書本章節:「起始與暫緩」(中文摘要)

Editors’ Note: This is a Chinese translation of a Teach 3.11 annotation. We invite volunteers to translate and/or contribute content in Korean, Japanese, and Chinese languages. Thank you.

編輯的話: 本文為本站已發表的英文摘要之中文翻譯,我們誠摯地邀請有志者協助我們翻譯或撰寫韓文,日文,或中文的摘要。謝謝。

書本章節:「起始與暫緩: 國民黨,科學,與科技」(Greene, 2008)

Greene, J. Megan. 2008. “Starts and Stops: The Kuomintang and Science and Technology.” The Origins of the Developmental State in Taiwan, 14-46. Harvard University Press.

對日本東亞鄰國的核能研究源起感興趣的學者來說,Greene的台灣科學政策史,清楚地解釋核能物理這個領域,在國民黨政府在台灣著手科學研究的過程中的特別角色。在她The Origins of the Developmental State in Taiwan 一書中,特別是「起始與暫緩」一章中,描述了二戰後的一、二十年內,國民黨政府有制度、系統性地在台灣推廣核能研究。這些五零年代和六零年代所建立的核能研究機構中訓練出來的研究者,在八零年代後於核能安全和環境安全的相關公共爭議中擔當要角。該章分析核能研究在台灣早先由國家系統性建置而成的原因和過程。

Greene追蹤從1927年到1958年,國民黨對科學教育和應用研究機構的提倡。1927年到1949年國民黨政府仍在中國時,不遺餘力地支持科學教育和研究,然而到了五零年代,這樣的支持嘎然止息。國民黨政府的決策改變受到許多因素影響。舉例來說,科學機構所需的研究經費對缺乏資源的政府而言是筆不少的支出。再者,若國民黨政府在台灣投資昂貴的研究設施,將意味著「對這個島嶼的永久或等同於永久的承諾」,這與國民黨反攻大陸的計畫相抵觸。

在此歷史脈絡下,Greene認為1950年代的國民黨政府,之所以願意建立數個數個原子能研究機構,是因為意識到這類研究應用在軍事用途的可能性。在43頁到45頁,她描述了台灣最早建立的三個原子能研究機構,及這些機構和美國政府單位和研究機構彼此間的關係。

第一個機構是原子能委員會(AEC),在台灣與美國1955年簽署和平使用原子能協定之後成立,隸屬行政院。第二個機構則是1957年設立於國立清華大學的核能研究所,校園內設置了泳池式反應爐,其中部分資金來自美國原子能委員會,此反應爐在1961年開始運作。第三個機構是中山科學研究院,由行政院原子能委員會成立的軍事單位,在六零年代開始著手核能研究。

Greene的文章剖析國民黨政府對核能研究的興趣,並指出國民黨政府對核能專家培育的投資,和1950年代時國民黨對其他科學的漠然態度形成強烈對比。這個章節很適合關注國家領導科學或是研究冷戰期間不同科學領域的不同角色的課程。

- By Honghong Tinn (鄭芳芳), with translation by Hsiao-Ling Chen (陳曉齡)

CHAPTER: “Starts and Stops” (2008): Nuclear Energy Research Institutes in Taiwan

Greene, J. Megan. 2008. “Starts and Stops,” The Origins of the Developmental State in Taiwan, 14-46. Harvard University Press.

For those interested in the origins of nuclear energy research by Japan’s East Asian neighbors, Greene’s history of science policy in Taiwan elucidates the extraordinary role of nuclear physics in the early history of the Kuomintang government’s investment in scientific research. Her book, in particular the chapter “Starts and Stops,” describes the state’s institution-building efforts to promote nuclear energy research in the first two decades after WWII. Since the 1980s, researchers trained at Taiwan’s nuclear research institutes, established in the ’50s and ’60s, have played an important role in public debates about nuclear energy’s safety and environmental impacts. This book chapter analyzes why and how nuclear energy research was institutionalized by the state in the first place.

Greene traces the historical changes in the Kuomintang government’s promotion of “science education and applied research institutions” from 1927 to 1958. While the Kuomingtang government enthusiastically supported science education and research in China from 1927 to 1949, it ceased to do so when it settled in Taiwan in the ’50s. Many factors contributed to the government’s change of heart. For example, the required scientific facilities were particularly costly for a government that lacked resources. Moreover, investment in such expensive facilities, which “represented a permanent or semipermanent commitment to the island,” contradicted the Kuomingtang leadership’s plan of mainland recovery.

In this historical context, Greene attributes the Kuomingtang government’s willingness to establish several atomic energy research institutions in the 1950s to the potential military applications of such research. From pages 43 to 45, she describes the first three atomic energy research institutions in Taiwan and their relationships with United States government agencies and research institutes.

The first such institution was the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), created under the Executive Yuan (the equivalent of the Cabinet or the Council of Ministers) after the Taiwanese government signed an agreement with the U.S. on the peaceful use of atomic energy in 1955. The second institution was a graduate program in nuclear physics at National Tsing Hua University in 1957. A “swimming pool” reactor, partially funded by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1957, was installed at the university and started to function in 1961. The third institution was the Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology, a military unit established by the AEC, which participated in nuclear research in the 1960s.

Greene’s chapter contextualizes the Kuomingtang government’s interest in nuclear energy research, including its investment in nurturing generations of nuclear scientists, in contrast to its lukewarm attitude toward other sciences in the 1950s. This book chapter would be appropriate for classes interested in state-supported science as well as the various roles of different scientific disciplines during the Cold War.

– Honghong Tinn

Educational Module: Understanding the International Nuclear Event Scale

by Angie Boyce
Ph.D. student, Cornell University, Department of Science & Technology Studies

Note: This week’s posting schedule starts with a sample educational module. We hope this may inspire and encourage fellow educators to design and share educational modules to help teach about 3/11. We’re posting at a minimum every weekday at 2:46 p.m. local time in Japan for the rest of April. Please stay tuned for new content, and thank you for participating.

When the Japanese government reclassified the triple disaster from 5 to 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) on April 11, 2011, the disaster went from being classified as an “accident with wider consequences” to a “major accident.” Moreover, Fukushima was now placed in the same category as Chernobyl, a move that sparked multiple questions in media discourse: is Fukushima “really as bad” as Chernobyl? Did the Japanese government hide information from the public because it had initially rated the disaster lower on the scale?

Approaches from the social and historical studies of science and technology tend to ask different kinds of questions about things like the INES. Looking at current public discourse provides a useful starting point, and one such question that can be explored when starting to think about this reclassification critically is: How are different considerations of time and timing playing a role in shaping actors’ opinions on the reclassification?

In this module, have students read the New York Times article entitled, “Japan Raises Severity Level for Fukushima Nuclear Accident,” using the above question first as an initial probe, and second as a prompt to help raise their own questions. Teachers may wish to keep in mind some interesting things that may help guide class discussions: 1) the notion that the level 7 put out too early could cause “panic,” 2) that TEPCO is thinking about the “worst-case scenario,” and 3) that initially, the “margins of error” on computer models of the disaster were too big to justify decision-making. Students should also explore the INES webpage, raising questions about it as well. Thinking questions could include:

  • Is the INES similar to the Richter scale or temperature, as the website states?
  • Why is the INES user’s manual only available in English, Russian, and Spanish?
  • Why doesn’t the INES web page discuss time and timing?
Many of these questions can only be addressed by contextualizing the INES and finding out more about its historical development. One such resource to investigate is a history of the organizational body that created the INES, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) written by an internal agency historian (see p. 212).

Some separate but related study questions may include: What kind of roles do internal agency historians play? How are public records created and preserved, and who may, should, or can access this information? Do all companies, organizations, or governments have historians, and why or why not?

Sources: 

Bradsher, Keith, Hiroko Tabuchi and Andrew Pollack. “Japan Raises Severity Level for Fukushima Nuclear Accident” (Alternate title: “Japanese Officials on Defensive as Nuclear Alert Level Rises”), New York Times, April 12, 2011, accessed April 14, 2011 and April 17, 2011,  www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/world/asia/13japan.html

Fischer, David. 1997.  History of the International Atomic Energy Agency: The First Forty Years. International Atomic Energy Agency (Vienna: The Agency), accessed April 14, 2011, http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub1032_web.pdf

The International Atomic Energy Agency.International Atomic Energy Agency website, “International Nuclear Events Scale,” www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/ines.asp, accessed April 14, 2011.


Introduction


Teach 3/11 is a participatory resource to help teachers and scholars locate and share educational resources about the historical contexts of scientific and technical issues related to the triple earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disasters in Japan.

  • “What should I read?”
  • “What should I teach?”
  • “Who studies these issues?”

These represent a sample of the kinds of questions that have been directed at and among many Japan-watchers and analysts of science and technology since 3/11. As an independent initiative spurred by the hope of helping people find answers to such questions more quickly, Teach 3/11 is a participatory online project built in the spirit of international cooperation and solidarity that disaster recoveries depend upon, regardless where they occur. In partnership with the Forum for the History of Science in Asia, Teach 3/11 has a simple goal: to develop a list of teaching resources with the help of the the collective wisdom of scholars worldwide working at the intersections of history of science and technology and Asia.

Beginning on 14 April through the end of the month, we will make a post every weekday at 2:46 p.m. local time in Japan to remember the events that have since unfolded. We will also field the receipt of citation suggestions during our first phase of development through a self-imposed deadline of April 22nd in order to post the most relevant information about references, readings, and audio-visual materials to aid teachers interested in the most pertinent history of science and technology resources in the wake of 3/11 current events.  In our second phase of development, we will work on preparing contributed material for continued online postings, which will collectively result in an online teaching resource.

Beginning with materials in English, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese, our hope is to make Teach 3/11 as useful as possible for fellow educators everywhere. Here’s a sample of the kind of entries we’re aiming to compile. We’re also interested in compiling a list of study questions for students. Click here to get started.

Our lines of communication are open to the community. Contact teach3eleven [at] gmail [dot] com or @teach_311 to reach us. Bookmark and check teach311.wordpress.com as we make continual updates. As we increase our digital capacity, please stay tuned and help spread the word!

Thank you for participating in Teach 3/11.

###

Banner image: A house floats intact in the Pacific Ocean, washed out to sea by the tsunami of March 11, 2011.  Credit: US Navy