What today will matter tomorrow?

by Cliopatria

Alternate title (1) Why do we teach science in history so badly?

Alternate title (2) “Oh brave new world that hath such rodents in it!”

Fascinating story came out the other day. (This Boston.com story gives a good quick overview. This Forbes article looks at some of the economic possibilities.) Those friendly researchers at the Salk Institute have found that altering one gene in mice can turn them into super-marathoners, with abilities far beyond those of most mortal mice.

Groans about future Olympic athletic cheating have been a natural part of the story. However, baseline DNA will be available from all the scared parents who are taking samples from their kids now. (Of course those parents could alter the kid’s genes, but we’ll let that go for the moment.)

I bring it up now to raise a couple of perennial question:

1. What events now will matter in 100 years? A biologist I know says that the gene story really is a big deal, with theoretical and practical ramifications that go way beyond turning couch potatoes into supersonic spuds. Who knows, if she is right, a 100 years form now, this could matter much, much more than Bush vs. Kerry, the War on Terror, or even the next university budget. (I think the last is a stretch.) Or it might be nothing much, just another step in the March of Science.

Of course that does not mean it will be in the US Survey (assuming such a course is not an ancient notion). As important as science (and technology) is in our history, we really do a poor job of teaching it. At this leads me to question two:

Why do we do such a poor job on it in the US survey. One reason is obvious: Most survey texts deemphasize it. (Pauline Maier et al.’s Inventing America tries, but the text is, at best, only partially successful.) Another problem may be the inherently difficult task of describing how science and technology have, with each generation, become more and more woven into people’s daily lives. So much so that now we assume a changing environment is the one constant. That is far more important than most politics. So shouldn’t it become a major component of what we do?

Update: Brian Ulrich makes an interesting comment on this article at his blog. One point is absolutely correct. Integrating the science requires understanding it to a degree. One of the more challenging things I have ever done is create a month long unit on Darwin for an online course. And, as is usual with teaching, every time I taught it, I learned something new and important to explain.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

William R. Clay - 8/30/2004

Thank you.. That makes it clearer, and I agree technology needs to be "blended" into current lessons rather than isolated as if it develops on its own.

Jonathan Dresner - 8/30/2004

I don't think it needs to be a separate 'discipline' in the sense of requiring its own departments, but I think it's a topic worthy of its own journals, some dedicated faculty, a graduate field. Specialists, like specialists in other social science-related historical topics, should have some scientific/technical training (enough so that the sources make sense, much like language/culture training for regional specialists).

Much of what I see of dedicated science/technology history is more antiquarianism/biography than analytical and integrative, so my preference would be for a less isolated field.

William R. Clay - 8/30/2004

Thank you both for the quick responses. Professor Dresner let me address your commentary. You mention blending technology, as a topic, into a synthesis for a specific segment of historical studies. I hope I am getting that right. If so, I could not agree more with you. I have found the current use of technology too limited in scope for students to understand exactly why it may have influenced past events.

As an example, in an American History survey course (up to the start of the Civil War). I found it enlightening to bring in an actual (non-functional, but real none the less) rifle from the early 19th century. I included a proper sized lead ball to illustrate what was fired from the rifle in question. Why? This “hand-on” display (I had the students, who desired, perform a modified manual of arms to give them an idea of just how hefty that old firearm was) demonstrated far better than my words ever would, just how hard it was to be a soldier during that time period, how devastating a battlefield wound could be from the soft lead ammunition used up to and including the Civil War, and why armies fought the way they did and how tactics changed.

While taught at a college level, I was amazed at how little the students understood about the relation of man’s technology to events in history (most likely what my college instructors said about my classes). It was gratifying to see a dawning of light in some students that what was is not now, and what was had a great deal to do with what man made of his technical world.

All this being said, is there still not a need for a separate discipline to explore technology in depth? These elements of study could then provide the understandings that could be reconstituted into survey courses, specific areas of study, etc. Or, at least from your post, is this something that is doable in an integrated form along with specific period and area history without the trappings of separate studies? I am not thrilled with the continuing fracturing of learning into narrow slots of interest, but do you really feel there is another way?

Jonathan Dresner - 8/27/2004

Usually, if you look at the full title of History of Science chairs, programs, courses, etc., they are "History of Science and Technology" but it's a really diverse field. There are people who study scientists, people who study scientific thought and writing (some interesting work is being done in the area of information organization and distribution, particularly on encyclopedia), people who study technology as a social phenomenon. There are also people 'outside' the field who study technology: social and economic historians, mainly, as well as, for the early eras, archaeologists and anthropologists.

If I had my way, it would not be a separate discipline, but a topic, like migration, integrated into our social, economic, intellectual histories.

Brian Ulrich - 8/27/2004

At UW-Madison, History of Science is its own department distinct from History. They may do technology over there.

William R. Clay - 8/27/2004

The area of technology, as it relates to history, is of profound interest to me. While not a mathematical whiz (just ask my former high school physics instructor!), nonetheless I do avidly follow current developments and the relationship of past advances to their historical outcomes. I would like to pose a question to Professor Dresner and Oscar Chamberlain. As you are both aware, technology has driven social and political change since man made his first tools.

Professor Dresner is correct in making the point about government involvement in technology as a political issue. I would add that government, particularly since the just before onset of World War II, has been a strong driving force in technological development. This has often been without forethought as to the social outcomes. This brings me to the question I would pose to you two and others reading this post. We have fractured our historical teachings into various domains, Eastern, Western, American current, and so forth. This is understandable due to the scope of these areas of history, however, are you aware of any concerted efforts to develop technological history as it own discipline? If not, should it be? If so, where, and who is involved with this effort.

Jonathan Dresner - 8/26/2004

TC Smith, the great Japanese social historian, once wrote that you cannot make a change in productive technology without making a change in social relationships. This is something that I cite in my World surveys all the time: pointing out how new technologies change economic activities, which change social patterns.

I don't think you can do social, or economic, history without paying close attention to technological development. Political history is the only perspective from which technology is (usually considered) peripheral, but it is most often the perspective from which the master narrative is constructed.

We are at an interesting crossroads, though: technology is now a political issue, in a way in which it never was before. The involvement of the government as a regulatory and protective institution makes issues like food safety a major challenge, and new technologies, like stem cells and bioengineering, are pushing new moral/ethical territory which legislators are considering bounding, as they have bounded so many before.