“Broken Symmetry”: Physics, Aesthetics, and Moral Virtue in Nuclear Age America

  • Jessica WangEmail author
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 321)


During a century of high modernist confidence from roughly the last third of the nineteenth century onwards, scientists and other proponents of scientific investigation frequently claimed that scientific inquiry embodied both epistemic and moral virtues. This essay examines the lives and careers of two American physicists, Merle A. Tuve and Robert R. Wilson, in order to explore the history of the pure science ideal and the centrality of moral virtue to scientific identity in the mid-twentieth century. For Tuve and Wilson, belief in the humanistic qualities of science and the virtues—both epistemic and moral—of austerity and contemplative isolation, as well as an instinctive disdain for post-World War II Big Science despite the heavy involvement of both men in large-scale research projects, defined their faith in science as a morally virtuous activity. In a cold war era of military patronage, in which political and institutional trends seemed headed increasingly in the direction of instrumentalist expectation rather than transcendent humanism, Tuve’s and Wilson’s insistence on the moral virtues of scientific inquiry marked a larger struggle at work over the cultural meaning and status of physics, the nature and values of American culture more generally, and even over modernity itself.


Epistemic virtues Moral virtues Big science Cold War science Pure science Nuclear physics High energy physics Particle physics History of physics Merle A. Tuve Robert R. Wilson 



The author and the editors gratefully acknowledge the University of California Press for permission to reprint material that originally appeared in Jessica Wang, “Physics, Emotion, and the Scientific Self: Merle Tuve’s Cold War,” Historical studies in the natural sciences 42 (November 2012): 341–88.


  1. Tuve, Merle A. 1947a. Notes for speech at the Westinghouse Sixth Annual Science Talent Search, 1 March 1947. Box 122, Folder Speeches Clippings etc., Merle A. Tuve papers. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Hereafter cited as Tuve papers.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1947b. Letter to Paul C. T. Kwei, 3 Feb 1947. Box 123, Folder 1 Foreign Cooperation, Tuve papers.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1950. Letter to William Webster, Chairman, Research and Development Board, 24 Mar 1950. Terrestrial Magnetism, Director 1950–1951, Carnegie Institution of Washington Administration Records, 1890–2001, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1958. Handwritten lecture titled Conference discussion on Science and Secondary Education, St. Alban’s School Washington Cathedral, 23 March 1958, Remarks by Dr. Merle A. Tuve. Box 179, Folder Tuve—Speeches & Conference, Tuve papers.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1959. Letter to C. Gresham Marmion, 29 Sep 1959a. Box 196, Folder Bishop Marmion, Tuve papers.Google Scholar
  6. ———. n.d. [1959?] Handwritten draft headed Introduction—First Part. Box 186, Folder DTM Annual Report July 1959, Tuve papers.Google Scholar
  7. ———. n.d. [1960?] Handwritten draft headed Introd. Box 197, folder DTM Annual Report July 60, Tuve papers.Google Scholar
  8. FermiNews. 1978. 21 Tons of Art. FermiNews 1 (22 June 1978). Accessed June 2016.
  9. Gibney, Elizabeth. 2014. China Plans Super Collider. Nature 511 (22 July 2014), online ed. Accessed June 2016.
  10. National Research Council, Physics Survey Committee. 1966. Physics: Survey and Outlook. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  11. Oppenheimer, J. Robert. 1945. Speech to the Association of Los Alamos Scientists. Los Alamos, New Mexico, 2 November 1945. Reprinted on pp. 49–58 in Pais, Abraham. J. Robert Oppenheimer: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Overbye, Dennis. 2006. China Pursues Major Role in Particle Physics. New York Times, 5 December 2006, online ed. Accessed June 2016.
  13. Rosen, Louis. 1971. Relevance of Particle Accelerators to National Goals. Science 173: 490–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schuessler, Jennifer. 2016. ‘Post-Truth’ Defeats ‘Alt-Right’ as Oxford’s Word of the Year. New York Times, 15 November 2016, online ed. Accessed Dec 2016.
  15. Weinberg, Alvin M. 1963. Criteria for Scientific Choice. Minerva 1: 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weisskopf, Victor F., Chairman, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel. 1970. Report on High Energy Physics 1969, copy in U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, AEC Authorizing Legislation, Fiscal Year 1971, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., 3 and 5 March 1970, part 2, Appendix 2.Google Scholar
  17. Wilson, Robert Rathbun. 1968. The Richtmyer Memorial Lecture: Particles, Accelerators, and Society. American Journal of Physics 36: 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 1970a. My Fight Against Team Research. Daedalus 99: 1076–1087.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 1970b. The Conscience of a Physicist. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 26: 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ———. 1972. Testimony of Robert R. Wilson before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Subcommittee on Research, Development, and Radiation, 29 February 1972. AEC Authorizing Legislation Fiscal Year 1973, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., p. 1443.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1977. From Frontiersman to Physicist. Physics in Perspective 2 (2000): 141–203. Adapted and published version of an interview by Spencer R. Weart, 19 May 1977.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1987. Starting Fermilab: Some Personal Viewpoints of a Laboratory Director (1967–1978). Annual Report of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Accessed June 2016.
  23. Yuan, Luke C. L., ed. 1965. Nature of Matter: Purposes of High Energy Physics. Long Island Brookhaven National Laboratory, Associated Universities, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Bourke, Joanna. 2003. Fear and Anxiety: Writing about Emotion in Modern History. History Workshop Journal 55: 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Costigliola, Frank. 2004. ‘Like Animals or Worse’: Narratives of Culture and Emotion by U.S. and British POWs and Airmen behind Soviet Lines, 1944–1945. Diplomatic History 28: 749–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  27. Daston, Lorraine, and H. Otto Sibum. 2003. Introduction: Scientific Personae and Their Histories. Science in Context 16: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dennis, Michael Aaron. 1997. Historiography of Science: An American Perspective. In Science in the Twentieth Century, ed. John Krige and Dominique Pestre, 1–26. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Ekbladh, David. 2010. The Great American Mission: Modernization and the Construction of an American World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Forman, Paul. 1987. Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940–1960. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18: 149–229.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2007. The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology. History and Technology 23: 1–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gilbert, James. 1997. Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herzig, Rebecca M. 2005. Suffering for Science: Reason and Sacrifice in Modern America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hilts, Philip J. 1984. Scientific Temperaments: Three Lives in Contemporary Science. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  35. Hoddeson, Lillian, Adrienne W. Kolb, and Catherine Westfall. 2008. Fermilab: Physics, the Frontier, and Megascience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hughes, Thomas P. 1989. American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870–1970. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  37. Jungk, Robert. 1969. The Big Machine. London: Andre Deutsch.Google Scholar
  38. Kaiser, David. 2004. The Postwar Suburbanization of American Physics. American Quarterly 56: 851–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kline, Ronald. 1995. Construing ‘Technology’ as ‘Applied Science’: Public Rhetoric of Scientists and Engineers in the United States, 1880–1945. Isis 86: 194–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krige, John, and Jessica Wang. 2015. Introduction. History and Technology, special issue, Nation, Knowledge, and Imagined Futures: Science, Technology, and Nation-Building, Post-1945 31: 171–179.Google Scholar
  41. Latour, Bruno. 2013. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lederman, Leon with Dick Teresi. 1993. The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  43. Leslie, Stuart W. 1993. The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. McDougall, Walter A. 1985. The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  45. McGrath, Patrick J. 2002. Scientists, Business, and the State, 1890–1960. Chapel Hill/London: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  46. Needell, Allan. 1987. Lloyd Berkner, Merle Tuve, and the Federal Role in Radio Astronomy. Osiris 3: 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poovey, Mary. 1998. A History of the Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Proton News, n.d. Robert R. Wilson: Remembered as ‘Father of Proton Therapy’ and Achievements in Physics and Medicine. Proton News.. Accessed June 2016.
  49. Schrecker, Ellen W. 1986. No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Schweber, Sylvan S. 1992. Big Science in Context: Cornell and MIT. In Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, ed. Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly, 149–183. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2000. In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Shapin, Steven. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simpson, Christopher, ed. 1999. Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences during the Cold War. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, Alice Kimball. 1965. A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists’ Movement in America, 1945–47. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, Michael. 1983. Selling the Moon: The U.S. Manned Space Program and the Triumph of Commodity Scientism. In The Culture of Consumption: Critical Essays in American History, 1880–1980, ed. Richard Wightman Fox and T.J. Jackson Lears, 177–209. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  56. Stearns, Peter N., with Carol Z. Stearns. 1985. Emotionology: Clarifying the History of Emotions and Emotional Standards. American Historical Review 90: 813–836.Google Scholar
  57. Wang, Jessica. 2012. Physics, Emotion, and the Scientific Self: Merle Tuve’s Cold War. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 42: 341–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williams, Raymond. 1977. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Wickberg, Daniel. 2007. What Is the History of Sensibilities? On Cultural Histories, Old and New. American Historical Review 112: 661–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations