The origins of the American Scientific debate over fallout hazards.

Abstract

The American scientific debate over fallout hazards during the 1950s was rooted in differing disciplinary, institutional, and political interests. These interests did not function independently, but rather were interconnected with one another. Scientists who expressed concern about fallout hazards were more likely to be from a biological disciplme, especially genetics; to have an academic position; to distrust US Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss's role In the Oppenheimer case; and to support a partial or total ban on nuclear weapons testing. Scientists who argued that fallout hazards were small or insignificant were more likely to be from disciplines in the physical or medical sciences; to have institutional affiliations with the AEC; and to support continued nuclear weapons testing. This case study suggests that sociological analyses of scientific controversies need to take into account interrelations between interest groups.