Science on a Mission: How Military Funding Shaped What We Do and Don’t Know about the Ocean

by Naomi Oreskes

A vivid portrait of how Naval oversight shaped American oceanography, revealing what difference it makes who pays for science.

What difference does it make who pays for science?

Some might say none. If scientists seek to discover fundamental truths about the world, and they do so in an objective manner using well-established methods, then how could it matter who’s footing the bill? History, however, suggests otherwise. In science, as elsewhere, money is power. Tracing the recent history of oceanography, Naomi Oreskes discloses dramatic changes in American ocean science since the Cold War, uncovering how and why it changed. Much of it has to do with who pays.

After World War II, the US military turned to a new, uncharted theater of the deep sea. The earth sciences—particularly physical oceanography and marine geophysics—became essential to the US Navy, which poured unprecedented money and logistical support into their study. Science on a Mission brings to light how this influx of military funding was both enabling and it resulted in the creation of important domains of knowledge but also significant, lasting, and consequential domains of ignorance.

As Oreskes delves into the role of patronage in the history of science, what emerges is a vivid portrait of how naval oversight transformed what we know about the sea. It is a detailed, sweeping history that illuminates the ways funding shapes the subject, scope, and tenor of scientific work, and it raises profound questions about the purpose and character of American science. What difference does it make who pays? The short answer a lot.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, History, History Of Science, Academia, Naval History, Military History

744 pages, Hardcover

Published April 19, 2021

About the author

Naomi Oreskes is an American historian of science. She became Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University in 2013, after 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego.

Reviews

[Paul Mena · Rating 5 out of 5]

A scholarly, thoroughly researched book, and yet very pertinent - dare I say essential - for the non-scientists it targets as its readership. I'm a bit biased in that I work at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, which is prominently featured in several chapters, but some of the accounts of wartime and Cold War-era research have opened my eyes to the tightrope my predecessors walked, and serve as a cautionary tale today.

[Craig Werner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed study of how, as the title says, Military funding directed Oceanographical research in the Cold War era. Not always for the worse. The discovery of deep sea thermal vents, for example, was an offshoot of Navy-sponsored plans. Well done History of Science.

[Sarah Cooley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. Oreskes always puts together first class research in a readable narrative. Really sheds light on how ocean research has been indelibly shaped by military involvement. In some ways, that’s no surprise, but her work really brings in other dimensions and angles that apply to emerging areas of ocean science. I’m biased to find this stuff interesting because I’m an oceanographer… I’ll admit I did get bogged down in the middle of the book for a while, but it was 100% worth reading for me.

[Kyle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was extremely excited to read Science on a Mission, but found it underwhelming in arguing what I assumed to be the central plot. Each chapter stands alone as a separate (and in some cases, extremely lengthy) vignette of a point in which the US Navy impacted the progress of ocean science. Science on a Mission is definitely tailored to those with a background in oceanography, as I felt it was at times unnecessarily technical and less focused on the policy aspects of receiving military funding.

I acknowledge the limitations that security classifications had on early military-funded science, but several times throughout my reading I felt the problems were more related to the incompatibility between the institution's faculty and the primary funder of their research. I think there would have been value in pursuing comment from the Navy on some of these topics, specifically to understand any reasoning for supporting or denying specific focuses in research.

I agree that military funding has shaped our knowledge of the ocean. Yet after reading Science on a Mission, I wouldn't say I am any more or less convinced it is any different or concerning than other available sponsors.

[Yevgeniya]

Had to dnf this book because I run out of time and had to return it to the library. It's expertly researched like all author's books but it is very dense and demanding to read. The book addresses an important issue of whether how science is funded matters, and how funding can impact what science knows and doesn't know - a topic I am very much interested in. However, it also tells you the story of oceanography itself, origins and development of various scientific theories in this filed and the people behind those theories. Definitely worth a read if you are into any of these things.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

A heavy science history book, but one that is incredibly eye opening. How does the source of funding impact the science being done? This book barely even considers the notion that science can be done objcetively without being impacted by the source of funding, and the multitude of examples from the past century of oceanography supports Oreskes' case completely. A good book for any scientist or science-oriented type, but be aware: it's dense and long.

[Becca Cleveland · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel conflicted about this book. I’m glad that I read it, because the context in which scientific ideas are developed is important. I now also feel prepared with more talking points when my old professors say that science/academia was better back in the day.

I didn’t love the book itself — there were a lot of anecdotes included that seemed only tangentially related to the central premise. But I’d recommend it to other earth scientists out there!

[Claudia Geib · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this as research for my own book writing. I would not call it a book made for the general public- Oreskes is an excellent writer and historian, but this book is dennnnse.