Racist Society, Racist Science
The problem of racism might seem an eccentric starting point for rethinking a science curriculum. It would appear that the problems raised from this vantage point, however legitimate, would not take long to clear up, at least in principle. The ways in which race and IQ are discussed in the general culture, and the ways in which they are taught in some contexts, are obvious examples of potential 'abuses' of science. Taking the argument further, the concepts of race and IQ are themselves problematic and would disappear in a different society - one which did not concern itself with human differences in certain physical attributes or in the ordinal ranking of individuals according to the ability to think in certain abstract ways.
Even within the existing culture, it can be argued that 'race' has no biological foundation; it is only, at best, a statistical concept of relatively pure gene pools. No biologist could draw lines in a large mixed sample so as to demarcate sharply a given race from another. Research on blood antigens would provide a good way of addressing this question.
This approach could be contrasted with overtly racist writings by reputable scientists like C. D. Darlington, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Professor at Oxford. His writings celebrate 'racial differences' and are overtly racist; examples are The Evolution of Man and Society and The Little Universe of Man. Consider the following quotations from his earlier book (1969):
By inbreeding within classes Irish society was thus genetically fixed and stabilized at a pre-industrial stage and this has hindered its evolution in step with its neighbours. Only the disappearance of the barriers between Catholic and Protestant can break this evolutionary stalemate.
Thus the slaves were now racially changed. They were now more variable in features and in colour, in intelligence and in temperament ... The genetic basis of the original relation of master and slave had disintegrated.
In short, racial discrimination has a genetic basis with a large instinctive and irrational component.
All the great races of man differ in smell; they dislike one another's smell and are kept apart by it.
The Nobel Prize winner Konrad Lorenz was also an overt racist during the German Nazi era, when he wrote:
Nothing is so important for the health of a whole Volk as the elimination of 'invirent types': those which, in the most dangerous., virulent increase, like the cells of a malignant tumour, threaten to penetrate the body of a Volk ... Especially today the great difference depends upon whether or not we can learn to combat decay phenomena, in Volk and in humanity, which arise from the lack of natural selection. In just this contest for survival or extinction, we Germans are far ahead of other culture-Volks.
(quoted in Kalikow, 1978)
Another Fellow of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize winner and Oxford Professor, Sir Hans Krebs, argued that biology 'proved' that trade unionism was against nature. Indeed, he said, '. . . a continued decrease in working hours is an unrealistic and utopian dream. The survival of nations, alas, is a matter of ruthless competition with other nations' (quoted in Young, 1973).
Therefore, we do not need to look at the most obviously biased materials and the work of disreputable scientists in order to see the intermixture of scientific concepts and value systems. Indeed, one can find work by reputable anthropologists, economists and other social scientists which claim that nature 'proves' that right-wing political theories are true.
The measure of IQ, like that of race, links politics with the typing and ranking of people for elitist reasons. This has become obvious in the debate around the work of Arthur Jensen and Sir Cyril Burt, both of whom have recently been exposed by careful research (Kamin, 1977; Levidow, 1977). This kind of thinking has been linked to wider issues by the recent books of Martin Barker (The New Racism) and Alan Chase (The Legacy of Malthus).
The topics of race and IQ help us to move on to a deeper level, one which illuminates why the task of creating an antiracist science curriculum is far from eccentric but leads us to the heart of science. As soon as we move off the question of race and IQ as abuses of science or as bias, we are faced with a more searching question, of which they are striking examples: where do scientists' questions come from? What leads to the priorities, agendas, assumptions and fashions of science? Science is not something in the sky, not a set of eternal truths waiting for discovery. Science is a practice. There is no other science than the science that gets done. The science that exists is the record of the questions that it has occurred to scientists to ask, the proposals that get funded, the paths that get pursued, and the results which lead curiosity to rest and scientific journals and textbooks to publicize the work.
My view is that the problem of racism in science teaching is a special case of this deeper issue. The agendas in scientific and technological research reflect the prevailing values of a given culture. Research and development are the embodiment of values in theories, therapies and things. A racist society will have a racist science. A different society could have different science and, indeed, could break down the convenient and confusing barrier between science and the rest of society. The course of my argument is an attempt to move from obvious examples to less obvious ones so that we can see the larger issue.
The questions that get asked
Nature 'answers' only the questions that get asked and pursued long enough to lead to results that enter the public domain. Whether or not they get asked and how far they get pursued, are matters for a given society, its education system, its patronage system, and its funding bodies.
Let us take another example in the general area of 'race'. There is a disease which is specific to certain peoples, one group of whom come from a certain part of Africa. It causes episodes of anaemia due to a genetic defect in the red blood cells. They collapse in a way that makes the cells look like sickles rather the the round, slightly dished-out shape of functioning red blood cells. The resulting disease is called sickle cell anaemia. It reduces life expectancy in the people in whom the gene is expressed. The cells are incapable of transporting oxygen properly; the disease produces various aches, pains and other forms of debilitation. But how could such a gene prosper? The answer is that sickle cell anaemia confers a relative selective advantage in evolution because the red blood cells of its sufferers are immune to infection by the malaria parasite. Therefore, in areas where malaria is endemic, people with sickle cell anaemia are relatively better off and have more surviving offspring than people who contract malaria. But when those offspring were taken as slaves to America, and when a cure for malaria was found, sickle cell anaemia became, again relatively speaking, a liability.
The 'racial' link is that the disease is specific to particular populations. When researchers became interested in the disease in the United States, the fashionable tendency was to apply for grants to look into elitist and fancy topics, for example the biochemistry of the sickling process (Michaelson, 1971). This was considered more worthwhile than spending funds for setting up screening and counselling programmes so that potential sufferers could be advised about marriage and having children. Public health, screening, genetic counselling and other activities of this kind in black ghettos are a long way down the pecking order of scientific prestige, and spending time on them is not likely to enhance a scientist's career. However, when black people began to fight for their civil rights, they were able to reorientate funding priorities and to get screening and counselling programmes set up.
Sickle cell anaemia provides a striking example of changing prioritization in research. The search for drugs for the treatment of leprosy or for a simple male contraceptive are examples of other priorities which have been slow to come to the top of the pecking order.
A further possibility - genetic engineering - has emerged as a by-product of other priorities and holds out a long-term hope for a cure for sickle cell anaemia through genetic transplants. Examples of this kind help to show that the real history of science is a series of choices for research which depend, in turn, on matters of class, prestige, gender, and the 'clout' of interest groups. For example, in the same period during which sickle cell anaemia was being ignored, programmes were developed for screening for breast cancer and cervical cancer. Research on blood chemistry which might lead to lower incidence of heart attacks was also well funded. These problems were of great interest to members of the white middle class. It could be argued that most expensive research gets done on diseases that a majority of the world's population does not live long enough to contract. Similarly, many diseases are importantly related to diets which the majority of the world's population has no chance of consuming.
Priorities in research
From those examples one could move on to a whole series of issues about setting priorities in medical research. Approaches to disease through public health measures have been systematically undervalued as compared to approaches which lead to marketable products. Indeed, one of the most striking examples of this concerns the aggressive marketing of a product which is of very little use indeed: powdered milk. The naturally occurring product - mother's breast milk - is more wholesome, contains natural antibodies, and costs nothing. This is the limiting case of the creation of marketable products in lieu of other measures. The scandal surrounding the marketing of powdered milk in Third World countries highlights the absurd consequences of commercial priorities.
An antiracist science curriculum could open out the teaching of science to a historical and social approach to knowledge. This perspective would break down the distinction between the substance and the context of knowledge and examine the social forces and connections (or articulations) of scientific and technological disciplines and research problems. Once one begins to think in this way, many things we already know take on new significance. We also begin to see the blinkering effect of current disciplinary boundaries in the school and university curricula.
The rise of apparently esoteric disciplines makes sense if considered in terms of the power relations in a given society and between communities and power blocs. Remove the conventional barriers and we can see, for example, that the recent dramatic rise in funding for seismology and oceanography (mapping the ocean floor) takes on new meaning in the light of the need to monitor nuclear test ban treaties and to find places to hide nuclear submarines and to find the enemy's. This is not to say that this study of faulting and plate tectonics is wholly explained by these priorities. It only helps us to understand why lavish funds are available for this sort of research.
Indeed, over 40 per cent of scientists in Britain and over 50 per cent of research and development funding comes from the military (Hales, 1982). This is quite often expended on 'pure' science projects which might otherwise not get funded or might not get very much funding. For example, when I was an undergraduate, a professor of marine biology at Yale, Professor Talbot Waterman, got a large grant to go to Bermuda every summer to study crabs who navigated by polarized light in shallow water. This money was given because the United States Office of Naval Research wanted to be able to design ways of flying over the earth's poles, where magnetic compasses do not work.
Similar stories can be told about many seemingly unconnected researches:
Of course, the money for much of this research comes from the profits of multinational companies which exploit the workers and resources of Third World countries.
It is sometimes hard to grasp the scope of this prioritization process. The whole of the funding of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) and numerical control of machines was derived from American military funding (Noble, 1984). The United States armed forces have ambitious plans in this area. General Larry Scance, head of the United States Air Force Manufacturing Command, said the following to a group of contractors (including Westinghouse, Boeing, General Electric):
Since our war-fighting equipment comes from the industrial base, the condition within that base must be addressed and corrected. We now have an effort under way to provide a planning system that will guide our industrial-based investments and will eventually integrate technology opportunity and business investment planning. It is a top-down approach we call 'industrial base planning'. We plan to maximize application of mechanization and automation, and we plan a paper-free factory with planning, scheduling and control on the latest computer hardware and software techniques. We thus expect the factory that can perform at least one full shift per day unmanned.
Separate out the jargon and you have a fully computerized factory without any workers to give you trouble - manufacturing military materials.
The development of cybernetics - the modern science of communication and control - grew out of wartime research on control systems in gunnery and led on to produce new perspectives in a variety of sciences - for example, endocrinology, physiology, psychotherapy, electronics - and connects closely with general systems theory, widely used in management sciences and town planning. (See Haraway, 1981-2; Heinis, 1980; Lilienfeld, 1978; Wiener, 1956).
Nuclear physics is the most obvious and generously funded example where military priorities took a relatively esoteric science and made it into a hugely funded research industry. For example, the vast resources at the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) are a by-product of military priorities but have led to the discovery of new fundamental particles by 'pure' scientists.
Computers from the first generation to the fifth are the result of espionage priorities stemming from World War 2 research to present competition between Japan and the West, with vast resources coming from industry, military, and government (Jones, 1979).
From this need for rapid computation (coupled with developments in planes and missiles) we can derive the whole growth of solid state physics, leading to the transistor, the microprocessor and all the developments extending from pocket calculators and brain scanners to the integrated defence system known as SIOP (Pringle and Arkin, 1983). Someone who is doing research in solid state physics on, for example, selenium arsenide might not be aware of all of the connections of his or her particular PhD project. Indeed, I have a friend doing research in optics at Imperial College who claims that it is extremely hard to avoid doing research which is funded by the military or is of interest to the military. The most abstruse mathematicians have recently found whole areas of their discipline classified.
Even the most advanced and humane research, the transplanting of hearts and other organs, depended on developments in immune system suppression which Sir Peter Medawar and others developed during the treatment of severe military burns during World War 2.
It would be possible to extend this list indefinitely from low-technology matters like modern nursing in relation to the Crimean War, to group psychology and World War 2 stress research, to the entire war-related agenda of the largest private research organization in the world, Bell Labs. From the two-volume history of Bell Labs one can derive an astonishing list of inventions where military and civilian applications were closely integrated (Fagen, 1975, 1978). The same can be said of the history of IBM, the giant which dominates the computer industry.
A similar story can be told about commercial prioritization and agenda-setting. Vitamins are vital coenzymes; small amounts are necessary to avoid well-known deficiency diseases, for example rickets, pellagra, scurvy. This is a real need at some times and in certain parts of the world, but the vast sales of vitamins in metropolitan countries bears no relationship to the real need. This is simply the result of hype. Yet this same drug industry does not develop cheap vaccines against malaria and other diseases because the potential purchasers of such products cannot afford them (Medawar, 1986).
Look at the way the commercial potential of biotechnology has created a bonanza in shares for researchers and genetic engineering and other aspects of the commercial side of biology. They have been frank about their priorities and have gone for products - human insulin, growth hormone - which will lead to expensive saleable commodities (Yoxen, 1982). Indeed, the adding of hormones to animal feeds has already begun to have dire consequences in Puerto Rico, where children are developing secondary sexual characteristics as a result of substances fed to the animals which the children eat.
The United States health industry is operating at over two hundred billion dollars per year. This produces dramatic scientific findings, but their connections should also be spelled out. Much of this money feeds the drug industry, the insurance industry, the medical equipment industry, the hospital construction industry. Beyond this, large profits are derived from the private management of medical facilities and the remuneration of medical practitioners and researchers. Medicine, like other forms of technology, is big business.
The whole question of energy can be seen in the same terms. For example, the debate between various forms of energy derived from the sun - wind, water, heat storage, photovoltaic - is a function of how the big utility companies are able to control research agendas. They have managed to forestall some kinds of research and to co-opt others. The developments which have been done have mimicked the vast power stations that the big utility companies are accustomed to erecting. This is done at the expense of small-scale solar units which can operate in a neighbourhood, a block, even a single house or flat. While this is going on in metropolitan countries, the energy crisis for most of the Third World is more stark. When will the brushwood and charcoal run out? Women forage further and further from home daily in order to find wood with which to cook. Failure to cook food produces disease and debilitation.
Both in the military case and in the setting of commercial priorities, science pursues certain topics and sets up certain research and development agendas at the expense of others. An antiracist science curriculum could easily move into the detailed examination of these matters and their relations with power politics within and between cultures and power blocs.
Charities: patronage in action
Let us look at another aspect of patronage. It would be interesting to tell the whole story of the Rockefeller charities. Before the vast national funding agencies were set up in Britain, Europe and America, the most enlightened and active agent was the Rockefeller charities. Indeed, these provided the model for national funding agencies. Rockefeller wealth was derived from a near-monopoly in the oil industry. The charities were set up for a mixture of altruistic and tax-avoidance reasons. They touch on medicine, public health, social sciences, molecular biology, animal behaviour, the organization of scientific research, First-Third World public health and medical teaching. The history of Rockefeller patronage has been examined by a number of researchers, who have illuminated the following directions:
(See Abir-Am, 1982; Brown, 1979; Dicks, 1970; Fisher, 1978; Fitzgerald, 1986; Fosdick, 1952; Kloppenberg and Kenney, 1984; Kohler, 1976; Morawski, 1986; Yoxen, 1981,1982.)
An analogous story could be told about the history of museums - the custodial homes of scientific progress. Research on the forces which have led to the presentation of knowledge in various museums show how they frame nature and human achievement. There are studies available about research in this vein on the London Science Museum and the New York Museum of Natural History (Levidow and Young, 1984; Stocking, 1985). It is important to understand that the presentation of science to the general public and to schoolchildren plays an important role in the way we think of 'human progress'.
Philosophy of science
This argument has moved from narrow issues of race and IQ to how agendas are set in science. The above examples have been an attempt to break down the barrier between science and society, between pure enquiry and the sources of prioritization and funding. A way of summarizing the link is to say that a racist society will give you a racist science, in both obvious and unobvious ways. The 'powers that be' in a society will constrain its research and development agenda - military powers, economic forces, the social structure of a society. This is not true only of the funding and of the choice of questions and research proposals. It is also true of ideas of nature and human nature, as well as the philosophical assumptions of science itself. It is harder to make this level of the social constitution of knowledge accessible. One needs to make a big jump.
We are taught to think of science as knowledge of nature pursued by the best method of discovery and proof - the scientific method, which uses quantitative measures of physical variables. But this was not always so. There was science before the 'scientific revolution' in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There are alternative ways of thinking about the world - alternative world-views - in different cultures as well as in our own. If we try to think like anthropologists, we can look at scientists as a tribe and the assumptions of science as a belief system. There is a literature about some of these matters which shows how our'tribe' and others construct their world-views or cosmologies and set up knowledge systems, technologies and cures within that framework (Douglas, 1970, 1973, 1975; Horton, 1967). The institutions and the educational systems which reproduce them propagate the priorities and values of that tribe.
A sophisticated antiracist science curriculum would compare the thought system of our own culture with those of others. It would also show the examples where systems of knowledge have successfully cut across particular cultures - Arabic numbers, acupuncture, herbal remedies. Similarly, it could look at the Western capitalist approach to science post-seventeenth-century rationalism - and see the concomitant growth of the scientific revolution, the Protestant revolution, and the capitalist revolution. There is a good literature on these matters.
There are both historical and theoretical issues at this fundamental level. For example, the scientific revolution began the separation of fact and value, matter and mind, mechanism and purpose. It would be useful to demonstrate the growth of this mechanical philosophy and compare it to more organismic ways of thinking, then and now. The relationship between mechanistic and reductionist thinking on the one hand, and environmentalist and organismic theories on the other, has important philosophical and political bearings.
It would also be possible to spell out the system which separates facts from their origins, meanings and the values that inhere in knowledge systems, by looking at positivism itself. It is positivistic to teach science in the way we do, such that a science staff in a particular school could make the following reply to a questionnaire on anti-racist science:
1 The nature of Western science is factual and international in character. While clearly the product of European/American historical socio-economic processes, it purports to be culture free, in that it deals with facts and theories elucidated by a process of logical deduction and reasoning which has its roots in the capacity of the human mind, and not in culturally determined conditions.
2 The dominant form of science in the world today is 'Western' science. The process of logical hypothetical deductive reasoning on which it is based is the subject matter of science education, as is the result of such reasoning expressed in
3 Although many of our pupils originate from divergent cultures, most of them are first-generation Londoners, and their original cultural backgrounds subscribe to Western science. There is therefore no case for introducing other forms of science which are characteristic of particularly minor cultural experiences.
4 The document 'Are we meeting the multi-ethnic needs of the school?' cannot therefore be replied to by this department, except to state the following:
(a) The science staff are of course aware of the international character of their subjects. This is stressed when appropriate.
(b) A 'Statement of intent' has been produced by the science department. This is displayed in the science block and every pupil has the opportunity to see it. The statement stresses that staff are actively examining materials to eliminate racial, sexual and religious bias where they are found to occur.
(c) Where the subject matter of science includes a discussion of racial origins and differences, as it does in biology, the subject is dealt with in a factual manner.
I think that students should be invited to consider this reply. Similarly, they could be invited to look at Sir Keith Joseph's arguments - as Minister of Education - against the teaching of 'peace' studies on grounds that it amounted to political indoctrination:
SCHOOLS SHOULD GIVE BALANCED VIEW ON PEACE
Sir Keith deplores attempts at indoctrination
The extent to which explicit attention to the issue of peace and war should have a place in the classroom should be decided on educational not political grounds, Education Secretary Sir Keith Joseph said today.
Speaking in London at a one-day conference on peace studies, organized by the National Council of Women of Great Britain, Sir Keith deplored attempts to trivialize the issue, cloud it with inappropriate appeals to emotion and present it one-sidedly.
Arguing for a rational approach to the subject, he said local education authorities should support the professionalism of teachers, who should seek to present to pupils a balanced and objective picture of the issue.
Sir Keith said peace and war, like other important issues of the day, would crop up naturally in the curriculum. There was no need to make special space for studies labelled 'peace'.
Teachers' presentation of the issue should be objective in that their selection of fact gave a balanced picture, fact and opinion was clearly separated and pupils were encouraged to weigh the evidence and arguments so as to arrive at rational judgements.
If asked by his pupils for his own views the teacher should, as appropriate, declare where he himself stands but explain at the same time that others, in particular the pupil's parents and other teachers, may disagree.
(Press Release, 3 March 1984)
The overall model for a science curriculum should be one that always considers all the following in their mutual interrelations:
When we begin to think of alternative perspectives, we can look a science as a way of expressing the values of a given culture. We can also begin to question those who want to maintain the separation between science and culture. For example, Sir Keith Joseph also argued that the arts should be eliminated from all polytechnics in Britain. Why? Students could also be invited to examine the exhibits at various museums. The idea would be to help them to see what lies behind the way scientific knowledge is presented and to see the interests which are being served by the separation of science, technology and society.
The problem of an antiracist science curriculum is the problem of changing the terrain of science teaching. We need to look at deeply held assumptions about what science is, and what its role in culture is. In particular, there is a series of very basic separations which have to be challenged in the curriculum and not just as an ornament to teaching after we have finished presenting the serious part. Some of these separations are:
Once teachers and students have become accustomed to thinking about these matters, it should not be difficult to move on to the deeper level of why we think about nature in the ways that we do and why we find it so difficult to think about it in different ways. The more we consider these matters, the more closely integrated we will see questions of industry and knowledge, of science and culture, so that in the end debates about the science curriculum can be seen as debates about what kind of society we wish to have. Do we wish to have one in which people are spoon-fed with facts according to an agenda set by others, or one in which they have a genuine voice in determining what our future will consist of?
In order to understand that, it becomes necessary to understand the nature of a technocracy - a society based on blinkered technique, while the priorities are set in a way that is kept out of sight. These blinkers are at work in the framing of scientific education. From this set of topics it should be evident that the question of an antiracist science is the same as the question of a just society in other areas.
Abir-Am, Pnina (1982) 'The discourse of physical and biological knowledge in the 193Os: a reappraisal of the Rockefeller Foundation's 'policy' in molecular biology', Social Studies of Science,12, pp. 341-82.
Abir-Am, Pnina (1982) 'How scientists view their heroes: some remarks on the mechanism of myth construction', J. Hist. Biol. 15, pp. 281-313.
Alexander, Ziggi and Dewjee, Audrey (eds) (1984) Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands, Bristol, Falling Wall Press (nursing, racism, Crimean War).
Barker, Martin (1981) The New Racism: Conservatives and the ideology of the tribe, London, Junction.
Berger, Peter and Luckman, Thomas (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge, NY, Anchor.
Berliner, Howard S. (1985) A System of Scientific Medicine: philanthropic foundations in the Flexner Era, Tavistock.
Berman, Morris, (1981) The Re-enchantment of the World, Cornell University Press.
Bowden, B. V. (1953) Faster than Thought: a symposium on digital computing machines, Pitman.
Braverman, Harry (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: the degradation of work in the twentieth century, Monthly Review Press.
Brown, E. Richard (1979) 'He who pays the piper: foundations, the medical profession and medical education' in Reverby, S. and Rosner, D. (eds) Health Care in America: essays in social history, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, pp. 132-54 (Rockefeller).
Brown, E. Richard (1979) Rockefeller Medicine Men: medicine and capitalism in America, Berkeley, California, University of California Press.
Burtt, Edwin A. (1932) The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science, 2nd edn., Routledge.
Caplan, Arthur L. (ed.) (1978) The Sociobiology Debate, Harper & Row.
Chase, Allan (1980) The Legacy of Malthus: the social costs of the new scientific racism, Champaign, Illinois, University of Illinois Press.
Cheetham, Anthony (ed.) (1971) Science Against Man, Sphere.
Chetley, Andy (1979) The Baby Killer Scandal, War on Want.
Chorover, Stephan L. (1980) From Genesis to Genocide: the meaning of human nature and the power of behavior control, MIT Press.
Cleaver, Harry (1975) Origins;of the Green Revolution, PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
Cook, Robin (1978) Coma, Pan.
Cooter, Roger (1984) The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the Organization of Consent in Nineteenth-Century Britain, Cambridge University Press.
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz (1983) More Work for Mother: the ironies of household technology from the open heart to the microwave, NY, Basic.
Darlington, C. D. (1969) The Evolution of Man and Society, London, Allen and Unwin.
Darlington, C. D. (1978) The Little Universe of Man, London, Allen and Unwin.
Dicks, H. V. (1970) Fifty Years of the Tavistock Clinic, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dickson, David (1974) Alternative Technology and the Politics of Technical Change,Fontana.
Dickson, David (1984) The New Politics of Science, NY, Pantheon.
Douglas, Mary (1970) Purity and Danger. an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo, London, Penguin.
Douglas, Mary (ed.) (1973) Rules and Meanings: the anthropology of everyday knowledge, London, Penguin Education.
Douglas, Mary (1975) Implicit Meanings: essays in anthropology, London, Routledge.
Einstein, Albert 'Why Socialism?', in Levidow, L. (ed.) Radical Science Essays, pp. 214-20.
Fagen, M. (ed.) (1975, 1978) A History of Engineering Science in the Bell System, 2 vols, London, Bell Telephone Laboratories.
Figlio, Karl (1979) 'Sinister medicine? A critique of left approaches to medicine', Radical Science Journal, 9, pp. 14-68.
Figlio, Karl (1981) 'Medical diagnosis, class dynamics, social stability' in Levidow L. and Young, B. (eds) Science, Technology and the Labour Process, vol. 2, pp. 129-65.
Fisher, D. (1978) 'The Rockefeller Foundation and the development of scientific medicine in Great Britain', Minerva, 16, pp. 20-41.
Fitzgerald, Deborah (1986) 'Exporting American agriculture: the Rockefeller Foundation in Mexico 1943-53', Social Studies of Science, 16, pp. 45-83.
Fosdick, Raymond B. (1952) The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation, NY, Harper and Row.
Gardner, Carl and Young, Robert M. (1981) 'Science on TV: A critique in Bennett T. et al. (eds) Popular Television and Film: a Reader, BFI/Open University Press pp. 171-93.
George, Susan (1976) How the Other Half Dies: the real reason for world hunger, Penguin.
Grossman, Rachel (1978) 'Women's place in the integrated circuit', Pacific Research, 9, pp. 5-6, 2-17.
Hales, Mike (1986) Science or Society? The Politics of the Work of Scientists, London, Pan (1982), Free Association Books (1986).
Haraway, Donna J. (1981-2) 'The high cost of information in post World War II evolutionary biology: ergonomics, semiotics, and the sociology of communications systems. The Philosophical Forum, 13(2-3), pp. 244-78.
Harvey, David (1974) 'Population, resources, and the ideology of science', Economic Geography, 50, pp. 256-77.
Hearnshaw, L. S. (1979) Cyril Burt.. Psychologist, Hodder & Stoughton.
Heims, Steve J. (1980) John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: from mathematics to the technologies of life and death, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Himmelstein, David and Woolhander, Steffie (eds) (1986) Science, Technology, and Capitalism, Special Issue of Monthly Review, 38, p. 3.
Hodges, Andrew (1983) Alan Turing: the enigma, Burnett Books.
Hodgkin, Luke (1986) 'Mathematics as ideology and politics' in Levidow. L. (ed.) Radical Science Essays, pp. 198-213.
Horne, Donald, (1984) The Great Museum: the re-presentation of history, Pluto Press.
Horton, Robin A. (1967) 'African traditional thought and Western science', Africa, 37. Part 1: 'From tradition to science', pp. 50-71; Part 2: 'The closed and open predicaments', pp.155-87
Jones, R. V. (1979) Most Secret War: British scientific intelligence, 1939-1945, London, Coronet.
Jordanova, L. J. (1980) 'Natural facts: a historical perspective on science and sexuality' in MacCormack, C. and Strathern, M. (eds) Nature, Culture and Gender, Cambridge University Press, pp. 42-69.
Kalikow, T. J. (1978) 'Konrad Lorenz's 'Brown past': a reply to Alec Nisbett', Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 14, pp. 173-80.
Kamin, Leon J. (1977) The Science and Politics of IQ, London, Penguin.
Kennedy, Martin (1986) Biotechnology: the university-industrial complex, Yale University Press.
Kevles, Daniel J. (1985) In the Name of Eugenics: genetics and the uses ofhuman heredity, NY, Knopf.
Kitcher, Philip (1985) Vaulting Ambition: sociobiology and the quest for human nature, MIT Press.
Kloppenburg, Jack and Kenney, Martin (1984) 'Biotechnology, seeds and the restructuring of agriculture', Insurgent Sociologist, 12(3), pp. 3-17.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. (1982) 'The constructivist programme in the sociology of science: retreats or advances?', Social Studies of Science, 12, pp. 320-8.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. and Mulkay, Michael (eds), (1983) Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Sage; critique by Rowse, Tim 'Sociology pulls its punches', in Levidow, L. (ed.) (1986) Science as PoliticsI Radical Science, 20, Free Association Books, pp. 139-49.
Kohler, R. E. (1976) 'The management of science: the experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation programme in molecular biology', Minerva, 14, pp. 279-306.
Kohler, R. E. (1978) 'A policy for the advancement of science: the Rockefeller Foundation, 1924-29', Minerva, 16, pp. 480-515.
Kolakowski, Leszek (1972) Positivist Philosophy from Hume to the Vienna Circle, Penguin. Kovel, Joel (1983; 1986) Against the State ofnuclear Terror, Pan; Free Association Books.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life: the social construction ofscientific facts, Sage.
Levidow, Les (1977) 'A Marxist critique of the IQ debate', Radical Science Journal. 6-7, pp. 13-72.
Levidow, Les (ed.) (1986) Radical Science Essays, Free Association Books
Levidow, Les and Young, Bob (1984) 'Exhibiting nuclear power: the Science Museum cover-up' in Radical Science Collective (eds) No Clear Reason: nuclear power politicsl radical science, London, Free Association Books, pp. 53-79.
Levidow, Les and Young, Bob (eds) Science, Technology and the Labour Process: Marxist studies, 2 vols, Vol. 1, CSE Books, 1981; Free Association Books, 1983; Vol. 2, Free Association Books, 1985.
Levins, Richard and Lewontin, Richard (1985) The Dialectical Biologist, Harvard University Press; commentary by Peter Taylor, 'Dialectical biology as political practice', in Levidow, L. (ed.), (1986) Science as PoliticsI Radical Science, 20, Free Association Books, pp. 81-111.
Lichtheim, George (1967) The Concept of Ideology and Other Essays, NY, Vintage.
Lilienfeld, Robert (1978) The Rise of Systems Theory: an ideological analysis, New York,Wiley.
MacKenzie, Donald and Wajcman, Judy (eds) (1985) The Social Shaping of Technology, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
Mannheim, Karl (1960) Ideology and Utopia: an introduction to the sociology of knowledge, Routledge.
Marcuse, Herbert (1968)'One-Dimensional Man: the ideology of industrial society, Sphere.
Mattelart, Armand (1985)'lnfotech and the Third World' in Radical Science Collective (eds) Making Waves: the politics of communicational radical science, 16, Free Association Books, pp. 27-35.
Medawar, Charles (1979) Insult or Injury? An Enquiry into the Marketing and Advertising of British Food and Drug Products in the Third World, Social Audit.
Medawar, Peter B. (1986) Memoir of a Thinking Radish: an autobiography, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Carolyn (1982) The Death ofnature: women, ecology and the scientific revolution, Wildwood House.
Michaelson, Michael (1971) 'Sickle cell anemia: an 'interesting pathology', Ramparts, pp. 52-8.
Midgley, Mary (1985) Evolution as a Religion: strange hopes and stranger fears, Methuen.
Mooney, Pat Roy (1979) Seeds of the Earth: a private or public resource?, International Coalition for Development Action.
Mooney, Pat Roy (1983) The Law of the Seed:. another development and plant genetic resources, special issue of Development Dialogue, nos. 1-2.
Morawski, J. G. (1986) 'Organizing knowledge and behavior at Yale's Institute of Human Relations', Isis 77, pp. 219-42.
Muller, Mike (1982) The Health of Nations: a north-south investigation, Faber.
Myers, Greg (1985) 'Texts as knowledge claims: the social construction of two biology articles', Social Studies of Science, 15, pp. 593-630.
Myers, Norman (ed.) (1985) The Gaia Atlas of Planet Management, Pan.
Noble, David F. (1984) Forces of Production: a social history of industrial automation, New York: Knopf.
Pringle, Peter and Askin, William (1983) STOP: nuclear war from the inside, London, Sphere.
Radical Science Journal Collective (1981) 'Science, technology, medicine and the Socialist movement', Radical Science Journal, 11, pp. 3-70.
Richardson, Ken and Spears, David (eds) (1972) Race, Culture and Intelligence, Penguin.
Rifkin, Jeremy (1983) Algeny, NY, Viking Press.
Sayers, Janet (1982) Biological Politics: feminist and anti -feminist perspectives, Tavistock.
Stocking, Jr, George W. (1985) 'Philanthropoids and vanishing cultures: Rockefeller funding and the end of Museum era' in Stocking, G. W. (ed.) Objects and Others: essays on museums and material culture, history of anthropology, vol. 3, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 112--45.
Turney, Jon (ed.) (1984) Sci-Tech Report: current issues in science and technology, Pluto Press.
Werskey, P. G. (1978) The Visible College, Allen Lane.
Whitehead, Alfred North (1985) Science and the Modern World, with an Introduction by R. .M. Young, Free Association Books.
Wiener, Norbert (1956) The Human Use of Human Beings: cybernetics and societv, New York, Anchor.
Woodham-Smith, Cecil (1951) Florence Nightingale, 1820-1910, McGraw-Hill.
Worster, Donald (1985) Nature's Economy.. a history of ecological ideas, Cambridge University Press.
Young, Robert M. (1971) 'Evolutionary biology and ideology: then and now', Science Studies, 1, pp. 177-206, revised in Fuller, W. (ed.) The Biological Revolution, NY, .Anchor, 1972, pp. 241-82.
Young, Robert M. (1973) 'The human limits of nature' in Benthall, J. (ed.) The Limits of Human Nature, London, Allen Lane, pp. 235-74.
Young, Robert M. (1977) 'Science is social relations', Radical Science Journal, 5, pp. 65-129.
Young, Robert M. (1979) 'Why are figures so significant? The role and the critique of quantification' in Irvine, J. and Miles, 1. (eds) Demystifying Social Statistics, Pluto, pp. 63-75.
Young, Robert M. (1979) 'Science is a labour prqcess', Science for People, 43, pp. 31-7.
Young, Robert M. (1979) 'Interpreting the production of science', New Scientist (29 March), pp. 1026-8.
Young, Robert M. (1979) 'Science as culture', Quarto, 2 (December), p. 8.
Young, Robert M. (1981) The naturalization of value systems in the human sciences' in problems in the Biological and Human Sciences, Block VI of Open University Course, Science and Belief from Darwin to Einstein, Milton Keynes, Open University Press, pp. 63-110.
Young, Robert M. (1985) Darwin's Metaphor.. nature's place in Victorian culture, Cambridge University Press.
Young, Robert M. (1985) 'Darwinism is social', in Kohn, D. (ed.) The Darwinian Heritage, Princeton, Princeton University Press, pp. 609-38.
Young, Robert M. (1985) 'Is nature a labour process?' in Levidow, L. and Young, B. (eds) Science, Technology and the Labour Process, vol. 2, pp. 206-32.
Young, Robert M. (1986) 'The dense meffium: television as technology', Political Papers, 13, pp. 3-5.
Yoxen, Edward (1981) 'Life as a productive force: capitalising upon research in molecular biology' in Levidow, L. and Young, R. M. (eds) Science, Technology and the Labour Process, vol. 1, pp. 66-122.
Yoxen, Edward (1982) 'Constructing genetic diseases' in Wright, P. and Treacher, A. (eds) The Problem of Medical Knowledge: examining the social construction of medicine, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 144-61.
Yoxen, Edward (1983; 1986) The Gene Business: who should control biotechnology?, Pan; Free Association Books.
Source: Gill, D. and Levidow, L. (eds) (1987), Anti-Racist Science Teaching, London, Free Association Books.
L I S T 0 F C 0 N T R I B U T O R S
Terry Allcott has been head of the Centre for Multicultural Education in Leicester since 1984. He is the author of an INSET Pack on Multicultural Education in the National Curriculum.
Cari A. Bagley is a sociologist and qualified community worker. As an equal opportunities officer and researcher he has been concerned with the development of strategies aimed at eliminating racism and racial discrimination.
Kevin J. Brehony is lecturer in education at the University of Reading. He was co-director, with Rosemary Deem, of the ESRC-funded research project 'The reform of school governing bodies'.
Celia Burgess-Macey is a primary and early years adviser for the London Borough of Lambeth. She has written widely on the topic of racism and sexism in primary school reading materials.
Bruce Carrington is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Newcastle-upon Tyne. He is currently investigating the effects of cross-age peer tutoring on pupil performance and attitudes. He is co-author, with Geoffrey Short, of 'Race' and the Primary School (NFERJNelson, 1989).
Rosemary Deem was senior lecturer in education at the Open University until October 1991, when she left to take up the post of Professor of Educational Research at Lancaster University. She has published extensively in the fields of gender and education and the sociology of work and leisure. She was co-director, with Kevin Brehony, of the ESRC-funded research project 'The reform of school governing bodies'.
Will Guy is part-time lecturer in the Centre for the Study of Minorities and Social Change at the University of Bristol. He has written widely on travellers and gypsies, especially in Eastern Europe.
Jan Hardy is county advisor for Multicultural Education in Hertfordshire.
Richard Hatcher is senior lecturer in education studies at Birmingham Polytechnic. He is co-author, with Barry Troyna, of Racism in Children's Lives (Routledge, 1992).
Sue Hemmings was research assistant to the ESRC-funded project The reform of school governing bodies'. She is currently part-time lecturer in education at Plymouth Polytechnic.
Máirtín Mac an Ghaill teaches in the Faculty of Education at the University Birmingham. His main research interests include the sociology of 'race' and the school of education; he has a particular interest in Irish studies. He is author of Young, Gifk and Black: student-teacher relations in the schooling of black youth (Open University Press 1988).
Ian Menter is director of studies for initial teacher education at Bristol Polytechnic. He has written a number of articles on education policy, antiracism and teacher education.
Herman Ouseley is chief executive for the London Borough of Lambeth. He was previously principal race relations adviser and head of the Ethnic Minorities Unit at the GLC, and later Director of Education and Chief Executive for the ILEA. He has also been actively involved with community work through his local CRE.
Bhihku Parekh is professor of political theory at the University of Hull and was for sever years deputy chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality. He was a member of the Rampton Committee and, for a short time, of the Swann Committee. He has published widely in the field of political theory, and is author of Colonialism, Tradition and Reform (1989).
Kenneth Parker is professor and head of the Graduate Centre in Cultural Studies at the Polytechnic of East London.
Robin Richardson is director of the Runnymede Trust. He was previously adviser for multicultural education in Berkshire (1979-85) and chief inspector in the London Borough of Brent (1985-90). He is author of Daring to be a Teacher (Trentham Books, 1990).
Geoffrey Short is senior lecturer in education at Hatfleld Polytechnic. His current research interest is in primary and secondary school children's knowledge of Jewish identity and culture. He is co-author, with Bruce Carrington of 'Race' and the Primary School (NFER/Nelson, 1989)
Barry Troyna is a senior lecturer in education at the University of Warwick. Amongst his publications in the field of antiracist education are Racism, Education and the State (Croom Helm, 1986) which he wrote with Jenny Williams; Racial Inequality in Education (Tavistock, 1987); and with Bruce Carrington, Education, Racism and Reform (Routledge, 1990). His latest book Racism in Children's Lives with Richard Hatcher is published in 1992 by Routledge.
Chris Vieler-Porter is an advisory teacher for multicultural education in Hertfordshire. His main research interests concern the production of audio-visual images of'otherness'.
Cecile Wright is lecturer in education at the University of Leicester. She has written a number of articles on the experiences of ethnic minority students in British schools, including 'School processes - an ethnographic study', published in Education for Some (Eggleston et al., Trentham Books, 1986).
Robert M. Young is Professor of Psychoanalytic Studies at the University of Kent and Managing Director of Free Association Books. He is editor of the journal Science as Culture.
The Human Nature Review © Ian Pitchford and Robert M. Young - Last updated: 28 May, 2005 02:29 PM