Bioscience and Biotechnology
About the interviews
Below are oral histories in the areas of bioscience and biotechnology. You can search our collection for interviews regarding Amgen, Chiron, Genentech, and any keywords to explore the whole of our collection of science related oral histories. See also the list of related projects.
Related resources
AIDS Epidemic in San Francisco Oral History Project
Kaiser Permanente Medical Care
The Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Oral History Project was an in-depth, interview-based research project into many facets of Kaiser Permanente medicine and medical research, medical care delivery, and the politics, business, and economy of medicine in the United States since 1970. Interviews were conducted from 2005 through 2009.
Project team
Richard Cándida Smith, principal investigator
Martin Meeker, project director and interviewer
Funding
This project has been funded by a grant from Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospitals and Health Plan.
Statement of scholarly independence
Although funded by KP, this project was designed and is being executed as an independent scholarly research project; individual interviewees are covered by UC Berkeley Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects guidelines that provide for sealing portions of interview transcripts at the discretion of the interviewee. While the research design and interviewing are independent of KP, we have been assisted by KP staff in identifying research themes and in selecting and locating potential interviewees.
Project resources
Video excerpts
“Managed Care in the 1990s: Politics, Policy, and Oral History Perspectives” archived video
A panel discussion held April 8, 2009 featuring: Alain Enthoven, James Robinson, Martin Meeker, and Richard Candida-Smith, with written remarks by Robin Einhorn.
“The Development of the Electronic Medical Record in Kaiser Permanente” edited video
In this video, Dr. Al Weiland, former director the Northwest Permanente Medical Group, offers an account of how and why electronic medical records emerged from Kaiser Permanente's Northwest Region in the 1990s.
“Dr. Cutting Reflects on the Life and Career of Dr. Sidney Garfield” video excerpt
Project themes
Kaiser Permanente “Core Values”
As KP developed from a prepaid health plan for Kaiser Industry employees to a program available to the broader community, six values defined the practices and culture of the organization:
- group practice
- integration of facilities
- prepayment
- preventive medicine
- voluntary enrollment or “dual choice”
- physician responsibility
These values appeared over and over again in the interviews with KP pioneers. For the founding generation, the values grew directly from the process of developing an innovative health care system that satisfied membership needs for affordable quality medical care. External studies of KP in the 1960s affirmed the practical and financial utility of KP values. KP representatives participated in drafting both the Medicare Act of 1965 and the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Act of 1973. In the latter bill, Congress mandated four of KP’s core values (1, 3, 4, and 5) as necessary components of HMOs.
Ironically, even though KP provided the single most important model for legislation designed to cure the growing inadequacies of America’s fee-for-service-based medical system, it, like every other organization, had a difficult time adjusting to a new, more complex environment. Efforts to adapt to the new situation inevitably involved questioning the continued utility of KP’s “genetic code.”
National expansion posed a particularly important set of challenges. The results of national expansion were varied and often traumatic. The ability to transfer KP core values proved an important factor in the relative success or failure of new regions, thus confirming the functional centrality of core values to KP operations. To abandon them altogether seemed a recipe for failure.
Another set of conflicts developed as continuing changes in law as well as intense competition from new HMOs affected the relationship between Health Plan and Medical Group. As the national organization responded with what many viewed as radical departures from the core values that had guided KP for decades, the cumulative experience of KP leaders around the country suggested that however compelling new approaches might seem in light of the new situation, problem-solving strategies had to respect KP’s long-established culture or they would fail.
The story of how KP came to reaffirm its core values is not one of heroes and villains. Radical change swept through American medical care, and no one had a clear vision of what to do. The apparent decision in the late 1990s to reaffirm KP’s “genetic code” was based on its continuing utilitarian value as well as the strong attachment many within the organization had to KP’s heritage.
Business model and the economics of health care
All of the issues that have concerned KP have had to synthesize into a medical economic model that can support the full range of activities required by contract, law, and public expectation. KP has been unique among nonprofit medical organizations in its reliance on self-funding for new facilities and equipment. The challenges of maintaining a viable economic model flexible enough to adapt to a fast-changing environment is an important factor in internal debates over priorities and decision-making processes. A contrast of business practices as they developed across the regions would provide insight into how decentralization helped KP resolve its internal disagreements.
The mutual trust developed between the medical groups and the health plan at the regional level helped lead to the National Partnership Agreement of 1997 and the Path to Recovery Agreement of 2002 after disagreements at the national level had escalated. The trajectory underscores that the history of KP’s economic model needs to include regional perspectives as well as those from the national office. In an organization as complex and large as KP among the questions all administrators have to address are how much can any of the individual organizations with KP be “at risk”? How much can they count on each other for financial assistance if needed and under what terms? The joint decision of the Permanente Federation and the Health Plan to save the Mid-Atlantic region may be a good case study of how collaboration and shared responsibility have come increasingly to underpin KP’s economic model.
Diversity in the workplace and in the provision of health care
In the 1940s, Kaiser hospitals refused to segregate patients on the basis of race. They were often the only hospitals in the local community where black physicians could practice. KP members from the beginnings of the organization have represented a wide range of the populations in the communities KP has served. Its workforce has long been equally diverse. Over the years, the commitment to equality made when KP started developed into a concern to deliver “culturally competent care.” At the same time, the understanding of diversity has expanded from opposition to racial discrimination to engaging and taking full benefit from the full range of human difference comprised by but not limited to culture, religion, gender, sexual preference, physical and mental abilities, or age.
Government relations
The growth of health care as a political issue has been another dramatic development transforming the practice of American medicine. Mandates, regulations, and programs come from the federal and state governments. The courts have become a major player in medical practice as a body of law grows, covering an ever-widening range of issues. Health care and its problems have proven decisive issues in some elections. The citizenry expects quality health care that it can afford, but despite the growing pressure on politicians to expand regulations and entitlements, no consensus has yet developed about how best to organize and pay for the nation’s medical care. All medical providers have moved from a situation in which contractual agreements determined rights and responsibilities to a highly volatile, mixed environment combining contracts, regulation, and new case law.
Health care and the Information Revolution
As Kaiser Permanente grew throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the problem of keeping track of the health status of its members became a central concern across the organization. Because of the unique pre-paid delivery model of Kaiser Permanente, physicians were not rewarded for providing unnecessary treatments; rather, providing only the most effective care became an organizational necessity. But medicine was often more of an art than a science in this era as evidence-based knowledge lagged behind tradition. From this era forward, physicians, researchers, and health plan leaders sought to harness technological innovation in medical devices as well as information systems. In the 1960s, this drive resulted in the accumulation of medical data on the entire membership of Kaiser Permanente—data that has been the basis of hundreds of studies over the past 50 years. By the 1990s, it spurred the creation of Kaiser Permanente’s robust electronic medical record.
The managed care crisis of the 1990s
By the mid-1970s, Kaiser Permanente was the largest pre-paid, group practice health care delivery system in the United States. Given the growth and apparent success of this delivery model, the federal government passed the Health Maintenance Organization Act in 1973. The goal of this act was to support the expansion HMOs into new regions and states. Although it took many years for this expansion to take place, HMOs had become a popular alternative to conventional fee-for-service medicine and indemnity health insurance by the 1980s. On the one hand, this expansion proved the viability of Kaiser Permanente’s model; on the other hand, the increase meant competition from newer, more flexible HMOs. By the 1990s, HMOs—and, more broadly, “managed care” programs—had expanded broadly but they were also beginning to experience massive growing pains. Many for-profit plans, facing pressure from their stockholders, started to ration care; many plan members, fearful of the rationing of health care, started to criticize these plans, sometimes fleeing them for other options. Managed care was in a crisis. Although much different than many of the large, for-profit managed care organizations, Kaiser Permanente found itself swept up the managed care crisis of the 1990s. Many interviews in this project explore the difficulties experienced by Kaiser Permanente in the 1990s and their efforts to overcome those problems by the end of the decade.
Research at Kaiser Permanente
Kaiser Permanente is one the largest private providers of health care in the United States. However, many do not know that its regions also conduct a great deal of research, focused mostly on health care delivery (rather than basic medical research). In 1961, Dr. Morris Collen established what eventually became the Division of Research in Kaiser’s Northern California Region; in 1964, Dr. Mitch Greenlick established the Center for Health Research in the Northwest Region; research centers in other regions followed. Several interviews in this project explore the content and scope of health services research conducted at various Kaiser Permanente facilities.
Kaiser Permanente before 1970, the founding generation
Interviews with nineteen KP pioneers were conducted in the mid-1980s. Two were added during the 1990s to continue the story of national leadership up to 1992. Twelve interviewees were KP physicians, eleven of whom had served as administrators. Six physicians came from the Northern California region, three were from Southern California, and one each were from the Colorado, Ohio, and Northwest regions. Eight interviewees were Health Plan administrators, three of whom had worked in Kaiser Industries during the formative stages of the Kaiser health plan. One of the other two interviewees was interviewed as a representative KP Health Plan member. A final interview was conducted in 2002 with a pioneer in KP’s nursing program. The interviews range in length from 2 to 16 hours. A total of 162 hours of conversation was recorded and transcribed. More than half the pioneers are now deceased. Their recollections are valuable historical resources that cannot now be replaced or duplicated.
Related resources
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (Northwest)
Kaiser Permanente Division of Research (Northern California)
Bay Bridge
About the project
The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Oral History Project tells the story of this engineering marvel. Enabling billions of passengers to drive from Oakland to San Francisco, or vice versa, since it opened to the public 1936, the Bay Bridge binds together the region like no other man-made structure. The majority of interviewees for this project spent their careers working on and around the bridge, and they offer their perspective on the engineering achievements, the maintenance challenges, and the complex symbolism of this massive structure.
The Oral History Center, or OHC (then the Regional Oral History Office), of The Bancroft Library at the University of California Berkeley, launched a new oral history series on the history of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in May 2012. At that time, OHC entered into an agreement with the Oakland Museum of California (OMCA) to conduct approximately 15 oral histories, totaling approximately 30 hours of interviews, on the history of the Bay Bridge, the San Francisco Bay, and bridges in the surrounding region.
This project was a collaboration between OHC, OMCA, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). This project was designed to fulfill the historical mitigation requirements associated with the dismantling of the eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The series coincided with, and contributed to, the research phase and design phase of an exhibit at OMCA on the social and environmental history of the San Francisco Bay.
This project provides a set of resources widely accessible to students, scholars, and the public interested in the San Francisco Bay. Interviews focused on the men and women who spent a good portion of their careers working on the bridge, whether as painters or engineers, toll-takers or architects, labor or management. Beyond the human dimension of the bridges, these structures also connect geographic spaces, providing conceptual linkages between cultures, environments, and political discourses. This oral history project, then, explored the role of the iconic bridges in shaping the identity of the region, as well as their place in architectural, environmental, labor, and political history. This project enhances the historical understanding of the San Francisco Bay and the natural and built environment that helps define the region.
The Bay Bridge Oral History Project launched with an investigation of the history of the bay and the architectural, social, and political history of the bridges that span the waters of the region. Planning meetings attended by representatives of OHC, OMCA, Caltrans, BATA, and MTC began in mid-2011. In these meetings, representatives of the various groups discussed the topics that should be covered in the interviews as well as the kind of people who should be interviewed. Although there were no known individuals who worked on the construction of the Bay Bridge (1934-36) still living, a foremost goal of the project was to document the construction of the bridge and its early years, especially before the bridge was altered in 1959 with the removal of rail tracks on the lower deck. Beyond that initial goal, interviews were sought with individuals who would be able to share unique experiences related to the bridges from a variety of personal and professional vantage points: from laborers involved in maintenance of the bridge through bridge engineers who worked on the design on the new eastern span. The primary focus of this project was to dig deeper into the complex history of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and its changing relationship to human communities and the environment.
The project interview staff at OHC (active circa 2012-13) consisted of Sam Redman, Ph.D., and Martin Meeker, Ph.D. The project interviewers were assisted by David Dunham, technical specialist, and Julie Allen, editor.
Project resources
Video excerpts
Museum exhibitions
Peter Stackpole: Bridging the Bay
Exhibition at the Oakland Museum of California.
July 20, 2013 – January 26, 2014
Above and Below: Stories from Our Changing Bay
Exhibition at the Oakland Museum of California
August 31, 2013 – February 23, 2014
The Bay Bridge: A Work in Progress, 1933-1936
Exhibition at the de Young Museum, San Francisco.
February 1, 2014 – June 8, 2014
Media coverage
Radio and television
Martin Meeker interviewed by Pat Thurston on the Ronn Owens Show
KGO-AM Radio
September 5, 2013 11 a.m.
Martin Meeker interviewed by John Hamilton on Up Front (interview begins at about 41:45)
KPFA 94.1 FM
September 3, 2013, 7 a.m.
“Bay Area Woman, 99, Remembers the Before and After of the Bay Bridge Eastern Span”
by Joe Rosato Jr.
NBC Bay Area, August 29, 2013
“Bay Area Historians Gather Stories For Bay Bridge Project”
by Holly Quan
KCBS 740AM San Francisco CBS, August 28, 2013
“The glory that was the original Bay Bridge”
by Steven Short
KALW Crosscurrents 91.7 FM San Francisco, August 21, 2013
“An Oral History of San Francisco's Bay Bridge”
by Julie Caine
WYNC 93.9 FM New York, Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Also featured on the nightly news programs of NBC Bay Area and ABC 7 News.
Print media
“Above and Below: Stories From Our Changing Bay”
by Kimberly Chun
San Francisco Chronicle, September 18, 2013
“Oral History On and Above The Bay Bridge”
by Martin Meeker
Bancroftiana, Summer 2013
“Bay Bridge Memories Sought for Oral History”
by Rob Shea
El Cerrito Patch, July 15, 2012
“Celebrating the ‘Workhorse’ Bay Bridge”
by Carolyn Jones
San Francisco Chronicle, July 14, 2012
Bibliography
Historic American Engineering Record San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
Construction Photographs of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, 1931-1936, BANC PIC 1905.14235-14250--PIC, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
T. Y. Lin, “The Father of Prestressed Concrete”: Teaching Engineers, Bridging Rivers and Borders, 1931 to 1999, an oral history conducted in 1999 by Eleanor Swent, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 2001.
Western Mining
The Western Mining in the Twentieth Century series of the Regional Oral History Office, documents contemporary events in the most historically important industry of the American West. The series comprises interviews with leaders in mining exploration, production and metallurgical treatment of ores, financing and development of mines, mineral engineering education, state and federal government organizations, and journals of the mineral industries.
Special industry challenges are discussed: mechanization and automation, mining at great depths, protecting the environment, radiation hazards, concern for health and safety. There are eyewitness accounts of the flooding of the Treadwell Mine, the Argonaut Mine fire, El Teniente Mine fire, and Japanese occupation of the Philippines. There are personal recollections of mines in Australia, India, Israel, Poland, Siberia, many regions of Africa, and nearly all of North and South America.
See also the Global Mining and Materials Research Project
Athletics at UC Berkeley
About the project
The project Oral Histories on the Management of Intercollegiate Athletics at UC Berkeley: 1960-2014 includes approximately 70 interviews conducted (although only 45 were completed and approved for public release) from 2009-14 by John Cummins, Associate Chancellor — Chief of Staff, Emeritus, who worked under UC Berkeley Chancellors Heyman, Tien, Berdahl, and Birgeneau from 1984 through 2008. Intercollegiate Athletics reported to Cummins from 2004 to 2006.
The purpose of the project is to explore the history of the management of Intercollegiate Athletics at UC Berkeley from the 1960s to the present. The interviews are with a cross sampling of individuals who played key roles in the management of intercollegiate athletics over that period of time: Chancellors, Athletic Directors, senior administrators, Faculty Athletic Representatives, other key faculty members, directors of the Recreational Sports Program, alumni/donors, administrators in the Athletic Study Center, and others.
Project resources
Project Director John Cummins wrote two essays based in part on the research interviews:
“The Management of Intercollegiate Athletics at UC Berkeley: Turning Points and Consequences” by John Cummins and Kirsten Hextrum CSHE.12.13 (November 2013).
"A Cautionary Analysis of a Billion Dollar Athletic Expenditure" by John Cummins, UC Berkeley CSHE 3.17 (February 2017).
Other oral histories with content related to the sport and business of athletics at the University of California can be found in the subject area: Education and University of California — Individual Interviews
Arts and Letters — Individual Interviews
About the interviews
The Arts and Letters — Individual Interviews subject area includes oral history interviews with artists, authors, architects, and others working in a vast array of creative media. The interviews listed here typically were not conducted as part of an on-going project. Instead, the majority of these interviews document the singular contributions of individuals to the cultural life of the United States and the larger global arena. Interviews are added to this subject category as they are completed.
Areas covered include: painting, sculpture, photography, music, composition, architecture, landscape design, printing and book design, poetry, fiction, journalism, dance, and more. The interviews were conducted with artists, gallery owners, museum professionals, and critics.
Resources
Other Oral History Center projects focused on the arts include:
Advocacy and Philanthropy — Individual Interviews
About the interviews
The Bancroft Library and the Oral History Center have maintained an abiding interest in documenting the development and impact of organized philanthropy in Northern California. The oral histories in the subject area record the experiences and philosophies of men and women who have significantly shaped charitable activities in the Bay Area, many of which continue to influence national and international as well as regional issues.
Interviews focus on major changes in private and foundation giving since the 1960s. Topics include organization and practices of selected Bay Area foundations, growth in corporate giving, changes in government support and policies, development of collaboration among grant-makers, and related concerns. Trustee leadership and community input in shaping public and private philanthropic ventures are also discussed. The interviews listed here typically were not conducted as part of an on-going project. Instead, the majority of these interviews document the singular contributions of individuals to advocacy and philanthropy in the United States and the larger global arena. Interviews are added to this subject category as they are completed.
Resources
Additional oral history interview projects with substantive content on the history of advocacy and philanthropy:
African-American Faculty and Senior Staff
AIDS Epidemic in San Francisco
Disability Rights and Independent Living Movement
Japanese American Confinement Sites
Jewish Community Federation Leadership
Agriculture and Natural Resources at University of California
About the project
Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of California documents the long history of the University of California as a land-grant university that has provided scientific assistance and technology for the Golden State’s agricultural community and citizens in a system past UC President Robert Dynes described as the “R, D & D” model (Research, Development, and Delivery).
By 2008 the University of California’s Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources included cooperative programs with Extension staff consisting of county-based farm advisors and campus-based specialists, administrators, staff, and scientists. At the time of the project’s inception over 200 living retirees from ANR provided a wealth of institutional memory. Most of these men and women had made positive contributions to the betterment of California agriculture and the environment and held valuable historic information necessary for future program development and policy decisions. In a collaboration bringing together the Bancroft Library’s Oral History Center (then the Regional Oral History Office) and the UC Office of the President this oral history project began.
OHC interviewers conducted video interviews with many of the retirees and all interviews were transcribed, lightly edited, web mounted, and archived at the Bancroft Library. These narrative stories illuminated the work and accomplishments of men and women who have given so much professionally and personally to the betterment of American agricultural science, technology, economics, farmer training, education, and labor relations for a sustainable agricultural economic future for California. The story is one of university, field workers, interested citizens, and agricultural business people coming together to improve life for the citizens of California. These interviewed retirees have managed to combine academic training and research and deliver it to “real world” problem-solving. In doing so, they applied science-based knowledge to real life problems and delivered solutions and skills for application by citizens and farmers. This process of taking the university directly to the people is a unique occurrence in the university world.
Project team (active circa 2008)
Victor W. Geraci, Ph.D., Project Director and Interviewer
Robin Li, Ph.D., Interviewer
Gerald Stone, Production Coordinator
Funding and process
The Agriculture and Natural Resources Oral History Project was a five-year project begun in 2007 and funded through donations to the University of California Office of the President. Although funded by individual donors, this project was planned and executed as an independent scholarly research project; individual interviewees were covered by UC Berkeley Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects guidelines that provide for sealing portions of interview transcripts at the discretion of the interviewee. While the research design and interviewing are independent of individual donors and the University of California Office of the President, we have been assisted by their staff and an advisory committee in identifying research themes, and in selecting and locating potential interviewees.
Project resources
Project themes
History of a “Unique System:” California Exceptionalism
As part of the project, interviewers will attempt to set up a contextualized history of ANR over the latter half of the 20th century. The emphasis will be directed toward defining how and why the UC California experience and programs are different than and cutting edge compared to programs in most states. What has made California unique and exceptional?
“Bringing Agricultural Science to the People”
As farm advisors, farmers, County Directors, Specialists, labor organizations, program representatives, office staff, home economists, area advisors, and scientists took their research, technology, programs and expertise to service recipients, how successful were they in meeting the needs of the intended audience? Did they have a mission capable of delivering what the people wanted and how well did they predict future needs? Did they build relationships with individuals in the communities they served and, in many cases, lived?
“Responding to Crisis”
As in all things human, we can never predict all that we need and plan effectively for man-made or natural disasters. Has ANR been able to effectively accommodate the crisis needs of farmers, agricultural businesses, farm laborers, the environment, sudden shifts in government budgets and policy, pests and diseases, safety, and education?
“Public and Private Partnerships”
Like most federal government departments and organizations the ANR navigated the sometimes widely divergent needs of businesses and weighed them against the concerns and desires of politicians and consumers. As 19th-century populism turned into 20th-century progressivism, politicians designed government programs to simultaneously regulate and provide opportunity for large corporations. Yet siding-up to businesses, with money and political clout, sometimes harmed relationships with workers, consumers, and other groups. This uneasy relationship grew as New Deal programs of financial, trade, and infrastructure support for agribusiness continued into the latter-half of this century. For this project, it is necessary to ascertain how the organization negotiated value judgments to develop and proceed on projects. Was it a matter of business money buying political clout? Or in more recent times, those with the best lobbyists? What voice did individual citizens and grassroots organizations have in the policy process? Like most social issues, the answers are not simple and lie somewhere in the gray area of compromise and expediency.
Project historical context and timeline
The Cooperative Extension Service system was created by the U.S. Congress out of concern for providing a broader education for the average citizen. In 1862, Congress passed the Morrill Act, which provided for a university in each state to provide education to citizens in agricultural and mechanical fields and these colleges are known today as "Land-Grant Universities." Congress soon realized that to be effective, the educational function of land-grant universities needed to be supplemented with research capabilities and passed the Hatch Act in 1887 to provide for the establishment of research farms where universities could conduct research into agricultural, mechanical, and related problems faced by rural citizens. Congress passed the Smith Lever Act in 1914. This act provided for the establishment of the Cooperative Extension Service.
Once the South left the Union, the remaining northern states began passing a number of measures which the South had blocked prior to 1860. Many of these laws, such as the authorization of the transcontinental railroads, helped to spur on economic growth and expansion in the western territories. In 1862 Congress passed two such measures. The first being the Homestead Act that permitted any citizen, or any person who intended to become a citizen, to receive 160 acres of public land, and then to purchase it at a nominal fee after living on the land for five years. The Homestead Act provided the most generous terms of any land act in American history to enable people to settle and own their own farms. Just as important was the Morrill Act of that year, which made it possible for the new western states to establish colleges for their citizens to fulfill the central tenet that basic education was central to creation of the American democratic process. By the 1860s, as higher education became more accessible many politicians and educators wanted to make it possible for all young Americans to receive some sort of advanced education.
Sponsored by Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont, who had been pressing for it since 1857, the Morrill Act gave every state that had remained in the Union, a grant of 30,000 acres of public land for every member of its congressional delegation. Since under the Constitution every state had at least two senators and one representative, even the smallest state received 90,000 acres. The states were to sell this land and use the proceeds to establish colleges in engineering, agriculture and military science. Over seventy "land grant" colleges, as they came to be known, were established under the original Morrill Act; a second act in 1890 extended the land grant provisions to the sixteen southern states. The importance of the land grant colleges cannot be exaggerated. Although originally started as agricultural and technical schools, many of them grew, with additional state aid, into large public universities which over the years have educated millions of American citizens who otherwise might not have been able to afford college.
The Hatch Act of 1887 established agricultural experiment stations in connection with the colleges established by the Morrill Act and was supported by the Adams Act of 1906, the Purnell Act of 1925, the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935. The original Act defined the term "State agricultural experiment station" to be a body under the direction of the college or university or agricultural departments of the college or university in each State. Congress intended the Act to promote the efficient production, marketing, distribution, and utilization of products of the farm for the health and welfare of Americans and to promote a sound and prosperous agriculture and rural life style. It is also the intent of Congress to assure agriculture a position in research equal to that of industry, which will aid in maintaining an equitable balance between agriculture and other segments of the economy.
The 1914 Smith-Lever Act established the Cooperative Extension as a partnership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the land-grant universities authorized by the Federal Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. Legislation in the various States enabled local governments or organized groups to become a third legal partner in this education endeavor. Today, this educational system includes professionals in each of America's 1862 land-grant universities (in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas, American Samoa, Micronesia, and the District of Columbia) and in the Tuskegee University and sixteen 1890 land-grant universities.
In California the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Congress created CSREES through the 1994 Department Reorganization Act. The University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) is a statewide network of campus based Agricultural Experiment Station researchers and Cooperative Extension specialists located on the Berkeley, Davis and Riverside campuses working collaboratively with The University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. ANR is a statewide network of campus based Agricultural Experiment Station researchers and Cooperative Extension specialists located on the Berkeley, Davis and Riverside campuses working collaboratively with county-based Cooperative Extension advisors located in 50 county offices throughout the state. ANR members are dedicated to creating, developing and delivering knowledge and practical information in agricultural, natural and human resources to improve the quality of life of Californians.
The extension service has served Californians for over 100 years through programs aimed at food safety, master gardening, nutrition, community programs, family services, 4-H, forestry, air, land and water resources, wildlife, and sustainability of agriculture (dairy, field crops, viticulture, animal husbandry, ornamental plant nurseries, and cutting edge scientific research and development in technology, the biosciences, and biotechnology and safety.
Bibliography
Araji, A.A., R.J. Sim and R.L. Gardner. “Returns to Agricultural Research and Extension Programs: An “Ex-Ante” Approach.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 60:5, Proceedings Issue (Dec., 1978): 964-968.
Bagi, F.S. and S.K. Bagi. “A Model Farm-Level Demand for Extension Information.” North Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 11:2 (July, 1989); 297-307.
Barkley, Paul W. and Wayne C. Rohrer. “An Interpretive View of an Institutional Process: Measuring Effectiveness and Changeability of the Cooperative Extension Service.” Journal of Farm Economics 44:5 (Dec., 1962): 1740-1744.
Baker, Gladys, Wayne Rasmussen, Vivian Wiser, and Jane Porter. Century of Service: The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agriculture. USDA: Washington D.C., 1963.
Beall, Gary. “Cooperative Extension Update.” Division of Agricultural Sciences University of California (July 1981).
Beede, Robert H. “A History of Cooperative Agricultural Extension in the United States.” Course paper for Professor Roger J. Romani, Agrarian Studies 2, May 21, 1976.
Birkhaeuser, Dean, Robert E. Evenson and Gershon Feder. “The Economic Impact of Agriculture Extension: A Review.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 39:3 (April 1991): 607-650.
Bond, M.C. “Discussion: Adjustment Needed in Extension Thinking and Organization.” Journal of Farm Economics 41:5, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Farm Economic Association (Dec., 1959): 1445-1447.
Brown, Thomas G. “Changing Delivery Systems for Agricultural Extension: The Extension Teacher: Changing Roles and Competencies.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63:5, Proceedings Issue (Dec., 1981); 859-862.
Brunner, Henry S. “Whence Leadership in Agriculture? AIBS Bulletin 12:3 (June, 1962):17-18.
Caparoon, C.D. and E.A. Jorgensen. “Agricultural Data Needs in Extension Work.” Journal of Farm Economics 30:2 (May, 1948): 282-291.
Cochrane, Willard and Mary E. Ryan. American Farm Policy, 1948-1973. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1976.
________. The City Man’s Guide to the Farm Problem. New York, McGraw Hill, 1966.
________. The Development of American Agriculture (Second Edition): A Historical Analysis. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, 1979.
Crocheron, B.H. “The County Farm Advisor.” Berkeley: University of California College of Agriculture Circular No. 133 (July, 1915).
Dinar, Ariel. “Extension Commercialization: How Much to Charge for Extension Services.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78:1 (Feb. 1996); 1-12.
Evans, J.A. “Recollections of Extension History.” Extension Circular US Department of Agriculture Number 224, August 1938.
Feller, Irwin. “Technology Transfer, Public Policy, and the Cooperative Extension Service-OMB.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6:3 (Spring, 1987); 307-327.
Frischknecht, Reed L. “State Extension Services and the Administration of Farm Price and Income Support Programs: A Case Study in Federal-State Relations.” The Western Political Quarterly 10:2 (June, 1957); 416-441.
Gardner, Bruce. American Agriculture in the Twentieth Century: How It Flourished and What It Cost. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.
Hildreth, R.J. and Walter J. Armbruster. “Extension Program Delivery: Past, Present, and Future: An Overview.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63:5 Proceedings Issue (Dec., 1981); 853-858.
Holt, Don. “A Competitive R&D Strategy for U.S. Agriculture.” Science 237:4821 (Sept. 18, 1987): 1401-1402.
Hudson, N.D., J.E. Tippett and Roy D. McCallum. “Bertram Hanford Crocheron: Architect and Builder of the California Agricultural Extension Service.” University of California Agricultural Extension Service, 1967.
Hughes, Harlan. “Changing Delivery Systems for Agricultural Extension; Discussion.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63:5, Proceedings Issue (Dec. 1981); 870.
Hurt, R. Douglas. American Agriculture: A Brief History, Rev. Ed. (Paperback). West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2002.
________. Problems of Plenty: The American Farmer in the Twentieth Century (The American Ways Series). Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, Publisher, 2002.
Ikerd, John E. “The Changing Professional Role of the Extension Economist: Discussion.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64:5, Proceedings Issue (Dec. 1982); 886-888.
Jones, Lu Ann and Nancy Grey Osterud. “Breaking New Ground: Oral History and Agricultural History.” The Journal of American History 76:2 (Sept. 1989); 551-564.
Kerr, Norwood Allen. “Institutionalizing the New Agenda: The State Agricultural Experiment Stations, 1977-1981. Agricultural History 62:2 (Spring 1988): 279-295.
Knutson, Ronald D. and Joe L. Outlaw. “Extension’s Decline?” Review of Agricultural Economics 16:3 (Sept, 1994); 465-475.
Martin, Philip L. and Refugio Rochin. “Emerging Issues in Agricultural Labor Relations.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59:5, Proceedings Issue, (Dec., 1977): 1045-1051.
May, Irwin M Jr. “The Aggie Historian in State Agricultural Experiment Stations.” Agricultural History 54:1 (Jan., 1980): 223-230.
McArthur, Arthur. “Family Life Education through Extension Programs.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 29:3 (Aug., 1967); 607-611.
McDowell, George R. “The New Political Economy of Extension Education for Agriculture and Rural America.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74:5, Proceedings Issue (Dec., 1992):1249-1255.
McDowell, M.S. “What the Agricultural Extension Service Has Done For Agriculture.” Annals of the American Academy of Political ands Social Science 142, Farm Relief, (March 1929): 250-256.
Meyer, James H. “The Stalemate in Food and Agricultural Research, Teaching, and Extension.” Science 260:5110 (May 14, 1993); 881-1007.
Morse, Stanley F. “A New Agricultural Profession.” Science 66:1702 (Aug. 1927); 151-152.
Ogg, Wallace E. “The Extension Service and Public Policy.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 331, Agricultural Policy, Politics, and the Public Interest (Sept. 1960); 116-121.
Peters, Scott J. “Every Farmer Should Be Awakened; Liberty Hyde Bailey’s Vision of Agricultural Extension Work.” Agricultural History 80:2 (2006); 190-219.
Picciotto, Robert and Jock R. Anderson. “Reconsidering Agricultural Extension.” The World Bank Research Observer 12:2 (Aug., 1997); 249-259.
Rasmussen, Wayne D. Taking the University to the People: Seventy-Five Years of Cooperative Extension. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1989.
Rogers, Everett M. “How Research Can Improve Practice: A Case Study.” Theory Into Practice 1:2 (April 1962): 89-93.
Rossiter, Margaret W. “Graduate Work In The Agricultural Sciences, 1900-1970.” Agricultural History 60:2 (Spring, 1986): 37-57.
Scheuring, Ann Foley. “A Sustaining Comradeship:” The Story of the University of California Cooperative Extension, 1913-1988. Berkeley: Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of California, 1988.
________. Science and Service: A History of the Land-Grant University and Agriculture in California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.
Schooley, Wilson. “Agriculture and the University of California, 1972.” University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences Annual Report, 1972.
Schwieder, Dorothy. “The Iowa State College Cooperative Extension Service Through Two World Wars.” Agricultural History 64:2 (Spring 1990): 219-230.
Shepardson, Whitney H. Agricultural Education In The United States. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929.
Snell, William M. and Steven G. Isaacs. “Issues Affecting New State Extension Specialists: Strategies for the 1990s.” Review of Agricultural Economics 15:3 (Sept. 1993); 567-575.
Tootell, R.B. “The Challenge of Agricultural Economics to Extension Work.” Journal of Farm Economics 35:5 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Farm Economic Association Meeting with the Western Farm Economics Association (Dec., 1953); 989-992.
Surls, Rachel. “The Road to Smith-Lever: Agricultural Extension from 1785 to 1918.” Paper for Claremont Graduate University.
True, A.C. “The Services of American Agricultural Colleges.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 117, The Agricultural Situation in the United States (Jan., 1925): 88-93.
Uhl, J.N. and G.E. Rossmiller. “Rural-Urban Research and Extension Programs: An Integrating Proposal.” Journal of Farm Economics 46:5, (Dec., 1964): 1032-1036.
Umali-Deininger, Diona. “Public and Private Agricultural Extension: Partners or Rivals?” The World Bank Research Observer 12:2 (Aug., 1997): 203-224.
University of California Agricultural Extension Service. George Bennett Alcorn: Director University of California Agricultural Extension Service, 1956-1975. ND or publication Information.
University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. “California Agriculture 2000.” 54:1-4 (July-August 2000).
US Department of Agriculture. “Cooperative Extension Service: Born from a Need of People.” Extension Service Review (May and June 1976); 3-28.
Wagner, Jon. “Social Contracts and University Public Service: The Case of Agriculture and Schooling.” The Journal of Higher Education 64:6 (Nov.- Dec., 1993); 696-729.
Wallace, Henry N., David K. Smith and John W. Hagen. “Agribusiness Programs in Non-Land-Grant Schools of Agriculture: Requirements for Success.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76:5 (Dec., 1994): 1199-1204.
Wallace, L.T. “Changing Professional Role of the Extension Economist.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64:5 (Dec., 1982); 879-883.
White, Fred C. and Joseph Havlicek, Jr. “Optimal Expenditures for Agricultural Research and Extension: Implications of Underfunding.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64:1 (Feb., 1982): 47-55.
Wood, William W. “Implications of Large-Size Farms for Research and Extension Programs: Discussion.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 52:5, Proceedings Issue, (Dec., 1970): 764.
Wyckoff, J.B. “Closer Cooperation Between Research and Extension.” Journal of Farm Economics 47:3 (Aug 1965); 834-837.
Documents and reports
Related resources
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources
United States Department of Agriculture
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at University of California, Davis
Global Mining
About the project
For over twenty years, the Regional Oral History Office (ROHO) produced in-depth oral histories of members of the mining community, under a project called “Western Mining in the Twentieth Century,” which was overseen by Eleanor Swent. The 104 interviews in the project covered the history of mining in the American Southwest, Mexico, South America, and Australia from the 1940s until the 1990s.
ROHO has changed its name to the Oral History Center of the Bancroft Library, and with that change we proudly announce a new project entitled “Global Mining,” which will focus on key transitions in technology, policy, and geopolitics that have brought mining to its current state worldwide.
Much has changed in mining industries in the years since the Western Mining project was in full production, including the increased globalization of mining operations, the decreasing concentration of mineable minerals in ore, increasingly complicated regulatory environments, new systems of environmental remediation, new technology for exploration, extraction, and processing, and new stories of political conflict and resolution. In addition to collecting interviews about mining engineering, metallurgy, and administration, we also hope to explore the history of information technology and data analysis with respect to mining, as well as the legal, regulatory, and policy history of the industries.
See also Western Mining in the Twentieth Century.
Project resources
Dr. Roshan Bhappu: Science and values in the life of a metallurgical engineer
Conducted by Paul Burnett in 2014, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 2014.
The interview with Dr. Bhappu was funded with revenue from the Hearst Foundation endowment for the Regional Oral History Office. Thanks also to former Western Mining Project Lead Eleanor Swent, Dr. Douglas Fuerstenau, and Noel Kirschenbaum for their advice and support while the Global Mining project was being established. Finally, we are of course grateful to Roshan Bhappu for taking time out of his busy schedule to speak to us about the past, present, and future of mining in world history.
Dr. Roshan Bhappu was chosen to begin this new project in part because his life history is truly global in scope, beginning in Karachi, India, and ranging across Europe, the United States, South America, Central Asia, East Asia, and Australia. Here is a clip from the interview in which Dr. Bhappu reminisces about his arrival in the United States to study metallurgy in 1948.
Dr. Bhappu was also chosen because of his outstanding reputation in the mining, metallurgical, and international development communities, and he has authored hundreds of reports and research papers for his clients. He has been the president of the Mining and Metallurgical Society of America, and has received its highest award, among many others, for his contributions to several fields of research and mining practice.
The interviews with Dr. Bhappu were conducted at the Hilton Hotel in Tucson, AZ, from March 5-7, 2014. Before we began the interviews, I explained my interest in how values inform the practice of science and engineering, and he agreed that this was a good subject to explore. He has worked hard to educate the public about what he sees are misconceptions about the industry. Although he acknowledged the environmental costs of mining, he felt that the benefits far outweighed them. Moreover, he has spent his career trying to find ways to mitigate pollution from mining and treat remaining pollutants with responsible and cost-effective methods. At eighty-seven years old, he has spent over sixty-five years meeting the challenges in his work.
Richard “Dick” Teets: The new steel industry in the United States, 1975-2010
Conducted by Paul Burnett in 2014, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 2015.
Dick Teets, Jr. is Executive Vice President of Steel Dynamics, Inc. and Chief Operating Officer for all of the company’s steelmaking divisions. He began his career in the late 1970s as a mechanical engineer for J&L Steel, which later became LTV. In the late 1980s, he joined Nucor, where he supervised the construction of the first thin-cast slab steel plant, which was one of the first large-scale mini-mill plants in the United States. He was a participant in early experiments in partnerships with Japanese steelmakers in the US, and was a witness to the accelerating encroachment of the newer mini-mills on the markets of the traditional “Big Steel” companies. In the early 1990s, Mr. Teets co-founded his own company with former executives at Nucor, called Steel Dynamics, Inc. He helped lead the company through a long period of rapid growth, helping to build and manage the capacity for manufacturing numerous different types of steel products. Today, Steel Dynamics is the fifth largest steel company in the United States.