Abstract
In this chapter it will be shown how the connection between the evidential context of nuclear astrophysics and the solar-neutrino detection technique was made more solid in the period between 1958, when the link was first made, and 1964, when $600,000 of funding was granted towards the Davis experiment. The relationship between evidential context and experiment is one which exists not merely in the realm of ideas, but is integrally a social accomplishment. It is achieved by the activities of scientists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Letter, R. Davis to W. Fowler, January 15, 1958.
Ibid.
Dodson had been a research fellow at the Kellogg Radiation Laboratory in 1940.
Letter, W. Fowler to R. Davis, January 20, 1958.
Letter, R. Davis to W.F. Libby, April 11, 1958.
The results are given in Davis (1964).
Letter, W. Fowler to R. Davis, January 7, 1958.
R.W. Kavanagh, ‘Be7(p,γ)B8 and Be7(d,p)Be8 Cross-Section Measurements’, Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 4, 444 (1958),
and R.W. Kavanagh, ‘Proton Capture on Be7’, Nuclear Physics, 15, 411–20 (1960).
Letter, R. Davis to E. Kinkead, December 7, 1960.
Letter, R. Davis to R. Jastrow, October 23, 1961.
J.N. Bahcall, ‘Beta Decay in Stellar Interiors’, Physical Review, 126, 1143–9 (1962).
Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, February 19, 1962.,
Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, March 5, 1962.
J. Bahcall, ‘Electron Capture and Nuclear Matrix Elements of Be7’, Physical Review, 128, 1297–301 (1962).
P.D. Parker and R.W. Kavanagh, ‘He3(α,γ)Be7 Reaction’, Physical Review, 131, 1578–82 (1963).
Letter, W. Fowler to R. Davis, October 17, 1962.
Letter, F. Reines to W. Fowler, November 29, 1962.
Letter, R. Davis to W. Fowler, November 16, 1962.
Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, November 20, 1962.
Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, November 29, 1962.
Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, December 20, 1962.
Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, January 3, 1963.
Interview material with R. Dodson.
Letter, W. Fowler to R. Dodson, January 4, 1963.
Bahcall and Davis (1982:251) claim that Lauritsen was important in mobilising support for the experiment. However, respondents were unable to recall just what form this support took.
Letter, R. Dodson to W. Fowler, January 9, 1963.
Ibid.
Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, July 15, 1963.
Letter, W. Fowler to M. Goldhaber, November 26, 1963.
Letter, M. Goldhaber to W. Fowler, December 3, 1963.
The Proceedings of this meeting were later published: R.F. Stein and A.G.W. Cameron (eds), Stellar Evolution, New York, Plenum Press (1966).
J.N. Bahcall and R. Davis Jr., ‘On the Problem or Detecting Solar Neutrinos’, in Stein and Cameron, op. cit., note [31], 241–3.
Letter, J. Bahcall to R. Davis, December 6, 1963.
‘Orange Aid’preprints are sent to astrophysicists, and ‘Lemon Aid’ preprints to nuclear physicists. When I visited Kellogg in November 1978 the names and addresses of 700 scientists were on these preprint lists.
Letter, L. Alvarez to R. Davis, undated. Alvarez wrote his reply on Davis’s own letter to Alvarez of December 3, 1963.
H. Reeves, ‘The Detection of Solar Neutrinos’, Sky and Telescope, 27, 276–8 (1964).
Davis wrote that ‘it would be much better for you to be the sole author of the article’ (Letter, R. Davis to H. Reeves, November 6, 1963). It is possible that Davis declined to be co-author because the article would seem more authoritative coming from outside Brookhaven. This article was used by Davis and Dodson in their bid to get funds from the AEC.
Op. cit., note [37].
‘Astrophysics: Learning from Neutrinos’, Time, (January 3, 1964).
Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, January 21, 1964.
‘From the Sun’s Heart’, Newsweek, January 25, 1965.
Letter, R. Dodson to W. Fowler, July 27, 1964.
Letter, W. Fowler to R. Dodson, July 31, 1964.
Letter, R. Dodson to W. Fowler, August 19, 1964.
Letter, R. Davis to J. Bahcall, September 14, 1964.
Letter, R. Dodson to T. Pinch, May 30, 1979.
The AEC underwent two major re-organisations; when it became ERDA for a shortwhile, and then the DOE. It is possible that letters have been lost, but it is perhaps significant that Fowler’s letter still remained on the DOE files to which I was given access.
Although no formal peer-review process was initiated, it can be seen that Fowler’s letter served this purpose. It is possible that the informal processes which have been so important in this case have a role to play even when formal peer review is operated. Cole, Rubin, and Cole (1978) conclude that broadly formal peer review is working satisfactorily; however, not all science (or even a large part of it) is funded by formal peer review (e.g., National Laboratories seem to use more informal criteria) and, even if a formal system is used, informal processes may be of equal importance. The part played by informal processes may only show up in in-depth studies of funding decisions, such as the present research.
P.L. Reeder, A.M. Poskanzer and R.A. Esterlund, ‘New Delayed-Proton Emitters: Ti41, Ca37, and Ar33’, Physical Review Letters, 13, 767–9 (1964).
Letter, M. Goldhaber to J. Bahcall, November 5, 1964.
Letter, A. Poskanzer to J. Bahcall, November 18, 1964.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1986 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pinch, T. (1986). Experiment and Evidential Context — Funding the Link. In: Confronting Nature. Sociology of the Sciences Monographs, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7729-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7729-8_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8424-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7729-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive