|
The primary focus of this study is the personal politics of science
which tends in this instance to cast light upon the reception of
potentially new observational data in science, Thomas Kuhn's notion
of paradigm shift, and the history of the UFO controversy itself.
Moreover, through a decidedly different look at the scientific
process than that which is traditionally put forth, an effort is made
to demonstrate that the scientific process can be profitably regarded
as a political process.
Ideally, a more complete reconstruction of the scientific controversy
surrounding the UFO problem is the proper foundation on which to
build. Unfortunately, some participants in the affair refused to, or
could not for various reasons, cooperate. Consequently, this study
is based on a subset of information, the core of which I believe is
virtually complete. By this I mean that the nucleus of this research
consists of the complete work, and correspondence where relevant, of
the late Dr. James E. McDonald who was the most outspoken academic in
the UFO debate from 1966-71. Concentrating on McDonald, for my
purposes, is the wisest strategy to pursue, for it will permit me to
examine those issues referred to above, with the knowledge that only
a limited amount of material pertinent to the McDonald experience has
escaped my scrutiny. Yet, this should not be misconstrued to mean
that McDonald alone will receive attention; for in his efforts to
resolve the UFO riddle McDonald interacted with virtually all the
prominent names in what has come to be referred to as the Field of
Ufology. As these interactions arise I will chronicle them. As a
result the reader will
obtain an understanding of the personalities, issues, and strategies
which compose the context of the UFO controversy. More importantly,
however, this will convey the politics of being a scientific
frontiersman. That is, attempting to make knowledge claims beyond
those generally accepted by the scientific community.
The study is organized into seven chapters. In chapter one a
framework for analysis is developed after reviewing some of the
literature in the fields of Ufology, the politics of science, the
sociology of science and the history of science. Within this
framework the distinction is made between the scientific method and
the scientific process; the former being a subset of the latter.
Chapter two concentrates on McDonald's activities in 1966, the first
year of his UFO involvement. He is followed intensively in order to
capture the flavor of the highly political milieu in which he
functioned and accordingly to make the case that the scientific
process, at least in the potentially revolutionary instance, is a
political process. Having demonstrated that, chapters three, four,
five and six are less intensive, but are more substantively focused
on single events as they highlight various aspects of the borderland
science endeavor. In chapter three McDonald is observed meddling in
the Air Force sponsored Condon Project at the University of Colorado,
while in chapter four he engineers the 1968 UFO Symposium before the
Science and Astronautics Committee of the U.S. House of
Representatives. A few of the pitfalls of engaging a borderland
subject are illustrated in chapter five by the battle which ensued
over McDonald's spending of Office of Naval Research atmospheric
physics research funds for UFO studies. This is followed by an
examination of the 1969 American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) UFO Symposium preparations in chapter six. Although
McDonald did not play a role as a symposium organizer, the event
itself -- getting established science to confront the UFO problem --
was the primary goal of his campaign. It is therefore instructive to
view the confrontation. Lastly, chapter seven speaks to the concept
of borderland science activity and an attempt is made to flesh out
Kuhn's notion of a paradigm shift by discussing it in terms of a
revolutionary political process.
|