SDEST: The Military Roots of Basic Science: American Oceanography in the Cold War and Beyond

University Of California-San Diego, La Jolla CA

Investigators

Abstract

Abstract The Military Roots of Basic Science: American Oceanography in the Cold War and Beyond Naomi Oreskes American oceanography was built on the twin pillars of military funding and logistical support. Before the 1930s there was no `blue water' oceanography in the United States, and the leaders of the field were to be found in England, Germany, and Scandinavia. By the late 1960s, American scientists were at the forefront of the field, and their work was instrumental in transforming human knowledge of the deep seas. This project is a historical study of how this transformation occurred: how oceanographers, working with military patrons motivated by national security concerns, produced the modern scientific understanding of the oceans, the sea-floor, and the processes that shape the surface of the earth. The outcome is a book of interest to historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science, to U.S. historians, and to scientists and science policy analysts. This project challenges the standard model of a causal arrow from basic to applied science. In Cold War oceanography, `application' drove science, not the other way around. Yet science was not impeded: these were years of multiple, profound discoveries. This challenges the deeply held conviction of most scientists that science must be unfettered to advance. It also challenges the Mertonian assumption that the free and open exchange of information is critical to scientific advance. The evidence from oceanography is against these convictions. However, while military patronage was good for oceanographic science, it was not always good for scientists. Costs were paid in human, intellectual, and political terms. Individual scientists had their careers derailed by security investigations, and women were excluded or marginalized in the Navy- science fraternity. Intellectually, the military agenda produced knowledge in many areas but left persistent ignorance in others. On the socio-political front, fifty years of military-scientific collaboration, in which scientists did not have to explain their work to a larger public, has left a legacy of distrust among the public, and a perception that scientists are now more self-interested than disinterested. A major contribution of the study will be an analysis of the lasting legacies of military patronage, in oceanography, and in American science. The insights offered by the project have significant implications, not only for our understanding of the history of science, but for future science policy and funding.