Science Progress gave two historians a few column inches to remind us that not all science and technology narratives reflect the history of their disciplines. Folks focused on nanotechnology will find the article of interest, but the main points are more broadly applicable than to just the really, really small. The lessons, if you want to boil them down (which is a lousy thing to do with history, but expected in blogging) resemble some obvious statements, but statements that aren’t effectively applied and rarely considered when dealing with science and technology. The Whig history mentioned here and in the Science Progress piece refers to historical treatments that treat current conditions as another step along a steady path of progress.
There is a history. Nearly every person engaged with science and technology policy in the United States seems to think their field started and ended with Vannevar Bush in the late 1940s. This ignores over 150 years of prior activity in the United States. The Lewis and Clark Expedition and the U.S. Census are two ventures in the field that date back nearly to the founding of the republic. The Forest Service and Geological Survey are also good pre-World War II examples of federal science and technology at work.