APPENDIX

Interviews with the following respondents were tape recorded: L. Alvarez, University of California, Berkeley, November 15, 1978. D. Arnett, University of Chicago, November 8, 1978. J. Bahcall, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, October, 20, 21, and December 4, 1978, and November 19, 1981 C. Barnes, California Institute of Technology, November 20, 1978. 0

J. Barnothy, Evanstown, Chicago, November 8, 1978. H. Bethe, Cornell Uni,versi ty, October 27, 1978. A. Cameron, Harvard, December 13, 1981. R. Davis, Brookhaven National Laboratory, October 23, 24, and December 6, 1978. P. Demarque, Yale University, October 19, 1978. R. Dodson, Brookhaven National Laboratory, October 23, 1978. M. Dwarakanath, Bell Labs., New Jersey, December 5, 1978. w. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, November 21, 1978. M. Freedman, Argonne National laboratory, November 9, 1978. M. Goldhaber, Brookhaven National Laboratory, October 23, 1978. D. Gough, Institute of Theoretical Astronomy, Cambridge, November 15, 1979. H. Hill, University of Arizona, Tuscon, November 23, 1978. I. Iben, University of Illinois, Urbana, November 6, 1978. K. Jacobs, Bell Labs., New Jersey, December 5, 1978. K. Lande, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, November 31, 1978. S. Lubow, University of California, Los Angeles, November 22, 1978. L. Marshall-Libby, University of California, Los Angeles, November 22, 1978. E. Parker, University of Chicago, November 8, 1978. A. Poskanzer, University of California, Berkeley, November 15, 1978. H. Primakoff, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, November 31, 1978. R. Raghavan, Bell Labs., New Jersey, December 5, 1978.

215

216 Appendix

F. Reines, University of California, Irvine, November 21, 1978. R. Rood, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, November 29, 1978. C. Rouse, La Jolla, San Diego, November 18, 1978. M. Ruderfer, Long Island, November 9, 1981. E. Salpeter, Cornell University, October 27, 1978. R. Sears, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, October 30, 1978. M. Schwarzschild, University of Princeton, December 4, 1978. W. Sheldon, University of Southampton, May 14, 1979. E. Spiegel, New York, October 26, 1978. T. Tombrello, California Institute of Technology, November 20, 1978. R. Ulrich, University of California, Los Angeles, November 22, 1978. W. Watson, University of Illinois, Urbana, November 6, 1978. W. Whaling, California Institute of Technology, November 20, 1978. C. Wheeler, University of Colorado, Boulder, November 13, 1978 •. A. Wolfendale, The Royal Society, London, October 10, 1980. E. Wolfenstein, Pittsburgh, October 29, 1981.

In addition several unrecorded interviews took place with the following respondents:

R. Kavanagh, California Institute of Technology, November 17, 1978. J. Pomeroy, December 7, 1978 (by telephone). G. Ragosa, Department of Energy, Washington, November 30, 1978. V. Trimble, November 14, 1979 (by telephone). A. Van Dyken, November 30, 1978 (by telephone).

One additional source of data which was particularly useful was the file on solar neutrinos kept at the Chemistry Department of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. I was given access to this file by the kindness of of R. Davis and R. Dodson. The existence of this file resulted from Dodson's

Append~ 217

foresight. The file had a note in it written by Dodson which said: 'Save for the History of Science'.

NOTES

Chapter One

[1]. See, for instance, T. Nickles, 'ERISS and Internal Sociology of Science', paper presented to the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, At­lanta, Georgia, 5-7 November (1981) and T. Nickles, 'Twixt Method and Madness', in Nancy Nersessian (ed.), The Process of Science, Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff (forthcoming); P. Heelan, 'Natural SCience as a Hermeneutic of Instrumen­tation', Philosophy of Science, 50, 181-204 (1983); Shapere (1982); and Hacking (1983).

[2]. An account of some of the relevant developments in the history of science can be found in M. Rudwick, 'Report of Meeting "New Perspectives in the History and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge"', Society for Social Studies of Science Newsletter, 5, 43 (1980); and S. Shapin, 'History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions', History of Science, 20, 157-211 (1982). Historical studies are starting to draw attention to just how complex experimental episodes can be. See, for instance, the studies of Millikan's experiments to determine the charge of the electron: G. Holton, The Scien­tific Imagination: Case Studies, Cambridge, Cambridge Univer­sity Press (1978), and A.D. Franklin, 'Millikan's Published and Unpublished Data on Oil Drops', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11, 185-201 (1981). Some recent his­torical studies informed by sociological work are those of Gooding (1982), Rudwick (1985), and Shapin and Schaffer (1985). For a pertinent example of historical work on modern physics, see Galison (1983).

[3]. A useful review of these developments is to be found in Mulkay (1979).

[4]. For elaboration of the Strong Programme, see Bloor (1976).

[5]. See, for instance, Merton (1973).

218

Notes 219

[6]. For more details of this case, see D.S. Watkins, 'Blondlot's N-Rays: A History of a Notable Scientific Error', Unpublished Paper, Department of Liberal Studies in Science, University of Manchester (1969).

[7]. The easy acceptance given Wood's story is similar to the reception of some experiments which attempt to debunk parapsychology. It seems that ~uite trivial experiments can, in certain social contexts, take on an importance beyond their immediate warrant. For discussion of the parapsy­chology case, see Collins and Pinch (1982).

[8]. Some of the failures are discussed in Mulkay (1979). See also, Hempel (1965), Putnam (1981), and Hacking (1983).

[9]. Of course, it would be misleading to suggest that the radical relativist viewpoint represents the whole field - for other perspectives, see S. Woolgar, 'Laboratory Studies: A Comment on the State of the Art', Social Studies of SCience, 12, 481-98 (1982), R.D. Whitley, 'From the Sociology of Scientific Communities to the Study of Scientists' Negotia­tions and Beyond', Social Science Information, 22, 681-720 (1983), and Whitley (1985). For a review of the relativist work, see H.M. Collins, 'The Sociology of Scientific Know­ledge: Studies of Contemporary Science', Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 265-85 (1983).

[10]. For example, versions of this argument are to be found in Hollis and Lukes (1982), and Michael Krasuz and Jack W. Meiland (eds), Relativism: Cognitive and Moral, London, Uni­versity of Notre Dame Press (1982).

[11]. See, Ashmore (1984).

[12]. For these and other ways around the 'logical trick', see H.M. Collins and G. Cox, 'Recovering Relativity - Did Prophecy Fail?', Social Studies of SCience, 6, 423-44 (1976).

[13]. This seems to be the argument of Bloor (1983) who

220

draws support for his views from the writings of Wittgenstein.

Notes

[14]. G.H. von Wright, 'Logic Unified', paper presented to the Fifth Joint International Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science of the IUHPS, Veszprem, Hungary (August 14-20, 1984).

[15]. The only article to discuss such material is Barry Barnes and David Bloor, 'Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge', in Hollis and Lukes (1982:21-47). There are, however, encouraging signs that some philosophers are now taking such material more seriously. See, for instance, J. Brown, Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn, Dordrecht, Reidel (1984), and the writings of Nickles and Hacking, op.cit. note [1].

[16]. Steven Lukes, 'Relativism in its Place', in Hollis and Lukes (1982: 261-305), at p. 298.

[17]. For more discussion of this case, see Pinch (1977), and J.S. Bell, 'On the Impossible Pilot Wave', Ref. TH3315-CERN Geneva, (June 1982).

[18]. Pinch, op.cit., note [17].

[19]. R.K. Merton, Science Technology and Society in Seven­teenth Century England, New York, Harper and Row (1970).

[20]. A.R. Hall, 'Merton ReviSited', History of Science, 2, 1-16 (1963).

[21]. Further clarification over how the sociology of scien­tific knowledge departs from the old externalist/internalist dichotomy can be found in Roy MacLeod, 'Changing Perspectives in the Social History of Science', in Ina Spiegel-Rosing and Derek de Solla Price (eds), Science Technology and Society, Beverly Hills, Sage, 149-95 (1977); and Ron Johnston, 'Con­textual Knowledge', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 12, 193-203 (1976).

Notes 221

[22]. See, for instance, his earlier work, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press (1957).

[23]. See, Margaret Masterman, 'The Nature of a Paradigm', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 59-89 (1970) •

[24]. For discussion of Kuhn's views in relation to the sociology of scientific knowledge, see my contribution to '''Paradigm Lost" A Review Symposium', Isis, 70, 437-40 (1979). For an extension of Kuhn's views to the sociology of scientific knowledge, see Barnes (1982). Many of Kuhn's ideas can nQw be seen to have been anticipated by Fleck. See, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press (1979).

[25]. See, in particular, his essay T.S. Kuhn, 'Objectivity, Value Judgement and Theory Choice', in T.S. Kuhn, The Esssen­tial Tension - Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 320-39 (1977).

[26]. Ibid.

[27]. For an attempt to clarify this confusion, see Pinch (1982a), and Collins and Pinch (1982).

[28]. See, John Law and David French, 'Normative and Inter­pretative Sociologies of Science', Sociological Review, 22, 581-95 (1974), and M.J. Mulkay, 'Norms and Ideology in Sci­ence', Social Science Information, 15, 637-56 (1976).

[29]. See, Collins (1975, 1985).

[30]. See, P. Forman, 'Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum The~ry, 1918-1927: Adaption by German Physicists and Mathe­maticians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment', in R. Mc­Cormach (ed.), Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1-115

222

(1971), and J. Hendry, 'Weimar Culture and Quantum Caus­ality', History of Science, 18, 155-80 (1980).

Notes

[31]. For discussion of some of the complexities of the causality issue, see Max Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective, New York, John Wiley (1974). See also, T. Pinch, 'Hidden Variables, Impossibility Proofs and Paradoxes: A Sociological Study of Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics', Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manchester' (1976), and Pinch (1977).

[32]. The third stage of the empirical programme of relativism has not been carried through for contemporaneous studies of science. The problem is that given the autonomy of modern science it is difficult to see how external factors shape the detailed ideas of science in any significant way. Collins (1983) has suggested how a third stage explanation might proceed.

Chapter Two

[1]. A comprehensive review of the sociology of scientific knowledge can be found in Mulkay and Milic (1980).

[2]. For a general discussion of this problem and how it has received various treatments in sociology of science see Pinch (1982a).

[3]. w.o. Hagstrom, The Scientific Community, New York, Basic Books (1965).

[4]. See, for example, D. J. de Solla Price and D. de Beaver, 'Collaboration in An Invisible College', American Psychologist, 21, 1011-18 (1962), and Diana Crane, Invisible Colleges, Chicago, University of Chicago Press (1982).

[5]. N.C. Mullins, 'The Development of a Scientific Special­ty: The Phage Group and the Origins of Molecular Biology',

Notes 223

Minerva, 10, 51-82 (1972).

[6]. Henry Small, 'A Co-Citation Model of a Scientific Specialty: A Longitudinal Study of Collages Research', Social Studies of Science, 7, 139-66 (1977).

[7]. See, J. Law, 'The Development of Specialties in Sci­ence: The Case of X-Ray Protein Crystallography', Science Studies, 3, 275-303 (1973); G.N. Gilbert, 'The Development of Science and Scientific Knowledge: The Case of Radar Meteor Research', in G. Lemaine, R. MacLeod, M. Mulkay and P. Wein­gart (eds), Perspectives in the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, The Hague, Mouton/Aldine, 187-203 (1976); and D.O. Edge and M.J. Mulkay, Astronomy Transformed, New York, Wiley Interscience (1976).

[8]. R.D. Whitley, 'Components of Scientific Activities, Their Characteristics and Institutionalisation in Specialties and Research Areas', in K. Knorr, H. Strasser and H.G. Zilian, Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development, Dordrecht, Reidel, 37-73 (1975), and P. Weingart, 'On a Sociological Theory of Scientific Change', in R.D. Whitley (ed.), Social Processes of Scientific Development, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 45-68 (1974). See also, Whitley (1985).

[9]. Some studies which fall within this location are: Collins (1975, 1981b, 1985); Harvey (1981); Pickering (1981); Pinch (1977, 1981); Travis (1981); Wynne (1976); and Collins and Pinch (1979,1982).

[10]. The 'core set' is Collins' term: see, H.M. Collins, 'The Place of the Core-Set in Modern Science: Social Contin­gency with Methodological Propriety in Science', History of Science, 19,6-19 (1981).

[ll]. See, Latour and Woolgar (1979); Knorr-Cetina (1981); and Lynch (1985).

[12]. Of course data from other sources can be brought in to

224 Notes

provide a richer account of consensus. This seems to have been the procedure used by Latour and Woolgar (1979) in their study of how consensus developed over TRF.

[13]. B. Latour 'Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay (1983:141-70).

[14]. S. Woolgar, 'Writing an Intellectual History of Scien­tific Development: The Use of Discovery Accounts', Social Studies of Science, 6, 395-411 (1976).

[15]. H. Garfinkel, M. Lynch and E. Livingston, 'The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Opti­cally Discovered Pulsar', Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 131-58 (1981).

[16]. G. Nigel Gilbert and M. Mulkay, Opening Pandora's Box, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (1984). See also, Brannigan (1981).

[17J. This argument is made particularly forcefully by Gil­bert and Mulkay, op.cit., note [16J. It may be the case that consensus is harder to impute in biochemistry (where Gilbert and Mulkay's study is located) than in physics.

[18]. See especially, .M.Mulkay, 'Action and Belief or Scien­tific Discourse? A Possible Way of Ending Intellectual Vassa­lage in Social Studies of Science', Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 163-72 (1981), and M. Mulkay, J. Potter and S. Yearley, 'Why an Analysis of Discourse is Needed', in Knorr­Cetina and Mulkay (1983: 171-203).

[19]. See, for instance, Collins (1983).

[20]. B. Latour, 'Les "Vues" de l'espirit', Culture Technique, 14, 5-30 (1985).

[21]. K.D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay, 'Emerging Principles in Social Studies of Science', in Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay (1983: 1-7).

Notes 225

[22]. For an example of this approach to texts, see Greg Myers, 'Texts as Knowledge Claims: The Social Construction of Two Biology Articles', Social Studies of SCience, 15 (in press), and C. Bazerman, 'The Writing of Scientific Non­Fiction', Pre/Text, 5, 39-74 (1984).

[23]. See, for instance, Collins (1975, 1981b). A similar method (although used for different purposes) was followed by Mitroff (1974) in his study of moon scientists.

[24]. But, for an exception, see Rudwick (1985).

[25]. A list of the interviews is given in the Appendix. Nearly all the US and UK scientists who have made contri­butions to the debate have been interviewed.

[26]. It was not uncommon in the course of the present study to be told that I was very lucky to get copies of corres­pondence because the scientists were thinking of throwing such material away. The historian working on earlier periods (and especially before the widespread use of the telephone) has some advantages here.

Chapter Three

[1]. This convention for representing the mass number (in this case '37') is used throughout this work.

[2]. Cosmic-ray muons produce proton secondaries which trig­ger the detector via the reaction C1 3 7+ p -+ Ar 37 + n.

[3]. Also, we should remember that the areas of science which are relevant to this problem are as wide as the scien­tists themselves consider them to be. For example, one scientist has suggested that s~lar-neutrino detection can only be understood when certain effects in parapsychology are included: see, M. Ruderfer, 'Are Solar Neutrinos detected by Living Things?', Physics Letters, 54A, 363-64 (1975). Al­though this may seem extreme, and is probably not accepted by

226 Notes

anyone else, we cannot exclude the relevance of this area of science a priori - especially given our commitment to the symmetry principle outlined in Chapter One.

[4]. The need to extend the sociology of science to include technology is argued by Pinch and Bijker (1984).

[5]. Solar-neutrino scientists are starting to produce their own histories; see Bahcall and Davis (1982).

[6]. Thus the impression will frequently be given in this chapter that developments proceeded according to their own immutable scientific logic and paralleled the unravelling of the secrets of Nature.

[7]. A useful survey of the literature on the history of the neutrino can be found in L.M. Lederman, 'Resource Letter Neu-1 History of the Neutrino', American Journal of Physics, 38, 129-36 (1970).

[8]. This is a quote from the Bethe 'bible': H.A. Bethe and R.F. Bacher, 'Nuclear Physics, Part 1, "Stationary States of Nuclei"', Reviews of Modern Physics, 8, 82-229 (1936), at p.198.

[9]. According to Alvarez, Pontecorvo's proposal was written up by someone attending the lecture. This report was, of course, like all work associated with nuclear. reactors at the time, classified. Ray Davis (interview material) felt Ponte­corvo was keen to do the experiment, but lacked the necessary chemical expertise.

[10]. E.L. Fireman, 'A Measurement of the Half-Life of Double Beta-Decay from Sn 124·" Physical Review, 75, 323-4 (1949).

Ell]. These measurements were made by E.P. George and J. Evans. See, for instance, J. Evans and E.P. George, 'Obser­vation of Nuclear Disintegrations Below Ground', Nature, 164, 20-22 (1949).

Notes

[12]. Reines (1979), F. Reines and C.L. Cowan, Jr., 'A Proposed Experiment to Detect the Free Neutrino', Physical Review, 90, 492 (1953), and F. Reines, 'Neutrinos Old and New', SCience, 141, 778-83 (1963).

[13]. See, Reines (1979).

227

[14]. F. Reines and C.L. Cowan, Jr., 'Detection of the Free Neutrino', Physical Review, 92, 830-1 (1953).

[15]. C.L. Cowan, Jr., F. Reines, F.B. Harrison, H.W. Kruse, and A.D. McGuire, 'Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Con­firmation', Science, 124, 103-4 (1956).

[16]. See, for instance, R. Davis, Jr., 'Nuclear Recoil Following Neutrino Emission from Be 7" Brookhaven National Laboratory, Quarterly Progress Report, 83-7 (April 11 - June 30, 1950).

[17]. Davis's background was a PhD in electro-chemistry from Yale in 1940. During 1941-5 he was in the army. He took up a post in the Chemistry Department of BNL in Spring 1948.

[18]. R. Davis, Jr., 'Attempt to Detect the Antineutrinos from a Nuclear Reactor by the C1 37(ii, e-)Ar 37 Reaction', Physical Review, 97, 766-9 (1955).

[19]. Quoted in Bahcall and Davis (1982: 245).

[20]. M.L Kalkstein and W.F. Libby, 'An Investigation of the Double Beta-Decay of 5crn124', Physical Review, 86, 368-9 (1952).

[21]. R. Davis, Jr., 'An attempt to Detect the Neutrinos from a Nuclear Reactor by the C1 37(v, e-)Ar37 Reaction', Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 1, 219 (1956).

[22]. T.D. Lee and C. N Yang, 'Parity Nonconservation and a Two-component Theory of the Neutrino', Physical Review, 105, 1671-5 (1957).

228 Notes

[23]. See, for example, M.A. Preston, 'A Proposed Beta-Decay Interaction', Canadian Journal of Physics, 35, 1017-20 (1957), and M.G. Mayer and V.L. Telegdi, "'Twin" Neutrinos: A Modified 2-component Theory', Physical Review, 107, 1445-7 (1957).

[24]. E. Ambler, R.W. Hayword, D.S. Hoppes, and R.P. Hudson, 'Further Experiments on Beta-Decay of Polarized Nuclei', Physical Review, 106, 1361-3 (1957); and H. Postma, W.J. Huiskamp, A.R. Miedema, M.J. Steenland, H.A. Tolhoek, and C.J. Gorter, 'A Symmetry of the Positron Emission from Polarised 8SCo and 55Mn Nuclei', Physica, 24, 157-68 (1958).

[25]. See, R. Davis, Jr., 'An attempt to Observe the Capture of Reactor Neutrinos in Chlorine-37', in R.C. Extermann, (ed.), Radioisotopes in Scientific Research, Vol. 1, New York: Pergamon (1958).

[26]. R. Davis, Jr., and D.S. Harmer, 'Attempt to Observe the C1 3 7 (v, e-) Ar 37 Reaction Induced by Reactor Anti­neutrinos', Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 4, 217 (1959).

[27]. H.D. Holmgren and R.L. Johnston, 'He 3(a, p)Be 7 Re­action', Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 3, 26, (1958) .

[28]. A brief history of the Kellogg Radiation Laboratory can be found in Engineering and SCience, 'Special Issue in Memory of Charles Lauritsen', 32 (June 1969).

[29]. For details, see W.A. Fowler, 'Nuclear Astrophysics -Today and Yesterday', Engineering and Science, 32, 8-13 (1969).

[30]. E.M. Burbidge, G.R. Burbidge, W.A. Fowler and F. Hoyle, 'Synthesis of the Elements in Stars', Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 547-650 (1957).

[31]. For a much more informative historical account of

Notes 229

developments in this period, see Karl Hufbauer, 'The Stellar­Energy Problem, 1919-1939', paper presented to the H.S.S. Meeting, Madison, Wisconsin, (October 1978).

[32]. The standard modern accounts of stellar-evolution theory are to be found in M. Schwarzschild, Structure and Evolution of the Stars, Princeton, Princeton University Press (1958), and D.D. Clayton, Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis, New York. McGraw Hill (1968).

[33]. Letter, W. Fowler to R. Davis, January 7, 1958, and letter, A. Cameron to R. Davis, January 22, 1958.

[34]. See, Fowler (1958), and Cameron (1958).

[35]. Letter, R. Davis to W. Fowler, January 15, 1958.

Chapter Four

[1]. Letter, R. Davis to W. Fowler, January 15, 1958.

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. Dodson had been a research fellow at the Kellogg Radi­ation Laboratory in 1940.

[4]. Letter, W. Fowler to R. Davis, January 20, 1958.

[5]. Letter, R. Davis to W.F. Libby, April 11, 1958.

[6]. The results are given in Davis (1964).

[7]. Letter, W. Fow'ler to R. Davis, January 7, 1958.

[8]. R.W. Kavanagh, 'Be 7(p,Y)B 8 and Be 7(d,p)Be 8 Cross­Section Measurements', Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 4, 444 (1958), and R.W. Kavanagh, 'Proton Capture on Be 7" Nuclear Physics, 15, 411-20 (1960).

230 Notes

[9]. Letter, R. Davis to E. Kinkead, December 7, 1960.

[10]. Letter, R. Davis to R. Jastrow, October 23, 1961.

[11]. J.N. Bahcall, 'Beta Decay in Stellar Interiors', Physical Review, 126, 1143-9 (1962).

[12]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, February 19, 1962 ••

[13]. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, March 5, 1962.

[14]. J. Bahcall, 'Electron Capture and Nuclear Matrix Ele­ments of Be 7" Physical Review, 128, 1297-301 (1962).

[15]. P.D. Parker and R.W. Kavanagh, 'He3 (a,Y)Be 7 Reaction', Physical Review, 131, 1578-82 (1963).

[16]. Letter, W. Fowler to R. Davis, October 17, 1962.

[ 17]. Letter, F. Reines to W. Fowler, November 29, 1962.

[18J. Letter, R. Davis to W. Fowler, November 16, 1962.

[19 J. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, November 20, 1962.

[20J. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, November 29, 1962.

[21 J. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, December 20, 1962.

[22]. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, January 3, 1963.

[23J. Interview material with R. Dodson.

[24J. Letter, W. Fowler to R. Dodson, January 4, 1963.

[25J. Bahcall and Davis (1982:251) claim that Lauritsen was important in mobilising support for the experiment. However, respondents were unable to recall just what form this support took.

Notes 231

[26] . Letter, R. Dodson to W. Fowler, January 9, 1963.

[27]. Ibid.

[28 ]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, July 15, 1963.

[29 ]. Letter, W. Fowler to M. Goldhaber, November 26, 1963.

[30]. Letter, M. Goldhaber to W: Fowler, December 3, 1963.

[31]. The Proceedings of this meeting were later published: R.F. Stein and A.G.W. Cameron (eds), Stellar Evolution, New York, Plenum Press (1966).

[32]. J.N. Bahcall and R. Davis, Jr., 'On the Problem or Detecting Solar Neutrinos', in Stein and Cameron, op. cit., note [31], 241-3.

[33]. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, December 6, 1963.

[34]. 'Orange Aid' preprints are sent to astrophysicists, and 'Lemon Aid' preprints to nuclear physicists. When I visited Kellogg in November 1978 the names and addresses of 700 scientists were on these preprint lists.

[35]. Letter, L. Alvarez to R. Davis, undated. Alvarez wrote his reply on Davis's own letter to Alvarez of December 3, 1963.

[36]. H. Reeves, 'The Detection of Solar Neutrinos', Sky and Telescope, 27, 276-8 (1964).

[37]. Davis wrote that 'it would be much better for you to be the sole author of the article' (Letter, R. Davis to H. Reeves, November 6, 1963). It is possible that Davis de­clined to be co-author because the article would seem more authoritative coming from outside Brookhaven. This article was used by Davis and Dodson in their bid to get funds from the AEG.

232 Notes

[38]. Op. cit., note [37].

[39]. 'Astrophysics: Learning from Neutrinos', Time, (Jan­uary 3, 1964).

[40]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, January 21,1964.

[41]. 'From the Sun's Heart', Newsweek, January 25, 1965.

[42 J. Letter, R. Dodson to W. Fowler, July 27, 1964.

[43]. Letter, W. Fowler to R. Dodson, July 31, 1964.

[44 ]. Letter, R. Dodson to W. Fowler, August 19, 1964.

[45 ]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, September 14, 1964.

[46 ]. Letter, R. Dodson to T. Pinch, May 30, 1979.

[47]. The AEC underwent two major re-organisationsj when it became ERDA for a shortwhile, and then the DOE. It is poss­ible that letters have been lost, but it is perhaps signifi­cant that Fowler's letter still remained on the DOE files to which I was given access.

[48]. Although no formal peer-review process was initiated, it can be seen that Fowler's letter served this purpose. It is possible that the informal processes which have been so important in this case have a role to play even when formal peer review is operated. Cole, Rubin, and Cole (1978) con­clude that broadly formal peer review is working satis­factorilYj however, not all science (or even a large part of it) is funded by formal peer review (e.g., National Labora­tories seem to use more informal criteria) and, even if a formal system is used, informal processes may be of equal importance. The part played by informal processes may only show up in in-depth studies of funding decisions, such as the present research.

[49]. P.L. Reeder, A.M. Poskanzer and R.A. Esterlund, 'New

Notes

Delayed-Proton Emitters: Ti 41, Ca 37, and Ar33" Physical Review Letters, 13, 767-9 (1964).

233

[50]: Letter, M. Goldhaber to J. Bahcall, November 5, 1964.

[51]. Letter, A. Poskanzer to J. Bahcall, November 18, 1964.

Chapter Five

[1]. The chain of reactions whereby fast neutrons can produce Ar 37 is: C1 35 + n "'S35+ p; C1 37 + P ... Ar 37 + n.

[2]. Brookhaven National Laboratory internal memorandum, B.W. Quinn to Procurement Review Board, October 16, 1964.

[3]. This idea was later dropped as it was felt that Sun­shine might not agree to an independent consultant. Instead an official from the Bureau of Mines was apPointed to super­vise the work.

[4]. Letter, R. Davis to Philip Morrison, December 3, 1964. Morrison had been at Cal tech and had published an article on neutrino astronomy in Scientific American - he was thus keeping a close eye on developments (see, P. Morrison, 'Neu­trino Astronomy', Scientific American, 207, 90-98 (August 1962) •

[5]. Letter, Donald T. Delicate to B. Munhofen, January 2, 1965.

[6). It is worth noting in this respect that Homestake devoted four issues of the company magazine Sharp Bits to coverage of the neutrino experiment. See, Sharp Bits, 16, No.8, (September 1965); 17, No.5, (June 1966); 17, No. 11, (December 1966); and 20, No.1, (Spring 1969). Sharp Bits can be obtained from the Homestake Mining Company, 650 California Street, San Fransisco, California.

[7J. United State Government Memorandum, J.H. Pomeroy to

234 Notes

A.R. Van Dyken, June 23, 1966.

[8]. 'Unionised Gold Mine Faces Problems', Washington Post, (June 23, 1966).

[9]. Brookhaven National Laboratory internal memorandum, R.W. Dodson to M. Goldhaber, October 7, 1966.

[10]. Letter, R. Davis to J. H. Pomeroy, February 28, 1967.

[11]. For more discussion of these experiments, see F. Reines, 'The Search for the Solar Neutrinos', Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 301, 159-70 (1967).

[12]. For more details, see Pinch (1982b).

[13]. For accounts of some of the realities of research within the laboratory, see, for example, Latour and Woolgar (1979) and Knorr-Cetina (1981).

[14]. For instance, telescopes often have to be built in locations free from atmospheric disturbances - that is usu­ally on top of mountains.

[15]. Indeed some of these processes can be seen in the 'big science' of earlier periods, such as Boyle's air-pump exper­iments j see Shapin and Schaffer (1985).

[16]. It is particular striking in Latour and Woolgar's (1979) account of scientific work at the Salk Institute (a bio-chemistry laboratory) that most research is carried out using off-the-shelf instruments. However, M. Lynch (personal communication) has informed me that even in this sort of laboratory it is not uncommon to find modifications to in­struments, and that scientists spend much time on designing and building their own equipment.

[17]. Davis, for example, had a great interest in and know­ledge of the theoretical context in which his results were to be interpreted.

Notes

[18]. On the role of tacit knowledge in experimentation in modern science, see Collins (1974), Collins and Harrison (1975), and Collins (1985).

235

[19]. P.D. Parker, 'Termination of the Proton-Proton Chain via the Be 7(p, P)B 8 Reaction', The Astrophysical Journal, 145, 960-1 (1966), and P.D. Parker, 'Be 7(p,P)B 8 Reaction', Phys­ical Review, 150, 851-6 (1966).

[20]. H.C. Winkler and M.R. Dwarakanath, 'He 3 + He 3 .. He 4 + 2p Total Cross-Section at Low Energies', Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 12, 16 (1967).

[21]. D. Ezer and A. Camer-on, 'A study of Solar Evolution', Canadian Journal of Physics, 43, 1497-517 (1965).

[22]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, January 21, 1964.

[23]. 'Neutrino Trap', 'Science and the Citizen', Scientific American, 212, 53 (February 1965).

[24]. 'Erratum', Scientific American, 212, 8 (April 1965).

[25]. Brookhaven National Laboratory, internal memorandum, R. Davis to R.W. Dodson, April 15, 1966.

[26]. Letter, R.W. Dodson to J. Bahcall, April 25, 1966.

[27]. Letter, R. Christian Anderson to J. Bahcall, May 25, 1966 (Anderson was Assistant Director of BNL).

[28]. Op. cit., note [26].

[29]. One notable exception is Pickering (1984).

[30]. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, January 4, 1967.

[31]. The original Bahcall and Shaviv paper was not received by The AstrophYSical Journal until August 10, 1967. The paper was not finally published until July 1968 after a minor

236 Notes

revision had been made in January 1968 which led to the slightly smaller prediction of !/JB8 = 1.3 (1 ~ 0.6) x 107cm-2 sec-1 • (It is not clear what the cause of this revision was). Bahcall was anxious for an earlier publication date. For instance, he wrote to Chandrasekhar (the Editor of The Astro­physical Journal) on November 8, 1967 and urged him to pub­lish the paper earlier. He wrote:

As you may have heard on the grapevine, the experiment which motivated these calculations is now essentially completed and comparisons with our theoretical calculations have already been used in summarising the implications of the experimental results [mentions Goldhaber's talk in Japan - see next chapter] ... Under the circumstances I would very much appreciate it if you could check to see if an earlier publication date for our paper is possible.

It seems that an earlier publication date was not possible and thus Bahcall was faced with the prospect that his pre­diction made in August 1967 would not appear in the scien­tific literature until a year after the experimental result was known. By the time the Bahcall and Shaviv paper ap­peared, the theoretical prediction had been drastically re­vised (see next chapter).

[32]. One bet, made on February 13, 1967, was with Fowler. Bahcall offered to pay Fowler one US dollar if the signal Davis detected did not lie between 3 SNU and 300 SNU. He also had a similar bet with another colleague, Jon Mathew. The jokiness surrounding such bets was ~icely summed up for me by Davis who pointed out that, while the theoreticians were prepared to risk one dollar, he was risking six hundred thousand dollars I

Chapter Six

[1]. Letter, W. Fowler to R. Davis, August 10, 1967.

[2]. Letter, R. Davis to W. Fowler, August 11, 1967.

Notes 237

[3]. These two chemists were G. Friedlander and M. Perelman.

[4]. A report of this meeting is to be found in C & E N (Chemical and Engineering News), 13-14 (September 25, 1967).

[5]. Apart from his work on solar neutrinos, Davis carried out research on the analysis of meteorites and lunar rocks and dust. This work was based on radiochemical techniques too. His uncontroversial work in this field must have pro­vided further evidence to his colleagues of his experimental competence.

[6]. M. Goldhaber, 'Introductory Talk, II: Nuclear Physics -Where do we stand?', p.21. Paper presented to an inter­national nuclear physics conference in Japan (September 1967) •

[7]. The importance of the previous history of the pre­diction in judging whether or not there is a contradiction was important for several respondents. For some examples, see Pinch (1980b).

[8]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, October 31, 1967.

[9]. Ibid.

[10]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, December 8, 1967.

[11]. The abandonment of Reines' detection experiments was described to me by Davis and by Reines (interview material) -Jenkins wrote at the time:

At present the outlook for detecting Ba neutrinos from the Sun ••• is very dim. The reason for this is the latest result of Davis ..• The preliminary result of his initial run, which he quoted to me on the telephone the other day, is that the flux is 2 x 10 6/cm 2/sec • Our equipment here has been improved steadily ••• However, since the apparatus was designed to detect a flux of the ~rder of that predicted theoretically this latest information is such as to make the pursuit of the

238 Notes

experiment rather pointless. We are presently debating the future of the apparatus and I strongly suspect that we will terminate operating it within the next month or so.

Letter, T. Jenkins to D. Allen, December 26, 1967.

[12]. Op.cit., note [10].

[13]. Letter, R. Davis to H. Barschall, The American Physi­cal Society, November 6, 1967.

[14]. Letter, R. Davis to A. Wolfendale, December 1, 1967.

[15]. Davis had designed the apparatus so that he would be able to look a factor of ten below what the theorists pre­dicted at the time (40 SNU).

[16]. As Davis reported to Fowler in his letter of August 1, 'I have, of course had many telephone conversations with John', op. cit., note [1].

[17]. Handwritten letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis. This letter is undated but from other information in the letter it is possible to impute that it was written sometime in Dec­ember 1967 or January 1968.

[18]. This paper seems not to have been written earlier because Davis, who received all of Bahcall's papers as soon as they were written, did not receive a copy until January 1968. Bahcall was unable to recall exactly when this paper was written.

[19]. Of course, as Davis had not yet officially published his result the Cal tech group may not have wanted to pre-empt him. But Davis's preliminary result was already in the literature; and often theorists quote private communications of experimental results. It seems unlikely that any decep­tion was implied here as many people must have known already that Davis's results were available, and such a deceit would

Notes 239

have been obvious to them. It was more a question of 'under­statement' than deception.

[20]. Letter, W. Fowler to R. Dodson, July 31, 1964.

[21]. Letter, R. Davis to P. Parker, December 7, 1967.

[22]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, January 29, 1968.

[23]. Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, December 8, 1967.

[24]. This is used in the V.A. theory of weak interactions.

[25]. Although Bahcall's preference for the new measurement has not to my knowledge been questioned, the correct value for the neutron half-life seems to be far from being settled. For instance V.L. Telegdi has recently referred to the 'con­troversy concerning the different values of the neutron life time'. (V.L. Telegdi, 'Summary', in Till Van Egidy (ed.), Fundamental Physics with Reactor Neutrons and Neutrinos, Bristol, Institute of Physics, 169-74 (1978). This con­troversy seems to have stemmed from new measurements made in 1978. For a discussion of these measurements and the most recent results see, J. Byrne, J. Morse, I.F. Smith, F. Shaikh, K. Green, and G.L. Greene, 'A New Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime'. Physics Letters, 92B, 274-78 (1980). This latest measurement, which leads to a slightly increased neu­trino flux, is the value used in a recent Bahcall prediction (Bahcall, et al., 1980).

[26]. This seminar was held sometime in November and is referred to in: 'Neutrino Flux from Sun is Lower than Ex­pected', Physics Today, 73 (March 1968).

[27]. Ibid.

[28]. E. Edelson, 'The Puzzle of the Missing Neutrinos', New Scientist, 472 (February 29, 1968).

[29]. Op. cit., note [17].

240 Notes

[30]. A possible error in S17 had received a renewed empha­sis at this time because of some provisional measurements made by a group at Lockheed, Palo Alto (Vaughn, Chalmers, Kohler and Chase, 1967). Their results indicated that Par­ker's previous value may have been too large.

[31]. Letter, R. Davis to H. Bethe, April 5, 1968.

[32]. Letter J. Bahcall to H. Bethe, April 4, 1968. Bethe wrote back to Bahcall on April 9, 1968, and commented: 'It is a great comfort that there is no irreconcilable contradiction between theory and experiment as yet'.

[33]. Letter, 1. Iben to G. Trigg, August 19, 1968.

[34]. Z/X is preferred for computational purposes to Z alone.

[35]. Anonoinous referee's report, undated.

[36]. Letter, 1. Iben to R. Davis, September 20, 1968.

[37]. The conflict between Iben and Bahcall seems to have been a puzzle to other people at the time. For instance, in 1970 Bahcall and Sears were commissioned by the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics to write a review of the solar-neutrino field. In a letter to Sears, the Editor noted:

I have recently been reading the papers by John Bahcall and Icko Iben on the solar-neutrino problem, and I am puzzled by the discrepancies between them. I hope these will be resolved in your review.

Letter, D. Layzer to R.L. Sears, November 18, 1970. However, in the review (Bahcall and Sears, 1972: 32 and 34-35) the different approaches of Sears, Bahcall, and Iben are des­cribed with no attempt to evaluate the differences.

[38]. Bahcall's view that there was no fundamental contra­diction because of the uncertainty in S17 was reiterated in a article in Scientific American (Bahcall, 1969b).

Notes

[39]. This error is acknowledged in Bahcall and Ulrich (1971).

[40]. As Bahcall wrote to Davis on May 27, 1970:

241

The citation hasn't come out yet but our collaboration on solar neutrinos probably played a major role in the award.

Bahcall's work on CLO's (compact luminous objects) was also discussed in his Warner Prize Lecture.

[41]. Bahcall, in Reines and Trimble (1972: Al-A2).

[42]. For instance, in a letter to A. Cameron, S. Colgate and G. Field (March 27, 1972), Bahcall wrote:

The neutrino meeting organisers want to have a seminar by Davis and myself on Solar Neutrinos and I think we are indeed obligated to participate because of the crisis in this subject.

[43]. Letter, J. Bahcall to G. Ragosa, May 29, 1973, (this letter is a review of an experimental proposal to detect solar neutrinos). Bahcall wrote:

The current revolution in stellar(sic) is a direct result of the only analogous experiment, that of Davis et al. from Brookhaven.

[44]. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, June 18, 1973.

[45]. A. Hammond, 'Solar Neutrinos: Where Are They?', Science, 505 (February 4, 1972).

[46]. J. Bahcall, B.T. Cleveland, R. Davis, 1. Dostrovsky, J.C. Evans, W. Fratz, G .• Friedlander, K. Lande, J.K. Rowley, R.W. Staemer, and J. Weneser, 'Proposed Solar-Neutrino Exper­iment Using 71Ga" Physical Review Letters, 40, 1351-4 ( 1 978 ), .a t p. 1 3 51.

[47]. Some of the argument over these new experiments is described in Pinch (1980b).

242 Notes

[48]. See, K.R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London, Hutchinson (1959). For more discussion of this issue in relation to Popper's philosophy, see T.J. Pinch, 'Theory Testing in Science - The Case of Solar Neutrinos: Do Crucial Experiments Test Theories or Theorists?', Philosophy of the Social SCiences, 15, 167-87 (1985).

[49]. For further development of the view that logical inferences are social accomplishments, see Bloor (1983).

[50]. For more development of the thesis concerning the role of Bahcall's career strategy see Pinch (1980a).

Chapter Seven

[1]. This type of issue was raised by K. Jacobs - see below.

[2]. These points were mentioned by Jacobs and also by Bahcall in his initial scrutiny of Davis's results.

[3]. For more details of this survey see Pinch (1982b).

[4]. V. Trimble and F. Reines, 'The Solar Neutrino Problem -A Progress (?) Report', Reviews of Modern Physics, 45, 1-5 (1973), at p.l.

[5]. Trapping was initially raised as a possibility by Bahcall. Also to consider it (apart from Jacobs and Rood) was Don Clayton (another astrophysicist). Clayton had written to Davis expressing similar worries to those of Jacobs and Rood; Letter, R. Davis to D. Clayton, March 13, 1975.

[6]. Jacobs (1975).

[7]. For a recent review, see R.W. Kavanagh, 'Solar Power', in C. Barnes, D. Clayton and D. Schramm (eds), Essays in Nuclear Physics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 159-70 (1982).

Notes 243

[8]. For discussion of neutrino oscillations in the context of the solar-neutrino problem, see V. Gribov and B. Ponte­corvo, 'Neutrino Astronomy and Lepton Charge', Physics Letters, 493-96 (1969).

[9]. D. Ezer and A.G.W. Cameron, 'Solar Spin-Down and Neu­trino Fluxes', Astrophysical Letters, 1, 177-79 (1968).

[10]. F.W. Dilke and D.O. Gough 'The Solar Spoon', Nature, 240, 293-94 (1972).

[11]. Davis, Harmer and Hoffman (1968).

[12]. K.C. Jacobs and R.T. Rood, 'A Speculation on the Deficiency of Solar Neutrinos', unpublished paper, (1974).

[13]. Letter, R. Davis to R. Rood, June 25, 1974.

[14]. Letter, R. Davis to K. Jacobs, December 17, 1974.

[15]. See A.W. Wolfendale, E.C.M. Young and R. Davis, 'In­direct Determination of the Photonuclear Cross-Section above 20 GeV', Nature, 238, 130-31 (1971).

[16]. This type of tactic was used, for instance, by critics to discredit Weber's gravity wave experiments.

[17J. B. Banerjee, S.M. Chitre, P.P. Divakaran and K.S.V. Santhanam, 'Polymerisation and the Solar-Neutrino Problem', Nature, 260, 557 (1975). See also B. Banerjee, S.M. Chitre, P.P. Divakaran and K.S.V. Santhanam, 'Chemistry of the Solar Neutrino Problem', Astrophysics and Space SCience, 48, 445-51 ( 1977) •

[18]. K. Jacobs, 'Jacobs Replies', Nature, 160,557 (1976).

[19]. Ibid. p. 557.

[20]. In other words, a 'hypothetical Jacobs' could, in principle, challenge this calibration test. See Harvey

244 Notes

(1981) and Collins (1981b) where similar hypothetical argu­ments are used to show the non-determinate nature of experi­mental outcomes.

[21]. For more discussion of calibration, see H.M. Collins, 'The Social Function of Calibration in Experimental Science', paper presented to the ISA/PAREX meeting, Deutchslandsburg, Austria, (September 26-29, 1980), and Collins (1985).

[22]. Both Jacobs and Rood have assured me that Jacobs's work on solar neutrinos has had nothing directly to do with his failure to get tenure. This was not the 'establishment' way of getting back at him for stepping out of line. How­ever, there is an indirect connection. Jacobs did not have many 'solid' publications in his mainstream area of astro­physics and cosmology. He tended towards dilettantism. His work on solar neutrinos (being chemistry) may not have counted for much professionally. As Jacobs commented, with some bitterness:

I think it may also be more profitable to write papers dealing with the possibilities of what might be going on the other way [i.e. theoretical possibilities] than to worry about the experiment. Worrying about the experiment is not a profitable venture at all. There are few papers and essentially no profit in the sense of scientific profit. I'm sure you don't get tenure for trying to find something wrong with someone else's experiment, unless you find something wrong.

It is interesting to note that Jacobs's last paper, written before losing his post, was the solar-neutrino paper. How­ever, the impression I got talking with solar-neutrino scien­tists was that most held Jacobs in high esteem for having raised such an important issue.

[23]. This view is argued extensively in Pinch (1981), and in Collins and Pinch (1982).

[24]. Again, the Weber case is the prime example - see Collins (1975, 1981b). But there are many others. For example, see the reception of the SRI remote-viewing experi-

Notes

ments of Targ and Puthoff discussed in Collins and Pinch (1979).

245

[25]. Davis's confidence in this policy can be seen from his comment to me that he actively encourages people such as Jacobs to publish their ideas.

[26]. M. Schwarzschild, 'Conference Summary' (Friedlander, 1978b: 278-80).

[27]. Letter, W. Fowler to R. Davis, January 7, 1958.

[28]. Reviews of the cross-section measurements can be found in R.W. Kavanagh, 'Reaction Rates in the Proton-Proton Chain', in F. Reines (ed.), Cosmology Fusion and Other Matters, London, Adam Hilger, 169-85 (1972), and Kavanagh, op.cit., note [7].

[29]. This review was eventually published as P.D. Parker, J.N. Bahcall and W.A. Fowler, 'Termination of the Proton­Proton Chain in Stellar Interiors', The Astrophysical Journal, 139, 602-21 (1964).

[30]. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, August 23, 1963.

[31]. See, for instance, W.A. Fowler, 'Experimental and Theoretical Results of Nuclear Reactions in Stars', Memoires de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Lieg~, 13, 88-107 (1954), and W.A. Fowler, 'Experimental and Theoretical Re­sults of Nuclear Reactions in Stars', II M~moires de la Societ~ Royale des Sciences de Lieg~, 3, 207-21 (1960).

[32]. W.M. Good, W.E. Kunz and C.D. Moak, 'The He3 + He 3

Reactions', Physical Review, 84, 87-91 (1954).

[33]. Parker et al., op.cit., note 29, at p.615.

[34]. Ibid., p. 615.

[35]. Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, May 11, 1965.

246 Notes

[36]. The Bacher-Tombrello results are discussed in T.A. Tombrello, 'Astrophysical Problems', in J.B. Marian and D.M. Van Patler (eds), Nuclear Research with Low Energy Accelerators, New York, Academic Press, 195-212 (1967).

[37]. H.C. Winkler and M.R. Dwarakanath, 'He 3 + He 3 • He 4 + 2p Total Cross-Section at Low Energies', Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 12, 16 (1967).

[38]. W. Nerrg-ming, V.N. Novatskil, G.M. Osetinskf'i, Chien Nai-Kung, and I.A. Chepurchenko, 'Investigation of the Re­action He 3 + He 3" Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics, 3, 777-81 (1966).

[39]. This refers to the beam spreading out through the target.

[40]. The difficulties in this extrapolation are discussed by Tombrello, op.cit., note [36].

[41]. Many solar-neutrino scientists expressed this view to me.

[42]. Letter, 1. Iben to G. Trigg, August 19, 1968.

[43]. Further arguments concerning these and various other 'non-standard' solar models and types of neutrino oscil­lations can be found in Friedlander (1978a, b).

[44]. Arguments against mixing were also made by specialists in fluid hydrodynamics who suggested that a mixed Sun was fundamentally unstable. Again, there seemed to be room for argument with some fluid hydrodynamicists finding such argu­ments to be unconvincing.

Chapter Eight

[1]. For further discussion of this problem, see R.E. Grandy (ed.), Theories and Observation in Science, Englewood Cliffs,

Notes 247

New Jersey, Prentice Hall (1973).

[2]. N.R. Hanson, Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge, Cambridge Uni versi ty Press (1958), at p. 56.

[3]. See, for instance, Gooding (1982), Collins (1985), Hacking (1983), and Shapin and Schaffer (1985).

[4]. See, for instance, Shapin and Schaffer (1985), Gooding (1982), and Rudwick (1985).

[5]. For descriptions of off-the-shelf experimentation, see Latour and Woolgar (1979), Knorr-Cetina (1981), and Lynch (1985). For a description of experimental activity at a large accelerator, see P. Galison, 'How the First Neutral Current Experiments Ended', Reviews of Modern Physics, 55, 477-509 (1983).

[6]. Elsewhere (Pinch 1985) I have attempted to characterise these different levels of data by reference to the 'external­isation' of observation.

[7]. For example, see, Collins (1975, 1981b, 1985), and Travis (1981).

[8]. See Pinch (1980b), and B.W. Filippone and David, N. Schramm, 'Neutrinos from a Standard Solar Model', The Astrophysical Journal, 253, 393-98 (1982).

[9]. See, Feyerabend's (1975) study of Galileo's use of the optical telescope for an example of how a current 'black boxed' instr~ment can be opened up by looking back to when the instrument was first used.

[10]. This process is described by Collins (1975) as studying how ships (scientific facts) get put into bottles (validity) •

[11]. The notion of a network of links between evidential contexts and experiments is related to 'Hesse nets' and the

248 Notes

network model of knowledge as outlined in Law and Lodge (1984), and Collins (1985). Every link between evidential contexts and experimental techniques is constructed (and deconstructed) by the actions of scientists.

[12]. Another approach to scientific instrumentation which has some resonances with the present account is offered by Patrick Heelan. See, in particular, P. Heelan, 'Natural Science as Hermeneutic of Instrumentation', Philosophy of Science, 50, 181-204 (1983). This view also has similarities with Bachelard's description of observation as 'phenomeno­technique'. See G. Bachelard, The Philosophy of No, New York, Orion Press (1972). For an extension of Bachelard's ideas to scientific instrumentation, see Latour and Woolgar (1979).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham. Z. and Iben, 1., Jr. (1971) 'More Solar Models and Neutrino Fluxes', The Astrophysical Journal, 170, 157-63.

Alvarez, L.W. (1949) 'Proposed Experimental Test of the Neutrino theory', University of California Radiation Labo­ratory Report, UCRL-328.

Ashmore, M. (1984) 'Beyond the Tu Quoque: Alternatives to Standard Reflexive Criticism by way of Kuhn and Ethnomethod­ology', Paper presented to the Discourse Analysis Workshop, University of Surrey, September.

Bahcall, J.N. (1964) 'Solar Neutrinos. 1. Theoretical', Physical Review Letters, 12, 300-302.

Bahcall, J.N. (1966) 'Solar Neutrinos', Physical Review Letters, 17, 398-401.

Bahcall, J.N. (1967) 'Solar Neutrinos', in G. Alexander (ed.), High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure, Amsterdam, North Holland, 232-55.

Bahcall, J.N. (1969a) 'What Next With Solar Neutrinos?', Physical Review Letters, 23, 251-4.

Bahcall, J.N. (1969b) 'Neutrinos From the Sun', Scientific American, 221, 28-37.

Bahcall, J.N. (1971) 'Some Unsolved Problems in Astro­physics', The Astronomical Journal, 76, 283-90.

Bahcall, J.N. (1973) 'The Solar-Neutrino Problem', Nuclear Instruments and Methods, 110, 381-84.

Bahcall, J.N. Bahcall, N.A., Fowler, W.A. and Shaviv, G. (1968) 'Solar Neutrinos and Low-Energy Nuclear Cross Sections', Physics Letters, 26B, 359-61.

249

250 Bibliography

Bahcall, J.N., Bahcall, N.A., and Shaviv, G. (1968) 'Present Status of the Theoretical Predictions for the 37Cl Solar­Neutrino Experiment', Physical Review Letters, 20, 1209-12.

Bahcall, J.N., Bahcall, N.A. and Ulrich, R.K. (1969) 'Sensi­tivity of the Solar-Neutrino Fluxes', The Astrophysical Journal, 156, 559-68.

Bahcall, J.N. and Davis, R., Jr. (1976) 'Solar Neutrinos: A Scientific Puzzle', Science, 191, 264-7.

Bahcall, J.N. and Davis, R., Jr. (1982) 'An Account of the Development of the Solar-Neutrino Problem', in C. Barnes, D. Clayton, and D. Schramm (eds), Essays in Nuclear Physics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 243-86.

Bahcall, J., Fowler, W.A., Iben, 1., Jr., and Sears, R.L. (1963) 'Solar Neutrino Flux', The Astrophysical Journal, 137, 344-5.

Bahcall, J.N., Lubow, S.H., Heubner, W.F., Magee, N.H., Merts, A.L., Argo, M.F., Parker, P.D., Rozsnyai, B. and Ulrich, R.K. (1980) 'New Solar-Neutrino Flux Calculations and Implications Regarding Neutrino Oscillations', Physical Review Letters, 45, 845-48.

Bahcall, J.N. and May, R.M. (1968) 'The Rate of the Proton­Proton Reaction', The Astrophysical Journal, 152, L17-L20.

Bahcall, J.N. and Sears, R.L. (1972) 'Solar Neutrinos', Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 10, 25-44.

Bahcall, J.N. and Shaviv, G. (1968) 'Solar Models and Neu­trino Fluxes', The Astrophysical Journal, 153, 113-25.

Bahcall, J.N. and Ulrich, R.K. (1970) 'Solar-Neutrino Fluxes with Recent Corrections to Opacity', The Astrophysical Journal, 160, L57-60.

Bibliography 251

Bahcall, J.N. and Ulrich, R.K. (1971) 'Solar Neutrinos, III. Composition and Magnetic-Field Effects and Related Inferences', The Astrophysical Journal, 170, 593-603.

Barnes, B.S. (1982) T.S. Kuhn and Social Science, London, Macmillan.

Bethe, H.A. (1939) 'Energy Production in Stars', Physical Review, 55, 434-56.

Bethe, H.A. and Critchfield, C.L. (1938) 'The Formation of Deuterons by Proton Combination', Physical Review, 54, 248-54.

Bloor, D. (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery, London, Rout­ledge and Kegan Paul.

Bloor, D. (1983) Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge, London, Macmillan.

Brannigan, A. (1971) The Social Basis of Scientific Dis­coveries, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, A.G.W. (1958) 'Stellar Evolution, Nuclear Astro­physics and Nucleogenesis', Chalk River Report, CRL-41, 2nd Edn.

Cole, S., Rubin, L. and Cole, J.R. Peer Review in The National Science Foundation, Washington, National Academy of Sciences.

Collins, H.M. (1974) 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, 4, 165-86.

Collins, H.M. (1975) 'The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Socio­logy of a Phenomenon', Sociology, 9, 205-24.

Collins, H.M. (1981a) 'Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism', Social Studies of Science, 11, 3-10.

252 Bibliography

Collins, H.M. (1981b) 'Son of Seven Sexes: The Social Destruction of a Physical Phenomenon', Social Studies of Science, 11, 33-62.

Collins, H.M. (1983) 'An Empirical Relativist Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge', in Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay (1983: 83-113).

Collins, H.M. (1985) Changing Order, Beverly Hills and Lon­don, Sage.

Collins, H.M. and Harrison, R. (1975) 'Building a TEA Laser: The Caprices of Communication', Social Studies of Science, 5, 441-45.

Collins H.M. and Pinch, T.J. (1979) 'The Construction of the Paranormal: Nothing Unscientific is Happening', in Wallis (1979: 237-70).

Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T.J. (1982) Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science, London, Rout­ledge and Kegan Paul.

Crane, H.R. (1948) 'The Energy and Momentum Relations in the Beta-Decay and the Search for the Neutrino', Reviews of Modern Physics, 20, 278-95.

Davis. R., Jr. (1964) 'Solar Neutrinos. II. Experimental', Physical Review Letters, 12, 303-5.

Davis, R., Jr., Harmer, D.S. and Hoffman, K.C. (1968) 'Search for Neutrinos from the Sun', Physical Review Letters, 20, 1205-9.

Feyerabend, P. (1975) Against Method, London, New Left Books.

Fowler, W.A. (1958) 'Completion of the Proton-Proton Re­action Chain and the Possibility of Energetic Neutrino Emis­sion by Hot Stars', The Astrophysical Journal, 127, 551-6.

Bibliography 253

Fowler, W.A. (1969) 'Solar Neutrino Astronomy', Contemporary Physics, 1, 359-70.

Friedlander, G. (ed.), (1978 a & b) Informal Conference on Status and Future of Solar Neutrino Research, BNL 50879, Volume I and II, Upton, New York, Brookhaven National Labora­tory.

Galison, P. (1983) 'How the First Neutral-Current Experi­ments Ended', Reviews of Modern Physics, 55, 477-509.

Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Goldhaber, M. (1967) 'Summary of the Conference', in G. Alexander (ed.) High Energy Physics and Nuclear Structure, Amsterdam, North Holland, 482.

Gooding, D. (1982) 'Empiricism, in Practice: Teleology, Economy, and Observation in Faraday's Physics', Isis, 73, 46-67.

Goodman, N. (1978) Ways of Worldmaking, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co.

Hacking, I. (1983) Representing and Intervening, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Harvey, Bill (1981) 'Plausibility and the Evaluation of Knowledge: A Case-Study of Experimental Quantum Mechanics', Social Studies of Science, 11, 95-130.

Hempel, C.G. (1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation, New York, Free Press.

Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds), (1982) Rationality and Relativism, Oxford, Blackwell.

254 Bibliography

Iben, I., Jr. (1968) 'Solar Neutrinos and the Solar Helium Abundance', Physical Review Letters, 21, 1208-12.

Iben, 1., Jr. (1969) 'The C1 37 Solar Neutrino Experiment and the Solar Helium Abundance', Annals of Physics, 54, 164-203.

Jacobs, K.C. (1975) 'Chemistry of the Solar Neutrino Problem', Nature, 256, 560-1.

Kavanagh, R.W. (1972) 'Reaction Rates in the Proton-Proton Chain', in F. Reines (ed.), Cosmology Fusion and Other Matters, London, Adam Hilger, 169-85.

Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of SCience, Oxford, Pergamon.

Knorr-Cetina, K.D. and Mulkay, M. (eds), (1983) Science Observed, Beverly Hills and London, Sage.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Lakatos, I. (1970) 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cam­bridge, Cambridge University Press, 91-196.

Lambert, D.L. (1967) 'Abundance of Helium in the Sun', Nature, 215, 43-4.

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life, Beverly Hills and London, Sage.

Laudan, L. (1977) Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Law, J. and Lodge, P. (1984) Science for Social SCientists, London, Macmillan.

Bibliography 255

Leventhal, J.J. and Friedman, L. (1972) actions and their Role in the Collection Solar Neutrinos', Physical Review, D, 6,

'Ar+ - C Cl Re-37 +2 4 of Ar Produced by

3338-39.

Lynch, M. (1985) Art and Artefact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

MacKenzie, D. (1981) Statistics in Britain 1865-1930: The Social Construction on Scientific Knowledge, Edinburgh, Edin­burgh University Press.

Merton, R.K. (1973) The Sociology of Science, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Mitroff, I. (1974) The Subjective Side of Science, New York, Elsevier.

Mulkay, M. (1979) Science and the Sociology of Knowledge, London, George Allen and Unwin.

Mulkay, M. and Milia, V. (1980) 'The Sociology of Science in East and West', Current Sociology, 28, 1-342.

Pickering, A. (1981) 'Constraints on Controversy: The Case of the Magnetic Monopole', Social Studies of Science, 11, 63-94.

Pickering, A. (1984) Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

Pinch, T.J. (1977) 'What Does a Proof do if it Does Not Prove?: A Study of the Social Conditions and Metaphysical Divisions Leading to David Bohm and John von Neumann Failing to Communicate in Quantum Physics', in E. Mendelsohn, P. Weingart, and R. Whitley, (eds), The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge, Sociology of the Sciences, 1, Dor­drecht, Reidel, 171-215.

256 Bibliography

Pinch, T.J. (1980a) 'Theoreticians and the Production of Experimental Anomaly: The Case of Solar Neutrinos', in K. Knorr, R. Krohn, and R. Whitley (eds), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, Sociology of the Sciences, 4, Dordrecht, Reidel, 77-106.

Pinch, T.J. (1980b) 'The Three Sigma Enigma', Paper presented to the ISA/PAREX Meeting', Deutschlandsberg, Austria, October 23-25.

Pinch, T.J. (1981) 'The Sun-Set: On the Presentation of Certainty in Scientific Life', Social Studies of Science, 11, 131-58.

Pinch, T.J. (1982a) 'Kuhn - The Conaervati ve and Radical Interpretations: Are Some Mertonians 'Kuhnians', and Some 'Kuhnians' Mertonians?', 4S Newsletter, 7, No.1. 10-15.

Pinch, T.J. (1982b) 'The Development of Solar-Neutrino Astronomy', Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bath.

Pinch, T.J. (1985) 'The Externality and Evidential Signifi­cance of Observational Reports in Physics', Social Studies of SCience, 15, 3-36.

Pinch T.J. and Bijker, W. (1984) 'The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other', Social Studies of Science, 14, 399-441.

Pinch, T.J. and Clark, C. (1986) 'The Hard Sell: The (Re)Production and Local Management of Economic Reasoning in the Sales Routines of Market Pitchers', Sociology, (Forth­coming) •

Pinch, T.J. and Collins, H.M. (1979) 'Is Anti-Science not­Science? The Case of Parapsychology', in H. Nowotny and H. Rose (eds), Counter Movements in the Sciences, Sociology of the Sciences, 3, Dordrecht, Reidel, 221-50.

Bibliography 257

Polanyi, M. (1953) Personal Knowledge, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Pontecorvo, B. (1946) 'Inverse Beta Decay', Chalk River Laboratory Report, PD-205.

Popper, K.R. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Lon­don, Hutchinson.

Putnam, H. (1981) History Truth and Reason, Cambridge, Cam­bridge University Press.

Ravetz, J.H. (1971) Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Reines, F. (1960) 'Neutrino Interactions', Annual Review of Nuclear Science, 10, 1-26.

Reines, F. (1979) 'Reminiscences: The Early Days of Experi­mental Neutrino Physics', in A.W. Saenz and H. Uberall (eds), Long Distance Neutrino Detection - 1978, New York, American Institute of Physics, 1 - 8.

Reines, F. and Trimble, V. (eds), (1972) 'Proceedings Solar Neutrino Conference', University of California, Irvine. Available from F. Reines, Department of Physics, University of California, Irvine.

Rorty, R. (1979) Philosphy and the Mirror of Nature, Prince­ton, Princeton University Press.

Rudwick, M.J.S. (1985) The Great Devonian Controversy, Chi­cago, University of Chicago Press.

Schutz, A. (1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World, Chicago, Northwestern University Press.

Sears, R.L. (1964) 'Helium Content and Neutrino Fluxes in Solar Models', The Astrophysical Journal, 140, 477-84.

258 Bibliography

Shapere, D. (1982) 'The Concept of Observation in Science and in Philosophy', Philosophy of Science, 49, 485-525.

Shapin, S. (1979) 'The Politics of Observation: Cerebral Anatomy and Social Interests in the Edinburgh Phrenology Disputes', in Wallis (1979: 139-78).

Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985) Leviathan and the Air Pump, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Simonds, A.P. (1978) Karl Mannheim's Sociology of Knowledge, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Travis, G.D.L. (1980) 'Creating Contradiction: Or Why Let Things Be Difficult When With Just a Little More Effort You Can Make Them Seem Impossible?', Paper presented to the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Toronto, October 17-19.

Travis, G.D.L. (1981) 'Replicating Replication? Aspects of Social Construction of Learning in Planarian Worms', Social Studies of Science, 11, 11-32.

Vaughn, F.J., Chalmers, R.A., Kohler, D.A. and Chase, L.F. (1967) 'Cross Sections for the 7Be (p, y)8 B Reaction', Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 12, 1177.

WalliS, R. (ed.), (1979) On the Margins of Science - The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, Keele, University of Keele.

Whitley, R. (1985) The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1974) Philosophical Investigations, Oxford, Blackwell.

Wynne, B. (1976) 'C.G. Barkla and the J. Phenomenon: A Case Study of the Treatment of Deviance in Physics', Social Studies of Science, 6, 307-47.

TIIDEX

Abraham, Z. 144, 147, 148 ad hocery, 187-91 Alvarez, L. 51-55, 90-91 American Astronomical Society, 147 American Chemical Society, 122 American Physical Society, 127 Anaconda Copper Company, 100 analogue state, 85-88, 97, 203 anomaly, 128, 159 antineutrino, 52. See also, neutrino-antineutrino equivalence argon thirty-six recovery test, 43, 110, 165 argon trapping, 156, 157, 159, 161-75, 195, 196, 210, 213 See also Jacobs and Rood AShmore, M. 11-12 asymmetrical viewpoint, 6-8, 17-18 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 53, 71, 81-87, 90, 91, 93-97, 99, 103, 108, 134, 180,200,202,231,232 Bacher, A.D. 181 Background: cosmic-ray, 43, 53-57, 69, 71, 79, 99, 100, 115, 122, 124, 125, 165-67,204,225; in tank, 99, 123, 205; fast neutrons, 100, 125; in counter, 43, 52, 79, 125, 131, 148, 156 Bahcall, J.: analogue state, 85-88; change of mind, 144-50, 154-5; commencement of involvement, 73-76; disagreement with Iben, 140-44, 151, 153; first Caltech prediction, 76-79; funding activity 81-88; partnership with Davis, 114-17, 172; publicising activity, 88-91; reaction to Davis's first results, 128-40; theoretical activities; 113-14, 117, 204; visit to experiment, 116; other references, 24, 67, 96-99, 118-27,152,161,173,176,179-85,197,202,203,205,207-9, passim Bahcall, N. 137, 142 Banerjee, S.M. 167-8 Barberton Mine, 72-3, 88-9 Bell, J.S. 14 beryllium-seven neutrinos, 79, 178 Bethe,H.51, 61,64,125,139 black box. See instruments

259

260

black hole, 191, 205 Bloor, D. 19 Bohm, D. 13

Index

boron-eight neutrinos, 66, 70, 72, 78, 85, 95, 121, 136, 139, 150,158,178, 179,200,201 Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) 36, 41, 55, 56, 68, 70, 71,81,84,93,101, 102, 108, 110, 113, 115, 116, 118, 122, 123, 197,200,202,204 Burbidge, E.M. 63, 74 Burbidge, G.R. 63, 74 calcium thirty-seven, 97 calibration, 20, 125, 161, 165, 168-69, 174, 210, 243 Cal tech, 41, 60, 65, 68, 71, 72, 74, 76-79, 80, 113, 118, 125,126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137, 140, 147, 153, 165,173, 176,180,181,197,200,202,206 Cameron, A.G.W. 65, 66, 70, 72, 74, 88,127,158 Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, 104 Chitre, S.M. 167 chlorine thirty-six test, 162-70 chlorine thirty-seven radiochemical technique, 41, 46, 51-53, 68 Clark, C. 87 closure, 21 CNO-cycle, 61, 62, 64 co-citation networks, 27 Collins, H.M. 12, 13, 20, 23-24, 34, 153 conflict between solar-neutrino prediction and experimental result, 129, 130, 131, 136, 140, 144, 147, 163,208,209 consensus, 1,20-21, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 150, 153, 159, 175, 196,209,211, contracts, 101-104 contradiction between solar-neutrino prediction and experimental result, 20, 123, 127, 130, 138, 139, 141, 142, 144, 149, 150, 152, 154, 156, 208, 209 controversies, 27, 28-30, 35, 37 conventionalism, 168 core set, 29 correspondence theory, 2, 8, 9, 15 cosmic rays. See background Cowan, C. 53-55, 57, 58, 65, 71. See also, Reines-Cowan

Index

experiment craft knowledge, 112, 206. See also, tacit knowledge Crane, D. 27 Crane, H.R. 50 credibility, 38, 169, 172-75, 196, 210, 211 crisis, 146, 148, 149, 154, 155 Critchfield, C.L. 61

261

cross sections: errors, 123, 135, 139, 156-58, 175-86,211; neutrino absorption, 113, 205; uncertainties, 133, 134, 136, 144-46, 154; Sll' 133, 134, 138, 175; S17' 66, 72, 113, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 144, 145, 146, 154, 175; S33' 117, 119,123,133,136,175,176-86,196,211; S34 ,69,78,133, 135, 136, 138, 175, see also, Holmgren and Johnston result; other references, 47, 76, 89, 117, 205 Davis, R.: building the experiment, 104-110; commercial negotiations 99-104; experimental activities, 111-12, 203; experimental results, 56, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 147; fund raising activities, 81-88, 91; his caution, 172-74; his openness, 172-74; partnership with Bahcall, 114-117, 172; partnership with Cal tech, 173-74, 210; publicising activities, 88-91, reaction to first results, 127-28; reactor experiments, 55-59; run 27, 164, 170; other references; 24, 36,48-53,65-80,93-99,118-26,129-71,175-179,185,199-202, 204, 206-209, 211, passim Dilke, F.W. 159 discourse, 27, 31-33. See also, texts discrepancy between solar-neutrin9 prediction and experimental result; 36, 129, 137, 139, 140, 146, 147, 148, 149,150,151,209 Divakaran, P.P. 167 Dodson, R. 70-71, 82-84,93-97,102,108,110,115,116,201 Duhem-Quine thesiS, 8, 199 Dwarakanath, M.R. 181 Edge, D.O. 27 Empirical Programme of Relativism (EPOR), 12, 20-21, 23-24 epistemological values, 17-20 error range of prediction, 133-136, 207, 210 ethnomethodology, 19 eve of the experiment, 117-120 evidential context: alternative, 156-61; as a resource, 68;

262 Index

attempts to change, 159; created by scientists, 78; defined, 48-49; freezing of, 212~13; in relation to social contexts, 197-214; interpretative flexibility of, 156-96; of nuclear astrophysics, 41, 47, 59-68 experiments to detect neutrinos: 55-gallon tank, 55; 1,000-gallon tank 56-58, 71-72, 78; 3,000-gallon tank, 58-59; 100,000-gallon tank, 73, 79-80, 83, 85. See also, Davis, Reines and Cowan experiment, and recoil experiments external factors, 22-23, 30-31. See also, externalism externalism, 14-18, 22-24. See also, external factors Ezer, D. 158 Feyerabend, P. 9 Feynman, R. 129, 154, 209 Forman, P. 22 four-component theory, 58-59, 69, 200 Fowler, W.: encouragement of Davis, 65-73; involvement in funding of Davis's experiment, 81-98; relationship with Davis, 173-4; other references, 63, 74, 76-79, 117, 121, 122, 126, 129, 131-35, 163, 177, 178, 180, 200-202, passim free neutrino, 50, 200. See also, neutrino-detection physics, recoil experiments, Reines-Cowan experiment Friedman, L. 162 funding: of solar-neutrino experiment, 36-38, 70-98, 108, 114,126,130,134,142,151,153,173,185,196,202,203; of science, 4 gallium experiment, 151 Galvin, J. 108 Garfinkel, H. 19 Gilbert, G.N. 27-31 gold prices, 103-104 Goldhaber, G.S. 97 Goldhaber, M. 83-87, 91, 96-98, 108, 123-24, 127, 152, 203 Goodman, N. 9 Gough, D.O. 159 gravity waves, 34 Hagstrom, W. 27 Hall, R. 15-16 Hanford nuclear reactor, 54, 57 Hanson, N.R. 198 Harmer, D. 59, 108, 145

Index

Haworth, L. 82 heavy-element abundance, Z, 136-38, 141-43 helium abundance, Y, 141-43 helium purge, 43, 107, 108, 110 Heri tage, J. 19 Hertzsprung-Russel diagram, 63 historical research sites, 33-34 history of science, 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, 204 Hoffman, K. 145 Hollis, M. 10, 13 Holmgren, H.D. 65 Holmgren-Johnston result, 59, 65-68, 70, 72, 78, 201 Homestake Mining Company, 100-104, 198 house theorist, 115-116, 173, 204 Hoyle, F. 63, 74

263

Iben, I.: disagreement with Bahcall, 140-44, 151, 153, 208-209; first Cal tech prediction, 76-79; other references, 88, 146-148 input parameters, 136, 138, 141, 146, 205, 207-209 Institute for Advanced Study, 197 Institute for Space Studies, 88 Institute of Astronomy, 93 instruments: as inscription devices, 33; black box, 212-14; historicity of 212, 214; off-the-shelf, 204, 234; other references, 111, 199 intellectual factors, 28 internal factors, 22-23 internalism, 14-18 internalist historiography, 49 interpretative flexibility: of evidential contexts, 156-96; other references, 20-21, 29-35, 69, 136, 152, 153, 208, 210-213, passim interpretative licence, 156, 184-86, 195, 211 interpretative sociology, 18-20, 22-23, 28, 197-8 interviews, 21, 31-34, 186, 197 inverse beta decay, 51-53 invisible colleges, 27 iron abundance, 146 Irvine conference, 148, 157, 161 Jacobs, K. 157-174, 186, 210, 211. See also, argon trapping

264 Index

Jenkins, T.S. 110 Johnston, R.L. 65 Kavanagh, R. 72, 78, 113, 133-35, 146, 154 Kellogg Radiation Laboratory: first Cal tech prediction, 76-80; involvement in funding and publicising solar-neutrino experiment, 81-91; involvement in nuclear astrophysics, 60-63; other references, 41,113,116,200,202. See also, Cal tech Kuhn, T.S. 9, 14, 16-18 laboratory life, 3, 27, 30-31, 111 Laka tos, 1. 9 Lambert, D.L. 137,142 Latour, B. 31, 33 Laudan, L. 9 Lauritsen, C. 83-84 Law, J. 27 Lead, South Dakota, 41 Leventhal, J.J. 162 Libby, W. 77 links: as social achievements, 86, 155; between argon chemistry and Davis's technique, 174-75; between nuclear astrophysics and Davis's technique, 59-69; between various evidential contexts and Davis's technique, 49-59. See also, evidential contexts Livingston, E. 31 local standards, 19, 21, 152, 186, 197, 208, 211 logic, 11, 12, 16, 155,200,207-210 Los Alamos, 54 Lukes, S, 10, 13 Lynch, M. 31 MacKenzie, D. 23 Mannheim, K. 12 May, R.M. 138 Merton, R.K. 14-16 Morrison, P. 101 Mottelson, B. 85 Mulkay, M. 27, 31 Mullins, N. 27 Munhofen, B. 102 N-Rays, 6-7, 32

Index 265

NASA, 81, 87, 90 Nature, 8, 19,20,27-29,37, 151, 153, 186, 197,209,210, 212, 214 neutrino-antineutrino equivalence, 53, 55-59, 69, 200 neutrino-detection physics, 49-51. See also, Davis, free neutrino, recoil experiments, Reines-Cowan experiment neutrino oscillations, 150-51, 156, 158-59, 186-96, 211, 213 neutron half-life, 138 neutron source test, 125, 126, 161, 165, 167 Newsweek, 91 Nobel Prize, 125, 151 non-conservation of parity, 58 normative sociology, 18-20, 28 norms, 17-19, 22 NSF, 81, 90 nuclear astrophysics, 41, 47, 59-68. See also, evidential context nuclear physics, 36, 47. See also, cross sections nucleosynthesis, 63, 74 Oak Ridge, 177-78, 183. See also, cross sections, S opacities, 58, 146, 154, 190, 205 optical telescope, 214 other solar-neutrino experiments, 110, 126 painting by numbers, 5-8 parapsychology, 153 Parker, P. 78, 113, 133-35, 139, 146, 176, 178-81, 184-185 participant observation, 21, 32, 33 personal warrant, 203, 205-207 phenomenology, 19 philosophy of science, 2-3, 8-14, 20-22, 198 Physical Review letters, 89, 93, 127, 132, 139-43, 145, 152, 153,161,206 Physics Letters, 127, 132-33, 138 Polanyi, M. 112 Pinch, T. 87, 153, 170-171,186,190,195 Pomeroy, J. 103, 108 Pontecorvo, B. 51-53, 55, 158, 188-89 Popper, K. 9, 118, 174 predicted solar-neutrino fluxes, 38, 39, 56, 78, 86, 113, 119,121,123,133,134,136-39,145,147,185. See also,

266

error range of prediction Price, D. de Solla, 27 primitive beliefs, 10

Index

proton proton (pp)-chain, 61, 62,64,66,72,74,150, 158, 176, 178 publicising experiments, 88-91, 202 pulse rise, 43, 148 quantum mechanics, 12, 13-14, 22-23, 149, 209 radiochemistry, 36, 46, 47, 122, 157. See also, argon trapping Ravetz, J. 112 raw data, 43, 45, 121, 205, 206 recoil experiments, 55 Reeves, H. 90-91, 93 Reines, F. 53-55, 57, 58, 65, 68, 72-73, 78, 110, 157. See also, Reines-Cowan experiment Reines-Cowan experiment, 53-55, 57, 58 repeatability, 18-19, 20. See also, replication replication, 7, 19, 206-207. See also, repeatability research sites: choice of, 26-27, 35; contemporaneous or historical, 33-35. See also, controversies, discourse, laboratory life, texts and shared socio-cognitive frameworks restricted viewpoint, 4-6, 15 Rood, R. 162-65,169,170,173 Rorty, R. 9 sales rhetoric, 86-87 Santhanam, K.S.V. 167-8 Savannah River nuclear reactor, 53-59 Schutz, A. 19 Schwarzschild, M. 64, 150, 172 Seaborg, G. 82, 84 Sears, R. 74,77-78,88,148,179-180,185,206 shared socio-cognitive frameworks, 27-29 Shaviv, G. 119, 133-34, 136, 138-139, 142 Simonds, A.P. 12 Small, H. 27 social constructivism, 3 10, 38, 197-98, 212 social factors, 2, 4, 10, 16, 28 sociology of scientific knowledge: explanatory principles of, 1-24; scope of, 2-7; strategic research sites for, 26-40;

Index 267

strong programme, 3-215; symmetry, 3-4, 8-10, 16-18, 20, 22, 28, 30, 159-160 solar mixing, 156, 158, 186-96, 211, 213 solar model, 47, 48, 74, 76, 89, 113-14, 119, 133, 134, 137, 138, 141, 1444,151,173,206 solar-neutrino detection: as a case of controversy, 35-40; technical details, 41-48 solar-neutrino experiment: 100,000-galion tank, 73, 79-80, 83, 85; construction of, 104-110. See also, Davis, funding, gallium experiment, and publicising solar-neutrino problem, 1, 36, 171, 209 solar-neutrino telescope, 212-14 Soviet Union, 111 specialties, 27 stellar-evolution theory, 36, 47, 63, 64, 65, 74, 77, 140, 149 strategic research sites. See sociology of scientific knowledge strong programme. See sociology of scientific knowledge Sunshine Silver Mine, 100-102 symmetry. See sociology of scientific knowledge tacit knowledge, 112, 206. See also, craft knowledge technology, 49, 203 testing of nuclear astrophysics, 63-65, 68, 71-72, 76, 78, 80, 83, 118, 127, 128, 149, 155, 200, 201 texts, 27, 31-33. See also discourse theorists' activities, 117 theory. See evidential context theory-ladenness of observations, 8, 36, 198-99, 204 Ti~, 91, 92,114 Tombrello, T, 145, 181 Travis, G.D.L. 152 Trimble, V. 157 tu quoque, 11 Turin shroud, 49 two-component theory, 59 Ulrich, H, 114, 146-48 under-determination of theories, 8, 199 Van Dyken, A.H. 93, 96, 103, 202 von Neumann, J. 13-14

268

von Wright, G.H. 12 Warner prize, 147 water shield, 100, 125, 170 Watson, W.D. 146 Weingart, P. 27 Whitley, R.D. 27 wider social context, 37, 152, 184, 209, 211 Winkler, H.C. 181 Wittgenstein, L, 19 Woolgar, S.W. 31

Index