title: "Vague and artificial": the historically elusive distinction between pure and applied science.
abstract: This essay argues for the historicity of applied science as a contested category within laissez-faire Victorian British science. This distinctively pre-twentieth-century notion of applied science as a self-sustaining, autonomous enterprise was thrown into relief from the 1880s by a campaign on the part of T. H. Huxley and his followers to promote instead the primacy of "pure" science. Their attempt to relegate applied science to secondary status involved radically reconfiguring it as the mere application of pre-existing pure science. This new notion of extrinsically funded pure science that would produce only contingently future social benefits as a mere by-product came under pressure during World War I, when military priorities focused attention once again on science for immediate utility. This threatened the Cambridge-based promoters of self-referential pure science who collectively published Science and the Nation in 1917. Yet most contributors to this work discussed forms of "applied" science that had no prior "pure" form. Even the U.K.'s leading government scientist, Lord Moulton, dismissed the book's provocative distinction between pure and applied science as unhelpfully "vague and artificial."
authors.affiliation: Centre for History and Philosophy of Science, School of Philosophy, Religion, and History of Science, Michael Sadler Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom. G.J.N.Gooday@leeds.ac.uk
authors.forename: Graeme
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Gooday
mesh_terms: D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D012586:Science / Q000266:history*; D013672:Technology / Q000266:history*; D009626:Terminology as Topic; D006113:United Kingdom; D047828:World War I