1. . See Theodore Roszak, The Making of a Counter Culture (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1969), Where the Wasteland Ends (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1972), and “Science: A Technocratic Trap,” Atlantic Monthly (July 1972), pp. 5fk61; N. Wade, “Theodore Roszak: Visionary Critic of Science,” Science 178 (1972): 960–62. See also Stephen Toulmin, “Historical Background to the Anti‐Science Movement,” in Civilization and Science (New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co., 1972); Stephen Cotgrove, “Anti‐Science,” New Scientist (July 12, 1973), pp. 82–84.
  2. . CharlesFrankel, “The Nature and Sources of IrrationalismScience  180 (1973): 927–31; reviews of Roszak's Where the Wasteland Ends by Peter Caws, New Republic (October 21, 1972), pp. 34–36, and Leo Marx, Saturday Review (September 23, 1972), pp. 69–71. See also EdwardShils, “Anti‐ScienceMinerva  9 (1971): 441–50;MelvinKranzberg, “Scientists: The Loyal OppositionAmerican Scientist  60 (1972): 20–23.
  3. . See Keith Melville, Communes in 6he Counter Culture (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1972); Morton Levitt et al., eds., Youth and Social Change (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1972); Ron Roberts, The New Communes (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice‐Hall, Inc., 1971); Rosabeth Kantor, Commitment and Community (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), and Communes: Social Organization of the Collective Life (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).
  4. . Herbert Marcuse, Qne‐Dimensional Man (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964); Lewis Mumford, The Pentagon of power (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970); John McDermott, “Technology: The Opiate of the Intellectuals,” New York Review of Books(July 31, 1969). pp. 25–35. For a more critical discussion see Victor Ferkiss, Technological Man (New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1969).
  5. . Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964); Erich Fromm, The Revolution of Hope: Toward a Humanized Technology (New York: Harper & Row, 1968); Jürgen Habermas, Toward a Rational Society (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970), chap. 6.
  6. . Ian G. Barbour, Myth, Models and Paradigm (New York: Harper & Row, 1974).
  7. . Ian G. Barbour, ed., Earth Might Be Fair (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice‐Hall, Inc., 1972), chap. 9.
  8. . Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends, pp. 374–75, and“The Monster and the Titan: Science, Knowledge, and GnosisDaedalus  (Summer 1974), pp. 17–32.
  9. . See Mary Hesse, Models and Analogies in Science (London: Sheed & Ward, 1963); Max Black, Models and Metaphors (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1962). chaps. 3 and 13; Hans Freudenthal, ed., The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences (New York: Gordon & Breach, 1961); E. H.Hutton, “The Role of Models in PhysicsBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science  4 (1953): 284–301; Marshall Spector, “Models and Theories,” ibid. 16 (1965): 121–42; Peter Achinstein, “Theoretical Models,” ibid. 16 (1965): 102–20; J. W. Swanson, “On Models,” ibid. 17 (1967): 297–311. See also n. 6 above.
  10. . Morton Beckner, The Biological Way of Thought (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959); C.Grobstein, “Levels and OntogenyAmerican Scientist  50 (1962): 46–58; George Gaylord Simpson, This View of Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964); Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala, eds., Problem of Reductionism in Biology (New York: Macmillan Co., 1974).
  11. . See Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961), chaps. 11 and 12; C. H. Waddington, ed., Toward a Theoretical Etiology (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1969), vol. 2; Arthur Koestler and J. R. Smythies, Beyond Reductionism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971).
  12. . N. R. Hanson, Patterns of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958); Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970); P. K.Feyerabend, “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science  , vol. 3, ed. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962). See also MaryHesse, “Theory and Observation: Is There an Independent Observation Language?” in The Nature and Function of Scientific Theory  , ed. R. Colodny (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971); Israel Scheffler, Science and Subjectivity (Indianapolis: Bobbs‐Merrill Co., 1967).
  13. . Cf. James Watson, The Double Helix (New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1968).
  14. . F. Rief, “The Competitive World of the Pure Scientist,” in Science and Society, ed. N. Kaplan (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1965); Robert K. Merton, “The Ambivalence of Scientists,“ibid.; Walter Hirsch, Scientists in American Society (New York: Random House, 1968).
  15. . Jacques Hadamard, Essay on the Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964); Brewster Ghiselin, ed., The Creative Process (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952); Arthur Koestler, The Act of Creation (New York: Macmillan Co., 1964), chaps. 8 and 10; Mary Hesse, “Models and Analogy in Science,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan Co., 1967), 5:354–59.
  16. . J. A.Passmore, “The Revolt Against ScienceSearch  3 (1972): 415–22; Martin Brown, ed., The Social Responsibility of the Scientist (New York: Free Press, 1971); FrankvonHippel and JoelPrimack, “Public Interest ScienceScience  177 (1972): 1166–71; Daniel Greenberg, The Politics of pure Science (New York: New American Library Inc., 1971); J.Bronowski, “The Disestablishment of ScienceEncounter  (July 1971), pp. 9–16;JohnZiman, “The Impact of Social Responsibility on ScienceImpact of Science on Society  21 (1971): 113–22; Joel Primack and Frank von Hippel, Advice and Dissent (New York: Basic Books, 1974).
  17. . MichaelBaram, “Technology Assessment and Social ControlScience  180 (1973): 465–73; National Academy of Sciences, Technology: Processes of Assessment and Choice (United States House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics, 1969); Raphael G. Kasper, ed., Technology Assessment (New York: Praeger Publishers Inc., 1972); Anne Cahn and Joel Primack, “Technological Foresight for Congress,” Technology Review (March 1973), pp. 39–48; M. J. Cetron and B. Bartocha, eds., The Methodology of Technology Assessment (New York: Gordon & Breach, 1972).
  18. . Norman Faramelli, Technethics (New York: Friendship Press, 1971); John R.Platt, “What We Must DoScience  166 (1969): 1115–21.
  19. . Donella H. Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1972). Two collections of essays discussing this volume are H. S. D. Cole et al., eds., Models of Doom (New York: Universe Books, 1973) and A. Weintraub, E. Schwartz, and J. R. Aronson, eds., The Economic Growth Controversy (White Plains, N.Y.: International Arts and Sciences Press, 1973); cf. RonaldRidker, “To Grow or Not To Grow: That's Not the Relevant QuestionScience  182 (1973): 1315–18. The second Club of Rome report is by M. Mesarovic and E. Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1974).
  20. . E. F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful (New York: Harper & Row, 1974); JanineClarke and RobinClarke, “The Biotechnic Research CommunityFutures  4 (1972): 168–73; David Dickson, Alternative Technology and the Politics of Technical Change (London: Fontana Books, 1974). See also the December 1973 issue of Impact of Science on Society.
  21. . ErwinChargaff, “Bitter Fruits from the Tree of Knowledge: Remarks on the Current Revulsion from SciencePerspectives in Biology and Medicine  16 (1973): 492.