Chemistry appears to be the ideal case for arguing in favour of a strong interrelationship between academia and industry. Who would be able to decide what is meant by a sentence that begins with "Chemistry is "? Does it refer to technology or science? By contrast, statements such as "Physics is ", "Biology is ... " are clear from the outset. At the most fundamental point, it is this very ambivalence of chemistry that connects the four articles published in this special issue of Ambix. We do not have to look back to chemistry's alchemical roots in recognising that homo acadenzicus and homo faber are indeed two sides of the same coin. Since the late nineteenth century, the chemical industry has acquired the image of a truly science-based industry with its stupendous (and profitable) achievements in the manufacturing of goods that imitated, and even superseded, the structures and functions of nature's products. Scientism and belief in progress joined forces in public perception. In this process, science gained supremacy, its authority being used for the legitimacy of technology. During most of the twentieth century, chemists, entrepreneurs and historians alike joined the secular chorus of proponents of this linear view of the science-technology relationship. The phrase "science finds, industry applies, man conforms" of the 1933 "Century of Progress" world exhibition in Chicago benefited scientists (who could claim the economic importance of their activities) and engineers (who coveted the impeccable and honourable image that science then enjoyed). It needed severe economic and social turmoil to shake this alliance. The oil crisis and the environmental movement of the 1970s provided the background for events taking place in the much smaller dimensions of innovation studies and the history of science and technology: the projects Hindsight and Traces questioned the previously accepted path-dependence from basic science to applied science in the genesis of military innovations; and with the split of the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT) from the History of Science Society (HSS) in 1958, also the historical view of technology had acquired a status independent of science. In the view of historians of technology, their object was more than just applied science. Metaphors, such as 'mirror-image twins' and 'science and technology as dancing partners', replaced the linear model in the academic world, but not so much in public perception. In more recent times, and in the wake of the so-called 'knowledge society', some sociologists question the existence of boundaries between science, technology and society at all. Their view consists either of a blending of these domains or of their strong coupling, giving rise to new notions such as Mode-2 science and contextualised science. Historians tend to think along more established lines, sometimes reversing old orders (in case of the industry-based science of electrical engineering), expanding on biological metaphors (such as symbiosis in the academic-industrial partnership in chemistry), and putting forward the

中文翻译：

---

化学学术界和工业界：国家干预的影响和文化价值观的影响

化学似乎是支持学术界和工业界之间强大相互关系的理想案例。谁能确定以“Chemistry is”开头的句子是什么意思？它指的是技术还是科学？相比之下，诸如“物理学是”、“生物学是……”之类的陈述从一开始就很清楚。在最基本的一点上，正是化学的这种矛盾心理将 Ambix 特刊中发表的四篇文章联系起来。我们不必回顾化学的炼金术根源，即认识到 homo acadenzicus 和 homo faber 确实是同一枚硬币的两个方面。自十九世纪末以来，化学工业已经获得了真正以科学为基础的工业形象，其在模仿甚至取代自然产品的结构和功能的产品制造方面取得了巨大的（和有利可图的）成就。科学主义和对进步的信念在公众认知中联手。在这个过程中，科学获得了至高无上的地位，其权威被用于技术的合法性。在 20 世纪的大部分时间里，化学家、企业家和历史学家都加入了这种线性科学技术关系观点的世俗支持者的行列。1933年“进步世纪”的“科学发现，工业应用，人符合”这句话 芝加哥的世界展览使科学家（他们可以声称他们的活动在经济上具有重要意义）和工程师（他们觊觎科学当时享有的无可挑剔和光荣的形象）受益。它需要严重的经济和社会动荡来动摇这个联盟。1970 年代的石油危机和环境运动为在创新研究和科技史的小得多的维度中发生的事件提供了背景：Hindsight 和 Traces 项目质疑先前接受的从基础科学到应用的路径依赖。军事创新起源的科学；随着 1958 年技术史学会 (SHOT) 从科学史学会 (HSS) 的分裂，技术的历史观也获得了独立于科学的地位。在技​​术史学家看来，他们的目标不仅仅是应用科学。“镜像双胞胎”和“科技舞伴”等隐喻在学术界取代了线性模型，但在公众认知中并没有那么多。最近，随着所谓的“知识社会”的出现，一些社会学家质疑科学、技术和社会之间是否存在界限。他们的观点包括这些领域的混合或它们的强耦合，从而产生了新的概念，例如模式 2 科学和情境化科学。历史学家倾向于沿着更成熟的路线思考，有时会颠倒旧秩序（在基于行业的电气工程科学的情况下），