Transporting Lazarus: physicians, the state, and the creation of the modern paramedic and ambulance, 1955-73.

In 1966, morticians provided 50 percent of ambulance services in the United States; today advanced care by trained medical professionals en route to the hospital is considered a basic standard of care. The creation of emergency medical services (EMS) provides an important case study for how physicians acting as "experts" helped to shape the creation of federal policy in the post-World War II years. This paper challenges a narrative of the development of EMS that has emphasized technology, individual agency, and the role of fortuitous chance as the prime movers of EMS development. Instead it argues that a key factor in EMS development was the National Academy of Science-National Research Council's Committee on Emergency Medical Services. Using the examples of paramedic training and ambulance design, this paper argues that members of the committee utilized complex mix of local experimentation and professional networking to suggest directions for the federal government's efforts to create national standards and guidelines for EMS. The NAS-NRC Committee retained a prominent role in EMS development until the passage of the Emergency Medical Services Systems Act of 1973, when federal interest in EMS largely shifted from prehospital transport to an emphasis on in hospital care and regional trauma systems planning.

The equally wonderful field: Ernst Mayr and organismic biology.

Biologists in the 1960s witnessed a period of intense intra-disciplinary negotiations, especially the positioning of organismic biologists relative to molecular biologists. The perceived valorization of the physical sciences by "molecular" biologists became a catalyst creating a unified front of "organismic" biology that incorporated not just evolutionary biologists, but also students of animal behavior, ecology, systematics, botany - in short, almost any biological community that predominantly conducted their research in the field or museum and whose practitioners felt the pinch of the prestige and funding accruing to molecular biologists and biochemists. Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and George Gaylord Simpson took leading roles in defending alternatives to what they categorized as the mechanistic approach of chemistry and physics applied to living systems - the "equally wonderful field of organismic biology." Thus, it was through increasingly tense relations with molecular biology that organismic biologists cohered into a distinct community, with their own philosophical grounding, institutional security, and historical identity. Because this identity was based in large part on a fundamental rejection of the physical sciences as a desirable model within biology, organismic biologists succeeded in protecting the future of their field by emphasizing deep divisions that ran through the biological sciences as a whole.

Early climate change consensus at the National Academy: the origins and making of "Changing Climate".

The 1983 National Academy of Sciences report entitled "Changing Climate," authored by a committee of physical and social scientists chaired by William Nierenberg, was an early comprehensive review of the effects of human-caused increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2. Study of the events surrounding the committee's creation, deliberations, and subsequent report demonstrates that the conclusions of the report were the consensus of the entire committee and in line with the scientific consensus of the time. This result contraverts a 2008 paper in which Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway, and Matthew Shindell asserted that the report contradicted a growing consensus about climate change, and that Nierenberg for political reasons deliberately altered the summary and conclusions of the report in a way that played down the concerns of the other physical scientists on the committee. Examining the production of the report and contextualizing it in contemporaneous scientific and political discussion, we instead show how it was a multi-year effort with work divided among the various members of the committee according to their expertise. The synthesis and conclusions were expressly a joint statement of the committee and were consistent with other assessments of that time expressing deep concern over the potential issues while stopping short of recommending major policy changes due to the uncertainties, and to a lack of good alternatives.

The 1928 Carlisle conference: Knight Dunlap and a national laboratory for psychology.

In late March 1928, 32 experimental psychologists met in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The National Research Council (NRC) sponsored the conference, which was organized by Knight Dunlap, chair of the NRC's Division of Anthropology and Psychology. The purpose of the Carlisle conference was to examine the status of experimental psychology, and Dunlap used it to propose a national laboratory for psychology, to be created in Washington, DC. This vision clashed with the traditional university-centered research model and the group resisted Dunlap's plan. Dunlap persisted, the eventual result being a National Institute of Psychology, which accomplished little. The Carlisle conference did succeed in being the impetus for small NRC-funded grants-in-aid to researchers, and it set in motion events that eventually led to the American Psychological Association publication manual.

'A dispassionate and objective effort:' negotiating the first study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation.

The National Academy of Science's 1956 study on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) was designed to provide an objective analysis to assess conflicting statements by leading geneticists and by officials in the Atomic Energy Commission. Largely because of its status as a detached, non-governmental evaluation by eminent scientists, no studies have had a broader impact on the development of biological thinking in regard to nuclear policies. This paper demonstrates that despite the first BEAR study's reputation as an objective and independent study, it was the product of careful negotiation between Academy scientists, the Atomic Energy Commission, and Britain's Medical Research Council. This paper also reveals the fragility of the consensus that produced the Academy's report, the range of political uses of the report, and the subsequent disaffection of the scientists who took part in it.