journals and encyclopedias – all are in the service of the mutual exchange of information. Here was a model of “science” in which knowledge was freely given, and the commercial sale of knowledge and expertise exemplified by consultancy had no place. At first glance, with its broad range of references, this seems a generic description of science. It was promoted, however, within a particular historical framework. Even if it had a long ancestry, the ideal was accentuated during the Cold War. In recent years, historians such as Audra Wolfe, Mario Daniels, and John Krige have been historicising this interpretation of science as “public knowledge.” This had particular significance during the Cold War. Wolfe points out that the free pursuit of curiosity and the sharing in the public sphere of the findings of research were cited to exemplify the confluence of democracy and the scientific method. Daniels and Krige have been interested in the practice of maintaining secrecy from the Soviet Union and the linguistic practices that sustained it. In order to maintain the possibility of international discussion, it seemed necessary to maintain a rigid distinction between fundamental science, which was public, and applied research, knowledge of which was restricted. The importance of free science was highlighted immediately upon the tumultuous end of the SecondWorldWar. Harvard’s leader, the chemist James Conant, called for 1 John Ziman, Public Knowledge: The Social Dimension of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 143–44. 2 Audra J. Wolfe, Freedom’s Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). 3 Mario Daniels and John Krige, “Beyond the Reach of Regulation? ‘Basic’ and ‘Applied’ Research in the Early Cold War United States,” Technology and Culture 59 (2018): 226–50. ambix, Vol. 67 No. 3, August 2020, 308–312 © Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry 2020 DOI 10.1080/00026980.2020.1794701 a course that would educate students, from across the university, not in its details but on its nature. The course would help future leaders understand the essential qualities of science, including, for instance, the difference between basic and applied research. The pursuit of knowledge was divided between the free enquiry characteristic of academe and the controlled managed activities within corporations. The history of the professionalisation of science was the product of this twofold way. Conant would pursue this campaign for several years. It led to the famous Harvard course in which Thomas Kuhn was an instructor and of which the Harvard case studies were the published outcome. At this early point in the Cold War, teaching about the essence of science was deeply interconnected with an interpretation of its organisation. The anomalous cross-over between the role of scholar producing publically shared knowledge and the entrepreneurial manager of private resource expressed by the role of the consultant did not fit such clear and essential divisions of science. Historians were, of course, familiar with consultancy. Indeed they practised it themselves. After he retired from Harvard, the beloved and respected I. B. Cohen, the standard-bearer for the profession of history of science for many years, became a consultant to IBM in the history of computing. Even Conant himself had written about the ambivalent relationship between academic and industrial scientist. Late in the twentieth century, the earlier idealisation was of course superseded by models of technoscience and “mode 2” in which traditional boundaries between science and technology, and between practitioners and public were dismantled. Historians were less convinced by the argument that these were new. Many looked back and noticed that in such areas as chemistry and engineering, in particular, the clear distinctions between public and private knowledge had never existed. The rigid boundaries of the Cold War were being breached both in theory and in fact. The papers in this symposium follow a sequence of careers from the early nineteenth century to the end of the twentieth. When the Chemical Society of London was founded in 1841, different communities came together. Professional consultants made up the most numerous individual constituency. The growing opportunities for teaching, particularly educating London’s medical students in chemistry, could be combined with providing chemical advice. The burgeoning coal gas industry which doubled in size every five or ten years years in the 1820s and the breweries 4 Christopher Hamlin, “The Pedagogical Roots of the History of Science: Revisiting the Vision of James Bryant Conant,” Isis 107 (2016): 282–308; Elizabeth Melia, “Science, Values, and Education: The Search for Cultural Unity at Harvard under Charles W. Eliot, A. Lawrence Lowell, and James B. Conant” (Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 1995). 5 Joseph W. Dauben, Louise Gleason Mary, and George E. Smith, “Seven Decades of History of Science: I. Bernard Cohen (1914–2003), Second Editor of Isis,” Isis 100 (2009): 4–35. 6 James Conant, “The Impact of Science on Industry and Medicine,” American Scientist 39 (1951): 33–49. 7 Mode 2 was launched in M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwarztman, P. Scott and M. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (London: Sage, 1994). For the historians’ response, see such reviews as Peter Weingart, “From ‘Finalization’ to ‘Mode 2’: Old Wine in New Bottles?” Social Science Information 36 (1997): 591–613. FLUID CAREERS AND COLD WAR BOUNDARIES 309

中文翻译：

---

流动的职业和冷战边界

期刊和百科全书——都为信息的相互交流服务。这是一种“科学”模式，知识是免费提供的，以咨询为代表的知识和专业知识的商业销售是没有立足之地的。乍一看，由于其广泛的参考资料，这似乎是对科学的一般描述。然而，它是在特定的历史框架内得到推广的。即使它有很长的血统，但在冷战期间，这种理想得到了加强。近年来，奥德拉沃尔夫、马里奥丹尼尔斯和约翰克里格等历史学家一直将这种对科学的解释历史化为“公共知识”。这在冷战期间具有特别重要的意义。沃尔夫指出，自由追求好奇心和在公共领域分享研究成果被引用为民主与科学方法融合的例证。Daniels 和 Krige 一直对向苏联保密的做法以及维持这种做法的语言做​​法很感兴趣。为了保持国际讨论的可能性，似乎有必要在公开的基础科学和知识有限的应用研究之间严格区分。二战结束后，自由科学的重要性立即凸显。哈佛大学的领导者、化学家詹姆斯·科南特 (James Conant) 呼吁 1 John Ziman, Public Knowledge: The Social Dimension of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 143–44。2 奥德拉 J。Wolfe，自由实验室：科学灵魂的冷战斗争（巴尔的摩：约翰霍普金斯大学出版社，2018 年）。3 Mario Daniels 和 John Krige，“超出监管范围？美国冷战早期的“基础”和“应用”研究”，技术与文化 59（2018 年）：226-50。混合体，卷。67 No. 3, August 2020, 308–312 © 炼金术与化学史学会 2020 DOI 10.1080/00026980.2020.1794701 一门课程将教育来自整个大学的学生，而不是在细节上，而是在本质上。该课程将帮助未来的领导者了解科学的基本素质，例如，包括基础研究和应用研究之间的区别。对知识的追求分为学术的自由探究特征和公司内部的受控管理活动。科学专业化的历史就是这种双重方式的产物。科南特将继续这项运动数年。这导致了著名的哈佛课程，其中托马斯·库恩是一名讲师，其中哈佛案例研究是已发表的成果。在冷战的早期，科学本质的教学与对其组织的解释紧密相连。产生公共共享知识的学者角色与顾问角色所表达的私人资源企业家经理之间的反常交叉并不适合科学的如此清晰和基本的划分。历史学家当然熟悉咨询。的确，他们自己实践过。从哈佛退休后，深受爱戴和受人尊敬的IB Cohen，多年来担任科学史专业的旗手，成为IBM计算史的顾问。甚至科南特本人也写过学术和工业科学家之间矛盾的关系。在 20 世纪后期，早期的理想化当然被技术科学模型和“模式 2”所取代，其中科学与技术之间以及实践者与公众之间的传统界限被拆除。历史学家不太相信这些是新的论点。许多人回过头来发现，特别是在化学和工程等领域，公共知识和私人知识之间的明显区别从未存在过。冷战的严格界限在理论上和事实上都被打破了。本次研讨会的论文遵循了从 19 世纪早期到 20 世纪末的一系列职业生涯。当伦敦化学会于 1841 年成立时，不同的社区走到了一起。专业顾问构成了数量最多的个人选区。越来越多的教学机会，特别是对伦敦的医学生进行化学教育，可以与提供化学建议相结合。蓬勃发展的煤气工业在 1820 年代每五年或十年扩大一倍，啤酒厂 4 Christopher Hamlin，“科学史的教学根源：重温 James Bryant Conant 的愿景”，Isis 107（2016 年）： 282-308；伊丽莎白·梅利亚 (Elizabeth Melia)，“科学、价值观和教育：查尔斯·W·艾略特、A. 劳伦斯·洛厄尔和 James B. Conant”（博士论文，约翰霍普金斯大学，1995 年）。5 Joseph W. Dauben、Louise Gleason Mary 和 George E. Smith，“科学史的七个十年：I. Bernard Cohen（1914-2003），Isis 的第二编辑”，Isis 100（2009）：4-35。6 James Conant，“科学对工业和医学的影响”，美国科学家 39（1951）：33-49。7 模式 2 在 M. Gibbons、C. Limoges、H. Nowotny、S. Schwarztman、P. Scott 和 M. Trow，知识的新生产：当代社会科学与研究的动态（伦敦：Sage， 1994）。对于历史学家的回应，请参阅诸如 Peter Weingart 之类的评论，“从‘定型’到‘模式 2’：新瓶装旧酒？” 社会科学信息 36（1997）：591-613。流动的职业和冷战边界 309 和 George E. Smith，“科学史的七个十年：I. Bernard Cohen（1914-2003），Isis 的第二编辑”，Isis 100（2009）：4-35。6 James Conant，“科学对工业和医学的影响”，美国科学家 39（1951）：33-49。7 模式 2 在 M. Gibbons、C. Limoges、H. Nowotny、S. Schwarztman、P. Scott 和 M. Trow，知识的新生产：当代社会科学与研究的动态（伦敦：Sage， 1994）。对于历史学家的回应，请参阅诸如 Peter Weingart 之类的评论，“从‘定型’到‘模式 2’：新瓶装旧酒？” 社会科学信息 36（1997）：591-613。流动的职业和冷战边界 309 和 George E. Smith，“科学史的七个十年：I. Bernard Cohen（1914-2003），Isis 的第二编辑”，Isis 100（2009）：4-35。6 James Conant，“科学对工业和医学的影响”，美国科学家 39（1951）：33-49。7 模式 2 在 M. Gibbons、C. Limoges、H. Nowotny、S. Schwarztman、P. Scott 和 M. Trow，知识的新生产：当代社会科学与研究的动态（伦敦：Sage， 1994）。对于历史学家的回应，请参阅诸如 Peter Weingart 之类的评论，“从‘定型’到‘模式 2’：新瓶装旧酒？” 社会科学信息 36（1997）：591-613。流动的职业和冷战边界 309 “科学对工业和医学的影响”，美国科学家 39（1951）：33-49。7 模式 2 在 M. Gibbons、C. Limoges、H. Nowotny、S. Schwarztman、P. Scott 和 M. Trow，知识的新生产：当代社会科学与研究的动态（伦敦：Sage， 1994）。对于历史学家的回应，请参阅诸如 Peter Weingart 之类的评论，“从‘定型’到‘模式 2’：新瓶装旧酒？” 社会科学信息 36（1997）：591-613。流动的职业和冷战边界 309 “科学对工业和医学的影响”，美国科学家 39（1951）：33-49。7 模式 2 在 M. Gibbons、C. Limoges、H. Nowotny、S. Schwarztman、P. Scott 和 M. Trow，知识的新生产：当代社会科学与研究的动态（伦敦：Sage， 1994）。对于历史学家的回应，请参阅诸如 Peter Weingart 之类的评论，“从‘定型’到‘模式 2’：新瓶装旧酒？” 社会科学信息 36（1997）：591-613。流动的职业和冷战边界 309 “从‘定型’到‘模式2’：新瓶装旧酒？” 社会科学信息 36（1997）：591-613。流动的职业和冷战边界 309 “从‘定型’到‘模式2’：新瓶装旧酒？” 社会科学信息 36（1997）：591-613。流动的职业和冷战边界 309