The Archivist's Archives. the Powerful Nijhoff and What Historians of Science Can Learn from His Legacy – Floris Boudens
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Archivist’s Archives. The powerful Nijhoff and what historians of science can learn from his legacy – Floris Boudens Today the archive is an essential part of historical scholarship, a situation that came into being in the nineteenth century. This paper focusses on one of the first provincial archivists Isaac Anne Nijhoff who also pioneered in professionalizing the historical discipline. The aim of the paper is threefold. Firstly, it places the nineteenth century archive in historical context, and using Foucauldian concepts it showcases the power relations at play there, especially in the Guelders archive where Nijhoff worked. Secondly, drawing on primary sources it explains the significance of Nijhoff’s career as historian-archivist. Finally, this paper argues that a broader interpretation of the term ‘science archives’ is warranted , encompassing also patrimony such as Nijhoff’s. “Rembering the Scientific Self: A methodological argument for scientific self-archiving and “Living Archives” – Matthijs Sweekhorst To chronicle oneself—to document one’s progression as an academic actor—is often perceived as an act of haughtiness; if not as an act of pure hubris. Only once the academic peasant transcends the castes—if he does—and attracts some noble fame, his personality transcends from idealised irrelevancy to idolised historicity; and only then, is such a personality expected to be properly archived and documented. The paradox ought to be clear: we cannot expect Great Minds to uphold meticulous self-preservation, when throughout their juvenescence, we request that they abstain from precisely such practices. This paper argues that, rather than to suppress self-preservation out of some vain-driven humility or “will to willessness,” now is the time to acknowledge that the academic scholar has an obligation to his scientific self; an obligation to practice self-archiving. By abandoning selflessness, the science archive would become a site for self-construction; where mnemotechnical re-impressions and reanimations of past selves would offer a “token of the future” to the sciences; a means of re-impressing the epistemic virtues, methodological ethics, and worldviews of originary selves onto future actors. Such a ‘living’ and animative archive of self- replication, this paper argues, would individually warrant the methodological dexterity and inquisitive integrity of future academic personae. Smoking, Lung Cancer and the Cigarette Industry in the Netherlands The Archive of the `Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds’ 1953-1964 – Ronald Hes It is estimated that around 1,2 million people died in the Netherlands from smoking since 1950. Although the relationship between smoking and lung cancer was already known in the 1950s, it was only around the year 2000 that public measures against smoking became effective. This prompts the question how many lives could have been saved if public health interventions against smoking had started earlier. A first key question is how the responsible medical professionals acted when they became aware of the dangers of smoking. Of particular interest is the group of cancer specialists that was responsible for the centralized funding of cancer research in the Netherlands through the ‘Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds’ (KWF hereafter). In this essay I first investigate how these experts evaluated early scientific evidence on the relation between smoking and lung cancer and whether they translated this knowledge into preventative actions. A second key question concerns the interaction of the cigarette industry with the medical profession. It is known that this industry has exerted a strong influence on cancer specialists in the United States since the 1950s, where it employed dedicated public affairs specialists to discredit research that confirmed a relation between smoking and cancer. Simultaneously, it funded research that diverted the attention from this relation, often studies claiming external or indirect causes of lung cancer. The aim of these activities appeared to create and prolong doubts among the public on whether smoking was really harmful. In this essay I investigate if, and to what extent, the cigarette industry influenced medical professionals, especially those working for the KWF, and their interaction with the public in the Netherlands. Concerning the first question, documents in the KWF archive from the period 1953-1964 show that medical professionals within this organization were not eager to get involved in matters of public policy. For several reasons they refrained from warning the public for the dangers of smoking and from attempting to influence their behaviour. These reservations caused them to pass the initiative to others and to proceed very slowly towards actions. It took them ten years to finish their first report, ‘Smoking-Youth’, a period during which no concrete public health actions were taken against smoking. Concerning the second question, the KWF archive reveals how the cigarette industry approached the KWF’s specialists on smoking and lung cancer. Whereas the industry remained relatively complacent in the 1950s, it became very active in the period surrounding the publication of ‘Smoking-Youth’ in 1963. This coincided with the publication of similar, highly critical, government reports in the USA and the UK. Representatives from the industry requested consultations with KWF bodies and organized informal meetings with KWF specialists. Gradually the industry’s attitude became more coercive, culminating in press statements and the forwarding of critical notes about individual specialists to the government. While the KWF was preparing ‘Smoking- Youth’, industry representatives directly approached individual members that were working on the report. I show how the industry got involved in scientific studies on smoking and lung cancer by offering funding to some of these KWF specialists. This was not an isolated event: this essay shows that until at least 1980 the cigarette industry continued to fund scientific studies that cast doubt on smoking as the cause of lung cancer. The well-tried strategy of the cigarette industry to influence cancer research in the USA also worked in the Netherlands. Hidden Figures in the History of Science Rose Rand, philosopher and logician – Stefan Gaillard Few schools of thought within philosophy of science have had greater attention paid to them within standard Western curricula than the logical empiricism of the so-called Wiener Kreis or Vienna Circle. The Vienna Circle ended up being a lasting influence within philosophy of science. However, while elements of and individuals within the Vienna Circle are widely known, some of its individual members have received surprisingly little attention. One of these individuals is Rose Rand, an Austrian-American logician and philosopher, who despite her neglected legacy, was in close contact with some of the better-known Vienna Circle members, like Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap. In this article, we aim to investigate the role of Rose Rand within the Vienna Circle, her reception during her lifetime and canon formation during and after her life. To do so, we first reflect on the general usage of archival material, both in general and for historiography of science in particular. Then, we specifically look at the Wiener Kreis archive at the North Holland Archive which contains part of Rand’s written legacy. Thereafter, a general overview of the Vienna Circle is given and both archival material and secondary literature are used to depict the relationship between Rose and the rest of the Vienna Circle. Lastly, a thorough feminist history analysis is conducted in relation to canon formation theory to make some tentative conclusions about the role of Rand in philosophy of science. The life of Rose Rand provides a very interesting historiographical case study to explore topics relating to power and representation. Rand continued somewhat fruitful correspondence with other members of the Vienna Circle throughout her life. This correspondence forms a large part of the archival material. The correspondence can only be called somewhat fruitful, because despite Rand herself thinking that she was being helped by people such as Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap, oftentimes this was not the case. Many of the philosophers that promised to help her only did so tentatively, sometimes even sabotaging her career. Even with all these negative influences, Rand made significant contributions to both philosophy and logic, which she herself saw as interrelated. Despite not receiving much academic help or feedback from her peers, she managed to lay the foundations of modern strands of philosophy of logic and science. In addition to her own work, she kept rigorous track of the developments within the so-called Vienna Circle. More specifically, she developed the Zirkelprotolle, meticulous tables which documented the philosophical ideas of her peers. Due to Rand’s academic focus on a field unpopular during her lifetime, combined with social factors such as her gender, she never became a big name while she lived. However, after her death it became clear that she had laid the foundation for deontic logic, a branch of logic that is increasingly important. Thus, the fact that she remains overlooked in the current canon is most likely due to socio-cultural factors, such as her being overlooked because of her gender. Rose Rand deserves a more prominent place in the modern philosophical canon. Acting for the Public Good. Martinus van Marum (1750-1837) as a