The logic of scientific unity? Medawar, the Royal Society and the Rothschild controversy 1971–72

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Neil Calver, Miles Parker
{"title":"The logic of scientific unity? Medawar, the Royal Society and the Rothschild controversy 1971–72","authors":"Neil Calver, Miles Parker","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2015.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1971 Lord (Victor) Rothschild published his report for the government, The organisation and management of government R&D, and Sir Peter Medawar launched a campaign for the election of Sir Karl Popper to Fellowship of the Royal Society. We explore these two developments in the contexts of the then current views of the role and purpose of science, and their underpinning philosophy. Although the political battle was won by Rothschild, resulting in major changes to the funding and management of applied R&D, we argue that, despite this, Medawar's campaign for Popper provided an embattled science community with a philosophical basis for defending pure research and the unity of basic and applied science.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"70 1","pages":"100 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0021","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2015.0021","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In 1971 Lord (Victor) Rothschild published his report for the government, The organisation and management of government R&D, and Sir Peter Medawar launched a campaign for the election of Sir Karl Popper to Fellowship of the Royal Society. We explore these two developments in the contexts of the then current views of the role and purpose of science, and their underpinning philosophy. Although the political battle was won by Rothschild, resulting in major changes to the funding and management of applied R&D, we argue that, despite this, Medawar's campaign for Popper provided an embattled science community with a philosophical basis for defending pure research and the unity of basic and applied science.
科学统一的逻辑?梅达沃,皇家学会和罗斯柴尔德1971-72年的争论
1971年,(维克多)罗斯柴尔德勋爵为政府发表了他的报告《政府研发的组织和管理》,彼得·梅达沃爵士发起了一场运动,选举卡尔·波普尔爵士为皇家学会会员。我们在当时关于科学的作用和目的的观点及其基础哲学的背景下探讨这两个发展。尽管政治斗争是由罗斯柴尔德赢得的,导致了应用研发的资金和管理方面的重大变化,但我们认为,尽管如此,梅达沃为波普尔发起的运动为陷入困境的科学界提供了捍卫纯粹研究和基础科学与应用科学统一的哲学基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Notes and Records is an international journal which publishes original research in the history of science, technology and medicine. In addition to publishing peer-reviewed research articles in all areas of the history of science, technology and medicine, Notes and Records welcomes other forms of contribution including: research notes elucidating recent archival discoveries (in the collections of the Royal Society and elsewhere); news of research projects and online and other resources of interest to historians; essay reviews, on material relating primarily to the history of the Royal Society; and recollections or autobiographical accounts written by Fellows and others recording important moments in science from the recent past.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信