![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
From 1797 to 1801 a controversy played out on the pages of the Medical Repository, the first scientific journal published in the United States. At its centre was the well-known feud between the followers of Antoine Lavoisier and Joseph Priestley, the lone supporter of the phlogiston model. The American debate, however, had more than two sides. The Americans chemists, Samuel Latham Mitchill and Benjamin Woodhouse, who rushed to support Priestley did not defend his scientific views. Rather, as citizens of a republic, they defended his right to have them. They also castigated the assertions of the “French chemists,” whose claims that the new chemistry obviated debate seemed unsettlingly similar to the dictatorial ambitions of the French state. Using the Medical Repository, Mitchill and Woodhouse sought a compromise that validated the new chemistry, but united it with a more egalitarian form of discourse. The desired balance eluded them. Priestley proved too stubborn, and as the French Revolution descended into dictatorship and war, Mitchill and Woodhouse came more to realize that truly prising French chemistry from the culture of the revolutionary era. The episode left Mitchill and Woodhouse disillusioned with chemistry and hoping to redirect scientific enthusiasm to more pious ends.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Joseph Priestley, Consideration on the Doctrine Phlogiston (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1929), pp. 17–19. The Chemical Revolution and Priestley’s resistance to it has spawned a lengthy historiography, from Whiggish celebration to denial that there was a Chemical Revolution, an introduction to which can be found in John G. McEvoy, The Historiography of the Chemical Revolution: Patterns of Interpretation in the History of Science (New York: Routledge, 2015).
2 The reception of Lavoisier’s chemistry in the United States has not received the attention that it has in other locales. Pioneering works have revealed the philosophical and technical aspects of the chemical thought and practice, but have not given much regard for the social, cultural, and political contexts of which these chemical discussions were so intimately a part. See the works of Edgar Fahs Smith, Chemistry in America: Chapters from the History of the Science in the United States (New York: D. Appleton, 1914); Chemistry in Old Philadelphia (J.B. Lippincott Company, 1919); a more recent overview is John C. Greene, American Science in the Age of Jefferson (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1984), pp. 158–87; for a broad summary of the discussions in the Medical Repository, see Sidney Edelstein, ‘The Chemical Revolution in America from the Pages of the “Medical Repository”’, Chymia, 5 (1959), 155–79; and for Mitchill’s part in the chemical conversation, see Courtney Robert Hall, A Scientist in the Early Republic: Samuel Latham Mitchill, 1764–1831 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934), pp. 19–30.
3 Works on the chemical revolution in British contexts have shown that resistance to Lavoisier’s ideas were influenced by the presentation of the new ideas and the way it violated cherished norms of polite discourse. They offer a wealth of interpretative resources for the study of chemistry in the early United States. See Jan Golinski, Science as Public Culture: Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 1760–1820 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 129–52; John G. McEvoy, ‘Continuity and Discontinuity in the Chemical Revolution’, Osiris, 4, ‘The Chemical Revolution: Essays in Reinterpretation’ (1988), 195–213; Golinski, ‘The Chemical Revolution and the Politics of Language’, The Eighteenth Century, 33, no. 3 (Fall 1992), 238–51; Arthur Donovan, ‘Scottish Responses to the New Chemistry of Lavoisier’, Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture, 9 (1979), 239.
4 Edmund Burke, ‘Preface to Brissot's Address to his Constituents’, in The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke, Vol. VIII, ed. by L. G. Mitchell (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 512; for the linguistic distortions of the French Revolution, see Steven Blakemore, ‘Burke and the Fall of Language: The French Revolution as Linguistic Event’, Eighteenth-Century Studies, 17, no. 3 (Spring 1984), 284–307.
5 A number of recent works trace the influence of the French Revolution in the United States. See Rachel Hope Cleves, The Reign of Terror in America: Visions of Violence from Anti-Jacobinism to Antislavery (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Philipp Ziesche, Cosmopolitan Patriots: Americans in Paris in the Age of Revolution (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2010); Seth Cotlar, Tom Paine’s America: The Rise and Fall of Transatlantic Radicalism in the Early Republic (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011); Francois Furstenberg, When the United States Spoke French: Five Refugees Who Shaped a Nation (New York: Penguin Press, 2014). These works have followed the reverberations of the French Revolution in American politics, religion, and culture; this study traces its influence in science as well. A great introduction to early national political culture is Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001); for the role of public papers in politics, see Marcus Daniel, Scandal and Civility: Journalism and the Birth of American Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
6 In a more recent essay, Michael Conlin goes so far as to argue that Priestley converted James Woodhouse owing to their close ‘social interactions’, which made Woodhouse more pliable to persuasion. See Michael Conlin, ‘Joseph Priestley’s American Defense of Phlogiston Reconsidered’, Ambix, 43, no. 3 (November 1996), 129–45. The problem is that Priestley did not convert Woodhouse to the phlogiston view, although at times it seems like he did. Viewing the conversation as a production explains the sometimes-odd ways in which Woodhouse approaches Priestley.
7 On the importance of facts in natural history, see Andrew Lewis, ‘A Democracy of Facts, an Empire of Reason: Swallow Submersion and Natural History in the Early American Republic’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 62, no. 4 (October 2005), 663–96; and Andrew Lewis, A Democracy of Facts: Natural History in the Early Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011); for facts in the electrical sciences and technologies, see James Delbourgo, ‘Common Sense, Useful Knowledge, and Matters of Fact in the Late Enlightenment: The Transatlantic Career of Perkins's Tractors’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 61, no. 4 (October, 2004), 643–84; Susan Scott Parrish, American Curiosity: Cultures of Natural History in the Colonial British Atlantic World (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006).
8 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2:10, As Andrew Lewis notes, much of the older historiography on early American science reads as ‘apologia’ for stunted development of American science (Lewis, Democracy of Facts, 159, ftn. 10). See Edgar Fahs Smith, Chemistry in America; Brooke Hindle, The Pursuit of Science in Revolutionary America, 1735–1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1956); Greene, American Science in the Age of Jefferson; George H. Daniels, American Science in the Age of Jackson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968).
9 As in contemporary discourses, opposition to ‘theory’ is often simply opposition to a theory that one does not like. Foundational works in the history of science have emphasized the local settings of scientific knowledge production. See Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985); Golinski, Science as Public Culture; a good example of the local creation of scientific knowledge in the early republic is D. Graham Burnett, Trying Leviathan: The Nineteenth-Century New York Court Case That Put the Whale on Trial and Challenged the Order of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
10 A good overview of the political tensions with France is Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 529–79; For the Alien and Sedition Acts, a new work is Terri Diane Halperin, The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Trying the Constitution (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016); the text that started the Bavarian Illuminati conspiracy was John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe (1798), of which there are dozens of American editions; the classic study is Vernon Stauffer, New England and the Bavarian Illuminati Conspiracy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1918); a newer study traces fears of the Bavarian illuminati into early American literature: Bryan Waterman, ‘The Bavarian Illuminati, the Early American Novel, and Histories of the Public Sphere’, William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 62, no.1 (January 2005), 9–30.
11 Samuel Latham Mitchill, Medical Repository, 2, no. 2 (November 1797), 221; the reviews appears on 221–29.
12 For a useful overview of the scientific ideas at stake, see Peter Dear, The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 67–88; and a cogent history of chemical developments in the eighteenth century is Thomas Hankins, Science and the Enlightenment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 81–112.
13 Mitchill, Nomenclature of the New Chemistry (New York: T. and J. Swords, 1794), p. 4. For information about Mitchill, see Hall, A Scientist in the Early Republic: Samuel Latham Mitchill; Edgar Fahs Smith, Samuel Latham Mitchill: A Father of American Chemistry (New York: Columbia University Press, 1922); Burnett has some illuminating insights about Mitchill in his later career in Trying Leviathan, 44–94; a contemporary’s account is John W. Francis, Reminiscences of Samuel Latham Mitchill M.D., LL.D. (New York: John F. Trow, 1859).
14 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 1, no. 2, 221–22.
15 A thoughtful consideration of these personae and his execution is Arthur Donovan, Antoine Lavoisier: Science, Administration and Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Jean-Pierre Poirier, Lavoisier: Chemist, Biologist, Economist, trans. Rebecca Balinski (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993). In the lead up to Lavoisier’s death, and before his own murder, Marat wrote scathing critiques of Lavoisier, classifying him as the head of the ‘charlatans’ who made up the Academy of Sciences. See J. P. Marat, Les charlatans modernes ou Lettres sur charlatanisme academique (Paris: Imprimerie de Marat, 1791), Letter XI, p. 36.
16 William Cobbett, Porcupine's Political Censor, for November 1796. Containing Observations on the Insolent and Seditious Notes, Communicated to the People of the United States by the Late French Minister Adet (Philadelphia: William Cobbett, 1796), p. 54; Cobbett also penned the anti-Adet The Gros Mousqueton Diplomatique, or Diplomatic Blunderbuss, Containing, Citizen Adet’s Notes to the Secretary of State (Philadelphia: William Cobbett, 1796).
17 The best introduction to Priestley’s thought is Robert E. Schofield, The Enlightened Joseph Priestley: A Study of His Life and Work from 1773 to1804 (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004); See also Jenny Graham, ‘Joseph Priestley in America’, in Joseph Priestley: Scientist, Philosopher, and Theologian, ed. by Isabel Rivers and David L. Wykes (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 203–30.
18 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 1, no. 2, 222, 224, 225.
19 For the evolution of the category of fact, see Mary Poovey, A History of the Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998); and Barbara Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England, 1550–1720 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000); in the early republic see, Andrew Lewis, A Democracy of Facts: Natural History in the Early Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011); James Delbourgo, ‘Common Sense, Useful Knowledge, and Matters of Fact in the Late Enlightenment’.
20 For the excerpt in Mitchill’s review, Medical Repository, 1, no. 3 (February 1798), 350.
21 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 2, no. 1 (1799). Lavoisier too centered his scientific conclusions on the facts but he saw them as the results of certain experiments, where Mitchill and Priestley saw them as points of debate that demanded consent from natural inquirers before being accepted as truth. Lavoisier’s assertions rested on his superior technology and showed his debt to mathematical thought. On the demonstrative order of proof in Lavoisier, see Golinski, ‘Instruments and the Demonstrative Order of Proof in Lavoisier’s Chemistry’, Osiris 9, Instruments (1994), 30–47; Henry Guerlac, ‘Chemistry as a Branch of Physics: Laplace’s Collaboration with Lavoisier’, in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 7, ed. by Russel McCormmach (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), pp. 193–276.
22 For a history of civility in science, see Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Shapin’s pioneering work showed that civility demonstrated by natural inquirers cemented shared identities, galvanized their efforts around common concerns, and ensured that their factual claims could be trusted; in the broadest, civil undergirded scientific enterprise as it emerged in the seventeenth century in England. For the raucous and volatile political environments, see Freeman, Affairs of Honor; and Daniel, Scandal and Civility. Just as Priestley and the American chemists called for civility to mend dysfunctional chemical discourse, so too did political thinkers emphasize civility to cure broken political discussions.
23 Priestley, Medical Repository, 1, no. 4 (1798), 521–22; Priestley later acknowledged that this letter was never intended for publication – Medical Repository, 2, no. 4 (May 1799), 389.
24 James Woodhouse, Medical Repository, 2, no. 4 (May 1799): 398–401; For Woodhouse’s education and chemical works, see Edgar Fahs Smith, James Woodhouse: A Pioneer in Chemistry, 1770–1809 (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company, 1918).
25 Priestley, Medical Repository, 3, no. 3 (1800): 305; for the influence and origins of the Medical Repository, see Richard Kahn and Patricia Kahn, ‘The Medical Repository – the First U.S. Medical Journal (1797–1824)’, The New England Journal of Medicine, 337 (December 1997), 1926–30.
26 For Mitchill’s reference to Berthollet, see Medical Repository, 2, no. 1 (1799), 54. By the time Priestley responded, Berthollet had gone to Egypt, and so Priestley quipped, ‘I do not regret the absence of M. Berthollet in Egypt.’ See Priestley, Medical Repository, 3, no. 2 (1800), 116.
27 Many of the traits imputed to the French were also attached to women who failed to meet ideals of femininity. See Linda Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980); a thoughtful work on the
28 The modeling of scientific virtue and practice in Medical Repository nicely exemplifies what William Huntting Howell identified as a preoccupation with imitation and replicability (as opposed to individualism and authenticity) in early republican ideologies and practices. See Howell, ‘A More Perfect Copy: David Rittenhouse and the Reproduction of Republican Virtue’, William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 64, no. 4 (October 2007), 757–90. Howell, Against Self-Reliance: The Arts of Dependence in the Early United States (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2016). The rhetoric in the Medical Repository also suggests a tension, as correspondents often glorified imitation – both in terms of civil conduct and in terms of the replicability and repeatability of experiments – while also valorizing personal ingenuity as well as the kind of ‘manly’ independence that allowed Priestley to resist the fashion of Lavoisierian chemistry.
29 Modern conceptions of candor equate it with frankness and bluntness, but contemporary uses of the term associated it with open-mindedness and impartiality. Noah Webster defined candor as ‘openness of heart; frankness, ingenuousness of mind; a disposition to treat subjects with fairness; freedom from tricks or disguise; sincerity’. See Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: S. Converse, 1828).
30 Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965).
31 Priestley, Medical Repository, 2, no. 4 (May 1799), 383; 3, no. 2 (1800), 116; 3, no. 3 (1800), 305.
32 For his response to Maclean, see Woodhouse, Medical Repository, 2, no. 4 (May 1799), 398–401; 4, no. 2 (1801), 113.
33 Priestley, Medical Repository, 3, no. 3 (1800), 305.
34 For Priestley, who believed that a metal was a combination of a metallic calx and phlogiston, ‘reviving’ meant restoring phlogiston to the metal. Lavoisierians believed that metals were ‘irreducible substances’ not compounds, and that a calx was a metal plus oxygen.
35 Priestley comments on his experimental facts and counters Woodhouse in Medical Repository, 3, no. 2 (1800), 117; Woodhouse first published his critiques of Priestley’s experimental techniques in The Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 4 (1799), 463. In typical fashion, Mitchill excerpted Woodhouse’s key arguments and published them in the Medical Repository, 4, no. 1 (1801), 25–34.
36 Priestley, Medical Repository, 2, no. 1 (1798), 49.
37 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 3, (1800), 382.
38 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 1, no. 4 (1798), 514; 3, no. 4 (1800), 384.
39 The term sentimental empiricism is from Jessica Riskin, Science in the Age of Sensibility: The Sentimental Empiricists of the French Enlightenment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), which has an excellent discussion of chemical language reform in the eighteenth century and its relationship to political revolution, 227–81.
40 Lavoisier was quoting from Condillac’s System of Logic; I am quoting from an Edinburgh translation of Robert Kerr, the first English translation available to Americans. See Antoine Lavoisier, Elements of Chemistry, in a New Systematic Order, 5th edn, trans. By Robert Kerr (Edinburgh: W. Creech, 1802), p. xvii.
41 Lavoisier to Benjamin Franklin, 2 February 1790, quoted in Henry Guerlac, Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier: Chemist and Revolutionary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1975), p. 111; for the philosophical bases of Lavoisier’s nomenclature, see Riskin, Science in the Age of Sensibility, pp. 227–81; Donovan, Antoine Lavoisier, pp. 157–87.
42 Priestley, Considerations.
43 Henry Cavendish, The Scientific Papers of the Honourable Henry Cavendish, ed. by Edward Thorpe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921), p. 325. For the reactions to Lavoisier’s nomenclature, see John G. McEvoy, ‘Priestley Responds to Lavoisier’s Nomenclature: Language, Liberty, and Chemistry in the English Enlightenment ’, in Lavoisier in European Context: Negotiating a New Language for Chemistry, ed. by Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Ferdinando Abbri (Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 1995), p. 130 (pp. 123–42); Golinski, ‘The Chemical Revolution and the Politics of Language’.
44 Jean-Andre Deluc to Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, 18 November 1793, quoted in Riskin, Science in the Age of Sensibility, 269; Blakemore, ‘Burke and the Fall of Language’, 284–307 provides a compelling picture of the fear of words during the French Revolution. Deluc may have gone further than others, but many contemporaries established the link between the revolutionary language reform and chemical nomenclature. See Golinski, Science as Public Culture, p. 150.
45 Mitchill, An Address to the Citizens of New-York, Who Assembled in the Brick Presbyterian Church to Celebrate the Twenty-Third Anniversary of American Independence (New York: George F. Hopkins, 188), pp. 8, 14–15.
46 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 1, no. 2 (November 1797), 225; Mitchill, Explanation of Synopsis of Chemical Nomenclature and Arrangement, Containing Several Important Alterations of the Plan Originally Reported by the French Academicians (New York: T. and J. Swords, 1801); the work was a summary of the minor changes that he had proposing. See the Medical Repository, 2, no. 1 (1798), 51–54, where Mitchill first made his promise to get rid of oxygen, although he never firmly made the proposal; 3, no. 4 (1800), 379–86.
47 In Priestley’s imagination the experiment involved the calcination of the iron gun barrel, leaving a calx behind; to Lavoisier, the experiment ‘demonstrated’ the oxidation of the iron, and, indeed, his careful weights and measures revealed that the gun barrel gained weight that was equal to original weight of the water minus the weight of the leftover gas. Mitchill first proposed the substitution of phlogiston for hydrogen in the Medical Repository, 1, no. 4 (1797), 514.
48 Mitchill first mentioned septon in the Medical Repository, 2, no. 1 (1798), 51–55; he had earlier discussed the term in a treatise inspired by recent yellow fever outbreaks: Mitchill, Remarks on the Gaseous Oxyd of Azote or of Nitrogene … Being an Attempt to Ascertain the True Nature of Contagion, and to Explain Thereupon the Phenomena of Fever (New York: T. and J. Swords, 1795), pp. 12–13.
49 Mitchill first offered his thoughts on anticrouon in the Explanation of Synopsis of Chemical Nomenclature and Arrangement, 24, 30; In his review of the work, issued the following year, Edward Miller excerpted much of what Mitchill earlier wrote, see Medical Repository, 5, no. 3 (1802), 333–38.
50 See Lyman Spalding, ed., A New Nomenclature of Chemistry : Proposed by Messrs. de Morveau, Lavoisier, Berthollet and Fourcroy; with Additions and Improvements (Hanover, NH: Moses Davis, 1799).
51 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 3, no. 4 (1800), 386.
52 Ibid., 379, 383, 385; Lawrence M. Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).
53 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 3, no. 4 (1800), 383.
54 Mitchill’s critiques of calorique come paired with his opinions about anticrouon. See Mitchill, Explanation of Synopsis of Chemical Nomenclature and Arrangement, 26–30; and Miller, Medical Repository, 5, no. 3 (1802), 335–38.
55 John W. Francis, Reminiscences of Samuel Latham Mitchill, 30; Nathan Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); for ripples beyond the borders of the United States, see Jon Sensbach, Rebecca’s Revival: Creating Black Christianity in the Atlantic World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005). Linford D. Fisher, The Indian Great Awakening: Religion and the Shaping of Native Cultures in Early America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).
56 Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed. Frank M. Turner (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 7.
57 Mitchill, Medical Repository, 4, no. 4 (1801), 389–90.
58 Miller, Medical Repository, 5, no. 1 (1802), 67.
59 Priestley’s last chemical essay appears in the Medical Repository 6, no. 3 (1803), 271, where he still confidently wrote, ‘I flatter myself that the controversy will come to a speedy termination.’
60 Jean-Antoine-Claude Chaptal, Elements of Chemistry (Philadelphia: Benjamin and Thomas Kite, 1807): the subtitle says cryptically ‘with great additions and improvements by James Woodhouse’, although the text seems totally similar to other American editions of Chaptal’s. For his objections, see James Parkinson and James Woodhouse, Chemical Pocket-Book, or Memoranda Chemica … To Which Is Now Added, an Appendix, Containing the Principal Objections to the Antiphlogistic System of Chemistry by James Woodhouse (Philadelphia: James Humphreys, 1802). A contemporary and student of Woodhouse, Charles Caldwell, wrote in the section of his autobiography dealing with Woodhouse that chemistry renders many of its ‘votaries … permanently wild and visionary in their action. It is not, I think, to be doubted that alchemy and chemistry have deranged a greater number of intellects than all the other branches of science united’. See Charles Caldwell, Autobiography of Charles Caldwell, ed. by Harriot W. Warner (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, and Co., 1855), p. 176.
61 Mitchill, ‘Generic Names for the Country and People of the United States of America’ (New York, 1803), Early American Imprints, Series 2, no. 4267.
62 This is precisely why we should be hesitant to accept rejection of scientific ideas for their bases in ‘theory’. For American interests in natural history and earth science, see Lewis, A Democracy of Facts; a fine and beautiful work on strains of Romanticism and naturalism in early-nineteenth-century America is Aaron Sachs, The Humboldt Current: Nineteenth-Century Exploration and the Roots of American Environmentalism (New York: Penguin Books, 2007); ironically, the opposition to ‘system’ in medicine sent Americans to Paris in the early nineteenth century, see John Harley Warner, Against the Spirit of System: The French Impulse in Nineteenth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).
63 See, for example, Elena Conis, Vaccine Nation: America’s Changing Relationship with Immunization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015); Michael Egan and Jeff Crane, eds. Natural Protest: Essays on the History of American Environmentalism (New York: Routledge, 2009).