of comparative sociology, i (1960), 177–94; Shils, “Tradition, ecology, and institution in the
history of sociology”, Daedalus, xcix (1970), 760–825; Ludwig Fritz Haber, The chemical
industry during the nineteenth century: A study of the economic aspect of applied chemistry
in Europe and North America (Oxford, 1958); Joseph Ben-David, “Scientific productivity
and academic organization in nineteenth century medicine”, American sociological review,
xxv (1960), 828–43; Ben-David, “The universities and the growth of science in Germany and
the United States”, Minerva, vii (1968), 1–35; Ben–David, The scientist’s role in society: A
comparative study (1971; Chicago, 1984); Derek J. de Solla Price, Little science, big science
(New York, 1963); Price, “Networks of scientific papers”, Science, cxlix (1965), 510–15.
47. Hrothgar John Habakkuk, American and British technology in the nineteenth century: The
search for labour-saving inventions (Cambridge, 1962); Nathan Rosenberg, Perspectives
on technology (New York, 1976).
48. John J. Beer and W. David Lewis, “Aspects of the professionalization of science”, Daedalus, xlii
(1963), 764–84; W. H. G. Armytage, The rise of the technocrats: A social history (London,
1965); D. S. L. Cardwell, “The development of scientific research in modern universities: A
comparative study of motives and opportunities”, in Scientific Change, ed. by Alistair Crombie
(London, 1963), reprinted in Comparative studies in science and society, ed. Sal P. Restivo
and Christopher K. Vanderpool (Columbus, Ohio, 1974), 31–45.
49. Donald Fleming, “Science inAustralia, Canada, and the United States: Some comparative remarks”,
in Actes du Xe Congrès International d’Histoire des Sciences (Paris, 1964), i, 179–96; George
Basalla, “The spread of Western science”, Science, clvi (1967), 611–22.
50. Odin Waldemar Anderson and Ronald Andersen, Medical care in Sweden and the United States:
A comparative analysis of systems and behavior (Chicago, 1970).
51. In its published form: Stanley Goldberg, Understanding relativity: Origins and impact of a
scientific revolution (Boston, 1984).
52. Thomas Glick (ed.), The comparative reception of Darwinism (Austin, 1974); Sal P. Restivo
and Christopher K. Vanderpool (ed.), Comparative studies in science and society (Columbus,
53. Stephen G. Brush, “Scientific revolutionaries of 1905: Einstein, Rutherford, Chamberlin, Wilson,
Stevens, Binet, Freud”, in Rutherford and physics at the turn of the century, ed. by Mario
Bunge and William R. Shea (New York, 1979), 140–71.
54. Nathan Reingold, “National style in the sciences: The United States case”, in Human implications
of scientific advance, ed. by Eric G. Forbes (Edinburgh, 1978), 163–73; Nathan Reingold
and Joel N. Bodansky, “The sciences, 1850–1950: A North Atlantic perspective”, Biological
bulletin, clxviii, supplement no. 3 (1985), 44–61.
55. Russell McCormmach, “On academic scientists in Wilhelmian Germany”, Daedalus, ciii/3
56. Paul Forman, John L. Heilbron, and Spencer Weart, “Physics ca. 1900: Personnel, funding, and
productivity of the academic establishments”, Historical studies in the physical sciences,
v (1975), 1–185.
57. Thomas S. Kuhn, John L. Heilbron, Paul Forman, and Lini Allen, Sources for the history of
quantum physics: An inventory and report (Philadelphia, 1967).
58. John L. Heilbron and Thomas S. Kuhn, “The genesis of the Bohr atom”, Historical studies in the
physical sciences, i (1969), 211–90; Paul Forman, “Weimar culture, causality, and quantum
theory, 1918–1927:Adaptation by German physicists and mathematicians to a hostile intellectual
environment”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, iii (1971), 1–115.
59. Paul Forman, “The reception of an acausal quantum mechanics in Germany and Britain”, in
The reception of unconventional science, ed. by Seymour H. Mauskopf (Boulder, Col.,