Yesterday morning, our third child was born, a boy at 4.4 kilograms who peed and opened his eyes almost immediately. Tove, my wife, was heroic and marvellous! The staff at the hospital has been great as well.
At the moment, the kids and I are home for a couple of hours; will return to the hospital soon.
On reading Ryan J. Huxtable’s review of J.L. Heilbron ed., The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science, Nature 3 July 2003, 17-18, I found it a bit strange. For example, it did not even attempt to position the articles in the book in relation to current debates within the field of history of science / STS.
Professor emeritus Huxtable is at the Department of Pharmacology, University of Arizona and his speciality is “pyrrolizidines and the lung/liver axis”, not history of science.
I have for some time now been thinking of doing a survey of reviews of STS / history of science literature in high-profile scientific journals like Nature and Science. In how many cases are people from the field doing reviews, how often is the author more like Huxtable? What kind of boundary work is going on here? How are the reviewers chosen?
One could contrast with reviews in other places. Take TLS, for example, which had Andrew Pickering review Galison’s Image and logic …
The paper is still in embryonic form, I don’t even have a first-draft yet. Comments are welcome!
Epistemographer is a new blog by Josh Greenberg (STS, Cornell), recently added to the STS blog index. Read it!
Among the things he is doing is a cool web-based oral history of the video tape industry: The Video Store Project.
Latest Comments