This paper considers inventors' rights as revealing shifts in the elaboration of public trust in inventions. The two main issues, the method of invention and the credit invested, are analysed both in terms of Diderot's writings and in the economic, social and political context of invention during the eighteenth century. In a pamphlet written in 1755, Histoire et secret de la peinture en cire, Diderot criticized the Count of Caylus's attempt to keep the invention of wax painting secret and to enhance his fame thanks to this technical achievement. Diderot developed a conception of invention as an activity based upon methodical rediscoveries, imitations and translations. Although this could also concern artistic practice, imitation in art had a quite different meaning for Diderot. The main issue was the status of artists and inventors in society. Personal glory and private appropriation were denied to inventors, in contrast to artists. Secrecy, pride and exclusivity in invention were mean and ridiculous strategies. This was precisely what had been happening since the beginning of the eighteenth century, with the development of a market for inventions and exclusive titles, which also affected art. Diderot's narrative of invention as a daily, collective and historical process echoed the necessity of reassessing the value of invention by the criteria of public utility and shared evaluation.

Argument

The revolutionary transformation in Russian science toward the Soviet model of research started even before the revolution of 1917. It was triggered by the crisis of World War I, in response to which Russian academics proposed radical changes in the goals and infrastructure of the country’s scientific effort. Their drafts envisioned the recognition of science as a profession separate from teaching, the creation of research institutes, and the turn toward practical, applied research linked to the military and industrial needs of the nation. The political revolution and especially the Bolshevik government that shared or appropriated many of the same views on science, helped these reforms materialize during the subsequent Civil War. By 1921, the foundation of a novel system of research and development became established, which in its most essential characteristics was similar to the U.S. later phenomenon known as “big science.”

Silvanus Phillips Thompson, FRS (1851–1916) began his career in the 1870s when there were still few academic posts for scientists, and when it was still uncertain whether the newer professional ideals would overtake the older, more gentlemanly, ones – in terms of both career advancement and of what being a ‘good’ scientist entailed. Thompson's many scientific, technical and literary activities are discussed in this paper, as is his Quakerism, perhaps the chief motivating force in his life. The paper raises the question of how success in science is measured, and shows how Thompson's sabbatarian impulse influenced both his scientific practice and his pedagogical approach. In detailing the ways in which Thompson made a successful career, despite his lack of professional research focus, the paper relates to larger contexts of science, class, religion and education in late nineteenth-century Britain.

In this paper we will discuss some of the issues related to the attempts of Ralph Howard Fowler and Nevil Vincent Sidgwick to create a legitimizing space for quantum and theoretical chemistry in Britain. Although neither Fowler nor Sidgwick made original contributions to quantum chemistry, they followed closely the developments in the discipline, participated in meetings and discussions and delivered lectures, talks and addresses, where methodological topics, ontological questions and implicitly the problem of autonomy of the new discipline vis-à-vis both physics and chemistry were taken to be pressing issues. In particular, they encouraged young people to work within the nascent discipline. Viewing quantum chemistry as a branch of applied mathematics became an emblematic characteristic of the practice of the new discipline in Great Britain.

Whereas there has been considerable debate about the social context of Darwin's theory of natural selection, much less focus has been placed upon Alfred Russel Wallace. This article looks at Wallace's socialism and, in particular, the influence upon his thought of the early nineteenth-century socialist Robert Owen. It argues that a case can be made for seeing Wallace's thought about nature and natural selection in the years up to 1858 in the context of Owenism. Three aspects of his thought are singled out for examination. These are, first, Wallace's views on the role of instinct in animal and human behaviour; second, the idea of colonization in human society and in nature; and third, a re-examination of the role of Malthus in Wallace's thought, emphasizing the influence upon him of the early nineteenth-century socialist critique of Malthusianism.

Argument

Augustus De Morgan was faced with a delicate balancing act in his attempt to interpret mathematics from his position as a professor at the secular University of London. He had learned mathematics at Cambridge, where the subject was intimately connected to Anglican natural theology. In his adult life, his challenge was to understand his subject in such a way that it would remain centrally important, but be suitable to a secular education. De Morgan's attempts to interpret mathematics within his secular world led him to consider the nature of algebra, probability theory, and logic. At times, particularly in logic, this work led him into fierce controversies. Behind the specific twists and turns of his thought, however, De Morgan maintained a remarkably consistent position from which he defended the religious values of his upbringing and education within a secular society.