Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T15:55:19.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transnational Networks in Basic Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Diana Crane
Get access

Extract

Basic science is an inherently international activity. Its principal goal is the production of new knowledge which is evaluated according to universal standards. In terms of membership and goals scientific communities have been international since their emergence during the seventeenth century. Basic science today consists of hundreds of research problem areas in which groups of scientists study similar problems and exchange information across national boundaries. International scientific cooperation occurs on several levels ranging from informal communication between individual researchers to multilateral agreements between governments and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs).

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , Summer 1971 , pp. 585 - 601
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Basic science, as opposed to applied science, is concerned with problems whose solutions are perceived to have no immediate practical application.

2 Ben-David, Joseph, “National and International Scientific Communities,” in National Scientific Communities: A Sociological Study of Developing and Developed Countries, ed. Price, Derek J. de Solla and Voise, Waldcrmar (Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1970)Google Scholar. (Mimeographed.)

3 Dedijer, Stefan and Longrigg, A. J., “A Model of Foreign Research Policy,” Scientific World, 1969 (Vol. 13, No. 1), pp. 17–21Google Scholar.

4 Price, Derek J. de Solla, Little Science, Big Science (George B. Pegram Lecture, 1962) (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

5 McGhee, G. C., “International Scientific Cooperation: An American View,” Department of State Bulletin, 03 7, 1966 (Vol. 54, No. 1393), pp. 369–378Google Scholar.

6 See, for example, the analysis of international banking by Lawrence Krause in this volume.

7 Sec, for example, Rose, Hilary and Rose, Steven, Science and Society (London: Allen Lane, 1969)Google Scholar; and Salomon, Jean-Jacques, Science et politique (Collections esprit) (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1970)Google Scholar.

8 Crane, Diana, Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Crawford, Susan, “AInformal Communication in Sleep and Dream Research” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1970)Google Scholar.

9 Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Foundations of the Unity of Science, Vol. 2, No. 2) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

10 Zaltman, Gerald, Scientific Recognition and Communication Behavior in High Energy Physics (New York: American Institute of Physics, 1968), pp. 25–46Google Scholar.

11 Hammond, Allen L., “Accelerator at Batavia: The Next Step in High Energy Physics,” Science, 01 29, 1971 (Vol. 171, No. 3969), p. 364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

12 Crane, Diana, “Communication and Influence in International Scientific Communities” (Paper presented at the Seventh World Congress of Sociology, Varna, Bulgaria, 09 16, 1970)Google Scholar.

13 Price, Derek J. de Solla, “Nations Can Publish or Perish,” Science and Technology, 10 1967 (No. 70), pp. 89–90Google Scholar.

14 Wooster, Warren S., “The Ocean and Man,” Scientific American, 09 1969 (Vol. 221, No. 3), pp. 218–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See, for example, Boffey, Philip M., “Psychology: Apprehension over a New Communications System,” Science, 02 27, 1970 (Vol. 167, No. 3922), pp. 1228–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baker, Dale B., “Communication or Chaos?” Science, 08 21, 1970 (Vol. 169, No. 3947), pp. 739–742CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Herschman, Arthur, “A Program for a National Information System for Physics,” in Communication among Scientists and Engineers, ed. Nelson, Carnot E. and Pollock, Donald K. (Lexington, Mass: Heath Lexington Books, 1970), pp. 307–323Google Scholar.

16 Compton, Bertita E. and Garvey, William D., “Information Functions of an International Meeting,” Science, 03 31, 1967 (Vol. 155, No. 3770), pp. 1648–1650CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

17 France is a good example of such a country. Rose and Rose, p. 143, describe how academic scientists participated in the student demonstrations of May 1968 in order to protest their lack of influence on national science policy.

18 de Grolier, Eric, Outline of a Comparative Study on International Scientific NGOs in the Field of Social Science (Paris: International Social Science Council, 1969)Google Scholar. (Mimeographed.)

19 Todd, W. M. and Voss, J., “The Consortium of Academies: A New Way to Found International Scholarly Institutions” (Paper presented at the Twentieth Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Fontana, Italy, 09 9–15, 1970)Google Scholar.

20 Batisse, Michel, “Launching the Hydrological Decade,” New Scientist, 01 7, 1965 (Vol. 25, No. 425), pp. 38–40Google Scholar.

21 Consolazio, W. V., “Dilemma of Academic Biology in Europe,” Science, 06 16, 1961 (Vol. 133, No. 3468), pp. 1892–1896CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Grant, R. P., Huttrer, C. P., and Metzner, C. G., “Biomedical Science in Europe,” Science, 10 23, 1964 (Vol. 146, No. 3643), pp. 493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “European Technology: Hanging Together or Separately,” Nature, 09 20, 1969 (Vol. 223, No. 5212), p. 1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar. One notable exception is the close association which exists between leading British and French molecular biologists.

23 Kendrew, J. C., “EMBO and the Idea of a European Laboratory,” Nature, 07 1, 1968 (Vol. 218, No. 5144), pp. 840–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weisskopf, V., “CERN and the Proposed European Biology Laboratory,” Nature, 01 27, 1968 (Vol. 217, No. 5126), pp. 317–318Google Scholar.

24 Chedd, Graham, “A New Lab for Europe?” New Scientist and Science Journal, 02 18, 1971 (Vol. 49, No. 739), pp. 350–352Google Scholar.

25 Batisse, , New Scientist, Vol. 25, No. 425Google Scholar; McGhee, , Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 54, No. 1393Google Scholar.

20 Wooster, , Scientific American, Vol. 221, No. 3, p. 234Google Scholar.

27 Salomon, Jean-Jacques, “International Scientific Policy,” Minerva, Summer 1964 (Vol. 2, No. 4), pp. 411–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Wooster, , Scientific American, Vol. 221, No. 3, pp. 225–226, 230–232Google Scholar.

29 Salomon, , Minerva, Vol. 2, No. 4Google Scholar.

30 Greenberg, D. S., “European Notes: Quids Pro Quo,” Science, 07 18, 1969 (Vol. 165, No. 3890), p. 267CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

31 Greenberg, D. S., “300 Gev: Decision to Drop Out Angers British Science Leaders,” Science, 08 23, 1969 (Vol. 161, No. 3843), pp. 768–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Pietrasik, Jerome, “L'Accélérateur au point mort,” L'Express, 12 28, 1970–January 3, 1971 (No. 1016), p. 19Google Scholar.

33 New York. Times, February 20, 1971, p. 28.

34 Greenberg, D. S., “CERN: Rumors but No Decision on Site,” Science, 02 27, 1970 (Vol. 167, No. 3922), p. 1231Google Scholar.

35 New York Times, February 20, 1971.

36 Rose, Hilary, “The Rejection of the WHO Research Centre,” Minerva, Summer 1967 (Vol. 5, No. 4), pp. 340–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Walsh, John, “International Cancer Research: New Horizons for Epidemiology,” Science, 02 2, 1968 (Vol. 159, No. 3814), pp. 513–516CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Rose, , Minerva, Vol. 5, No. 4Google Scholar.

38 Greenberg, , Science, Vol. 161, No. 3843Google Scholar. “Gev” is an abbreviation of “gigaelectron volt” which signifies one billion electron volts.

38 Rose, , Minerva, Vol. 5, No. 4Google Scholar.

40 Walsh, , Science, Vol. 159, No. 3814Google Scholar.

41 Ibid.

42 Grant, Robert P., “National Biomedical Research Agencies: A Comparative Study of Fifteen Countries,” Minerva, Summer 1966 (Vol. 4, No. 4), pp. 466–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 “An International Laboratory Needed,” Nature, 05 31, 1969 (Vol. 222, No. 5196), pp. 836–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 “Problems of European Integration,” Nature, 02 3, 1968 (Vol. 217, No. 5127), p. 407CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Star, Jack, “European Physicists Rush in Where Politicans Fear to Tread,” Scientific Research, 06 9, 1969 (Vol. 4, No. 12), pp. 38–41Google Scholar.

46 Grant, Huttrer, and Metzner, , Science, Vol. 146, No. 3643, p. 495Google Scholar.

47 “Problems of European Integration,” Nature, Vol. 217, No. 5127Google Scholar; Fundamental Research and the Policies of Governments (Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [for the Ministerial Meeting on Science], 1960), p. 57Google Scholar.

48 Buzzati-Traverso, Adriano A., “Scientific Research: The Case for International Support,” Science, 06 11, 1965 (Vol. 148, No. 3676), p. 1443CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

49 “Similarities and Disparities in Europe,” Nature, 08 8, 1970 (Vol. 227, No. 5258), p. 544CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 “Survey of Science in Europe,” Nature, 06 13, 1970 (Vol. 226, No. 5250), pp. 1009–1024Google Scholar.

51 Ibid.

52 The nature of the necessary reforms is outlined in Ben-David, Joseph, Fundamental Research and the Universities: Some Comments on International Differences (Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1968)Google Scholar.

53 “Survey of Science in Europe,” Nature, Vol. 226, No. 5250Google Scholar.

54 “The Setting Up of Institutions for European Scientific and Technical Cooperation,” Pugwash Newsletter, 06 1970 (Vol. 8, No. 1), pp. 17–25Google Scholar.

55 Urquidi, Victor L., The Challenge of Development in Latin America, trans. Urquidi, Marjory M. (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964), p. 141Google Scholar.

56 Skolnikoff, Eugene B., ‘The International Functional Implications of Future Technology” (Paper presented at the Sixty-sixth Annual Convention of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles, 09 1970)Google Scholar, argues that IGOs, rather than national governments, will have to play major roles in the future if the negative effects of technology are to be averted and the advantages of technology maximized.