Organizational Notes THE CAMBRIDGE MEETING, NOVEMBER 1-4, 1984 More than 250 people attended the twenty-seventh annual meeting of the Society for the History of Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,. Cambridge, November 1-4, 1984. Jeffrey Sturchio (Center for History of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania) chaired the Program Committee, which included Susan Douglas (Hampshire College) and Stuart W. Leslie ( Johns Hopkins University); Merritt Roe Smith (MIT) chaired the local arrangements committee. Program Summaries Some eighty members of SHOT were present at the Pelicans session on “Perspectives on Corporate Chemical History.” David A. Hounshell (University of Delaware) first explained the genesis of the Du Pont history project, stressing the important role played by Edward G. Jefferson, chairman of the Du Pont board. Hounshell then outlined the scale of the project (a 600-page book on Du Pont R&D, to be researched and written over four years), before going on to sketch the actual history of R&D at Du Pont from 1902 onward. One key to the Du Pont story was the desire to move away from its dependence on explosives. In contrast, much ofthe story of Rohm and Haas revolves around the need to find uses for a new product, Plexi­ glas. This was one point stressed by Sheldon Hochheiser (Rohm and Haas Co.) in his account of his work as corporate historian. Hochheiser explained his plan to complete a scholarly book on the company within two years and discussed the importance of the “corporate identity” of a technically based company. He stressed how contemporary interest in corporate culture can work to the historian’s advantage. The third speaker, George Wise (General Electric), concentrated on the individual career of Willis Whitney. Wise emphasized how corpo­ rate interest in research was initially a defensive move, while the chemists’ concern was to find frameworks in which they could fruitfully pursue their work. He also described how Whitney pioneered the role of manager of industrial research, out of a context of personal despair and defeat. In his commentary, John Servos (Amherst College) stressed the linkages of science and technology with economic, social, and business history. He also raised the question of how far “German models” of 590 Organizational Notes 591 research and development influenced developments in early 20thcentury America. The ensuing discussion ranged widely and convinc­ ingly demonstrated the growing sophistication ofthe historiography of modern chemical technology. Arnold Thackray Center for History of Chemistry * Douglas Gomery (University of Maryland), scheduled as the first speaker in the session on “Studies in the Technological History of Mass Communications,” was absent because ofillness. His paper, read by the session chairman, surveyed the history of the Technicolor Corpora­ tion, analyzing that company’s influence on the development of color processes in the him industry in four stages: (1) innovation of a two-color “additive process” used experimentally as early as 1917, (2) development of a three-color “imbibition process” developed in the 1930s, (3) a period of monopoly dominance between 1940 and 1949, and (4) the loss of that dominance in the 1950s. Gomery’s paper also pointed to some of the problems in the preservation of color film, noting that the comparatively inexpensive Eastman photographic pro­ cess which came to replace technicolor is mainly responsible for the serious deterioration of color prints in archival collections. William Lafferty’s (Wright State University) paper on the innovation and diffusion of steel tape recording technology, precursor to today’s plastic-based recording tape, concentrated on the efforts of its de­ veloper, Valdemar Poulsen, and promoters, Gurt Stille and Ludwig Blattner. Efforts to interest the moving-picture industry failed, but the need to record radio programs for later broadcast made this technol­ ogy right for the British broadcasting industry, which adopted the “Blattnerphone” in practical use between 1929 and 1935. At least one other variant was developed and used in Germany. Lafferty played archival tapes to demonstrate the remarkable quality of the sound reproduction for the time. The final paper, “Toward a History of Screen Practice,” was pre­ sented by Charles Musser (New York University and Thomas Edison Papers). It traced the intriguing early history of screen practice to explain the experiential context in which viewers were introduced to projected moving pictures...