Wrestling with Nature From Omens to Science

Science and Technology 251

science and technology in the 1930s and 1940s, see Carroll Pursell, “Government and
Technology in the Great Depression,” Technology and Culture 20 (1979): 162–74; Amy
Sue Bix, Inventing Ourselves out of Jobs? America’s Debate over Technological Unemploy-
ment, 1929–1981 (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000); and Paul
Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic
Age (New York: Pantheon, 1985).

58. A. A. Potter, “Whither Engineering?” Transactions of the American Society of
    Mechanical Engineers 55 (1933): 5.


59. F. R. Moulton, “Science and Society,” Science 86 (1937): 388.


60. Frank B. Jewett and Robert W. King, “Engineering Progress and the Social Or-
    der,” Science 92 (1940): 365, 366.


61. Attributing agency to science and technology, then proposing solutions to
    control them, was common among such later social critics of science and technology
    as Lewis Mumford and Langdon Winner, and tends to reinforce the problematic idea
    of technological determinism. See Merritt Roe Smith, “Technological Determinism in
    American Culture,” in Does Technology Drive History? 1–35.


62. See, e.g., Arthur Compton, “What Science Requires of the New World,” Sci-
    ence 99 (1944): 23–28 (11 usages); Lyman Chalkley, “Science, Technology, and Public
    Policy,” Science 102 (1945): 289–92 (9 usages); and “Summary of the Report to the
    President on a Program for Postwar Scientifi c Research by Vannevar Bush, Director of
    OSRD,” Science 102 (1945): 79–81 (used as an adjective on p. 80).


63. This section is based on Kline, “The Paradox of ‘Engineering Science’”.


64. Alan T. Waterman, “The National Science Foundation in Relation to Basic Engi-
    neering Research,” American Society of Naval Engineers—Journal 64 (1952): 641–42.


65. U. S. Congress, Senate Committee on Military Affairs, Hearings on science legisla-
    tion (S. 1297 and related bills)... (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce,
    1945–1946), 706–16.


66. James L. Penick Jr. et al., “A Historical Overview,” in The Politics of American
    Science, 1939 to the Present, rev. ed., ed. James L. Penick Jr. et al. (Cambridge, MA: MIT
    Press, 1972), 31.


67. James K. Finch, Trends in Engineering Education (New York: Columbia University
    Press, 1948), 68.


68. James K. Finch, Engineering and Western Civilization (New York: McGraw- Hill,
    1951), 96, 315, 316


69. Paul E. Klopsteg, “Engineering Research in the Program of the National Science
    Foundation,” Journal of Engineering Education 42 (1942): 264.


70. Waterman, “The National Science Foundation in Relation to Basic Engineering
    Research,” 641–42.


71. L. E. Grinter et al., “Summary of Preliminary Report [of ] Committee on Evalua-
    tion of Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education 44 (1953): 143–144.


72. R. J. Seeger, “Physics Is Not Engineering,” Journal of Engineering Education 46
    (1955): 127.


73. Harold K. Work, “Research Needs of Engineering and the Engineering Sciences
    and How the Needs Shall Be Met,” Journal of Engineering Education 47 (1956): 101.


74. Earl P. Stevenson, “The Scientist- Engineer,” Journal of Engineering Education 47
    (1956): 150.