HST 422: Historical Studies in Science and Politics (4 Credits) Prerequisite: Upper division standing

Transcription

1 Catalog description HST 422: Historical Studies in Science and Politics (4 Credits) Prerequisite: Upper division standing The historical study of scientists, their work, their political and ethical choices mainly in the United States and Europe from the 1920s to the 1950s. (H) (Bacc Core Course) (Writing Intensive Course) Learning Outcomes 1. Students will be able to identify the ways in which political choices have influenced scientific ideas in the twentieth century. 2. Students will be able to assess the implications of scientific ideas in social and political conflicts. 3. Students will be able to analyze the role of science and technology in shaping public discourse. WIC Learning Outcomes 1. Articulate in writing a critical perspective on issues involving science, technology, and society using evidence as support. 2. Develop and articulate content knowledge and critical thinking in the discipline through frequent practice of informal and formal writing. 3. Demonstrate the ability to compose a document of at least 2000 words through multiple aspects of writing, including brainstorming, drafting, using sources appropriately, and revising comprehensively after receiving feedback on a draft. Baccalaureate Core Learning Outcome: Synthesis category of Science, Technology, and Society 1. Analyze relationships among science, technology, and society using critical perspectives or examples from historical, political, or economic disciplines. 2. Analyze the role of science and technology in shaping diverse fields of study over time. 3. Articulate in writing a critical perspective on issues involving science, technology, and society using evidence as support. Evaluation of Student Performance Undergraduate students will be evaluated on the following assignments: Online discussion (20%); Two midterms (30%); Article review assignment (30%); Final exam (20%)

2 Grading scale: A (94-100); A- (90-93); B+ (87-89); B (84-86); B- (80-83); C+ (77-79); C (74-76); C- (70-73); D+ (67-69); D (64-66); D- (60-63), F (0-59) Article Review Assignment See separate document (available in Blackboard) on this assignment. Discussion There will be two separate discussion boards. One is for your weekly, graded response to a question I ve posed. Anyone is welcome to comment on your response, and I encourage you to discuss as much as you want, but make sure your initial posting is substantial enough to be graded. The second discussion board is for ungraded, general discussion. Learning Resources Course readings are listed below for each week. All are available on Blackboard. Week One: High-Stakes Ideas What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response Jeroen van Dongen, Reactionaries and Einstein s Fame: German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Science, Relativity, and the Bad Nauheim Meeting, Physics in Perspective 9 (2007), Nikolai Krementsov, A Second Front in Soviet Genetics: the International Dimension of the Lysenko Controversey, , Journal of the History of Biology 29 (1996), Sander Gliboff, The Case of Paul Kammerer: Evolution and Experimentation in the Early 20 th Century, Journal of the History of Biology 39 (2006), Week Two: Our Children s Minds What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Article Review #1 Adam Shapiro, Civic Biology and the Origin of the School Antievolution Movement, Journal of the History of Biology 41:3 (2008), B. F. Skinner, The Design of Cultures, Daedalus 90:3 (1961),

3 Mark B. Adams, Last Judgment: The Visionary Biology of J. B. S. Haldane, Journal of the History of Biology 33 (2000), Henry P. David, Jochen Fleischhacker, and Charlotte Hohn, Abortion and Eugenics in Nazi Germany, Population and Development Review 14:1 (1988), Week Three: Atomic Diplomacy What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Peer Review #1 Barton J. Bernstein, Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory, Diplomatic History 19:2 (1995), M. Susan Lindee, The Repatriation of Atomic Bomb Victim Body Parts to Japan: Natural Objects and Diplomacy, Osiris 13 (1998), Matt Price, Roots of Dissent: The Chicago Met Lab and the Origins of the Franck Report, Isis 86:2 (1995), John Beatty, Scientific Collaboration, Internationalism, and Diplomacy: the Case of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, Journal of the History of Biology 26:2 (1993), Week Four: Your Scientists, My Scientists What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Midterm #1 Charles Thorpe, Disciplining Experts: Scientific Authority and Liberal Democracy in the Oppenheimer Case, Social Studies of Science 32:4 (2002), Carolyn Kopp, The Origins of the American Scientific Debate over Fallout Hazards, Social Studies of Science 9:4 (1979), Jacob Darwin Hamblin, A Dispassionate and Objective Effort: Negotiating the First Study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, Journal of the History of Biology 40 (2007), Week Five: Crossing National Lines What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Article Review #2 John Krige, Atoms for Peace, Scientific Internationalism, and Scientific Intelligence, Osiris 21 (2006),

4 Joseph Manzione, Amusing and Amazing and Practical and Military : The Legacy of Scientific Internationalism in American Foreign Policy, , Diplomatic History 24:1 (2000), Ronald E. Doel and Kristine C. Harper, Prometheus Unleashed: Science as a Diplomatic Weapon in the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration, Osiris 21 (2006), Week Six: Rise and Fall of Expertise What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Peer Review #2 Zuoyue Wang, Responding to Silent Spring: Scientists, Popular Science Communication, and Environmental Policy in the Kennedy Years, Science Communication 19:4 (1997), Richard Garwin, How the Mighty Have Fallen, Nature 449, 543 (4 October 2007) David Kaiser, The Physics of Spin: Sputnik Politics and American Physicists in the 1950s, Social Research 73:4 (2006), Richard V. Damms, James Killian, the Technological Capabilities Panel, and the Emergence of President Eisenhower s Scientific-Technological Elite, Diplomatic History 24:1 (2000), Week Seven: Spiraling Science and Technology What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Midterm #2 Lewis Mumford, Technics and the Nature of Man, Technology and Culture 7:3 (1966), Peter Westwick, Space-Strike Weapons and the Soviet Response to SDI, Diplomatic History 32:5 (2008), W. Patrick McCray, Large Telescopes and the Moral Economy of Recent Astronomy, Social Studies of Science 30:5 (2000), Week Eight: History and Policy What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Essay Review (3 articles) Zuoyue Wang and Naomi Oreskes, History of Science and American Science Policy, Isis 99 (2008), W. W. Rostow, Stages of Economic Growth, Economic History Review 12:1

5 (1959), George Basalla, The Spread of Western Science, Science 156:3775 (5 May 1967), Week Nine: Climate and Nuclear Resurgence What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Peer Review #3 Robert H. Socolow and Alexander Glaser, Balancing Risks: Nuclear Energy and Climate Change, Daedalus 138:4 (2009), Carl Pope and Bjørn Lomborg, The State of Nature, Foreign Policy 149 (2005), Dorothy Nelkin, Native Americans and Nuclear Power, Science, Technology, and Human Values 6:35 (1981), David Demeritt, The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91:2 (2001), Week Ten: Manipulating Life What is due by Friday at 5pm: Discussion board response, Finished Essay Review David Baltimore, Limiting Science: A Biologist s Perspective, Daedalus 107:2 (1978), Nick Cullather, Miracles of Modernization: The Green Revolution and the Apotheosis of Technology, Diplomatic History 28:2 (2004), Sheila Jasanoff, Biotechnology and Empire: The Global Power of Seeds and Science, Osiris 21 (2006), FINAL EXAM is due on Friday of finals week Statement Regarding Students with Disabilities: Accommodations are collaborative efforts between students, faculty and Disability Access Services (DAS). Students with accommodations approved through DAS are responsible for contacting the faculty member in charge of the course prior to or during the first week of the term to discuss accommodations. Students who believe they are eligible for accommodations but who have not yet obtained approval through DAS should contact DAS immediately at

6 Honor Code: All students are expected to be honest and ethical in their academic work. Academic dishonesty is defined as an intentional act of deception in one of the following areas: cheating-- use or attempted use of unauthorized materials, information or study aids; fabrication-- falsification or invention of any information; assisting-- helping another commit an act of academic dishonesty; tampering-- altering or interfering with evaluation instruments and documents; plagiarism-- representing the words or ideas of another person as one's own. See also Student Evaluation of Teaching: We encourage you to engage in the course evaluation process each term online, of course. The evaluation form will be available toward the end of each term, and you will be sent instructions through ONID. You will login to Student Online Services to respond to the online questionnaire. The results on the form are anonymous and are not tabulated until after grades are posted.