Fifty years ago, only a few North American colleges offered introductory history of science courses, typically taught by professors who, although filled with enthusiasm for the subject, lacked any advanced training in history of science.  Today the situation has dramatically improved:  hundreds of well trained professors teach the subject to thousands of students.  And a rich and varied array of publications—nearly four thousand new items per year—is now available to support these courses.

What is the history of science and why has it attracted such high levels of interest?  Treating topics that range from Babylonian astronomy to the latest space explorations, from Hippocratic medicine to the cultural significance of anorexia nervosa, courses in history of science exhibit such diversity that precise definition of the field is difficult.  For example, some history of science courses include materials on the history of technology, of medicine, or of mathematics; others may not.  Some give extensive attention to social factors—how science affects society and how society influences science.  Some probe such psychological issues as the nature of human creativity, whereas others delve into questions concerning the methodology of science.

Despite such differences in emphasis, historians of science see their discipline as a branch of history.  Like history of art, of literature, or of philosophy, history of science focuses on the development of a single area, the sciences, which have deeply influenced modern life and culture.  Historians of science are, however, interested in far more than science; they are concerned with science as a changing entity and with scientists themselves.  They seek to understand how personal and societal factors have shaped the creators of those scientific advances that have acted, for better or worse, so powerfully and pervasively in the modern world.

One striking transformation typically experienced by students encountering the history of science for the first time is that they realize that the development of science has involved not only scientific creations, but also scientific creators, not only settled conclusions, but also intense controversies.  This transformation helps students to see science as an intensely human enterprise that has been shaped by a myriad of human intentions, choices, commitments, and compulsions.  Knowing how science develops in its social context not only gives us a valuable perspective on our culture, it may also provide the insight to change the way we organize and employ science.  Historical awareness suggests creative ways of solving problems that may currently beset us.

Encountering the history of science frees students from many persistent myths about the past of science.  It is widely believed, for example, that all ancient Greeks believed that the earth is the center of the universe, that Columbus and his crew showed great bravery in overcoming the fear that they might fall off the flat earth, that Galileo’s most important experiment consisted in dropping weights from the leaning tower of Pisa, and that Newton, while sitting under an apple tree around 1666, discovered universal gravitation.
Even introductory history of science courses reveal that all these claims are incorrect.  You will learn that as early as the third century B.C., the Greek astronomer Aristarchus proposed that the earth orbits the sun, that the sphericity of the earth was not only well known by about 300 B.C., but that good measurements of the earth’s circumference had already been made by that time, that no solid evidence supports the claim that Galileo dropped weights from the leaning tower of Pisa, and that although Newton, while sitting under an apple tree, may have attained a notion that gravity extends to the moon, he would for more than a decade after that event have rejected the idea that gravitational force extends throughout the universe.  Students in history of science courses also learn that a number of broader claims about the development of science, for example, that medieval science was extremely backward and that new observational evidence led Copernicus to create the heliocentric theory, are also incorrect.

One of the safest speculations that we could make ... is ... that very soon the history of science is going to acquire an importance ... incommensurate with anything that it has hitherto possessed.  It ... is no longer merely an account of one of many human activities like the history of music or ... of cricket....  Because it deals with one of the main constituents of the modern world and the modern mind, we cannot construct a respectable history of Europe or a tolerable survey of western civilization without it.  It is going to be as important for us for the understanding of ourselves as Graeco-Roman antiquity was for Europe during a period of over a thousand years. Sir Herbert Butterfield, “The History of Science and the Study of History,” Harvard Library Bulletin, 13 (1959), 330–1.

The enthusiasm for the history of science that educators have expressed derives from their pedagogical priorities and personal commitments.  Such historians as Sir Herbert Butterfield came to see that in the modern world, the history of civilization cannot be discussed in isolation from the sciences, which have influenced nearly all its aspects.  Historians, always attracted to a good story, have recognized that the development of science is filled with episodes of high drama involving men and women of extraordinary creativity and insight.  They have seen that scientific advances have influenced the course of war, contributed to prosperity, disrupted philosophical and religious systems, and altered humanity’s image of itself.

...the history of science alone can keep the physicist from the mad ambitions of dogmatism as well as the despair of Pyrrhonnian skepticism. Pierre Duhem, Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, trans Philip P. Wiener (Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 1954), p. 270.

The value of historical materials for expositions of science has been widely recognized not only by educators but also by authors such as Isaac Asimov whose writing are aimed at increasing knowledge of science among the public.  Media experts sharing this concern also frequently draw on historical studies or consult historians of science, thereby providing historians of science with audio-visual materials to enhance their courses.

How much knowledge of science need I have to take a course in the history of science?

Most introductory courses in history of science require no greater knowledge of science than is required for admission to the college where the course is taught.  When a particular background is required, this will usually be specified in the college catalogue of courses.  In most cases, however, no special background in science is required for history of science courses.  Scientific ideas presented in the course will be explained at a level comprehensible to the typical student.  Moreover, the practice among historians of science of tracing the evolution of scientific theories from their elementary origins to their later more complex formulations provides valuable assistance in comprehending the theories.

Prior knowledge of science can be of assistance in a history of science course.  The same is true of prior background in many other areas.  For example, knowledge of history, philosophy, the social sciences, or literature, will frequently help the student comprehend the course materials.  Generally speaking, students majoring in science or engineering have an excellent background for understanding the scientific ideas presented in a history of science course, but may need to develop and refine their humanistic skills, for example, their facility in writing and critical abilities.  Similarly, students who have already acquired a sensitivity to historical study and have experience in exercising historical imagination will find these skills of assistance to them.  Because of the large number of countries in which science has developed, knowledge of various foreign languages can also assist the student.

Students who are nonscientists regularly find that their lives are enriched by attaining a greater knowledge of the major ideas of science and how those ideas have interacted with the areas of knowledge they have already studied.  They come to an understanding of why scientists proceed as they do and an appreciation of the fact that science can be deeply fascinating to its practitioners.  All students should find themselves more capable of comprehending the role and significance of science in society, of assessing moral dilemmas that develop in science, and of analyzing issues in a critical and perceptive manner.

Knowledge of the history of science should be of assistance to anyone whose career will involve science to a significant extent.  In contemporary society, the number of such persons is extremely large; in fact, probably the majority of careers involve scientific ideas to some extent, and responsible citizenship certainly necessitates some understanding of the sciences.  More specifically, knowledge of the history of science can be of help to persons planning to teach science, history, or any historically oriented area, for example, literature.  Detailed study of the history of science can contribute importantly to persons planning careers in museum work, scientific journalism, government service, or areas of law or administration that involve science.  History of science and technology is useful for those who will manage industrial corporations, or for those who foresee creating a company.  Persons planning careers in library work should find history of science of value and relevance.  Premedical students have shown strong interest in history of science courses, finding that such courses satisfy the broad range of their interests.

Very few history of science courses, and typically only the more advanced, are designed to prepare students for careers as historians of science.  Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that many gifted students who possess such strong interests both in science and in the humanities or social sciences that they wish to keep both alive in their careers have taken advantage of the fact that numerous universities now offer programs leading to the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees with a specialty in the history of science.  Your teacher will be able to provide information on such programs, which is systematically compiled in the Guide to the History of Science, published periodically by the History of Science Society.  Graduates of such programs most frequently take positions teaching history of science or science courses for liberal arts students.

An increasingly large number of persons with advanced training in history of science pursue careers in “public history of science,” for example, as museum curators, writers, television directors, administrators, archivists, or as consultants to industry, the government, or the media.  A curator at a major museum who creates an engaging historical exhibit may thereby reach an audience numbering in the hundreds of thousands, whereas those who write or direct television shows dealing with science gain access to an even larger number of viewers.

A distinction of continuing importance (and controversy) is that between internalist and externalist history of science.  Internalist history of science focuses on the development of scientific ideas in relation to each other, for example, how Copernican astronomy contributed to Newtonian physics.  Externalist history of science looks at scientific developments within the context of the socioeconomic structure of society.  Such questions as the impact of science on government policy, the role of women in science, the development of a particular scientific organization, or the interactions between science and religion are classified as externalist issues.  Nonetheless, most agree that no sharp line can be drawn between internalist and externalist concerns, as is evident from consideration of such a topic as the development of evolutionary theories.

Introductory history of science courses in most cases give students some understanding of all these areas.  They see science developing through a number of periods in a variety of nations and in an array of specialties and social contexts.  Individual courses, depending on the needs of the students and the special areas of expertise of the teacher, will give greater or less emphasis to particular developments.

The relationships between science and industrial development, for example, the rise of the chemical and electrical industries, has been a fruitful area of analysis as has the study of scientific institutions and their influence on the growth of disciplines.  Interactions between science and the military are also actively investigated.  New fields of study are always opening up, an example being the current interest in the history of ecology and environmentalism which aims to set our global environmental problems in perspective.

Among winners of the History of Science Society’s Watson-Davis prize for excellence in popular level books are Daniel Boorstin’s TheDiscoverers, Joan Jacobs Brumberg’s Fasting Girls:  The History of Anorexia Nervosa, John Heilbron’s The Dilemma of an Upright Man: Max Planck as Spokesman for German Science, and Robert Smith’s The Space Telescope:  A Study of NASA, Science, Technology, and Politics.

Older works that are approaching the stature of classics include the following:  Herbert Butterfield’s Origins of Modern Science 1300–1800, I. Bernard Cohen’s Birth of the New Physics, Thomas Kuhn’s The Copernican Revolution, Arthur Koestler’s controversial The Watershed (on Kepler), Charles Rosenberg's The Cholera Years, Stephen Toulmin’s and June Goodfield’s The Fabric of the Heavens, The Architecture of Matter, and The Discovery of Time.  A highly regarded history of evolutionary theory is John C. Greene's The Death of Adam.

Some recent publications that have been well received include Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb and John C. Burnham’s How Superstition Won and Science Lost:  Popularizing Science and Health in the United States.  Nearly all these books and many more are available in paperback.

Let us turn now to a set of different and more complex questions.  Many of these questions raise issues that are of such significance that educated persons, both in the past and present, have felt the need to formulate positions regarding them, even if definitive resolutions of them remain elusive.  In searching for personally satisfying answers to these questions, you may find that your history of science course will be of special assistance.  After the presentation of each question, a short discussion and elaboration of it is provided to help sharpen the issues.

What factors have contributed to or hindered the development of science?

Because it is apparent that our understanding of central features of the universe and also our well-being are very dependent on scientific advances, it is important to ask:  what features of our culture foster scientific growth?  Scientists, like other intellectuals, have needed support, financial and otherwise, from the societies in which they live.  How has it come about that scientists (the word itself was first coined in the 1830s) have attained recognition as professionals whose contributions deserve such support?  Have religious considerations impeded or fostered the advance of science?  How has science interacted with technology and with medicine?  Has science developed in patterns comparable to those characteristic of other areas of learning?

Is the “great man” view of the history of science correct?  In other words, has science advanced primarily because of the contributions of a few figures of outstanding talent and insight or more because of the efforts made by numerous persons of less extraordinary ability?

A related issue is that historical research has revealed that discoveries can rarely be dated with the precision assigned in scientific textbooks.  Despite John Keats’s lines comparing his enthusiasm for a new translation of Homer to William Herschel’s discovery of the planet Uranus—”Then felt I like some watcher of the sky/When a new planet swims into his ken”—it is now known that Herschel’s discovery, rather than occurring on March 13, 1781, when he first observed the new object, extended over nearly two years, during which he and his fellow astronomers gradually recognized that the object he had sighted was not, as first thought, a comet, but in fact a new planet.

Moreover, the nature and significance of a discovery are sometimes far from clear.  One aspect of this is evident from Claude Bernard’s perceptive remark that “We usually give the name of discovery to recognition of a new fact:  but I think that the idea connected with the discovered fact is what really constitutes the discovery.”  In this sense, it can be claimed that Herschel’s real discovery was that more planets than the traditional six exist in the solar system, or, to put the point in a more action oriented manner, that astronomers might attain exciting results from searching for as yet undiscovered planets.

It would, of course, be overly bold to claim that your history of science course will provide you with definitive answers to all these questions, or to other comparably important questions that your teacher may wish to raise.  Nonetheless, one can confidently predict that your course will allow you to deepen your thought and understanding on a number of these issues.  Moreover, keeping these and related questions in mind may help you personalize your experience and may contribute as well to making the course, for yourself and your classmates, the stimulating experience that your teacher hopes it will be.

If I need to write a term paper or wish to learn more about a particular subject or scientist, with what sources should I begin?

Among  biographical dictionaries that feature articles on scientists of the past, the most important for the history of science is Charles C. Gillispie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York:  Charles Scribner, 1970–1980), a sixteen volume work in which the articles are by leading specialists and include excellent bibliographies.  Composed on a more modest scale and focused on ideas rather than individuals is W. E. Bynum, E. J. Brown, and Roy Porter (eds.), Dictionary of the History of Science (Princeton University Press, 1981).

The best single source for bibliography consists of a compilation and arrangement of the publications listed in the annual bibliography of the history of science, which bibliography appears each year in Isis, the journal of the History of Science Society.  This compilation is:  Magda Whitrow (ed.), The Isis Cumulative Bibliography, 1913–65, 3 vols. (London:  Mansell, 1971–1976).  Supplementary volumes have extended the bibliography to 1985.  Garland Press publishes a series of very useful subject-oriented bibliographies.  Among these are:  Joseph Dauben, The History of Mathematics from Antiquity to the Present:  A Selective Bibliography (1985); David De Vorkin, The History of Modern Astronomy and Astrophysics:  A Selected, Annotated Bibliography (1982); Roderick S. Home, The History of Classical Physics:  A Selected, Annotated Bibliography (1984); Stephen Brush and L. Belloni, The History of Modern Physics:  An International Bibliography (1983); Roy Sydney Porter, The History of the Earth Sciences:  An Annotated Bibliography (1983); Claudia Kren, Medieval Science and Technology:  A Selected, Annotated Bibliography (1985); and Marc Rothenberg, The History of Science and Technology in the United States:  A Selective and Critical Bibliography (1982).  Other sources include:  Pietro Corsi and P. Weindling (eds.), Information Sources in the History of Science and Medicine (London:  Butterworth, 1983) and R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie, and M. J. S. Hodge (eds.), Companion to the History of Modern Science (London:  Routledge, 1990).

When several taps of the beak break the shell of an egg from which the chick escapes, a child may imagine that this rigid and immobile mass, similar to the white shells he picks up on the edge of a stream, had suddenly taken life and produced the bird who runs away with a chirp; but just where his childish imagination sees a sudden creation, the naturalist recognizes the last stage of a long development; he thinks back to the first fusion of two microscopic nuclei in order to review next the series of divisions, differentiations, and reabsorptions which, cell by cell, have built up the body of the chick. The ordinary layman judges the birth of [scientific] theories as the child the appearance of the chick. Pierre Duhem, Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, trans. Philip P. Wiener (Princeton:  Princeton University Press, 1954), p. 221.