TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 849 especially after the Sputnik crisis threatened to overwhelm their modest funds. Consequently, they canceled most of their regular research funding and redirected it primarily to conferences, professional sup port, and a few selected projects. After considerable self-reflection, however, the Engineering Foundation resumed its broader support for regular research projects in the 1970s, especially through its research initiation grants for young professors. The authors conclude that the foundation’s failure to attract a significant endowment contributed to this “penchant for self-doubt” (p. 329), a remarkably frank observa tion in an otherwise uncritical book. The Engineering Foundation attempted to use its prestige to further the professionalization of engineering. According to Metz and Viest, the foundation played a “catalytic” role in the creation of the National Research Council (1916) and the National Academy of Engineering (1964). It was also active in engineering education, publication, and lobbying efforts throughout its history. Unfortu nately, it is difficult to ascertain the foundation’s significance in some of these activities. The authors devote considerable attention to the significantresearch projects the Engineering Foundation helped support. In addition to providing an intellectual context, they offer snapshot views of various developmental stages of the modern engineering sciences, especially those concerned with structural issues. A good example is the section on the research activities sponsored by the leading research councils dealing with welding, stability, structural connections, and concrete strength problems, not to mention other sections on large-scale ex perimental stress analysis of dams and bridges. Also included is a complete list of research projects and conferences funded by the En gineering Foundation, along with the funding sources of specific projects in the appendix. Such information could prove useful for historical research on the engineering sciences. In short, this is a useful, albeit flawed, book because it deals with a relatively untouched historical topic: modern academic engineering research. Brett D. Steele Mr. Steele is a graduate student in the Program for the History of Science and Technology at the University of Minnesota. He is currently working on his Ph.D. dissertation, a history of ballistics and artillery research in 18th-century Europe. History of Technology, vol. 12. Edited by Graham Hollister-Short and Frank James. London: Mansell, 1990. Pp. viii+184; illustrations, tables, notes. $70.00. This is the twelfth volume of a periodical that resumed publication after a three-year break (vol. 11 is dated 1986). The issue contains five 850 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE articles covering a range of subjects, places, and time periods. The articles are supposed to have in common a focus on how various societies have solved technical problems, but only one of them is specifically concerned with the development of technology in re sponse to a social problem. Nevertheless, the essays present much detailed research about the topics they address, so I will note the subject of each one. Kenneth Barraclough contributed an article on the trade between the steelmakers of Sheffield, England, and the ironmasters of the Dannemora region of Sweden. The specialized steelmaking tradition of Sheffield long required high-grade iron ores, free of sulfur and phosphorous, that were rare in England. The Dannemora mines were the principal source of ores that possessed the necessary qualities. In discussing the various methods of making steel used in the Sheffield area, and the persistence of these technologies even when more productive technologies came into general use, the article reminds us of the important role that the characteristics and availability of raw materials play in the development of technologies. Ian Inkster asks in his article whether Australian technology in the 19th century depended on British invention and technological transfer for its growth. Using data on the nationality of patentees in Australia, he concludes that Australians were not technologically backward be cause foreigners did not dominate in patent origination, in contrast to Canada, for example, where native patentees were a distinct minority. The author goes a step further and argues that, because Australian technologies were “appropriate to the needs of a staple economy” (p. 61), they therefore were not “colonial.” But a staple economy could be colonial—supplying the raw materials for processing in the mother country—whatever...