forman,"Independence,Not Transcendence,for the Historianof Science," Isis, 1991, 82:71-86.
RONALD E. DOEL
567
in this context), Brush finds the historical community deficient. To advance, historians
need to become more like social scientists.
Many historiansof science will resist Brush's call for a more theory-basedhistory and
challenge his assertionthat historiansare less professionallyrigorousor cooperativethan
theircolleagues in the sciences. Indeed,as EricHobsbawmhas argued,we oughtnot expect
history to "progress"as the naturalsciences do.7But Brushhas workedin both the history
and physics departmentsfor two decades (at the University of Maryland),and his claims
merit careful consideration.In particular,how importantare professionaland disciplinary
factors in analyses of the evolution of scientific ideas? Do they matterin narrativesof the
intellectualfoundationsof any field, including the planetarysciences? Do they affect the
conceptualdevelopmentsso centralto Brush's historicalaccount?
Several examples suggest that they do. Brush is certainlywell aware that what defines
the planetarysciences is theirinterdisciplinarycharacter:many criticalproblems,fromthe
age of the earth to the structureof the moon, placed geophysicists elbow-to-elbow with
geochemists, astrophysicists,geologists, and expertsin celestial mechanics.In the absence
of disciplinary structures,publication outlets, and reward systems, individual alliances
mattergreatly, and sparks sometimes fly. But Brush's reluctanceto engage recent work
on disciplinarypracticeandresearchschools, andhis unwillingnessto strayfarfromtextual
exegesis, limits his ability to reachwhat might have been deep insights into the production
of knowledge. Noting that interdisciplinaryresearch in cosmogony at Chicago did not
survive the death of the eminent geologist Thomas C. Chamberlinin 1928, Brush lightly
declares that Chamberlin'scolleagues "did not acquirethe right amountof personalmomentum to go into stable orbits or condense into a family of cooperative followers of a
research programme"(Vol. 3, p. 88), although careful considerationof the burgeoning
literatureon researchschools mightwell have suggestedwhy this was so.8 Similarly,Brush
declaresthat HaroldC. Urey rejectedthe influentialcosmogonical model proposedby the
American astronomerGerardP. Kuiperin the mid 1950s because it failed to explain the
silicate concentrationsin the terrestrialplanets. This reason was indeed one factor. But
Urey's rejectionof Kuiper'smodel markedthe bitterbreakupof a five-year-longinterdisciplinarycollaborationbetween this Nobel chemist and the United States's most eminent
planetaryastronomer,an estrangementthat enraged and depressedboth men, disturbeda
GeneralAssembly of the InternationalAstronomicalUnion, and hinderedpersonalrelations between membersof these disciplines (and their graduatestudents)for more than a
decade. Intellectualdisagreementsprovide only a partialexplanationfor Urey's dismissal
of Kuiper's ideas, and perhapsnot the most importantpart. Such examples can be multiplied. As Loren R. Grahamand others have convincingly argued, leading Soviet astrophysicists who adheredto dialectical materialismreacted negatively along philosophical
lines to religious inferences in Westerncosmogonical ideas well into the 1970s; although
Brush is quite willing to allow for the influence of Christianthought on the reception of
the nebularhypothesis in the nineteenthcentury,he declaresthat religion no longer influenced this field in the twentieth.9Only in Brush's extended discussion of Chamberlin's
planetesimalcosmogony is there a vivid depictionof social, professional,and institutional
7 Eric Hobsbawm,"Has History Made Progress?"in On History (New York: New Press, 1997), pp. 56-70.
8 For a discussion of this literaturesee Gerald L. Geison and FredericL. Holmes, eds., Research Schools:
Historical Reappraisals, Osiris, 2nd Ser., 1993, 8.
9 Loren R. Graham,Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History (New York: CambridgeUniv.
Press, 1992), pp. 380-427; Ronald E. Doel and Robert McCutcheon, "HistoricalIntroduction"to the special
volume Astronomyand the State in the U.S.S.R.and Russia, Journalfor History of Astronomy,1995, 26:3-20;
and Alexsey E. Levin, "TheOtto SchmidtSchool and the Development of PlanetaryCosmogony in the USSR,"
in The Origin of the Solar System:Soviet Research, 1925-1991, ed. Levin and Stephen G. Brush (New York:
AmericanInstituteof Physics), pp. 3-18.
568
THEORIESAND ORIGINSIN PLANETARYPHYSICS
factors that shapedthis eminent geologist's research.Not surprisingly,this passage is one
of very few instances in these volumes in which Brushrelied on archivalevidence as well
as scientific publications.
Nor does Brush, despite his prevailing concern for intellectual history, disregardall
social questions,and this fact raises a second set of concerns.In his second volume Brush
asserts that planetaryscience suffered a decline in prestige duringthe twentiethcentury,
primarilybecause physicists viewed it as "notworthy of the best minds"(Vol. 3, p. 144).
He backsup this assertionby pointingto such factorsas the geophysicistWilliamMenard's
views on the stagnationof Americangeology afterthe 1930s, rememberedcommentsfrom
physics colleagues as the space age began in the 1960s, and his own recollections as a
young practicingphysicist. Brush's personal insights ought not be discounted, and planetary studies certainly expanded far less rapidly than nuclear or solid state physics. But
his reliance on intellectual considerationsalone ignores a world in which international
competitionand funding and availableinstrumentsand social prestigealso mattered.Geophysics was not a field the Rockefeller Foundationsupporteduntil the late 1920s, when
the GreatDepression deeply eroded its researchgrants,and the rise of physics was tied to
the great technical advances of the second industrialrevolution.As SpencerR. Wearthas
poignantly argued in his recent study of human recognition of global change, a world
transfixedwith the transformingpowers of nuclearphysics gave little supportto seemingly
esoteric studies of glacier retreatsor links between eccentricities in the earth's orbit and
climate.10Intellectual"worth"is not an ahistoricalconcept, and the problem demands a
more thoroughinvestigationthan Brush provides here.
Some of these concerns might have been addressedhad Brush engaged the emerging
body of historical writings about the earth sciences with the same formidablevigor that
he uses in analyzing scientific texts, but there are unfortunateomissions in his coverage.
In reviewing the rejectionof continentaldrift,for instance, Brushrelies on the classic late
1970s writings of Henry Frankelwithout addressingthe important1988 work of Naomi
Oreskes, which demonstratedthat national styles of geological theorizing,ratherthanthe
absence of a suitably defined physical mechanism, was a key factor behind American
resistanceto drift." Nor do these volumes addressDavid DeVorkin's recent work on the
military'srole in conceptuallydefiningthe space sciences afterWorld War II or Bowler's
pioneering 1992 survey of the environmentalsciences; one review that Brush cites as
evidence of historians'inattentionto the developmentof geophysical programsby physicists is twenty years old. Although the epistemological and methodological issues considered by these authorsmay not have seemed central to the story that Brush wishes to
tell, their scholarshipis arguablyof more than tangential significance to intellectual accounts of recent science.
Brush's volumes are an importantcontributionto the history of this richly interdisciplinaryfield: they are the most comprehensiveaccountsof modem attemptsto understand
the age of the earth and its physical evolution, and they reflect Brush's unparalleledfamiliarity with these topics. But they do not offer a definitive history of the planetary
sciences. The need to integratethe intellectualdevelopmentof planetaryscience into broad
social, cultural,professional,disciplinary,and ideological frameworksshould propel further scholarshipon this vital subjectfor years to come.
10See GregoryGood, "TheRockefellerFoundation,the Leipzig GeophysicalInstitute,andNationalSocialism
in the 1930s," Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 1991, 21:299-316; RobertE. Kohler,
Partners in Science: Foundationsand Natural Scientists, 1900-1945 (Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press, 1990), pp.
250, 276-277; and SpencerR. Weart,"GlobalWarming,Cold War, and the Evolution of ResearchPlans,"Hist.
Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci., 1997, 27:319-356.
11 Naomi Oreskes, "The Rejection of ContinentalDrift,"Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci., 1988, 18:311-348.