European universities have been informally and formally closed to women from their founding in the twelfth century until the late nineteenth century. A few, exceptional women scientists received Ph.D.s and taught in these institutions before 1900: Laura Bassi served as lecturer in physics at the University of Bologna from 1732 to 1778 and held the chair in experimental physics at the prestigious Istituto delle Scienze from 1776 until her death in 1778 (Findlen 1993; Ceranski 1996). Anna Morandi Manzolini replaced her husband as lecturer in anatomy at the University of Bologna in 1755 (Messbarger 2001). Dorothea von Schlözer, daughter of the renowned Göttingen historian, received a doctoral degree for her work in mineralogy in 1787 (Schiebinger 1989, 257–60). These intermittent positions awarded to women were unique to Italy and Germany; none were granted women in England or France. Nowhere in Europe did women gain regular access to universities until the late nineteenth century.

Like almost everything in the Soviet Union, the discipline of history of science and technology altered dramatically during the social upheaval of Gorbachev’s perestroika, in some ways that were predictable, and in other ways that were not. One new direction of research that has since grown into a bourgeoning field – the social history of Russian and Soviet science – is represented by the articles in this volume. This short introduction cannot substitute for a real historiographical study, which will probably appear in due course (see also Gerovitch 1996, Gerovitch 1998, Graham 1993). This is rather a personal memoir about the origin and motivations behind the approach; as incomplete as a participant’s memoir can be, but with some benefits of retrospective hindsight. Ten years ago, at a time of great fluidity in minds and intellectual agendas, many developments were driven primarily by intuition and the sheer momentum of Zeitgeist; now, as things have become somewhat settled, there is time for more reflection.

The object of sampling surveys is to evaluate variables characterizing an aggregate (the “whole”) through the observation of only a fraction of that whole, the “sample.” Though these surveys do focus on sociological or economic variables, it is because of opinion polls – often referred to as Gallup polls, from the name of the American businessman who first applied them to election forecasts and market surveys – that the investigative techniques involved in sampling surveys gained their claim to fame. The identification with this particular type of survey has become so strong that the French word for sampling survey, sondage, which, for statisticians, designates that survey method which substitutes the “part” for the “whole” (sampling) has become, for the general public, synonymous with the term enquête d’opinion (poll), to such an extent that any controversy on sondages now focuses on the scientific validity of the concept of “opinion” rather than on the legitimacy of extrapolating “from the part to the whole.” This technique, however, now perfectly well codified thanks to probabilistic techniques and the computation of “confidence intervals” has a complex history, which predates the Gallup method of the 1930s. The probabilistic justification of the method’s legitimacy stems from a number of developments in different survey techniques, focusing on “typical cases,” “examples,” and, subsequently, on “purposive” sampling techniques, as opposed to “random” sampling. This legitimization, relying on probabilities, has not, however, gained general acceptance, since even nowadays, the so-called “quota” method does not follow the canons of random selection and of confidence intervals.

Argument

An attempt to understand and analyze a unique nineteenth-century musical instrument – the enharmonic piano from the collection of the Glinka Museum of Russian Musical Culture in Moscow – directs a historian towards Prince Vladimir Odoyevskiy’s efforts to construct a special musical scale corresponding to the indigenous tradition of Russian music. Known today mostly as an author of Romantic short stories, Odoyevskiy was also an amateur scientist and musician, a follower of Schelling’s Naturphilosophie, and a mystic. He tried to design his new musical scale and instruments on the basis of experimental science and mathematics. Odoyevskiy’s life-long search for a synthesis of literature, music, positive science, and spirituality demonstrates how the adaptation and appropriation of European arts preceded and paved the way towards the appropriation of European sciences among the educated élite in nineteenth-century Russia. The tensions inherent in the process led to Odoyevskiy’s nationalist rebellion against the European musical standard, the equal temperament. His call for a different musical scale remained largely ignored in the nineteenth century, until the topic was raised anew by twentieth-century composers and musicians.

Argument

A recent comparative study of women in science has revealed that the situation in the Netherlands is worse than in other European countries. This raises the question whether there is a “Dutch case” concerning women’s standing in science. We argue that the cause is not to be found in a special brand of Dutch Protestantism, with its strong emphasis on motherhood and the family, and impact on labor patterns and social organization. Rather, we should take another look at religion, and especially at the specific Dutch segmentation of society along religious and political lines, called verzuiling, literally “pillarization.” From about 1880 until far into the 1950s the personal and social life of the Dutch (from schools to sports and ladies' organizations) was organized into four recognized pillars (a Protestant, Catholic, socialist and a liberal pillar), which at the top were represented in political parties. This article brings to light the often overlooked fact that between 1880 and 1945 state institutions, such as universities, were thoroughly pillarized, which strongly influenced recruitment and selection for those institutions. That is to say, no woman was appointed to the rank of full professor at any state university until after 1945. The Dutch case might also be explained by the many reorganizations and down-sizings of universities of more recent years that occurred simultaneous with the expansion of academic feminism. In addition, a newly configured “pillarization” has driven deep divides between gender studies scholars, equal opportunities officers, and women scientists.

But even in the long-industrialized European countries, the story has not been one of automatic growth and progress. Thus … in the Netherlands … there too the situation for women academics has deteriorated over the past two decades. Where in 1970 there were 2.7 per cent women professors, by 1980 this was down to 2.2 per cent and by 1988 to 2.1 per cent. (Rose 1994)

Argument

Norwegian statisticians were pioneers in the development of sampling techniques for social and economic investigations in the late nineteenth century. After a few years of extensive use of sampling surveys in large-scale social and economic investigations, the method fell out of use in the early 1900s. This article supports Alain Desrosières’ argument that the emergence of sampling procedures in social investigations must be seen in relation to a modern “individualistic” view of society. But the importance of the institutional setting is also stressed: The way statistical research was connected to the power and resources of the State within the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) was a central element in the development and implementation of the new technique. A separate argument is presented to explain why the method suddenly lost ground in Norway and the general director of the CBS stopped promoting his method in the meetings of the International Statistical Institute. The explanation is probably to be found in a large and politically important survey in the 1890s that was attacked by a group of actuaries from private insurance firms. The heated and long-lasting debate turned into a question about trust in the new method and the reputation of the head of CBS as a statistical expert. The necessary trust and confidence was lost when the CBS in 1906 had to admit that important estimates from this survey obviously were erroneous.

Argument

This paper examines Paracelsus and Paracelsianism in the light of the ideas of Max Weber concerning the social consequences of the Reformation, with special reference to his theories of Entzauberung and secularization. He linked these tendencies both to the rise of capitalism and the growth of experimental science. The detailed case study of Paracelsus' account of diseases linked with saints, in common with his interpretation of many other conditions, demonstrates that he self-consciously extended the boundaries of medicine and eroded the role of magic and witchcraft associated with the church. On the other hand, Paracelsus adopted the Neoplatonic worldview, was immersed in popular magic, and evolved a system of medicine that self-consciously revolved around magic. These factors seem to place a distinct limit on his role in the demystification of knowledge. However, the magic of Paracelsus entailed a decisive break with the entrenched elitist and esoteric tradition of the occultists and hermeticists. It is argued that this reconstructed magic re-establishes the credentials of Paracelsus as a significant contributor to the disenchantment and secularization of the worldview.

Argument

While we know that Russian mathematicians contributed to the application of probability in the theory of statistics, Western literature on the history of statistics generally overlooks the role played by statisticians working in zemstva statistics departments. This paper argues that the quantity and the diversity of statistical data needed by zemstva administrators stimulated methodological innovations in the field and influenced the rise and development of sampling surveys in Russia between 1875 and 1930. The first surveys on parts of the whole were done by statisticians who were seeking solutions to practical administrative problems, and their sampling techniques evolved as Russian administrators put these statistical surveys to use. Finally, the paper argues that Kovalevskiy’s mathematical treatment of the theory of stratified sampling, published in 1924, ten years before Jerzy Neyman’s, is in fact a synthesis of the zemstva statisticians’ sampling practice and the Russian university statisticians’ theoretical works before 1917.

Argument

State patronage and the modernizing role of the government have been considered crucial for the development of science in Russia during both Imperial and Soviet periods. This paper argues, on the contrary, that the start of Russian agricultural science had predominantly local and non-governmental sources of support. Amateur experiments by nobles aspiring to become “cultured” landlords, university professors applying their scientific knowledge to their own estates, and the efforts by local community administrations, zemstvo, to compete for grain markets all contributed, by 1900, to the establishment of various stations for agricultural research. The Imperial government became involved in this process rather belatedly, with an effort to further stimulate and coordinate the institutional network of agricultural science. By 1917, this network included more than 300 breeding and experimental stations. Despite revolutionary violence and the loss of former patrons, most of these stations managed to maintain their functions throughout the Civil War and formed the basis of Soviet agricultural science.

Argument

In the sixteenth century, several Central European Jews argued, with greater emphasis than their forebears, that the realm of nature and the realm of the divine are largely independent. This argument was expressed in three related claims. First, nature itself came to be seen as indifferent to creed. Though Jews may have assumed that they enjoyed an elevated status in the supernatural realm, the notion that their status and characteristics differed in the natural realm was, for some at least, discredited. Second, once nature was divorced from creed, natural philosophy and allied disciplines too came to be seen (by some) as a theologically neutral discipline. Third, once nature and natural philosophy were seen as insensible to differences in religious belief, discourse about natural philosophy came to be seen as a scholarly pastime that might be shared companionably by peoples of different beliefs. In short, among certain early modern Jews, nature, the discipline of natural philosophy, and the profession of natural philosophy all came to be seen as drained of religious particularity. These views bear an interesting and sometimes paradoxical relationship to secularization. On the one hand, the distancing of nature and creed may have been a harbinger of the actual secularization that portions of European – especially Ashkenazi – Jewish culture later experienced. On the other hand, these same attitudes may also have deterred interest in the physical world itself, discouraging the sort of “this-worldliness” that Max Weber and many others have associated with secularization.

Argument

In France 15 per cent of university professors are women. Though this percentage is not high, France ranks among the top European countries in this regard. We argue that the “relatively favorable” situation of French women scientists is related to the social structure of French society, in particular its child-care system, and to the stable permanent positions in academia, where people are hired in their early thirties. French women scientists experience less difficulty than other European colleagues to manage both a private and a professional life. We also argue that the weak position of French gender studies stems from its lack of institutionalization, and from the isolation of the single researchers in their specialized disciplines. Finally we argue that the French recent interest in the issue of women and science is specifically related to the general interest, since the mid-1990s, in the political parity problem.

Argument

How did statistical representativeness first appear in the United States? To answer this question we turn to the archives of the Department of Agriculture. Since the 1860s, agricultural statisticians have been working to come up with representative groups of farmers able to answer questions about crop production. The archives describe the methods and tools used to devise representative samples. But the explicit justifications of why a given sample is particularly representative are nearly always missing. Where can we find explanations for why one sampling method is representative and not another? Where can we find the why when we have only the how? This paper argues that we can turn to the theorists of democracy for answers, because selecting a sample and selecting a group of representatives have a lot in common.

Argument

Science is more sex-segregated in Germany than in other European countries or in the United States. Female students and faculty were admitted to German universities 30 to 50 years after they were admitted to universities elsewhere. This article analyzes why this was so. First, since the nineteenth century, science has enjoyed great prestige in Germany: German higher education was systematized at that time and has since then been run by the government. In addition, the early professionalization of science in Germany put in place demands for high levels of qualification and research, which made academic careers in science attractive to Germany’s social elites. Germany lacked a strong feminist movement. For many years women were excluded from the academic labor market. Even after women were admitted to universities, female representation in faculty positions was sporadic. Exclusionary strategies, often demanded by male academics, were implemented throughout the interwar years, culminating in the anti-feminist policies of the Nazi regime, and the expulsion and persecution of “non-Aryans.” After World War II this legacy of a conservative, often anti-feminist, faculty persisted. As a result, academic careers opened to women only after the tremendous expansion of universities in the 1970s. New feminist movements have finally motivated the government to introduce programs in the 1990s aimed at greater sexual equality.

Argument

How did Boyle’s religious concerns and views cause his experimental philosophy to differ from received views on the goals and methods of natural philosophy? I argue that Boyle predicated his experimental philosophy on two fundamental doctrines. The first claimed that attributing causality to natural entities was idolatrous, that is, intellectually and morally erroneous. The second doctrine claimed that causal relations in the natural world were the property of God’s benevolent government. Boyle’s experimental studies were accordingly intended to identify specific manifestations of this property, while philosophers traditionally construed experiment as an aid to observation of phenomena. Boyle rendered experiment a learning tool that enabled believers to accommodate themselves, theoretically and practically, to God’s benevolent rule. As a servant of the public good, this experimental philosopher formed an important turning point in the emergence of modern science and its role in the social division of labor.

Argument

The revolutionary transformation in Russian science toward the Soviet model of research started even before the revolution of 1917. It was triggered by the crisis of World War I, in response to which Russian academics proposed radical changes in the goals and infrastructure of the country’s scientific effort. Their drafts envisioned the recognition of science as a profession separate from teaching, the creation of research institutes, and the turn toward practical, applied research linked to the military and industrial needs of the nation. The political revolution and especially the Bolshevik government that shared or appropriated many of the same views on science, helped these reforms materialize during the subsequent Civil War. By 1921, the foundation of a novel system of research and development became established, which in its most essential characteristics was similar to the U.S. later phenomenon known as “big science.”

Argument

I believe that some pollutions are used as analogies for expressing a general view of the social order.

Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (Douglas 1966, 14)

The possibility of crossing humans with other anthropoid species has been discussed in fiction as well as in scientific literature during the twentieth century. Professor Il’ya Ivanov’s attempt to achieve this was crucial for the beginning of organized primate research in the Soviet Union, and remains one of the most interesting and controversial experiments that was ever done on non-human primates. The possibility of removing the boundary that separates humans from other animal species, apes in particular, is loaded with important political meaning and violates cultural and ethical taboos. The history of Ivanov’s scientific experiment thus helps to reveal some of the twentieth-century’s important cultural conventions and hidden assumptions about human nature, species, and social hierarchy.

Argument

Notwithstanding the preponderance of clerics among early modern scientific practitioners, only scant attention has been paid to the ramifications of their “calling” on their ability to engage freely in scientific studies. Indeed, the overall failure to calibrate the compatibility between full-fledged secular studies and a clerical vocation has led to misconceptions concerning the nature of the participation of ordained men in early modern science. It is not simply that ministerial duties imposed considerable demands on their time and energy; more significantly, the essence of this vocation was such as to impinge fundamentally on their ability to dedicate themselves to science or, most important of all, on their willingness to acknowledge publicly their contribution. A focus on the inner tensions that plagued practitioners in holy orders during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries will both highlight the insurmountable challenges posed by the specialized and secularized nature of the “new science” on clerics – irrespective of denomination – and explain their eventual marginalization in the scientific endeavor.

Argument

Contemporary debates around Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the most common form of drug treatment, Ritalin, are rarely placed in the context of the social-scientific history of diagnosis and drug treatment. This is possibly due to the fact that brain talk and brain imagery have replaced earlier theories about children’s psychopathology that had mainly focused on the toxic effects of the mother. These theories and their psychoanalytic roots are considered somewhat embarrassing and certainly unscientific in a contemporary light, and modern biological psychiatry has worked hard to demonstrate that physiological and genetic factors underpin this contested disorder. Such theories have tended to make the history of ADHD and Ritalin seem irrelevant to scientific progress and understanding of disorder, as well as to public understanding and acceptance of disorder and drug treatment. Examining this history, however, clarifies the relation between social, cultural, and scientific values in constructing a need for medical intervention within the domestic realm. When Ritalin came on the United States market in 1955, neither psychiatric diagnosis of children’s behaviors, nor drug treatments for children’s behavior were commonplace. Mothers especially were located in the center of active political, moral, and scientific debates over boys’ normative behaviors. These debates helped codify an intimate association between a problem boy and his problematic mother in relation to ADHD diagnosis and Ritalin treatment. The story I tell here suggests that this association may have supported mothers’ acceptance of medical intervention and drug treatment for their boys’ troublesome, but arguably not pathological, behaviors. In the concluding sections I argue that the lack of attention to these social-scientific roots means that we miss seeing their potential relevance to the contemporary predicament of rising ADHD diagnoses and Ritalin use.

Argument

In this paper, I examine the treatment of mathematics in the definitive 1599 Ratio Studiorum of the Jesuit Order and in the preliminary drafts of the Ratio that were done in 1586 and 1591. Drawing on some additional writings of the Jesuit mathematician Christopher Clavius and his view of the importance of mathematics in a university curriculum, I suggest that the inclusion of mathematics as a standard part of the curriculum in Jesuit schools at the beginning of the “scientific revolution” was of significant importance in a climate that often demeaned the work of mathematicians. Jesuit schools were being founded around the time of Galileo and other key figures who influenced the scientific revolution. The introduction of mathematical sciences into universities and the textbooks of Clavius laid the groundwork for generations of students to become better acquainted with mathematics and the sciences that were being developed during that period of history.