Abstract
This paper makes two claims to originality. First, it responds to a recent call for more studies into how research institutions built resilience to changes in science policy and funding in Britain, by examining the history of the Rowett Research Institute, a nutrition science institute established in the 1910s in north-east Scotland. The discussion starts by reviewing the historiography of British science policy since the early twentieth century, focusing particularly on agricultural science as this was the policy arena within which the Rowett developed.
The second claim to originality stems from the paper’s use of quantitative evidence. It draws on the historiography of scientific journal papers to argue for their utility as a source of data on research conducted at the Rowett, and potentially elsewhere. These ‘bibliometric’ data, along with figures on staff numbers and research income, are used to triangulate the qualitative archival and historiographical data, allowing the Institute’s resilience to be examined over a considerable period including, but not restricted to, occasions when science policy changed significantly.
Using these quantitative and qualitative data allows this paper to demonstrate how, over a century of scientific work, funded primarily by government to undertake ‘strategic’ and ‘applied’ research, Rowett scientists negotiated the tension between getting papers published in scientific journals and providing ‘applied’ benefits for users. In doing so it provides further evidence for the artificiality of the distinction, which has long influenced science policy in Britain, between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ research. Trends in the production of scientific journal papers by Rowett scientists resemble those in science more generally and show that they have always been members of the ‘invisible colleges’ of their respective disciplines.
The second claim to originality stems from the paper’s use of quantitative evidence. It draws on the historiography of scientific journal papers to argue for their utility as a source of data on research conducted at the Rowett, and potentially elsewhere. These ‘bibliometric’ data, along with figures on staff numbers and research income, are used to triangulate the qualitative archival and historiographical data, allowing the Institute’s resilience to be examined over a considerable period including, but not restricted to, occasions when science policy changed significantly.
Using these quantitative and qualitative data allows this paper to demonstrate how, over a century of scientific work, funded primarily by government to undertake ‘strategic’ and ‘applied’ research, Rowett scientists negotiated the tension between getting papers published in scientific journals and providing ‘applied’ benefits for users. In doing so it provides further evidence for the artificiality of the distinction, which has long influenced science policy in Britain, between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ research. Trends in the production of scientific journal papers by Rowett scientists resemble those in science more generally and show that they have always been members of the ‘invisible colleges’ of their respective disciplines.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 131-164 |
Number of pages | 52 |
Journal | Centaurus |
Volume | 66 |
Issue number | 1-2 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 31 Jan 2025 |
Bibliographical note
AcknowledgementsThanks to colleagues in the University of Aberdeen’s Centre for History and Philosophy of Science, Technology and Medicine, and to colleagues in the Rowett Institute, for providing helpful feedback on previous versions of this paper. Thanks also to the reviewers and editor of Centaurus for their constructive comments. Views and analysis are the author’s alone.
Keywords
- 20th C. History
- Agricultural research, history of
- History of Science After 1900
- Research Institutes, history of
- Scientific Publishing