CHF Center for Contemporary History and Policy Research Report 2004-2006

Research Report, 2004–2006 1 �

The CHF Center for

Contemporary History and Policy

Research Report2004–2006

Chemical Heritage Foundation

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

� 2 The CHF Center for Contemporary History and Policy

© 2007 by the Chemical Heritage Foundation.

For information about CHF publications writeChemical Heritage Foundation315 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19106-2702, USAFax: (215) 925-1954Web site: www.chemheritage.org


Contents

About the CHF Center for Contemporary History and Policy 5

Program Areas, 2004–2006 9

Innovation and Entrepreneurship 13

Risk and Regulation 33

Scientific and Industrial Infrastructure 47

Looking Forward 63

Center Staff, January 2007 69

Support 73


About the CHF Center forContemporary History and Policy

Despite their role as the drivers of modernity, contemporary science,technology, and biomedicine are poorly understood. How do newinventions get from the laboratory to market? Who are the key play-ers in the invention, testing, regulation, and marketing of new nano-products, biodegradable plastics, biotech drugs, and other consumerproducts? Why does it take so long and cost so much to commercial-ize new inventions? Are government regulatory agencies ensuringsafety and, if so, at what point on a cost-benefit scale?

In early 2005 the Chemical Heritage Foundation (CHF) estab-lished the Center for Contemporary History and Policy to tacklethese and other critical issues at the forefront of science, business,government, and public interest. From its origins in the early 1980sCHF had implicitly examined the history of chemistry and othermolecular sciences in relation to contemporary concerns. By 2003CHF had a full-time policy analyst who directed projects offeringhistorical perspective on current issues. With the Center’s formationCHF more explicitly focused program work within a framework ofpolicy analysis based on historical and sociological methods. An in-tegrated set of program areas, described below, now offers balancedlong-range perspectives on contemporary science and policy. Eacharea carries out unique research projects and involves diverse partici-pants from academia, industry, government, and nongovernmentalorganizations.

This report brings together information about the conferences,public lectures, research, and publications carried out between 2004and 2006 by CHF staff who now make up the Center. In some in-stances projects with origins in 2003 are included. We also describe


several significant initiatives currently under way that will be com-pleted in coming years.

The report focuses on three major themes that cut across all theCenter’s research projects: innovation and entrepreneurship, risk andregulation, and scientific and industrial infrastructure. For the Cen-ter, contemporary history and policy generally encompass the inter-twined phenomena of invention; discovery; industrial or businessapplication; government development, sponsorship, or regulation;and public response to and participation with the chemical sciencesand industries between 1950 and the present. To realize its missionthe Center conducts oral histories, collects new archival holdings,and carries out analysis on source materials; arranges and hosts work-shops, symposia, and conferences with diverse participants; networkswith opinion leaders to advise, inform, and serve as an honest media-tor among competing views on innovation and regulatory policy;and publishes reports, articles, and books.

Building on completed initiatives and current projects, the Cen-ter has ambitious plans for 2007 and beyond. First, it will establisha new program area focused on environmental policy and sustain-ability. Second, its staff members will conduct at least seventy neworal histories annually of leading scientists and entrepreneurs, in-cluding a significant grouping of oral histories of biomedical sci-entists conducted under the auspices of the Pew Charitable Trusts’Scholars Program in the Biomedical Sciences. Third, the Center willhost a variety of conferences in 2007: exploring the emerging field ofbiomonitoring studies in March, examining the development of thebiotechnology industry in geographic clusters in April, promotingnew methods for recording and using oral history in May, promot-ing dialogue between social scientists and technologists about nano-technology in June, and encouraging creativity in industry at ourannual Innovation Day in September.

Looking beyond 2007, several exciting longer-range projects areunder way. Team members are carrying out research into case studies


for the Robert W. Gore Innovation Case Study project, which willdevelop in-depth analyses of new materials invented and brought tomarket by industry since 1980. These case studies will describe thecore invention; assess technology transfer within the firm and amongindustry, universities, and governments; and analyze barriers andbridges to bringing products to market. Further, our multiyear pro-gram initiative on the chemical history of electronics, along withother projects in the area, is developing the first scholarly biographyof Gordon E. Moore, founder of Intel and leading figure in thedevelopment of Silicon Valley. Finally, the biotechnology and phar-maceuticals program areas will further develop their analyses ofregional clusters through international comparative studies. With thesupport of CHF’s twenty-fifth anniversary initiative and grants fromgovernment, private foundations, and industry, we will initiate addi-tional exciting projects in coming years.

Arthur DaemmrichDirector, Center for Contemporary History and Policy


The Center for Contemporary History and Policy examines con-temporary issues in the chemical and molecular sciences and

technologies, their industrial linkages, and related policy topicsthrough historical perspective. It manages programmatic initiativesthat draw on diverse historical and contemporary source materials toprovide knowledge, perspective, and advice to stakeholders from in-dustry, academia, government, and citizen groups. Our goal is tobecome a unique and essential node in the network of institutionsand organizations that shape health, environment, risk, and innova-tion policy by producing a broad perspective on these areas anddisseminating the results of conferences and research projects.

Program Areas, 2004–2006

Biotechnology History and PolicyProgram Manager, Ted Everson

The biotechnology initiative examines the scientific, industrial, so-cial, and political dimensions of biotechnology. Central areas ofinterest include emerging industrial biotech applications, debates con-cerning agricultural biotech, and the history and applications ofmedicinal biotech since 1980. Goals of the program area are to pro-duce a unique perspective on the growth, functioning, and impact ofmodern biotechnology by conducting a series of oral histories withkey scientific and business leaders; to preserve key resources centralto the development of the field; to organize and host public con-ferences; and to disseminate results of scholarly analysis to broaderaudiences through the Web and in print.

Electronic MaterialsProgram Manager, Hyungsub Choi

The Center launched a program on the Chemical History of Elec-tronics in 2004. Its major components include an in-depth analysisof the origins and impacts of Moore’s law; extensive oral histories of


the broad network of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs respon-sible for breakthroughs in semiconductor innovation, manufacture,and use; an archive focused on Gordon Moore’s life, career, and in-novation network; and research and publishing on the history ofsemiconductors and related electronic materials and on innovationand entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley and other regions.

InnovationProgram Managers, Arthur Daemmrich and Cyrus Mody

Offering insights on areas of near-term interest to industrial researchmanagers and strategic analysis of innovation management, the Cen-ter bridges theory and practice in the study of innovation. An annualInnovation Day, organized in collaboration with the Society of Chemi-cal Industry, brings together chief technology officers and youngindustrial scientists from across the chemicals sector to discuss keytopics, including energy, feedstocks, the environment, electronics,health materials, nanomaterials, and others. A second initiative pro-vides for creation of case studies of recent innovations. Based oninterviews and other research, the case studies explore how chemicalcompanies have translated new ideas into marketable products overthe past two decades.

Nanotechnology History and PolicyProgram Manager, Cyrus Mody

The nanotechnology program explores nanotechnology’s surprisinglylong history, while supplementing current policy discussions withreasoned analysis. In collaboration with academic, government, andnonprofit partners, the program conducts oral histories and sponsorsconferences, preserves significant documents and instruments, andpublishes white papers and journal articles. Major themes includethe development of academic nanocenters, the role of charismaticscientists in founding nanotechnology programs, and the relation-ship between large and small firms in inventing and bringing to marketnanotechnology products.


Oral HistoryProgram Manager, Rasheedah Cremer

The core oral history program collects, edits, and makes available forscholarly use in-depth interviews with renowned scientists, businessleaders, and entrepreneurs. Each oral history captures the interviewee’sreflections and perspectives on scientific breakthroughs, career ad-vancement, and other major events of his or her lifetime. The Centeris expanding the reach of oral histories by digitizing recordings, cata-loging the collection online, and developing a comprehensive indexof over 350 oral history interviews conducted by CHF since 1980.

Pharmaceutical Policy and PoliticsProgram Manager, Arthur Daemmrich

In order to advance public dialogue on and analysis of drug research,testing, and regulation, this program area hosts symposia on currentissues in drug policy with historical precedents, carries out researchto create case studies of changing technologies for pharmaceuticalinnovation between 1950 and the present, and is supporting a studyof the social and political implications of the international harmoni-zation of regulatory standards for new drug approvals.


Innovationand

Entrepreneurship

Take interest

in these sacred dwellings

which we call laboratories.

There it is that humanity

grows greater, stronger, better.—Louis Pasteur

� � �


Conferences

The Role of Research and Development inCorporate Mergers and Acquisitions

On 29 April 2003 a select group of chemical industry executives,chief technology officers, other research managers, business analysts,economists, and historians gathered at the Chemical Heritage Foun-dation for the conference “Innovation and Creativity in ChemicalResearch and Development.” Their mission was to discuss the rela-tionship of mergers and acquisitions to research and development(R&D) and to address the role of innovation in the chemical industry’sfuture. Two key questions were put to the participants. First, is today’schemical industry mature, with little payoff to be expected from in-vesting in R&D? Second, has a decade of merger and acquisitionactivity undermined innovation and creativity in the industrial re-search setting?

Arthur Daemmrich, editor. R&D MeetsM&A: Proceedings of the 2003 Conferenceon Innovation and Creativity in ChemicalR&D (Philadelphia: Chemical HeritageFoundation, 2004).

R&D Meets M&A contains edited pa-pers and summaries of lively discussionsfrom the conference. Together, the chap-ters make the case that successful mergersrequire an expanded role for research divi-sions and should be driven by compatible

innovation cultures. Looking to the future, only a combination ofgreater in-house R&D and increased use of joint ventures will im-prove the chemical industry’s competitive standing as it copes withemerging new markets, competition from new start-up companies,and challenges presented by rapid economic growth in Asia and theMiddle East.


Innovation Day

The chemical industry faces many challenges and opportunities atthe start of the twenty-first century, including the rapid emergenceof new fields and the maturing of existing methods for research andmanufacturing. Arguing that only a renewed focus on innovationwill harness promising technologies and spur industry growth, theChemical Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with the Society ofChemical Industry (SCI), has hosted Innovation Day annually since2004.

The conference features the Warren G. Schlinger Symposium,which attracts participation from promising young scientists, technol-ogy leaders, and executives from across the chemical industries. Ple-nary and breakout sessions explore innovations in a range of areas,including electronic materials, renewable feedstocks, sustainablechemistry, new energy sources, nanomaterials, and health materials.

At Innovation Day the SCI Gordon E. Moore Medal is given toa young scientist from industry whose invention has reached themarket and illustrates the benefits of applied chemistry. Followingthe day’s events SCI awards its prestigious Perkin Medal.

Each year staff from the Center write a white paper to summa-rize discussions from the Schlinger Symposium.

2004 Report

Over the past century the chemical industry has been marked bytransformations related to product and process innovations, the evo-lution of global markets, and the expansion of regulatory mandates.Today the chemical industry faces a unique set of challenges fromthe rapid emergence of new fields and the maturing of existing manu-facturing methods. Based on findings from the first annual CHF–SCIInnovation Day, this white paper argues that the industry’s futurelies in exploring diverse areas for R&D rather than in maintaining anarrow focus. As core inventors and manufacturers of the materialbasis of modern life, chemical firms are uniquely positioned to avoid


waves of creative destruction prevalent in other sectors. By reinvigo-rating R&D, developing new markets, and engaging the public in anew dialogue about the risks and rewards of emerging technology,chemical firms can promote a new wave of innovation and rejuve-nate the industry.

2005 Report

Squeezed in on all sides—from raw material costs (which are at un-precedented highs), narrowing access to feedstocks, and growingcompetition in commodity markets—chemical firms today must cre-ate new high-value materials and services to survive and profit. Thisreport summarizes the second annual CHF–SCI Innovation Day andsuggests solutions for current challenges based on this annual forumin which scientists and technology managers gather to explore fron-tier areas for the chemical industry. The industry’s future, we argue,lies in a strategic wager on disruptive technologies, balanced byincremental steps to develop new feedstocks and manufacturingprocesses that yield novel materials with less environmental impact.

2006 Report

Competition is becoming ever fiercerin the chemical industry, as new firmsfrom such emerging economies asChina and India enter the market andas technological advances, new regula-tions, and rising energy and feedstockcosts shrink profit margins, especiallyat the bottom end of the value chain.Yet chemical firms are also discoveringthat cooperation, even—or especially—between competitors, is necessary

for meeting today’s challenges. Today’s dilemmas and innovation sys-tems are too complex for any one organization. Network building istherefore central to continued innovation. Successful networks, we


argue, must include competitors working in partnership. This re-port summarizes the third annual CHF–SCI Innovation Day anddescribes a variety of partnerships among chemical and material sci-ence firms that combine cooperation and competition in novel,forward-looking ways.


Projects

Gore Innovation Project

New materials have always meant new industries, new paradigmsfor science, and new products that can transform societies. In thenineteenth century, innovations in steel manufacture made possiblelarge-scale rail networks and high-rise buildings, enabling radicalchanges in where and how people lived. In the twentieth century,plastics revolutionized consumer culture through cheap, mass-produced goods and containers. Today the “information society”depends to an unacknowledged extent on materials innovations insilicon and fiberoptic glass.

Despite the importance of new materials in economic growthand in social change, we understand little about the process of mate-rials innovation. What are the barriers and bridges in the interplay ofthe state of scientific knowledge, the business environment, regula-tion, and market demand in commercialization of new materials?What metrics would usefully define innovation in an era character-ized by networks and cross-institutional collaborations?

The Gore Innovation Project thus seeks to produce an improvedunderstanding of the materials innovation process in order to helpgovernments better prepare for economic and social changes; allowindustry leaders to organize better for successful innovation; giveuniversities tools to provide better links to industry; and offer in-sights to the public and nongovernmental organizations as they callfor innovations that generate social and environmental benefits aswell as economic growth.

Initiated in 2006, the Gore Innovation Project will grow overthe next three years to fifteen case studies that cover an array of ma-terials innovation. Cases will cover the range from established firmsto start-ups and will include examples of extra-firm innovation (e.g.,new products out of collaborations with academic and government


Very highly stretched polytetrafluoroethylene, as illustrated in the original “Gore-Tex”patent. Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

laboratories). We expect the case studies to demonstrate that materi-als innovation is necessary and can be inspiring. Firms that ushersocially beneficial novel materials to market offer creative examplesof chemical sciences and technologies at work.

Outputs from the project will include published case studies,a conference to promote cross-case analysis, and a publication ofmajor findings.


Biography of Hubert J. P. Schoemaker (forthcoming, 2007)

Hubert J. P. Schoemaker, founding CEO of Centocor, was renownedas a visionary in the development of the biotech industry before hepassed away after a long battle with brain cancer. To preserve hislegacy and establish the basis for further analysis of the biotech sec-tor, the Center is producing a biography of Schoemaker through theperspectives and insights of family members, close friends, work col-leagues, and scientific and entrepreneurial peers.

The biography is based on a seriesof oral history interviews with indi-viduals who provide a comprehensivedescription of Schoemaker’s life. Theirmemories will be compiled in a printedbook of oral history vignettes beginningwith his childhood in the Netherlands.It continues on to the founding of Cen-tocor; the company’s devastating col-lapse after its most promising drug didnot receive U.S. Food and Drug Admin-istration (FDA) approval; and its recov-ery with the development of Remicade,

a superior therapy for Crohn’s disease and the first medicine approvedby the FDA to improve physical function in patients with rheuma-toid arthritis.

Through interviews with individuals close to Schoemaker at dif-ferent points in his life, the book will make available his legacy as atestament to others of an outstanding researcher and entrepreneur, acentral figure in the history of biotechnology, and an influential andinspirational innovator.

Hubert J. P. Schoemaker. Courtesyof Anne Schoemaker.


Oral History Program

An oral history is a recorded interview, typically between three andfour hours in length, in which expert interviewers guide select indi-viduals from science and industry through their lives and careers,with a special focus on their scientific work, leadership roles, andperspectives on key events and developments. Oral history preservesnot only an individual’s recollection of events and turning points butalso the meanings and lessons that she or he gives to these events.Interviews carried out by the Center reveal the hidden side of re-search—misconceptions, redirections, and inspirations—that may beinvisible in the published record. In some cases oral history offers theonly effective method for capturing the nuances and complexity ofmodern knowledge accumulation and its applications. We thereforeexplore interviewees’ decision-making approaches and research andmanagement styles, and probe scientific and industrial outcomes.

Interviews are transcribed verbatim, edited by Center staff toconvert the interview to more polished text, and then reviewed byboth the interviewer and interviewee to ensure that the final docu-ment is accurate and readable. Staff members also write an abstract,create a table of contents, and index the final interview transcript.Overall, oral history interviews explore the development of organiza-tions, the moments of innovation, and the growth of ideas in waysnot found in secondary sources or in other formal communicationsand publications. The results become part of the historical record,and the Center makes them available to scientists, historians, and thepublic.

The Oral History Program is creating a world-class collection ofcomprehensive, professionally edited interviews with leading figuresin the chemical, molecular, and biomedical sciences and related in-dustries. CHF has conducted more than 350 oral history interviewssince the early 1980s. Oral histories completed between 2004 and2006 covered a diverse range of fields and explored areas of scientific


and business endeavor critical to the future. The following is a list ofindividuals whose oral histories were recorded during that period:

• Jane Alexander, deputy director of the Homeland SecurityAdvanced Research Projects Agency

• Allen Bard, inventor of scanning electrochemistry microscopy,which is used to image and analyze surface structures

• Craig Barrett, former president and CEO of Intel Corpo-ration

• Sherry Bartolucci, CEO of Synergistica and former chiefadministrative officer of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foun-dation

• Klaus Biemann, known as the father of biological mass spec-trometry, whose work resulted in peptide sequencing

• Julius Blank, cofounder of Fairchild Semiconductor, the com-pany famous for pioneering Silicon Valley

• Richard Bolte, founder of BDP International, a leader in theglobal shipping industry

• Steven Burrill, biotech investment pioneer and author of thewidely used annual Burrill report

• Dennis Carson, director of the Rebecca and John MooresUCSD Cancer Center

• Lewis Coleman, president of the Gordon and Betty MooreFoundation

• Carl Djerassi, renowned organic chemist and coinventor ofthe first oral contraceptive pill

• Jean Frechet, an innovator of the photoresist materials andtechniques now used to make integrated circuits

• Dov Frohman, former president of Intel Israel and inventorof the EPROM computer memory device—a forerunner oftoday’s nonvolatile solid-state memory

• Walter Gilbert, a Nobel laureate, the inventor of a DNA-sequencing technique that revolutionized molecular biology,and a cofounder of Biogen, a leading biotech company


• Harry Gray, a pioneer in the field of bioinorganic chemistry,a leading researcher on electron transfer, and a founding di-rector of the Beckman Institute at the California Institute ofTechnology

• Andrew S. Grove, cofounder and former CEO of Intel Cor-poration, which revolutionized personal computing

• Paul Hansma, leading scientist in the use of atomic forcemicroscopes for looking at the nanoscale level of biologicalmaterials, a previously impossible task

• Amanda Hawes, a toxic chemical litigation specialist nation-ally recognized for work protecting the health and safety ofelectronics workers

• Alan Heeger, a Nobel laureate who helped to develop plasticsthat conduct electricity

• Ralph Hirschmann, a prominent medicinal chemist at Merckand the University of Pennsylvania, who carried out pioneer-ing work in the field of peptidomimetics

• Leroy Hood, inventor of the automated DNA sequencer thatmade possible the mapping of the human genome

• Evelyn Hu, codirector of California Nanosystems Instituteand fundamental scientist whose research led to the develop-ment of high-resolution fabrication techniques for semicon-ductor device structures

• John Hull, pioneer of the technology for direct encapsulationof electronics with plastic using transfer molding techniques

• Michael Hunkapiller, biomolecular scientist whose company’sinvention of the first semi-automated sequencer significantlyadvanced the Human Genome Project

• E. William Jensen, founder of the Geoscience Nuclear Divi-sion at Geoscience Instruments Company

• R. Victor Jones, Robert L. Wallace Research Professor of Ap-plied Physics at Harvard University and former senior engineerat Shockley Semiconductor, where he worked on semicon-ductor materials and device development


• William Joyce, innovator of a new transoceanic telephonecable and the UNIPOL process for creating high-density poly-ethylene at Union Carbide, and then CEO of Hercules andNalco

• Donald Klein, inventor of the self-aligned silicon-gate pro-cess, a key element in the fabrication of very-large-scaleintegrated circuits

• Joseph LaDou, University of California, San Francisco, pro-fessor of medicine renowned for his global efforts to reduceoccupational and environmental health hazards

• Jay Last, cofounder of Fairchild Semiconductor, the companyrenowned for its foundational role in Silicon Valley

• Barbara Low, who helped determine the structure of penicil-lin and who wrote the first three-dimensional computerprogram for interpretation of X-ray diffraction data

• Alan MacDiarmid, Nobel laureate and pioneer in the field ofconducting polymers

• John D. Macdougall, developer of ion implantation technol-ogy at Sprague Electric

• John Maltabes, pioneer of state-of-the-art lithography at IBM• Kenneth E. Manchester, developer of ion implantation tech-

nology at Sprague Electric• William McMinn, executive in the petrochemical industry

who began at Monsanto and later served as president of CainCorporation

• Carver Mead, the Gordon and Betty Moore Professor Emeri-tus at the California Institute of Technology and a renownedmicroelectronics researcher whose theories and inventions ledthe industry toward submicron technology

• Gordon Moore, a cofounder of Intel Corporation and pio-neer of the design of the integrated circuit (his observation in1965 regarding the exponential growth of the number of tran-sistors able to fit on an integrated circuit has proved accurateand is now known as Moore’s law)


• Roy Neville, founder of the materials science department atBoeing and creator of the polymer found on the Apollo Sat-urn V boosters; also an avid bibliophile who amassed one ofthe world’s leading collections of rare science texts

• Robert Palmer, a member of the founding team at Mostek,where he pioneered the use of ion implantation technologyfor the manufacture of metal-oxide semiconductor circuits

• Rudolph Pariser, a longtime DuPont polymer chemist andresearch manager known for codeveloping the Pariser–Parr–Pople method of computing molecular electronic wave func-tions

• Edward Penhoet, cofounder of Chiron, one of the earliestand most influential biotech companies, which under his lead-ership produced the first genetically engineered vaccine

• Herbert Pratt, retired DuPont chemist and founder of the Bol-ton Society, which promotes the preservation of chemistry-related books and materials

• Mark Ratner, a pioneer of the nanotechnology field and headof Northwestern University’s Nanotechnology Institute

• Ivor Royston, founder of Hybritech, the first San Diego bio-technology company, which catalyzed the formation of abiotech cluster in the region

• Whit Sadler, who led Solvay America from its re-entry intothe U.S. market to its current market success and leadershipin the industry

• Chih-Tang Sah, known for his contribution to the develop-ment of metal-oxide semiconductor transistors and as thefounder of the University of Illinois’s Solid-State Device Labo-ratory

• Herman Schroeder, former director of research at DuPont• Harry Sello, former researcher and executive for Shockley

Semiconductor and Fairchild Semiconductor, where heworked on the first integrated microchip


• Henry I. Smith, leading discoverer of electron tunnel mi-croscopy and founder of the Nanotechonology Institute atthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Morgan Sparks, inventor of the first junction transistor atShockley Semiconductor

• John Sprague, former president and CEO of Sprague Elec-tric Company

• James C. Stevens, research fellow at the Dow Chemical Com-pany whose many discoveries in applied polymer chemistryand catalysis resulted in commercial success

• Morris Tanenbaum, inventor of the first silicon transistorand the first high-field superconducting magnets while aresearcher at Bell Laboratories

• Henri Termeer, longtime CEO of Genzyme, one of the world’sleading biotechnology companies, which focuses on rare ge-netic diseases

• Leslie Vadasz, who led the Intel design teams that helped de-velop the first DRAM (dynamic random access memory) chip,as well as other innovations, including Intel’s first general-purpose microprocessor

• Samuel Weissman, chemist active on the Manhattan Projectand later involved in the development of electron paramag-netic resonance spectroscopy

• Stan Williams, senior Hewlett-Packard fellow whose researchin nanostructures is foundational for the next generation oftech devices

• C. Grant Willson, named by the American Chemical Societyas a “Hero of Chemistry” for codiscovering materials that willenable smaller computer chips and processors

• Kurt Wuthrich, discoverer of ring flips in proteins, whichresulted in the acceptance of nuclear magnetic resonance spec-troscopy as a key technique in structural biology.


A bound copy of each oral history interview and all informationpertaining to the interview are deposited at CHF’s Othmer Libraryof Chemical History; the interviews are cataloged in the OthmerLibrary’s online catalog. Each oral history file contains the originalrecording and research materials collected in the course of preparingfor the interview, including scientific papers, patents, and otherbiographical information.


Publications and Lectures

Peer-Reviewed Articles

Hyungsub Choi and Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Molecular Electronics inthe Longue Durée: The Microelectronics Origins of Nanotechnology.”Social Studies of Science (forthcoming, 2007).

Long before there was nanotechnology, the semiconductor industrywas miniaturizing microelectronic components at a rate defined byMoore’s law. Since the late 1950s the dominant manufacturing ma-terial of that industry has been silicon. Yet competitors to siliconhave always been present—technologies that supporters hope willupend the semiconductor industry and bring them competitiveadvantage. We argue that it is impossible to understand the semicon-ductor industry without first having a more complete picture of thesealternatives—how they come about, how they come to capture orga-nizational support, what kinds of scientists and engineers championthem, and why they fail. We also argue that it is impossible to under-stand nanotechnology without first focusing on these alternatives.Each time one has failed, it has usually been spun into an indepen-dent academic research community. Today those communities formthe backbone of the nanotechnology field. We trace the history ofthe longest-lived silicon alternative—molecular electronics.

Molecular electronics arose in the late 1950s as a visionary pro-gram conducted by Westinghouse on behalf of the Air Force; weattribute the program’s failure to the difficulties inherent in match-ing a futuristic vision to a bureaucratically accountable, incrementalprogram that could compete with silicon. Molecular electronics re-appeared again at IBM in the 1970s and at the Naval ResearchLaboratory in the 1980s—each time as a futuristic alternative to sili-con computing promoted by a talented, charismatic, but fringescientist. In each of these incarnations it failed to gain the organi-zational support to become a mainstream technology. Only in the


1990s, with the rise of institutions for nanotechnology and the de-cline of pipeline models of innovation, has molecular electronicsneared acceptance by the semiconductor industry.

Christophe Lécuyer and David C. Brock. “Gordon Earle Moore.”IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 28 (July–September 2006),89–95.

Gordon Earle Moore, a chemist with a Ph.D. from the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology, was a key figure in the rise of the semi-conductor industry and silicon integrated-circuit technology. Moorecofounded Fairchild Semiconductor and subsequently the Intel Cor-poration. In 1965 Moore published an observation about the expo-nential pace of development in integrated-circuit manufacturingtechnology that has come to be known as Moore’s law. This articledescribes Moore’s contributions to semiconductor devices and thesemiconductor industry, which had a major impact on the develop-ment of Silicon Valley as a high-technology district.

Christophe Lécuyer and David C. Brock. “The Materiality of Mi-croelectronics.” History and Technology 22 (September 2006), 301–325.

This study advocates for “materials-centered” accounts in the his-tory of technology and presents such an analysis for the early historyof microelectronics. Innovations in semiconductor crystal produc-tion were central to the emergence of solid-state electronics and thedynamics of the early semiconductor industry. In the late 1940sand early 1950s the Bell Telephone Laboratories developed noveltechniques for growing semiconductor single crystals. These crystal-making techniques were scaled up at Texas Instruments for theproduction of silicon transistors and thereby underwrote the firm’srise as a dominant manufacturer of silicon devices. Shockley Semi-conductor, a West Coast start-up, sought to gain a competitiveadvantage in the silicon device business by developing a new tech-nique for producing silicon crystals. The failure of this strategycontributed to the disintegration of the firm, with several key staff


members leaving to establish Fairchild Semiconductor. Learning fromShockley’s failure, Fairchild Semiconductor developed a low-costsingle-crystal production capability that allowed it to introduce twomilestone microelectronic devices: the double-diffused planar tran-sistor and the integrated circuit.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Rethinking Mergers and Acquisitions: Howto Involve R&D in Company Growth.” Chemistry Business (Septem-ber 2004), 26–29.

The chemical industry has a rich history of innovation. Since themid-1980s a wave of mergers has consolidated the industry and ledto research on a scale unimaginable to the scientists who worked forfirms in the early twentieth century. However, even as the number ofmergers increased over the past decade, the funding dedicated to R&Dhas suffered under stringent cost-cutting measures and restructur-ing. Some recent commentators have gone so far as to suggest thatinnovation has no role in delivering future growth to this industry.In this article Daemmrich analyzes the shift from internal R&Dspending to mergers and acquisitions. He discusses the successes andfailures of this new model and presents his suggestions for maximiz-ing internal growth by continuing to support in-house R&D.

Audience members listen to a lecture sponsored by the Center.


Conference Papers and Invited Talks

Arthur Daemmrich. “Innovation Cultures Meet Regulatory Cul-tures: The Pharmaceutical Industry and National Competitiveness.”Drug Trajectories V: Ways of Regulating, Berlin, 30 November–2 December 2006.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “The Long Arm of Moore’s Law.” Amherst Lawand Science Seminar, Amherst, Massachusetts, 27 November 2006.

Christophe Lécuyer. “Manufacturing the PC Revolution: The De-velopment of Silicon Gate Technology.” Society for the History ofTechnology Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 12–15 October2006.

David C. Brock. “High-Tech Manufacturing.” Society for the His-tory of Technology Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 12–15October 2006.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Pharmaceutical Demand Realization.” Historyof Science Society/Society for the History of Technology AnnualMeeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 3–6 November 2005.

Christophe Lécuyer. “Making Silicon Valley, 1930–1970.” Officefor the History of Science and Technology, University of California,Berkeley, 2 May 2005.

Arthur Daemmrich. “A Contested Relationship: Regulation and In-novation in Pharmaceutical Development in the U.S. and Germany.”German Historical Institute, Science and Technology in the 20thCentury: Cultures of Innovation in Germany and the United States,Washington, D.C., 15–16 October 2004.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “On Becoming a Nanoscientist: Shifting Identi-ties in the Probe Microscopy Community.” Michigan State UniversityLyman Briggs School of Science talk, East Lansing, 18 February 2004.

Christophe Lécuyer. “The Secret of Silicon Valley.” Department ofEconomic History, London School of Economics, London, Febru-ary 2004.


Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Studying from the Middle: Following Media-tors into the Laboratory.” Workshop on “Studying Up: The Problemsand Prospects of Multi-Sited Ethnography.” University of Califor-nia, Berkeley, 1–3 February 2004.


Riskand

Regulation

The revolutionary idea

that defines the boundary

between modern times

and the past

is the mastery of risk.

—Peter L. Bernstein

� � �


Conferences

Risk and Safety in Pharmaceutical Innovation

Risks associated with new drugs and medical devices challenge ex-pectations for progress in medicine and can undermine public trustin industry, physicians, and the government. While international ef-forts have been made to ensure safety in medicine, the contexts inwhich medical innovation takes place create different understand-ings of acceptable risks. To understand these issues better, the 2003Gordon Cain Conference addressed a set of related questions: Howdo risk perception and response differ among key actors and institu-tions (inventors, manufacturers, statisticians, regulators, physicians,patients, and the media)? What types of evidence are used to decideon risk and safety? Who has the power to decide whether a proce-dure, drug, or device is risky or safe? Talks by leading European andAmerican scholars helped explain the historical development of mod-ern notions of risk and safety while emphasizing their contingentand context-dependent character. The presentations also provided acomparative background for evaluating contemporary problems inmedical innovation.

Thomas Schlich and Ulrich Tröhler, editors. The Risks of MedicalInnovation: Risk Perception and Assessment in Historical Context (Lon-don: Routledge, 2006).

Questions of risk and safety have increasingly gained significance inthe development of biomedicine in the past two hundred years, butthe way dangers involved in medical innovations are portrayed anddiscussed has varied, often being highly dependent on context. Withchapters adapted from talks presented during the 2003 Cain Confer-ence, The Risks of Medical Innovation studies specific cases of medicalinnovation in their respective contexts, including X-rays, the birth-control pill, and thalidomide. Cases are looked at through the lens of


a particular set of shared questions concerning risk, highlightingdifferences, similarities, continuities, and changes and offering a his-torical sociology of risk. Particularlyimportant is the reconceptualizationof dangers in terms of risk, a numeri-cal and probabilistic approach thatallowed for seemingly objective andvalue-neutral decisions. However, thehistorical examples show that the po-litical dimension inherent in any deci-sion about medical innovation doesnot simply disappear by reframing itin terms of risk.

Read together, the chapters add tothe current debate about risk and safetyby providing a comparative background and a set of generally appli-cable criteria for analyzing and evaluating contemporary issues aroundmedical innovation.

FDA Centennial, 1906–2006:The Past, Present, and Future of Regulating Food,Drugs, Medical Devices, and Nutritional Supplements

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates consumerproducts that make up one-quarter of the U.S. economy. From itsorigins in the USDA Department of Chemistry, the FDA has grownto nearly ten thousand employees and a $1.8 billion annual budget.Its role in overseeing our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, human andveterinary drugs, and medical devices is a frequent topic of policydebate.

The joint conference of the FDA and the Center for Contempo-rary History and Policy on 16 May 2006 examined the past hundredyears of the FDA and facilitated discussion of current and near-termissues in risk and regulation. The conference promoted dialogue


among regulators and constituent communities, including industryand public-interest groups. Participants were educated about issuesin regulation and identified models for the future.

Each panel featured two twenty-five-minute presentations, oneby an FDA representative and one by an industry representative.Speakers addressed how to regulate during a period of rapid changein science and technology, the relationship of regulation to competi-tiveness in a globalizing economy, and the role of business andgovernment in light of changes in how consumers obtain and usehealth information.

Arthur Daemmrich and Joanna Radin, editors. Perspectives on Riskand Regulation: The FDA at 100 (Philadelphia: Chemical HeritageFoundation, forthcoming, 2007).

This book offers a unique set of viewpoints and predictions by FDAand industry leaders for the future of food, drug, medical device, andnutritional supplement regulation. It contains edited versions of thetalks presented by FDA center directors and industry leaders alongwith summaries of lively discussions that took place during the FDAcentennial conference. In a period of rapid scientific and marketchanges the success of regulation in these areas increasingly hingeson communication and collaboration between the FDA and the pri-vate sector. Book chapters alternate between the perspectives of regu-lators and industry representatives, each of whom provides incisivesuggestions and recommendations for fostering deeper relationshipswhile maintaining a commitment to protecting consumer health. Bysituating these chapters within the FDA’s regulatory history, the vol-ume presents readers with new tools for evaluating policy recom-mendations and will better equip the public and experts to assesspressing regulatory issues.


A political cartoon from 1906 shows Uncle Sam holding a bottle that features“Doc” Wiley, author of the Pure Food and Drugs Act, as a cure for fake foods andquack remedies. Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration History Office.

Intellectual Property and Drug Development

In recent years debates concerning intellectual property have takencenter stage in health policy, trade agreements, and internationaldevelopment. The role of intellectual property in the invention anddistribution of pharmaceuticals has also become highly contentious,with new patents on gene sequences, organisms, and processes for


making medicines prompting fears that drug companies will monopo-lize disease treatment and ignore the needs of patients in develop-ing countries. Whereas intellectual property was traditionally viewedas fundamental to industrial research and the mass production ofmedicines that enhance people’s lives, pharmaceutical patents are nowincreasingly blamed for the failure to develop treatments for diseasesprevalent in the developing world and for inequalities in the distri-bution of medicines and access to care in developed countries.

A distinguished set of speakers at this half-day symposium on13 May 2004 explored the relationship of intellectual property topharmaceutical policy and politics, focusing on the status of the in-tellectual property system, dilemmas facing health care systems aroundthe world, and the viability of alternatives to current approaches toenforcing patents.

White Paper, Forthcoming, 2007

As the price of pharmaceuticals has come under increasing scrutinyby payers and patients, a divide has emerged concerning the role ofintellectual property in conveying a monopoly to the companies thatinvent, test, and manufacture medicines. On one side are those argu-ing that patents confer a monopoly necessary to recoup the high costsof inventing and bringing to market new treatments. Supporters ofthis line of reasoning typically advocate uniform global patent poli-cies and enforcement of existing laws. On the other side are thosearguing that patents create perverse incentives that drive the devel-opment of therapies primarily for the wealthy to the detriment ofpatients in developing countries. Supporters of this line of reasoningadvocate significant patent reform and government support for ge-nerics. This report recommends a balance that promotes both aninnovative pharmaceutical sector and greater availability of medicinesto patients in developing countries. Policy makers must recognizethat the intellectual property system has supported innovation forover 250 years, and the pharmaceutical market today is made up of a


complex and shifting set of actors that includes large global pharma-ceutical firms, small biotech companies, generic drug manufacturers,and nonprofit groups seeking to invent and distribute new therapiesin developing countries. Effective reforms must look beyond the in-tellectual property system and tackle disparities in wealth and healthbetween nations.


Projects

Science and Society Podcasting

Using the new medium of podcasting—digital audio files that canbe downloaded onto computers or personal electronic devices—theCenter has worked collaboratively with David Lemberg’s “Scienceand Society” program to give voice to scientists and analysts fromindustry, academia, and government. The initiative’s goal is to createa forum that will advance reasoned public policy and promote greaterpublic understanding of the chemical and molecular sciences andindustries.

Each week the “Science and Society” podcast program bringstogether three leading scientists to describe their work and its broaderimplications. Together these interviews offer a critical set of insightsinto the role of industry in advancing science, challenges in the inno-vation process, and ways of addressing such critical issues as futureenergy sources, applied materials science, and health care.

“Science and Society” thus provides a supportive conversationalenvironment, allowing guests to present their mission and messageto a wide-ranging and inclusive international audience. The podcastseries participates in the process of strengthening the links betweenscience and society, helping to improve daily living, health, and well-being for all of us for decades to come.

Two of the Center’s program managers have been featured on“Science and Society” podcasts: Arthur Daemmrich, speaking onhealth care and regulation (http://www.scienceandsociety.net/podcasts/archives/2006/06/dr_arthur_daemm.html), and Cyrus Mody, speak-ing on nanotechnology (http://www.scienceandsociety.net/podcasts/archives/2006/07/dr_cyrus_mody_p.html).



Arthur Daemmrich. Pharmacopolitics: Drug Regulation in the UnitedStates and Germany (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,2004).

Advocates of rapid access to medicines and critics fearful of inad-equate testing both argue that globalization will supersede nationalmedical practices and result in the easy transfer of pharmaceuticalsaround the world. In Pharmacopolitics, Arthur Daemmrich challengestheir assumptions by comparing drug laws, clinical trials, and sys-tems for monitoring adverse reactions in the United States and Ger-many, two countries with similarly advanced systems for medicalresearch, testing, and patient care. Daemmrich proposes that diver-gent “therapeutic cultures”—the interrelationships among govern-ments, patients, the medical profession, and the pharmaceuticalindustry—underlie national differences and explain variations inpharmaceutical markets and medical care.

Daemmrich carries the United States–Germany comparison from1950 to the present through case studies of Terramycin (an anti-biotic), thalidomide (a sedative), propranolol (a heart medication),interleukin-2 (a cancer therapy), and indinavir (an AIDS drug). InAmerica regulators have delineated a strict boundary between pre-market testing and market approval, while their German counter-parts have adopted a more flexible approach that blurs the distinctionbetween premarket and postmarket oversight. Testing methods inthe United States are monitored by government officials; in Ger-many this role is filled by medical professionals. Most striking per-haps is that patients in the United States increasingly challenge expertrisk assessments and demand greater access to drugs, even in the earlystages of clinical trials. Such features of patient activism are largelyabsent in Germany.

In each of these areas, Daemmrich argues, different political con-structions of “the patient” in the United States and Germany produce


variations in government policies and in the distribution of poweramong key social actors. Daemmrich advises that international regu-latory harmonization and globalization in medicine must retainflexibility for social and political variation between countries, even asthey achieve technical standardization.

Peer-Reviewed ArticlesArthur Daemmrich and Mary Ellen Bowden. “A Rising Drug In-dustry: Pharmaceuticals Since 1870.” Chemical and Engineering News(20 June 2005), 28–42.

This article traces the development of the pharmaceutical industrysince 1870. Among the threads explored are the role of chemicalprofessionals in inventing new therapies; the complex interplay ofscientists, industry, government regulators, physicians, and patientsin converting laboratory molecules into medical therapies; and thechanging professional roles of scientists and physicians in the wakeof increased government regulation and patient activism.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Small, but Determined: Technological Deter-minism in Nanoscience.” Hyle/Techne 10 (2004), 99–128.

Analysis of technological determinism by historians, sociologists, andphilosophers has declined in recent years. Yet understanding this topicis necessary, particularly in examining the dynamics of emerging tech-nologies and their associated research areas. This is especially true ofnanotechnology, which, because of its roots in futurist traditions,employs unusual variants on classical determinist arguments. In par-ticular, nanotechnology is oriented much more strongly to the pastand the future than most traditional disciplines. This nonpresentismstrongly colors its proponents’ articulation of the field’s definition,purview, and likely development. This paper explores nano’s non-presentism and suggests ways to further explore nanodeterminism.


Arthur Daemmrich. “Invisible Monuments and the Costs of Phar-maceutical Regulation: Twenty-Five Years of Drug Lag Debate.”Pharmacy in History 45 (2003), 3–17.

This paper reviews the drug lag issue, a highly politicized debate aboutthe speed with which new drugs are approved in the United States,from its start in the early 1970s through its apparent resolution inthe mid-1990s. Daemmrich argues that throughout the debate dif-ferent visions of “the patient” were at stake. Winners at any givenmoment were those who could best portray their position, as em-bodied in an easily visualized or, better yet, actually visible victimizedpatient. During the 1970s critics of the FDA portrayed an abstract,often invisible patient who suffered because of the delay in approv-ing helpful therapeutics. But the FDA described an easily visualizedpatient that needed protection from the pharmaceutical industry. Thispatient was readily seen on television and in print owing to mediaattention given to the deformed children born during the thalido-mide tragedy and other victims of adverse drug reactions. In the 1980sand early 1990s, however, the tables were turned. Critics, now in-cluding cancer and AIDS activists, gave a visible face to patientsneeding more rapid access to new drugs. The FDA initially tried toretain its precautionary stance based on the potential harm of sideeffects but then relented and changed regulatory procedures. As aresult new drugs came on the market more quickly, ending the po-litical saliency of comparisons with approval rates in other countries.Though no longer a burning political issue, drug approval rates havelonger-term implications in contemporary disputes about the costsand duration of clinical testing.



Arthur Daemmrich. “International Perspectives on Thalidomide.”FDA Science Forum, Washington, D.C., 17–19 April 2006.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Pharmacovigilance: Historical Perspective onPost-Market Data Collection.” Keck Graduate Institute, The Past,Present and Future of Food and Drug Regulation: Commemoratingthe 100th Anniversary of the FDA, Claremont, California, 13 April2006.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Trajectories in Pharmaceutical R&D, Markets,and Regulation.” American Chemical Society Annual Meeting, At-lanta, Georgia, 26–30 March 2006.

Arthur Daemmrich. “International Harmonization of Drug Regula-tion: Historical Lessons and Prospects for the Future.” AmericanPharmacists Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 17–21March 2006.

Arthur Daemmrich, director of the Center, addresses conference participants.


Arthur Daemmrich. “Side Effects and Pharmacovigilance: The Mar-ket as a Testing Site.” American Association for the Advancement ofScience Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, 16–20 February 2006.

Ted Everson. “Defining Illness: Genomic Medicine and Its Discon-tents.” Society for the Social History of Medicine, From the Cradleto the Grave: Future Perspectives on the Social History of Healthand Healthcare, Glasgow, Scotland, 11–12 January 2006.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Harmonizing Drug Regulation: EmbeddingPolicy and Politics in Safety and Efficacy Standards.” Perspectives on20th-Century Pharmaceuticals, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford,U.K., 14–17 July 2005.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Risk Transformation: A New Era for Chemi-cals Regulation in the United States and Europe?” London School ofEconomics, Center for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, 15 February2005.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Global Clinical Trials of Pharmaceuticals: Con-structing a Multi-polar Patient for International Drug Approvals.”Society for Social Studies of Science/European Association for theStudy of Science and Technology Annual Meeting, Paris, 26–29August 2004.

Ted Everson. “Genetics and Health: The Canadian Context.” Cana-dian Science and Technology Historical Association Biennial Con-ference, Kingston, Ontario, 17–19 October 2003.

Ted Everson. “Public Health Genomics: The Canadian Context.”Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association Annual Meet-ing, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1–4 June 2003.


Scientificand

Industrial Infrastructure

If I have seen

further than others,

it is by standing upon

the shoulders of giants.

—Isaac Newton

� � �


Conferences

Moore’s Law at 40: Chemistry and the Electronics Revolution

The year 2005 marked the fortieth anniversary of Moore’s law,Gordon E. Moore’s 1965 observation and prediction about the ex-ponential growth in the power of semiconductor technology. Mooreobserved that semiconductor technology had doubled in power ev-ery year and predicted that it would continue along this developmentalpath. In 1975 he updated this to a doubling about every two years.History has thus far proved Moore’s law correct, and the anniversarywas an opportunity to reflect on what has made this electronics revo-lution possible.

To raise awareness of the contributions of chemists and chemicalengineers to the development of the semiconductor industry and tobring new analytical perspectives to bear on Moore’s law, the Centerhosted a major symposium on 12–13 May 2005. Renowned speak-ers from industry and academia assessed the rise of semiconductorelectronics, its implications, and the enabling role of the chemicalsciences and technologies for key developments of the past four de-cades.

David C. Brock. Understanding Moore’s Law: Four Decades of Innova-tion (Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, 2006).

Over the past four decades Moore’s law has served as a remarkableguide to the dynamics of the silicon revolution. Born as an observa-tion and medium-term prediction about the economic and technicaltrends at play in the youth of the semiconductor industry, Moore’slaw grew to become an industry expectation and eventually the orga-nizing goal of a multibillion-dollar global industrial segment. Withthe proliferation of silicon chips into nearly every aspect of contem-


porary life, Moore’s law is increasingly looked to as a bellwether forthe whole of technological development.

This book contains Gordon Moore’s original submission to Elec-tronics, a reprint of his seminal 1965 article, and his first-personanalysis of Moore’s law at its tenth and fortieth anniversaries, alongwith perspectives from other industry leaders and academic analysts.Together the chapters place the silicon revolution in a broad contextand chart the development of Gordon Moore’s eponymous law acrossits forty-year life.

Gordon Moore’s 1965 projection of the number of components on an integratedcircuit.


Nano Before There Was Nano:Historical Perspectives on the Constituent Communitiesof Nanotechnology (2005 Gordon Cain Conference)

In the popular press as well as in policy debates nanotechnology isusually represented as a dramatic break with the past, a new sciencefor a new millennium. Both supporters and critics want there to bejust one monolithic nanotechnology that is new, different, and there-fore easy to tag as scary or wonderful. Yet nanotechnology has ante-cedents, and a better understanding of its history will enable moresophisticated discussions about where nano is novel enough to neednew policies and regulations and where it is related to older fieldswith currently adequate legal frameworks. A more complete historyof nano will give the public and policy makers access to a toolkit ofhistorical analogies to other fields—which aspects of nano mightdevelop like biotech, which like nuclear power, and which like mate-rials science. Finally, historical examination of the different fields thatmake up nanotechnology—including probe microscopy, micro-fabrication, and supramolecular chemistry—will show how the val-ues and practices of those communities differ and whether policies(particularly environmental health and safety regulation and intel-lectual property law) need to be tailored for those communities ratherthan simply applied to nanotechnology as a whole.

The 2005 Cain Conference was the first attempt to raise anddebate these issues. The program featured eleven papers by histori-ans, sociologists, rhetoricians, art historians, philosophers, and an-thropologists on various aspects of nanotechnology’s history. Theconference was also unusual in hosting four papers by prominentnanotechnology practitioners.

Five papers from the conference are currently being prepared fora special issue of Social Studies of Science that will bring attention tohistorical research on nanotechnology and the efforts of the Centerin this area.


Gordon Research Conferences History Project

Gordon Research Conferences (GRC) provide an international fo-rum for the presentation and discussion of frontier research in thebiological, chemical, and physical sciences and their related tech-nologies. Since 1931, GRC has provided a service to the research anddevelopment community through the organization and support ofunique and intimate scientific conferences. From an initial few week-long sessions held each summer in the Chesapeake Bay area duringthe 1930s, GRC expanded significantly and now hosts over 180 con-ferences annually. They are held in New England, California, andinternationally and attract some twenty thousand participants.

The GRC history project began in 2002 with the transfer, pro-cessing, and preservation of GRC’s historical records, which are nowavailable at CHF to scientists and historians. Next the project team

First drawing of a buckyball, by Richard Smalley. Richard SmalleyCollection, CHF.


produced a poster, “History and Evolution of the Gordon ResearchConferences,” to illustrate GRC’s growth and role in stimulating sci-entific innovation. GRC’s seventy-fifth anniversary year of 2006featured the release of the book Reflections from the Frontiers and thelaunch of the Web site www.frontiersofscience.org. The site is anonline overview of GRC history and showcases its growth, personalnarratives and recollections, oral histories with past GRC leaders,and reference tools. The site also provides the opportunity for con-ference participants to tell their stories.

Historical research, analysis, and writing for the project drew onthe GRC archives, other primary and secondary sources, oral historyinterviews, quantitative databases of attendee demographics, andqualitative surveys of participants. Essayists in the publication wereselected through consultation with the history project advisory com-mittee to reflect the breadth and depth of participants at GordonConferences.

Gordon Research Conferences group photograph from the 1940s, taken at the GibsonIsland site. Records of the Gordon Research Conferences, CHF Collections.


Arthur Daemmrich, Nancy Ryan Gray, and Leah Shaper, editors.Reflections from the Frontiers, Explorations for the Future: Gordon Re-search Conferences, 1931–2006 (Philadelphia: Chemical HeritageFoundation, 2006).

This publication tells the story of the Gordon Research Conferences.Firsthand accounts from eighty of the world’s leading scientists offera unique lens through which to view and understand the wide rangeof disciplines and fields that make up today’s scientific endeavor. Alsoincluded in the book is a timeline, as well as essays that provide his-torical perspective on the development of the GRC organization.



Christophe Lécuyer. Making Silicon Valley: Innovation and the Growthof High Tech, 1930–1970 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005).

In Making Silicon Valley, Christophe Lécuyer shows that the explo-sive growth of the personal computer industry in Silicon Valley wasthe culmination of decades of growth and innovation in the SanFrancisco–area electronics industry. He explores the formation of Sili-con Valley as an industrial district, from its beginnings as the homeof a few radio enterprises that operated in the shadow of RCA andother East Coast firms through its establishment as a center of theelectronics industry and a leading producer of power-grid tubes, mi-crowave tubes, and semiconductors. He traces the emergence of theinnovative practices that made this growth possible by following keygroups of engineers and entrepreneurs, and argues that Silicon Valley’semergence and growth were made possible by the development ofunique competencies in manufacturing, product engineering, andmanagement. Entrepreneurs learned to integrate invention, design,manufacturing, and sales logistics, and they developed incentives toattract and retain a skilled and motivated workforce.

Ted Everson. Approaches to Heredity: A Concise History of the Gene(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, forthcoming 2007).

The gene as a unit of hereditary information was first conceptualizedin the early twentieth century. By mid-century the gene was discov-ered to be physically located within a molecule called deoxyribonucleicacid, or DNA. By the end of the century DNA had become an objectof experimentation and manipulation, as genetic engineering prom-ises to revolutionize biology and medicine. The twentieth centurywas indeed the century of the gene. However, the concept of hered-ity has a much deeper history, spanning the entire history of Westernthought.


In Approaches to Heredity: A Concise History of the Gene, TedEverson tracks the evolution of ideas of inheritance, beginning in theprehistoric era and traveling into the present day. All the great ages ofWestern civilization produced thinkers who struggled to understandwhy offspring look like their parents and generally why living thingsdisplay the remarkable ability to reproduce themselves faithfully overcountless generations. Was there something special about life thatallowed for such a feat?

These issues have been central to several millennia of specula-tion, observation, and experimentation regarding the nature of he-redity. This book, written for a nontechnical audience interested inan in-depth analysis of the history of genetics, explores some of theseactivities, in the process revealing remarkably consistent issues thatpeople have struggled with in order to understand inheritance.

Peer-Reviewed Articles and Book Chapters

Cyrus C. M. Mody and David Kaiser. “Scientific Training and theCreation of Scientific Knowledge.” In E. J. Hackett, O. Amster-damska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, editors, Handbook of Scienceand Technology Studies. 3rd edition (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,forthcoming 2007).

Gene expression. Source: U.S. Department of Energy Human Genome Program, http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis.


The intellectual forebears of science and technology studies—LudwigWittgenstein, Thomas Kuhn, Michel Foucault—were all deeply con-cerned with the relationship between education and knowledgemaking. Yet this interest declined in the early years of science andtechnology studies, when most sociologists of science focused on peer-to-peer scientific controversies and most historians of science educa-tion neglected pedagogy’s role in knowledge creation. The authorsreview and synthesize a recent turn in science and technology studiesto unite these literatures. Modern scientific research—even when itis not located at an overtly educational institution—is inseparablefrom pedagogy. Since nature is equivocal about its representation,the question of which instrument, image, or equation to use is oftenanswered by asking, “Which tool most facilitates pedagogy? Whichrepresentation is most easily passed on or most adequately manufac-tures a new generation that adheres to the vision and values of cur-rent practitioners?” Since all scientific knowledge contains some tacitcomponent, teaching never perfectly transmits information—fortu-nately so, since the awkwardness of students is a major source ofinnovation. And since modern science is built from interdisciplinary“trading zones,” different practitioners must continually teach eachother new languages and practices: “novice” and “expert” are neverstable categories in a modern laboratory. Mody and Kaiser explorethese intersections of science and pedagogy and show what they cantell us about the classic preoccupations of historians and sociologistsof science.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Universities, Corporations, and InstrumentalCommunities: Commercializing Probe Microscopy, 1981–1996.”Technology and Culture 47 (2006), 56–80.

Long-standing debates about the role of the university in nationalculture and the global economy have entered a new phase in the pastdecade in most industrialized and several industrializing countries.One important focus of this debate is corporate involvement in aca-demic scientific research. Proponents of the academic capitalism say


that corporate involvement makes the university leaner, more agile,and better able to respond to the needs of the day. Critics say thatcorporate involvement leaves society without the independent criti-cal voices traditionally lodged in universities. Cyrus Mody arguesthat a science and technology studies perspective, using case studiesof research communities, can push this debate in directions envi-sioned by neither proponents nor critics. Mody uses the develop-ment and commercialization of the scanning tunneling microscopeand the atomic force microscope as examples of how research com-munities continually redraw the line between corporate and academicinstitutions.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Nanotechnology and the Modern University.”Practicing Anthropology 28 (2006), 23–27.

As is often remarked, nanotechnology today is new less for the sci-ence and engineering knowledge being produced than for the newmodes of funding, new institutions, and new connections betweendisciplines being forged. Proponents of nanotechnology, though,express confidence that this revolution in organization will lead toa revolution in understanding. More than almost any other player,high-level university bureaucracies are the beneficiaries of this reor-ganization. While individual corporate, government, or academicresearchers are receiving only slightly elevated funding to do researchthat (in most cases) resembles what they would be doing even if therewere not a nanotechnology infrastructure, universities as a whole havefound nanotechnology a highly profitable way to build new lab-oratories, to sponsor new start-up incubators, and to deepen theiradministrative apparatus. So how are nanotechnology and the mod-ern university being coproduced? Cyrus Mody draws primarily on aseries of articles on nanotechnology in alumni magazines (supple-mented by analysis of other texts and interviews) for observations onthe nano-university. He pays particular attention to the way univer-sities have used campus nano activities to answer calls for reformfrom both the right and the left. Nano is presented not merely as the


latest in a university’s noble tradition of research but also as some-thing so new and revolutionary that it will remake the way scienceand engineering are done. The new creature, the nanotechnologist,will shake off the skin of the old disciplines of chemistry, physics,engineering, and biology and thereby avoid the old dichotomies ofcommercial crassness and the insular ivory tower. He or she will (uni-versities say) be entrepreneurial and profit making on the one handbut beholden to the public rather than the multinationals on theother hand. Mody concludes with some comparisons of “reform” talkaround nanotechnology with that surrounding other “new” sciencesof the twentieth century.

Christophe Lécuyer. “What Do Universities Really Owe Industry?The Case of Solid-State Electronics at Stanford University.” Minerva43 (2005), 51–71.

It is widely argued that in the United States the Department of De-fense dictated the intellectual contours of academic science andengineering during the cold war. However, in important ways Ameri-can science was also deeply influenced by industry. Between 1955and 1985 Stanford University embraced three waves of industrialinnovation in solid-state technology (transistors, integrated circuits,and very-large-scale integration systems). As this essay shows, thesetransfers enabled Stanford engineers to make significant contribu-tions to the expanding fields of microelectronics and computing.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “The Sounds of Science: Listening to Labora-tory Practice.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 30 (2005),175–198.

Works in science and technology studies have repeatedly pointed tothe importance of the visual in scientific practice. Science and tech-nology studies have also explicated how embodied practice generatesscientific knowledge. Mody aims to supplement this literature bypointing out how sound and hearing are integral aspects of experi-mentation. Sound helps define how and when lab work is done and


in what kinds of spaces. It structures experimental evidence. It af-fords interactions between researchers and instruments that are richerthan could be obtained with vision alone. And it is a site for tacitknowledge, providing a resource for the replication of results, thetransmission of knowledge, and the construction of social bound-aries within instrumental communities.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Instruments in Training: The Growth of Ameri-can Probe Microscopy in the 1980s.” In D. Kaiser, editor, Pedagogyand the Practice of Science: Producing Physical Scientists, 1800–2000(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 185–216.

Science and technology studies scholars have learned a great deal inrecent years about the difficulties of experimental replication andabout the processes of teaching and generational shift in science; yetthere has been little written linking these two problems. This paperexplores that intersection through a history of scanning tunnelingmicroscopy and atomic force microscopy in the United States in the1980s. The history of probe microscopy offers a comparative studyof two groups trying to unite replication of a difficult techniquewith the training of (sometimes difficult) newcomers. One groupconsisted of postdocs and junior researchers in surface science at prom-inent, largely East Coast corporate and national laboratories, especiallyIBM, Bell Labs, and the National Institute of Standards and Tech-nology. The other group consisted of academic physicists, chemists,and electrical engineers, primarily on the West Coast, who carvedout a more interdisciplinary, ragged version of probe microscopy wherethey would not have to compete with their better-resourced surfacescience colleagues in the larger laboratories. The pedagogical valuesof these institutions directly affected how the microscopes were de-signed and used, who could use them, and to whom their resultswere intelligible.


Cyrus C. M. Mody. “How Probe Microscopists Became Nanotech-nologists.” In D. Baird, A. Nordmann, and J. Schummer, editors,Discovering the Nanoscale (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2004), 119–133.

Nanoscale entities are by definition invisible to the unmediated senses.Yet generating images of these objects has been crucial to the rhetoricof nanotech boosters. Thus, bringing microscopes and microscopistsunder the nano umbrella has been central to the work of nano pro-ponents. No instruments have been more crucial to this process thanthe scanning tunneling microscope and atomic force microscope.Yet these two instruments have long histories that precede the adventof nano. Mody outlines this history, proposing that the connectionbetween probe microscopy and nano is contingent rather than self-evident. The drafting of the probe microscopy community into nanowas inspired by role differentiation within that community follow-ing the widespread commercialization of the instruments in the early1990s. As probe microscopists move into nano, they will likely re-make the field in light of the history of their community.


Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Conferences, Community, and Nanotechnology:From Birth to Rebirth.” Society for Social Studies of Science AnnualMeeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2–5 November 2006.

Ted Everson. “Genome Research Funding and the Construction ofGenetic Disease.” History of Science Society Annual Meeting,Vancouver, British Columbia, 2–5 November 2006.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Positioning as Central and Frontier: GordonResearch Conferences and Scientific Infrastructure.” Society for So-cial Studies of Science Annual Meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia,2–5 November 2006.

Ted Everson. “Commercializing Recombinant Human Insulin andGrowth Hormone at Genentech Inc., 1975–1985.” Society for the


History of Technology Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 12–15October 2006.

Christophe Lécuyer. “The Making of Silicon Valley.” Department ofHistory and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania, Phila-delphia, 1 May 2006.

Arthur Daemmrich. “Seventy-Five Years of Scientific Change.” Gor-don Research Conferences 75th Anniversary Celebration, GibsonIsland, Maryland, 8 April 2006.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Constituent Communities and the Creation ofNanotechnology.” Program on Science, Technology, and Society,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 27 February 2006.

Arthur Daemmrich. “History and Evolution of the Gordon ResearchConferences” (poster session). American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, St. Louis, Missouri, 10–14 February 2006.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Test Objects and the Materials of Commu-nity.” Society for the History of Technology Annual Meeting, Min-neapolis, Minnesota, 3–6 November 2005.

David C. Brock and Christophe Lécuyer. “The Materiality of Micro-electronics.” Society for the History of Technology Annual Meeting,Minneapolis, Minnesota, 3–6 November 2005.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Commercializing Probe Microscopy.” Massa-chusetts Institute of Technology Anthropology Colloquium, Cam-bridge, 24 October 2005.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Nanotechnology and the Modern University.”Society for Social Studies of Science Annual Meeting, Pasadena, Cali-fornia, 21 October 2005.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Commercializing Probe Microscopy.” NationalBureau of Economic Research, Science and Engineering WorkforceWorkshop, Boston, 20 October 2005.


Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Instrumental Communities and the Commer-cialization of Knowledge.” American Sociological Association AnnualMeeting, Philadelphia, 15 August 2005.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “The History of the AFM.” Panel discussion onSocial and Ethical Issues in Nanoscience and Engineering: What AreThey? National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network, CornellUniversity, Ithaca, New York, 8 April 2004.

Cyrus C. M. Mody. “Intervening Technology, Representing Tech-nique: Shifting Identities in the Probe Microscopy Community.”Conference on Imaging and Imagining Nanoscience and Engineer-ing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, 3–7 March 2004.


Looking Forward

In 2007 CCHP will host five conferences and symposia, publish twobooks, carry out independent research leading to several white pa-pers and peer-reviewed publications, and collect over sixty new oralhistories of leading scientists and entrepreneurs.

Conferences and Symposia in 2007

March 2007New Chemical Bodies: Biomonitoring, Body Burden, and theUncertain Threat of Environmental Endocrine Disruptors(2007 Gordon Cain Conference)

The synthesis of hundreds of thousands of new chemicals and themass production of some three thousand molecules over the past fivedecades has challenged our capability to identify and manage risks.Through the process of biomonitoring—measuring the presence ofa variety of synthetic chemicals in blood or urine samples—the U.S.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have begun to developpopulation-level data sets. However, many important scientific andpolicy questions remain concerning routes of exposure, hazards ofcompounds found at levels of parts per million or even parts perbillion, and possible interactions of compounds within our bodies.Speakers and attendees at this conference will explore these uncer-tainties. New modes of thinking about these problems seem necessaryand timely. Understanding the new chemical bodies of the twenty-first century requires new analytical tools—both instrumental andconceptual. A primary goal for this conference is to begin thinkingabout what this new set of tools might look like.

April 2007Building Biotechnology:The Past, Present, and Future of Biotechnology Clusters

In the past thirty years biotechnology has expanded from a smallnumber of innovative techniques and technologies to a thriving


industrial sector. Yet its growth has been uneven, with certain geo-graphic concentrations—clusters—of entrepreneurship and innova-tion that feature sophisticated networks of interconnected universities,service and supply firms, companies, and government support. To-day, as many regions, states, and countries compete to build theirown biotechnology centers, clustering has become a topic of signifi-cant interest and importance in economic and policy circles. Whatlessons are offered from the history of biotechnology clustering? Howcan these inform the current widespread interest in building regionalbiotechnology capacity? Speakers and participants at this conferencewill learn about past and present clusters while critically discussingthe future of regional biotechnology clusters.

May 2007The E. N. Brandt Oral History Symposium

In celebration of the Rollin M. Gerstacker Foundation’s endow-ment of the E. N. Brandt Oral History Program at CHF, the Centerwill hold a symposium on oral history methods and applications.The symposium will feature talks and discussion on the use of oralhistory as a method for capturing and interpreting the heritage, phi-losophy, and values of a company and as a learning tool for newmanager orientation and leadership training. Participants will alsoexplore the use of oral history in corporate communications to pro-mote public understanding of science and business and to inspire thenext generation of scientists and technologists. Other presentationswill address new methods for conducting, recording, transcribing,and processing oral history, including innovations in digitization.

June 2007Symposium on the Social Studies of Nanotechnology

Over the past decade nanotechnology has emerged as a critical areafor scientific and commercial development. This has been driven notonly by the scientific community and industry but also by govern-ments around the globe that consider this technological frontier crucial


to economic growth and national security. Seeded with $500 millionin 2001, the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) hassteadily increased funding to over $1.3 billion in 2006. Western Eu-ropean countries, Canada, and Japan now also invest hundreds ofmillions of dollars in nanotech research every year. NNI has signaledthe importance of social science expertise to these efforts by settingaside more than $40 million in FY 2006 for research on the ethical,legal, and social implications of nanotechnology. This joint sympo-sium of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and CHF’sCenter for Contemporary History and Policy will foster dialogueabout the role of the social sciences in nanotechnology. While socialscientists are largely unaware what research would be most helpful tonanotech stakeholders, those same stakeholders may be unaware ofwhat social scientists can offer. Speakers and participants at this sym-posium will include academic scientists, government officials, industrystakeholders, social scientists, and members of the public; togetherthey will map new areas for cooperation and develop new researchagendas.

September 2007Innovation Day, Warren G. Schlinger Symposium

The fourth annual SCI–CHF Innovation Day will bring togetheryoung industry scientists, technology managers, and senior execu-tives for a symposium that identifies solutions to real-world challengesand celebrates innovation in the chemical industry. Plenary andbreakout sessions will feature leading speakers focused on key issues,including eco-friendly products, sustainable chemistry and engineer-ing, the chemistry of energy sources, electronic materials, healthmaterials, and emerging global economies. The SCI Gordon E. MooreMedal will be awarded at the luncheon, and the SCI Perkin Medalwill be awarded at a special dinner event.


Oral History Project

Biomedical Perspectives:The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Oral History Initiative

The Center was recently awarded a three-year (initial) grant by thePew Charitable Trusts to create and foster use of the world’s leadingoral history collection in science, technology, and biomedicine. Thisnew initiative will integrate existing oral histories of the Pew Schol-ars Program in the Biomedical Sciences with CHF’s collection; recordand process new oral histories of Pew Scholars; expand interpretivepossibilities by re-interviewing select past awardees and select mem-bers of the advisory committee; and increase outreach and use of theoral histories through greater Internet presence, a fellowship focusedon oral history interpretation, and dissemination of publications fea-turing Pew Scholars.

The last fifty years have seen an extraordinary exponential growthof biomedical knowledge; an explosion of biomedical disciplines andsubdisciplines; an increasing tendency toward complex interdiscipli-

The process of making recombinant DNA. Source: Medics Medical Graphic Services.


nary programs and institutions; and rapid and complex changes inhow biomedical scientists exchange ideas, develop applications, andrecord new knowledge. This growth of biomedical knowledge andactivity poses special challenges for policy analysis and public under-standing. Oral histories carried out under this program will recordthe evolution of biomedical research and the impact of the Pew Schol-ars Program in the Biomedical Sciences, thereby creating an informedperspective of both the activities of biomedical innovation—the so-cial networks, the patterns of patronage, and the sometimes unpre-dictable and chaotic nature of scientific inquiry—and the importanceof grant-funded research to their development as scientists.

Beyond 2007

The Center will continue to develop and carry out projects that offerhistorical perspective to contemporary concerns with the goal of pro-viding audiences with comprehensive and original approaches topolicy-related topics. We also expect future projects to continue todraw on and contribute to the Roy Eddleman Institute and theOthmer Library at CHF. To realize our goals, we continue strategicplanning through consultations and interaction with outside experts.Specifically, we will broaden our outreach and dialogue capacitythrough a new advisory board that draws its membership from in-dustry, nongovernmental organizations, academia, and government.

By launching innovative projects on a diverse set of contem-porary topics, the Center will continue to advance scholarship oncritical issues, participate in dialogue with major interests in a forumthat advances public policy, and promote greater public engagementand understanding of the chemical and molecular sciences and in-dustries.


Center Staff, January 2007

Arthur DaemmrichDirector, Center for Contemporary History and Policy

Arthur Daemmrich earned a Ph.D. in science and technology stud-ies from Cornell University and a B.A. in history and sociology ofscience from the University of Pennsylvania. Daemmrich has heldfellowships from the Social Science Research Council/Berlin Programfor Advanced German and European Studies, the Kennedy Schoolof Government at Harvard University, and the Chemical HeritageFoundation. He has published widely on biotechnology policy andpolitics, the sociology of medicine, and pharmaceutical drug regula-tion; he is author of Pharmocopolitics: Drug Regulation in the UnitedStates and Germany and editor of several books.

Hyungsub ChoiProgram Manager, Electronic Materials

Hyungsub Choi is completing his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins Uni-versity in the history of science and technology. He earned his M.S.in history of technology at Georgia Institute of Technology and hisB.S. in engineering from Seoul National University. Choi took overthe Center’s Electronic Materials department in November 2006.He has published extensively on such subjects as the history of elec-tronic manufacturing in post–World War II Japan, RCA’s transistorproduction, and solid-state innovations.

Rasheedah CremerProgram Manager, Oral History

Rasheedah Cremer received her B.A. in anthropology from JohnsHopkins University. As manager of the Oral History program, Cremeris using her training to build a comprehensive and informative col-lection of scientific and industrial ethnographies. The Oral Historyprogram is built on the core principle that the preservation of the


insights and experiences of individuals in the chemical enterprisefacilitates an understanding of innovation, achievement, and thedevelopment and evolution of scientific disciplines. The program pre-serves a unique set of perspectives and enables current and futurescholarship on twentieth- and twenty-first-century science.

Ted EversonProgram Manager, Biotechnology

Ted Everson earned a Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science andtechnology from the University of Toronto and an M.S. in medicalgenetics from the University of British Columbia. At CHF his found-ing of the Biotechnology program includes focused scholarship onindustry development. He is the author of Approaches to Heredity:A Concise History of the Gene (forthcoming, 2007), “Genetic Engi-neering Methods” in The Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Technology(2004), and “Genetics and Molecular Biology” in History of the ExactSciences and Mathematics (2002).

Cyrus ModyProgram Manager, Emerging Technologies

Cyrus Mody holds a Ph.D. in science and technology studies fromCornell University and a bachelor’s degree in mechanical and mate-rials engineering from Harvard University. Prior to becoming theprogram manager for Emerging Technologies, he was the 2004–2005Gordon Cain Fellow at CHF. Mody has published widely on thehistory and sociology of materials science, instrumentation, andnanotechnology. He is currently working on a book titled Instrumen-tal Community: Probe Microscopy and the Path to Nanotechnology.

David BrockSenior Research Fellow

As a historian of science and technology, David Brock has studiedthe philosophy, sociology, and history of science at Brown Univer-sity, the University of Edinburgh, and Princeton University. He


specializes in oral history, the history of instrumentation, and thehistory of semiconductor science, technology, and industry. Beforebecoming a senior research fellow at CHF, Brock was the director ofEducational Services and lead developer of the Chemical History ofElectronics program area. Most recently he was the editor of and acontributor to Understanding Moore’s Law: Four Decades of Innova-tion (2006).

Christophe LécuyerSenior Research Fellow

Christophe Lécuyer is a graduate of the École Normale Supérieure inParis and received a doctorate in history from Stanford University.He was a fellow of the Dibner Institute for the History of Scienceand Technology and has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, Stanford University, and the University of Virginia. Prior tobecoming a senior research fellow at CHF, Lécuyer was the programmanager of the Electronic Materials department. He has publishedwidely on the history of electronics, engineering education, andmedical and scientific instruments. His book, Making Silicon Valley:Innovation and the Growth of High Tech, 1930–1970, was recentlypublished by MIT Press.

Chi ChanProgram Assistant, Emerging Technologies

Chi Chan holds a bachelor’s degree in math from Bucknell Univer-sity, where he also studied physics and philosophy. Prior to becom-ing the program assistant for the Emerging Technologies program inNovember 2005, Chan interned at CHF doing data gathering andanalysis for the Gordon Research Conferences.

Jennifer DionisioProgram Assistant, Biotechnology

Jennifer Dionisio earned a B.A. in nonfiction writing from the Uni-versity of Pittsburgh, where she also studied sociology. A freelance


journalist for both regional and national publications, Dionisio joinedCHF in September 2006 as the program assistant for Biotechnology.

Victoria IndiveroProgram Assistant, Electronic Materials

Victoria Indivero holds a bachelor’s degree in communications fromElizabethtown College, where she also minored in biology and his-tory. She was the managing editor of her college newspaper andinterned at CHF’s Chemical Heritage magazine before joining theCenter’s Electronic Materials program in August 2006. Concurrently,Indivero is earning a master’s degree in journalism at Temple Uni-versity.

Megan LindsayProgram Assistant, Oral History

Megan Lindsay earned a B.A. in history at the Richard StocktonCollege of New Jersey, where she was an assistant and editor for anoral history project sponsored by the college. She became the pro-gram assistant for CHF’s Oral History program in June 2005. Cur-rently, Lindsay is helping Rasheedah Cremer prepare for CHF’supcoming E. N. Brandt Oral History Conference.


Support

The Center gratefully acknowledges financial support for conferences,research, and publications from the following foundations, grantingagencies, corporations, and other sponsors.

Foundations and Granting Agencies

Dexter and Dorothy Baker FoundationGordon and Mary Cain FoundationRollin M. Gerstacker FoundationGordon Research ConferencesGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Science FoundationRathmann Family FoundationThe Warren and Katherine Schlinger FoundationUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, Center for Nanotechnology

in SocietyWilliam Penn Foundation

Corporations and Other Sponsors

3MAir Products and ChemicalsArch Chemicals, Inc.Arkema Inc. FoundationATOFINA ChemicalsBASF CorporationBD (Becton, Dickinson and Company)Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research InstituteCabot Microelectronics CorporationCelanese ChemicalsCentocorCephalon


Degussa CorporationThe Dow Chemical CompanyDow CorningDuPontEastman Chemical CompanyExxonMobil Chemical CompanyGlaxoSmithKlineW. L. GoreHoneywell InternationalIntel CorporationJohnson & JohnsonMallinckrodt BakerMerck & Company, Inc.National Starch and Chemical CompanyNOVA ChemicalsPQ CorporationRohm and Haas CompanyShell ChemicalsSiltronicSolid State Equipment CorporationSunocoWacker Chemical Corporation

CHF Center for Contemporary History and Policy Research Report 2004-2006

Documents

Transcript of CHF Center for Contemporary History and Policy Research Report 2004-2006