Basalla G
Science. 1967 May 5;156(3775):611-22. doi: 10.1126/science.156.3775.611.
There is no need to summarize the features of this simplified model, which describes the manner in which modern science was transmitted to the lands beyond Western Europe. The graph of Fig. 1 and the examples drawn from science in various lands should have made them clear. It may be in order, however, to reiterate that there is nothing about the phases of my model that is cosmically or metaphysically necessary. I am satisfied if my attempt will interest others to go beyond my crude analysis and make a systematic investigation of the diffusion of Western science throughout the world. Such an investigation would include a comparative appraisal of the development of science in different national, cultural, and social settings and would mark the beginnings of truly comparative studies in the history and sociology of science. The present lack of comparative studies in these disciplines can be attributed to the widespread belief that science is strictly an international endeavor. In one sense this is true. As Sir Isaac Newton remarked in his Principia (49), "the descent of stones in Europe and in America" must both be explained by one set of physical laws. Yet, we cannot ignore the peculiar environment in which members of a national group of scientists are trained and carry on their research. While I do not hold with the Nazi theorists that science is a direct reflection of the racial or national spirit (50), neither do I accept Chekhov's dictum (51) that "there is no national science just as there is no national multiplication table. . . ." In emphasizing the international nature of scientific inquiry we have forgotten that science exists in a local social setting. If that setting does not decisively mold the conceptual growth of science, it can at least affect the number and types of individuals who are free to participate in the internal development of science. Perhaps the effect is more profound; only future scholarship can determine the depth of its influence.
无需总结这个简化模型的特点，它描述了现代科学传播到西欧以外地区的方式。图1的图表以及从各国科学中选取的例子应该已经使其清晰明了。然而，或许有必要重申，我的模型中的各个阶段并无宇宙或形而上学上的必然性。如果我的尝试能激发他人超越我粗略的分析，对西方科学在全球的传播进行系统研究，我就满足了。这样的研究将包括对不同国家、文化和社会背景下科学发展的比较评估，并将标志着科学史和科学社会学真正比较研究的开端。目前这些学科缺乏比较研究可归因于一种普遍的观念，即科学严格来说是一项国际性事业。从某种意义上讲，这是正确的。正如艾萨克·牛顿爵士在其《自然哲学的数学原理》中所说（49），“欧洲和美洲石头的下落”都必须用一套物理定律来解释。然而，我们不能忽视科学家群体成员接受培训和进行研究的特殊环境。虽然我不同意纳粹理论家的观点，即科学是种族或民族精神的直接反映（50），但我也不接受契诃夫的格言（51），即“不存在民族科学，就如同不存在民族乘法表一样……”在强调科学探究的国际性时，我们忘记了科学存在于当地的社会环境中。如果那种环境不能决定性地塑造科学的概念发展，它至少可以影响能够自由参与科学内部发展的个人数量和类型。或许这种影响更为深远；只有未来的学术研究才能确定其影响的深度。
