Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T23:58:00.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hybrid knowledge: the transnational co-production of the gas centrifuge for uranium enrichment in the 1960s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2012

JOHN KRIGE
Affiliation:
School of History, Technology & Society, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0225, United States. Email: john.krige@hts.gatech.edu.

Abstract

The ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of knowledge circulation is explored in a study of the encounter between American and British nuclear scientists and engineers who together developed a gas centrifuge to enrich uranium in the 1960s. A fine-grained analysis of the transnational encounter reveals that the ‘how’ engages a wide variety of sometimes mundane modes of exchange in a series of face-to-face interactions over several years. The ‘why’ is driven by the reciprocal wish to improve the performance of the centrifuge, though this motive is embedded in the asymmetric field of the ‘special relationship’ in nuclear matters between the United Kingdom and the United States. The result of the encounter is co-produced, hybrid knowledge in which the national provenance of the contributions from each side of the Atlantic is at once diluted and a contested site for the affirmation of national power.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rushdie, Salman, Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism, 1981–1991, London: Granta Books/Viking, 1991, p. 394Google Scholar, original emphasis. For one use of this term in the history of science and technology see Hard, Michåel and Jamison, Andrew, Hubris and Hybrids: A Cultural History of Technology and Science, New York: Routledge, 2005Google Scholar.

2 For some methodological analyses see Bayly, C.A., Beckert, Sven, Connelly, Matthew, Hofmeyr, Isabel, Kozol, Wendy and Seed, Patricia, ‘AHR conversation: on transnational history’, American Historical Review (2006) 111, pp. 14411464CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Curthoys, Ann and Lake, Marilyn (eds.), Connected Worlds: History in a Transnational Perspective, Canberra: ANU Press, 2010Google Scholar; ‘Terminology: diplomatic history, international history, and transnationalism’, , April, May 2009; Iriya, Akira and Saunier, Pierre-Yves (eds.), The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History from the Mid-19th Century to the Present Day, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009Google Scholar.

3 Curthoys and Lake, op. cit. (2), pp. 4–5.

4 Bender, Thomas (ed.), Rethinking American History in a Global Age, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tyrell, Ian, ‘American exceptionalism in an age of international history’, American Historical Review (1991) 96, pp. 10311055CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the response by McGerr, Michael, ‘The price of the “new transnational history”’, American Historical Review (1991) 96, pp. 10561067CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Akira Iriye, ‘Internationalizing international history’, in Bender, op. cit. (4), pp. 47–62, 62.

6 Secord, James A., ‘Knowledge in transit’, Isis (2004) 95, pp. 654672, 655CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 Krige, John, American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstruction of Science in Europe, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006Google Scholar; idem, ‘Building the arsenal of knowledge’, Centaurus (2010) 52, pp. 282–296.

8 Cooper, Frederick, Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005, pp. 91112Google Scholar, in his critique of analyses of globalization, introduces the term ‘lumpiness’ to allow us to speak both of containers and of flows (not being confined to one or the other).

9 Marilyn B. Young, ‘The age of global power’, in Bender, op. cit. (4), pp. 274–294, 291.

10 For a few examples, Arnold, David, ‘Europe, technology and colonialism in the 20th Century’, History and Technology (2005) 21, pp. 85106CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bourguet, Marie-Noëlle, Licoppe, Christian and Otto Sibum, H., Instruments, Travel and Science: Itineraries of Precision from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century, London: Routledge, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delbourgo, James and Dew, Nicholas (eds.), Science and Empire in the Atlantic World, New York: Routledge, 2008Google Scholar; Gavroglu, Kostas et al. , ‘Science and technology in the European periphery: some historiographical reflections’, History of Science (2008) 46, pp. 153175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Livingstone, David N., Putting Science in Its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacLeod, Roy (ed.), Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise, Osiris (2000) 15Google Scholar; Raj, Kapil, Relocating Modern Science, London: Routledge, 2008Google Scholar; Simon, Josep and Herran, Néstor (eds.), Beyond Borders: Fresh Perspectives in History of Science, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008Google Scholar.

11 Kroes, Rob, ‘American empire and cultural imperialism: a view from the receiving end’, Diplomatic History (1999) 23, pp. 463477CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Raj argues in Relocating Modern Science, op. cit. (10), p. 223, for an approach that focuses on ‘the making of scientific knowledge through the co-constructive processes of negotiation between different skilled communities and individuals from both regions, resulting as much in the emergence of new knowledge forms as in a reconfiguration of existing knowledges and specialized practices on both sides of the encounter’.

13 Baylis, John, ‘Exchanging nuclear secrets: laying the foundations of the Anglo-American nuclear relationship’, Diplomatic History (2001) 25, pp. 3361CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Cooper, op. cit. (8), p. 108.

15 Pierre, Andrew, Nuclear Politics: The British Experience with an Independent Nuclear Force, 1939–1970, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972, p. 316Google Scholar.

16 Included among the classics are Baylis, John, Ambiguity and Deterrence: British Nuclear Strategy 1950–1964, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Botti, Timothy J., The Long Wait: The Forging of the Anglo-American Nuclear Alliance, New York: Greenwood Press, 1987Google Scholar; Clark, Ian, Nuclear Diplomacy and the Special Relationship: Britain's Deterrent and America, 1957–1962, Oxford: Clarendon, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Melissen, Jan, The Struggle for Nuclear Partnership: Britain, the United States and the Making of an Ambiguous Alliance, Groningen: Styx, 1993Google Scholar; Moore, Richard, Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality: Britain, the United States and Nuclear Weapons 1958–1964, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 This is central in Wang's work on the migration of Chinese scientists between the US and mainland China, as in Wang, Zuoyue, ‘Transnational science during the Cold War: the case of Chinese/American Scientists’, Isis (June 2010) 101, pp. 367377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

18 My attention was first drawn to this issue by Schrafstetter, Susanna and Twigge, Stephen, ‘Spinning into Europe: Britain, West Germany and the Netherlands – uranium enrichment and the development of the gas centrifuge, 1964–1970’, Contemporary European History (2002) 11, pp. 253272CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Twigge, Stephen, ‘A baffling experience: technology transfer, Anglo-American nuclear relations, and the development of the gas centrifuge, 1964–1970’, History and Technology (2003) 19, pp. 151163CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I have developed Twigge's argument in Krige, John, ‘Maintaining America's competitive technological advantage: Cold War leadership and the transnational co-production of knowledge’, Humana_mente (2011) 16, pp. 3352Google Scholar, www.humanamente.eu, accessed 15 September 2011.

19 Statement by the minister of technology to the House of Commons, 9 December 1965, PREM 13/2004, the National Archives, Kew, London (hereafter TNA).

20 Memo, Anthony Wedgwood Benn to Prime Minister, 8 March 1968, FCO55/111, TNA.

21 Schrafstetter and Twigge, op. cit. (18), describe this dimension in some detail. For Wilson's ambitions for British technology see Edgerton, David, ‘The White Heat revisited: British government and technology in the 1960s’, Twentieth Century British History (1996) 7, pp. 5382CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 For details of the American programme and Zippe's contribution to it see R. Scott Kemp, ‘Nonproliferation strategy in the centrifuge age’, PhD dissertation, Princeton University, June 2010; idem, ‘Gas centrifuge theory and development: a review of U.S. programs’, Science and Global Security (2009) 17, pp. 1–19.

23 PNO (C) (69) 22 (Final), 2 June, 1969, Cabinet Official Committee on Nuclear Policy, ‘Centrifuge Collaboration. Anglo/United States Relations in the Nuclear Field’, FCO 55/268, TNA.

24 For this paragraph see Franklin, N.L., ‘Looking back to 1959’, Nuclear Engineer (1985) 26, pp. 312Google Scholar; Whitley, S., ‘The uranium centrifuge’, Physics in Technology (1979) 10, pp. 2633CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Israel and others reportedly used a computer ‘worm’ to instruct Iranian centrifuges to spin so rapidly that they flew apart, destroying as much as 20 per cent of the enrichment installation. William J. Broad and David E. Sanger, ‘Worm was perfect for sabotaging centrifuges’, New York Times, 18 November 2010.

26 Myron Kratzer was the USAEC's assistant general manager for international activities. Paul Vanstrum was the technical director of production, Union Carbide Nuclear, Oak Ridge. He had extensive experience of the US gas centrifuge. See Scott Kemp, ‘Nonproliferation strategy in the centrifuge age’, op. cit. (22).

27 Record of United States/United Kingdom Talks Held at the Cabinet Office, Whitehall, 4, 5 March 1969, FCO55/265, TNA; Record of a Meeting on 3 May at the Office of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington D.C., PREM 13/2556, TNA.

28 Draft Memorandum. Interpretation of Article IX (c) of the 1955 Civil Bilateral Agreement, PNC(C)(68) 12, 19 December 1968, CAB 134/3125, TNA.

29 ‘Report Anglo/US Relations in the Nuclear Field’, PN (69)8, 19 May 1969, Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Nuclear Policy. Centrifuge Collaboration, CAB 134/3121, TNA.

30 ‘Centrifuge technology’, 4 March 1969.

31 Galison, Peter, ‘Removing knowledge: the logic of modern censorship’, in Proctor, Robert H. and Schiebinger, Londa (eds.), Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008, pp. 3754, 49Google Scholar. See also Galison, Peter, ‘Removing knowledge’, Critical Inquiry (2004) 31, pp. 229243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 ‘Centrifuge technology’, Record of US/UK talks held on 5 March 1959, FCO 55/265, TNA.

33 Record of a Meeting on 3 May in Washington, DC.

34 Telegram 1367 Washington to Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 4 May 1969, PREM 13/2556, TNA.

35 PNO(69) 4th Meeting, Cabinet Official Committee on Nuclear Policy, Minutes of a Meeting held in the Cabinet Office on 20 May 1969, FCO 66/79, TNA.

36 Memo, Zuckerman to Prime Minister, Centrifuge Collaboration, 21 May 1969, PREM 13/2556, TNA.

37 Memo, Hill, Centrifuge, 21 May 1969, attached to Memo, Dunnett to Zuckerman, Centrifuge, 21 May 1969, PREM 13/2556, TNA.

38 ‘Report of enquiry relating to restricted data on centrifuge design and construction …’, 30 May 1969, FCO55/268, TNA.

39 Letter, Zuckerman to Prime Minister, 2 June 1969.

40 British Aide Memoire, 3 July 1969, CAB 134/3121, TNA.

41 ‘Centrifuge technology’, record of US/UK talks held on 4 March 1969.

42 Record of a Meeting on 6 June 1969, at USAEC Office, PREM 13/2556, TNA.

43 British aide memoire, 3 July 1969.

44 Record of meeting on 6 June 1969.

45 The fourth member seems to have been either Ed Babely or Ernest Evans from Oak Ridge or Ralph Lowry from the centrifuge team at the University of Virginia. Record Group 39, Entry A1(5618) Lot 74D11, Box 2, Folder S.23, Gas Centrifuge Technology 1969, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD (hereafter NARA).

46 Zuckerman to Prime Minister, ‘Centrifuge. The Problem of Article IXC of the US/UK Civil Agreement’, PREM 13/2556, TNA.

47 US Department of State, Aide Memoire, 1 October 1969, FCO 55/271, TNA.

48 Kehoe, R.B., The Enriching Troika: A History of Urenco to the Year 2000, Marlow: Urenco, 2002Google Scholar.

49 Zuckerman to Prime Minister, 4 March 1970, PREM 13/3128, TNA.

50 Revised United Kingdom Statement on Article IX (c), Annex A to Anglo/U.S. Relations in the Nuclear Field, attached to Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Nuclear Policy, Centrifuge Collaboration, PN(69)8, 19 May 1969, CAB134/3121, TNA.

51 Latour, Bruno, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987Google Scholar.

52 Shapin, Steven, ‘Rarely pure and never simple: talking about truth’, Configurations (1999) 7, pp. 114, 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 This resonates, of course, with Shapin's analysis of the importance of expert knowledge as a warrant for the trustworthiness of truth claims: Shapin, Steven, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, EpilogueGoogle Scholar.

54 Scott Kemp, ‘Nonproliferation strategy in the centrifuge age’, op. cit. (22), p. 41. Scott Kemp does not give the provenance of his material.

55 Unsigned memo on Gas Centrifuge Collaboration to be submitted to the Cabinet by the Minister of Technology and the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 29 November 1968, FCO66/78, TNA.

56 Record of the meeting on 3 May.

57 ‘The UK/US Agreement for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes’, signed on 3 July 1958, was one of the ‘most remarkable agreements ever reached between two sovereign states’. Baylis, op. cit. (13), p. 33. Latour, Bruno, Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999Google Scholar, p. 178, has inspired the metaphor of a net.

58 Maier, Charles S., Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006, pp. 106, 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coetzee, J.M., Waiting for the Barbarians, London: Vintage Books, 2004Google Scholar.

59 ‘Centrifuge Technology’, Record of US/UK talks held on 4 March 1969 in London, FCO 55/265, TNA.

60 Zuckerman, Solly, Monkey, Men and Missiles: An Autobiography, 1964–88, London: Collins, 1988, p. 445Google Scholar.

61 Zuckerman to Prime Minister, Centrifuge Collaboration, 21 May 1969, PREM 13/2556, TNA.

62 Glenn Seaborg to Walt Rostow, 10 March 1967, National Security Files, Files of Charles E. Johnson, Box Number 33, Folder Nuclear – Gas Centrifuge Technology, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

63 Herken, Gregg, ‘“A most deadly illusion”: the atomic secret and American nuclear weapons policy, 1945–1950’, Pacific Historical Review (1980) 19, pp. 5176, 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Baylis, op. cit. (16).

64 Botti, op. cit. (16), p. 239.

65 Nelson Sievering to Theos Thompson, 31 July 1969, Record Group 39, Entry A1(5618) Lot 74D11, Box 2, Folder S.23, Gas Centrifuge Technology 1969, NARA.