Weart's work shows how funding in the cold war increased government support for science deemed important for security and international collaboration, but the Regan era politicized wide swaths of research- especially climate science- drying up support and reducing funds. History.Exhausting.Amirite?

Weart's article details the link between funding and politicization of climate change, tracking his funding sources from its small start during the International Geophysical Year to funding by NOAA, the Department of Energy, NSF, and the USGS between 1977 and 1980. But that bubble also burst.

Find all these articles here, plus Shin and DeVorkin's article on the half century long battle to develop a national planetarium for the US. Taken together, this Volume speaks heavily to the politics of science in the 20th century. online.ucpress.edu/hsns/issue/5...

Using these papers, the authors show how Wilson positioned his science in the political climate of the Cold War, casting his critics as enemies of both science and the State. Other essays examine the impact of Sociobiology on ecological thought and its legacy today.

Each essay examines the debates and legacy of E.O. Wilson's publication. This collection of essays is particularly rich, as many of the scholars used Wilson's recently opened papers at the Library of Congress.

Thought you'd find this useful @nzjh.bsky.social @conteurohistory.bsky.social ‪@euroreviewhistory.bsky.social‬ @isisjournal.bsky.social @asia-pacific-echr.bsky.social @enghistrev.bsky.social @hsnatsci.bsky.social @jmormonhist.bsky.social @jofvictculture.bsky.social @jbritishstudies.bsky.social

All of these essays are worth the read. I do believe that reading them together will help you think clearly about AI in the academy and your role in shaping that role. online.ucpress.edu/hsns/issue/5...

And Jennifer Robertson suggests new forms of fieldwork that will help scholars better understand and process the rapid changes in robotics and automated life in the 21st century. Joseph Martin, the editor of the journal, finishes with an essay that reflects on the role of editors in this new world.

Damien P. Williams suggests that issues with AI "scholarship" intertwines with academic publish or perish culture- pushing scholars to accept the slight of hand that interprets publishing with knowledge production. Instead, he suggests we interrogate what knowledge means outside of this system.

" In the face of such a profound threat from AI, researchers should take a leaf out of the Luddites’ playbook by intervening and organizing wherever possible to prevent automation imposed by commercial publishers and analytics companies."

Check out Alex Csiszar, Nicole Howard, and Samuel A. Moore's essays. They historicize scientific publication, quick production of written materials, and the development of automation. Moore uses Hobsbawm's historical account of Luddites to call for an intervention.

Melinda Baldwin and Brigid Vance have put together 6 short essays examining AI in academic publishing through a historical lens. And it is calming me down!

read about it here: online.ucpress.edu/hsns/article...

Hoffman says that "it can be said that controversies are often treated as similar to natural experiments, which, with no planned intervention, reveal elementary attributes of scientific knowledge production."

Our next paper speaking to this is Jaehwan Hyun's article from September 2019 on the "politics of national identity in South Korea" online.ucpress.edu/hsns/article...

The first paper is by Elise Burton from February 2024. Her paper traces the way that cartography shifted as did ideas about race and Turkish identity. online.ucpress.edu/hsns/article...

Read the essay here: online.ucpress.edu/hsns/article...

This collaborative essay is an amazing example of how scholars are building intellectual communities in the history of science.
@ejonesimhotep
Awa Hanane Diagne Emily Grenon Syeda Hasan Holly K.M. Johnstone
@AlexanderOfford
Neve Ostry Young Sarai Rudder