In spite of having published more than hundred articles and three monographs, the chemist and statistician Alfred James Lotka is not very well known. Because he had not experienced a conventional academic curriculum, he remained ‚at the margins’ of the scientific community. In 1925 he aimed for a breakthrough with his first monograph Elements of Physical Biology. The basic idea of this study was to understand nature in terms of energy. Lotka’s mathematical approach was highly innovative, although he had borrowed (...) certain notions from his former teacher, the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald. This article focuses on the very process of how a new idea developed and spread through the scientific community, and tries to determine to what extent the author—with his personality, his intentions and feelings—was part of this process. This includes looking at the emotional strain that followed the publication of Lotka’s masterpiece. Considering his anxieties, worries and distress during the period of reception, and his efforts to make sure his book was acknowledged by its audience, the article sheds light on often neglected aspects of scientific work such as identification, intention, mimicry, originality, and rivalry. The case study deals with a systematic blindness in the history of science: it takes into account the actors of science, their personality and their strategic moves, in order to come to a better understanding of the close connection between their work and their actions. In addition, the history of Lotka’s worries about the reception of his book might help us challenge the postulate of „publish or perish“ in today’s science. (shrink)

The manipulation of materials, and to some extent also their systematic classification, form an integral part of the skills and culture of all societies. Yet it took long for proper sciences to develop out of many processing procedures, tapping the accumulated knowledge about specific material characteristics. In the late 20th century an overarching science of workable materials emerged: materials science. This concept and term originated from major boosts in materials research during WWII and the Cold War, first financed by the (...) U.S. Department of Defense and the Advanced Research Project Agency. The COSMAT-Report from 1974, written by the American Presidential Science Advisory Committee’s „Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering" four years after its inception, and subsequent reports heralded in the second institutionalization phase of materials science in the USA and with some delay also elsewhere. As the field continued to expand, the demand grew from within in the late 1990s for disciplinary status. This article sorts these claims from the various camps and sets them in the context of unfolding institutional change. The developments within the German-speaking realm, thus far unduly neglected in these debates, are added. I close with a systematic discussion of eight indicator arguments for or against a convergence of this complex field of research into a single coherent discipline. Against Bensaude-Vincent’s thesis that materials science still is an “aggregation of fragments of knowledge", I argue that by 2010 materials science did indeed achieve disciplinary status in a historically rare and enduring process of discipline formation through “emergence by integration" rather than by differentiation. (shrink)

Zusammenfassung1958 startete vor der kleinasiatischen Küste eines der ersten Vorhaben für eine systematische archäologische Kampagne unter der Wasseroberfläche. Dabei wurde vor dem Kap Gelidonya das Wrack eines bronzezeitlichen Schiffs untersucht. Um die Arbeitsweise und die konkreten Probleme der Unterwasserarchäologie näher zu beleuchten, umfasst dieser Beitrag neben einer Beschreibung der konkreten Forschungsgegenstände und der eingesetzten technischen Hilfsmitteln auch die naturräumlichen Eigenschaften sowie die politischen Rahmenbedingungen jener Zeit. Am Übergang zwischen kolonialem Zeitalter und Kaltem Krieg zeichnet er zudem die biografischen Wege nach, (...) welche die zentralen Akteur*innen der Kampagne am Fundort zusammenführten. Das ist notwendig, um zu verstehen, wieso Taucher*innen, die keine etablierten Archäolog*innen waren, diese Kampagne anstießen und durchführten. Der Artikel analysiert außerdem den Stand der Forschung im Jahr 1960 in diesem Feld und die Schwierigkeiten und Lösungen bei der Arbeit unter Wasser. Er versteht sich als Beitrag zur noch ungeschriebenen Geschichte der Unterwasserarchäologie.In 1958, one of the first projects to carry out a systematic archaeological campaign underwater began off the coast of Asia Minor. At Cape Gelidonya, the wreck of a Bronze Age ship was investigated. To understand the concrete problems and working methods of underwater archaeology, it is important to account not only for the tangible objects of research and the technical aids used, but also the natural features and the political framework in which actors operated. Situated in the years between the end of the colonial era and the Cold War, this article traces the biographical paths that brought together central actors at the site of the discovery. This perspective is necessary for understanding why divers who were not established archaeologists initiated and carried out the campaign. The article also analyzes the research of the campaign carried out 1960 and explores some of the difficulties and solutions encountered in working underwater. The article is a contribution to the still unwritten history of underwater archaeology. (shrink)